William Leidesdorff - Leidesdorff Estate and Controversy

Leidesdorff Estate and Controversy

The California pioneer died intestate, with no living relatives in California or the United States. In 1848 his estate was assumed devalued and in debt. The public discovery of gold in the American River valley and upon his extensive land holdings increased the actual value of his estate dramatically. His waterfront property in today's financial district of San Francisco would be valuable today. A complete inventory of his estate has yet to be quantified. The court appointed temporary administrators of his estate because there no Probate laws in California at that time. By 1854, when the California State Legislature considered escheat to take control of the property, Leidesdorff's estate was worth well over one million dollars and multiple of millions of dollars in gold was mined off his land. When the Leidesdorff-Folsom partitioned estate was auctioned off in 1856, the property brought more than $1,445,000.

Settlement of the estate was complicated by the actions of Folsom. As Customs Collector and Harbor Master for San Francisco in 1848, he had become familiar with Leidesdorff's business dealings with the U.S. Army.

In 1849, Folsom took leave from the U.S. Army and located Leidesdorff's mother and some of his siblings in the West Indies. Folsom signed a note to purchase from Anna Spark title to her son's estate for $75,000, title which included all of Leidesdorff's real estate holdings in San Francisco as well as the 35,000-acre (140 km2) Rancho Rio de los Americanos near Sacramento. He paid her a deposit, with the promise of two more installment payments.

By the time Folsom returned to San Francisco, land prices were rising. The government challenged his purchase of Leidesdorff's title, as Anna Spark legally had no claim to it. A California State government "claim was brought because under old Mexican law that foreigners could not inherit property. The dispute was brought to the courts, where legal entanglements over the conflicts of Mexican, American and Danish laws kept it for over ten years." The uncertainty of new probate laws, combined with the fact that William Leidesdorff, though he had held federal offices, held dual Mexican and U.S. citizenship, further complicated the property issues.

Leidesdorff's St. Croix relatives, mother and siblings, challenged title through Danish officials because of Folsom's false evaluation of the estate. Both the US and Mexican national governments had interest in the large estate. The high value and reach of the Leidesdorff estate made Folsom's "purchase" extremely controversial. In 1854, Governor Bigler, recommended the escheat of the estate, then worth a million and a half, to the state legislature, and suggested that proceedings be commenced for its recovery from Folsom. The courts refused to admit the title of the West Indian mixed-race relatives because there may have been "other heirs, who had never conveyed away their rights in the estate", from Europe. These "other heirs" from Leidesdorff's father's family lived in Europe at Altona and Copenhagen, and in the Caribbean Islands.

Ultimately the following happened: (1) The claims of Leidesdorff's West Indian relatives were thrown out of court; their evidence of relationship was rejected. As they were not American citizens, they were not considered to have standing. (2) No recognized Danish family or individual of the name of Leidesdorff appeared to claim the estate of William Leidesdorff of San Francisco. Other Danish members of the family lived on St. Croix for some time after the American's death. (3) The statute of limitations covered and protected every title obtained from Joseph L. Folsom and others who later acquired possession.