54 Cal.App.5th 1016
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Frank Gomez (widower of Beverly) married Louise Gomez in 2014 and sought to replace his existing 1998 revocable trust with a new Frank and Louise living trust that would give Louise a life estate and then pass assets to his children.
- Attorney Erik Aanestad met with Frank on August 15, 2016 to prepare the new trust; Aanestad attempted to return August 20 to have Frank sign the documents but was physically blocked from entering the home by Frank’s children, Tammy Smith and Richard Gomez.
- Frank was on hospice, intermittently groggy but attended; he died early on August 21 before the new trust was executed.
- Louise sued Tammy and Richard for intentional interference with expected inheritance, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and elder abuse; trial court awarded judgment to Louise on the interference claim and imposed a constructive trust; Tammy appealed.
- The trial court found (1) Louise had an expectancy of inheritance, (2) Tammy knew of that expectancy, (3) Tammy used independently tortious means—undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty (Tammy was attorney-in-fact under a durable POA)—to prevent execution, and (4) Frank had legal capacity to complete the trust signing; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Louise) | Defendant's Argument (Tammy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Did Louise have an expectancy of inheritance? | Yes — Frank told others he wanted a life estate for Louise and Aanestad was preparing a Frank & Louise trust. | Tammy points to portions of Louise’s testimony suggesting kids' percentages changed and argues Louise admitted she wouldn’t inherit. | Held: Substantial evidence supports expectancy; trial court credited Aanestad and Louise. |
| 2) Did Tammy know of Louise’s expectancy when she blocked Aanestad? | Yes — Tammy knew Frank planned changes, previously discussed life estate, and she confronted the attorney saying Frank could not change the trust. | Tammy says evidence is equivocal and Aanestad later could not recall trust-related language; contest over testimony credibility. | Held: Substantial evidence supports knowledge; Tammy forfeited some objections to the statement of decision. |
| 3) Was the interference done by independently tortious means? | Yes — Tammy committed undue influence and breached fiduciary duties as Frank’s attorney-in-fact by physically blocking the attorney and acting in self-interest. | Tammy contends she acted within authority under a broad durable power of attorney and thus her conduct was lawful. | Held: Court found undue influence and breach of fiduciary duty; POA did not authorize conduct that violated fiduciary duties. |
| 4) Did Frank have capacity to execute the trust on Aug 20? | Louise: Yes — medical and witness evidence showed Frank was oriented enough and had capacity to appreciate consequences. | Tammy: No — Frank was on morphine, intermittently unresponsive, and could not have reviewed a complex trust. | Held: Substantial evidence supports capacity; trial court applied Probate Code capacity standards. |
| 5) Was the constructive trust remedy fatally ambiguous? | Louise: Remedy tracks the trust drafted by Aanestad and grants Louise life-estate rights per that trust. | Tammy: Language is ambiguous about income vs. principal and seeks clarity. | Held: No fatal ambiguity; statement of decision ties remedy to the Aanestad draft and court may resolve future issues if they arise. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beckwith v. Dahl, 205 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (recognizing tort of intentional interference with expected inheritance and listing six elements)
- Lintz v. Lintz, 222 Cal.App.4th 1346 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (testamentary-capacity standards for trusts more complex than simple wills)
- Doolittle v. Exchange Bank, 241 Cal.App.4th 529 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (discussing burdens in trust-contest/undue-influence context)
- Conservatorship of Wendland, 26 Cal.4th 519 (Cal. 2001) (discussing when clear-and-convincing standard applies in protecting important rights)
- In re Marriage of Arceneaux, 51 Cal.3d 1130 (Cal. 1990) (importance of timely objections to a statement of decision to allow trial court correction)
- Golden Eagle Ins. Co. v. Foremost Ins. Co., 20 Cal.App.4th 1372 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (failure to object to a statement of decision forfeits certain appellate claims)
- Ghirardo v. Antonioli, 8 Cal.4th 791 (Cal. 1994) (questions of law reviewed de novo; facts reviewed for substantial evidence)
- In re Marriage of Ciprari, 32 Cal.App.5th 83 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (appellate review and substantial-evidence standard for statement-of-decision findings)