No, this case does not address a vampire coming back to life after death and revising his will. Instead, the court addresses the question of who takes under a handwritten will when the will does not specify what happens if the spouse dies first. Here, the will only specified that if the couple died together, the property would go to charity and if the spouse lived, all but one dollar would go to her. The California Supreme Court finds that a will can be reformed after the testator’s death if (1) a mistake is made and (2) clear, unambiguous evidence of the testator’s intent is found.
Irving Duke prepared a holographic will when he was in his 70's providing that, upon his death, his wife who was then in her 50's, would inherit his estate and that if he and his wife died at the same time, specific charities would inherit his estate. But his handwritten will did not contain a provision addressing the disposition of his estate if, as actually occurred, he lived longer than his wife. The specified charities contend that at the time the testator wrote his will, he specifically intended to provide in his will that the charities would inherit his estate in the event his wife was not alive when he died. But the lower courts excluded extrinsic evidence of the testator's intent, finding that the will was unambiguous and failed to provide for the circumstance in which his wife predeceased him. Therefore, the lower courts ruled that Duke died intestate, and entered a judgment in favor of the heirs who claimed their intestate share of the will.
The California Supreme Court granted review in Estate of Duke (2015) - Cal.4th _, Case. No. S199435. July 27, 2015, to reconsider the historical rule that extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to reform an unambiguous will. The Supreme Court ruled that the categorical bar on reformation of wills is not justified, and held that an unambiguous will may be reformed if clear and convincing evidence establishes that the will contains a mistake in the expression of the testator's intent at the time the will was drafted and also establishes the testator's actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted.
The Supreme Court further concluded that the charities' theory that the testator actually intended at the time he drafted his will to provide that his estate would pass to the charities in the event his wife was not alive to inherit the estate is sufficiently particularized, with respect to the existence of such a mistake and the testator's intent, that the remedy of reformation is available so long as clear and convincing evidence on both points is demonstrated. Therefore, the case was remanded to the probate court for consideration of whether clear and convincing evidence establishes that such a mistake occurred at the time the will was written by Irving Duke, whether Duke intended his estate to pass to the charities in the event his wife was not alive to inherit the estate when he died.
This case reminds everyone of the importance of making a will and addressing each possible contingency that can occur and what you want to happen in the event that it does or does not occur. Although the probate court will try to accommodate Duke’s wishes if they are found to be unambiguously clear, it is better to do this yourself so that the court can’t misinterpret what you want. This will also help to avoid a litigation battle among potential beneficiaries of the will. If you made a will that leaves your estate to your spouse when you married, you probably need a new will after you divorce. Also, if one spouse dies, you likely need a new will. Although you can draft a holographic will if you are reading this in California, this case demonstrates the danger that can occur if the will you draft is found to not be adequate to address all potential circumstances.
copyright © 2015 Christine Esser
The information contained here is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. Online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Information on this blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship between you and Christine Esser. An attorney- client relationship is only established with a retainer.
No comments:
Post a Comment