Estate of Dellarsina CA4/1
D082970
Cal. Ct. App.Aug 22, 2024Background
- Ron Dellarsina, administrator of his late mother Kathy Dellarsina's estate, filed a petition for the return of funds and assets transferred to Gaetano Spinosa, who claimed to be Kathy's spiritual husband.
- Kathy was diagnosed with untreatable cancer in March 2020 and became increasingly dependent on Spinosa, who was her sole caregiver and held a power of attorney.
- During the final months of Kathy's life, Spinosa transferred over $240,000 from her accounts and changed beneficiary designations on her retirement accounts (over $216,000) from Kathy's children to himself.
- Kathy's children (Ron and Luana) were unaware of her diagnosis and became unable to contact her due to Spinosa's control over her communications and whereabouts.
- The probate court found that Spinosa had used undue influence over a vulnerable elder and ordered the return of the assets with double damages under Probate Code section 859; Spinosa appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Dellarsina Argument | Spinosa Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Note | Note corroborated testimony about Kathy's intent for her assets | Note improperly received as testamentary disposition | Properly admitted for limited purpose, not as a will |
| Finding of Undue Influence | Sufficient evidence of undue influence under statutory factors | Medical records show Kathy was alert and not vulnerable | Undue influence finding supported; all statutory factors considered |
| Consideration of Medical Records | Court considered all evidence, including medical records | Court ignored records showing Kathy's mental clarity | Presumed court considered all admitted evidence |
| Necessity of Bad Faith for Double Damages | Double damages warranted for elder financial abuse by undue influence | No evidence of bad faith; double damages not justified | Bad faith not required for double damages under this theory |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Odian, 145 Cal.App.4th 152 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (forfeiture of evidentiary objection when not raised at trial)
- Jones v. Solgen Construction, LLC, 99 Cal.App.5th 1178 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (presumption that lower court considered all evidence)
- Keading v. Keading, 60 Cal.App.5th 1115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (bad faith not required for double damages for elder financial abuse under Probate Code section 859)
- Estate of Beard, 71 Cal.App.4th 753 (Cal. Ct. App. 1999) (appellate court to affirm if trial court’s decision is correct on any applicable legal theory)