219 Cal. App. 4th 791
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Decedent Satish Trikha executed a will on October 5, 2009 leaving assets to children from two relationships; he died by suicide on October 27, 2009 and the original will could not be found thereafter.
- Petitioners (including Satish, Jr. and Charles) sought probate of a copy obtained from the drafting attorney; surviving spouse Suchitra contested, alleging decedent revoked the will by destroying it and thus intestacy should apply.
- The parties agreed the will was last in decedent’s possession, he was competent until death, and the original could not be found — triggering the statutory presumption of revocation (Prob. Code § 6124), which is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
- Proponents introduced evidence that decedent had recently executed the will, expressly intended to provide for his older children, and had not said he would revoke it; they also presented evidence of Suchitra’s motive and opportunity to remove the will after death.
- The probate court sustained the contest, finding proponents had not produced substantial evidence to rebut the revocation presumption and crediting Suchitra’s denial of having destroyed the will.
- The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the proponents introduced substantial evidence to rebut the presumption and the trial court erred by weighing the evidence as if it had already met the ultimate burden of proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statutory presumption that missing will was destroyed with intent to revoke was rebutted | Satish, Jr.: introduced substantial evidence (recent execution, consistent testamentary intent, motive/opportunity of spouse) negating presumption | Suchitra: proponents failed to produce substantial evidence; even if they did, preponderance of evidence supports revocation | Court: Proponents produced substantial evidence to rebut the presumption; trial court erred by weighing evidence as on burden of proof; remand for new trial |
| Proper operation of Prob. Code § 6124 (burden type and effect) | Proponents: § 6124 is a burden-of-producing evid. presumption; once rebutted, presumption disappears and trier must decide under ordinary burden of proof | Respondent: asserted proponents did not satisfy production burden; court found so below | Held: § 6124 is a production presumption; once rebutted by substantial evidence, court must weigh evidence under plaintiff’s burden (preponderance) |
Key Cases Cited
- Obernolte v. Estate of Obernolte, 91 Cal.App.3d 124 (rebuttal by substantial evidence may show it’s equally probable another person destroyed the will)
- Estate of Moramarco, 86 Cal.App.2d 326 (absence of evidence of destruction plus consistency of testamentary plan can rebut revocation presumption)
- Estate of Ronayne, 103 Cal.App.2d 852 (consistent adherence to testamentary plan rebuts inference of revocation)
- Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist., 4 Cal.4th 820 (once production burden met, case decided by weighing evidence without regard to presumption)