Andersen v. Hunt
196 Cal. App. 4th 722
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Wayne Andersen created a family trust with Stephen and Kathleen as beneficiaries after their parents’ deaths.
- In 2003 and 2004 Wayne amended the trust to give Pauline 60% of the estate, with Stephen, Kathleen, and John receiving the remainder.
- Wayne died in 2006; Stephen and Kathleen filed suit to invalidate the amendments and recover funds in Pauline-linked accounts.
- Probate court found Wayne lacked capacity to execute the amendments, transfer funds to joint accounts, and change a life-insurance beneficiary, and found undue influence by Pauline.
- Appellate court held the probate court erred by applying contractual capacity standards (Probate Code 810–812) instead of testamentary capacity (Section 6100.5) to evaluate the amendments.
- Unpublished portion: substantial evidence did not show Wayne lacked testamentary capacity for the amendments; but there was substantial evidence he lacked capacity to open joint accounts and to change the life-insurance beneficiary.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appropriate capacity standard for amendments | Use contractual standard (810–812) to evaluate amendments | Use testamentary standard (6100.5) for amendments resembling wills | Testamentary capacity governs amendments that resemble wills; contract standard not controlling |
| Did Wayne lack testamentary capacity to execute the 2003–2004 amendments | Wayne lacked capacity due to mental deficits | Wayne had sufficient testamentary capacity | No substantial evidence Wayne lacked testamentary capacity for the amendments |
| Undue influence on the amendments | Pauline unduly influenced Wayne to revise the trust | No undue influence shown | No substantial evidence of undue influence affecting the amendments |
| Capacity to open joint tenancy accounts | Wayne lacked capacity to open joint accounts | Insufficient proof of incapacity for joint accounts | Substantial evidence showed Wayne lacked capacity to open joint tenancy accounts |
| Capacity to change life-insurance beneficiary | Wayne lacked capacity to designate Pauline as beneficiary | Insufficient proof of incapacity to change beneficiary | Substantial evidence showed Wayne lacked capacity to change life-insurance beneficiary |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman v. Zimmerman, 25 Cal.App.4th 1667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (testamentary standard applied to trust amendments)
- Walton v. Bank of California, 218 Cal.App.2d 527 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963) (capacity for inter vivos transfers analyzed)
- Estate of Arnold, 16 Cal.2d 573 (Cal. 1940) (lucid periods in mental capacity inquiries)
- Estate of Mann, 184 Cal.App.3d 593 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (testamentary capacity and lucid periods; complex reasoning)
- Estate of Goetz, 253 Cal.App.2d 107 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967) (lucidity principle in will execution)
- PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 2000) (contextual understanding of capacity standards)