Lintz v. Lintz
222 Cal. App. 4th 1346
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Defendant Lois Lintz married decedent Robert Lintz, remarried him in 2005, and he died in 2009 leaving a complex northern California estate.
- Decedent’s estate included the Robert Lintz Trust and amendments, with amendments growing to favor defendant and disinheriting other heirs.
- In 2008, decedent and defendant created the Lintz Family Revocable Trust, advancing defendant’s life interests and disinheriting a child.
- The probate court found defendant liable for financial elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and undue influence, and voided trusts and several related instruments.
- The court held decedent had competency to execute trust documents but voided them due to undue influence, applying a broad remedial approach.
- On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, rejecting defendant’s constitutional sanctity-of-marriage argument and misreading of the undue influence standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What standard governs capacity for trusts? | Capacity is sliding-scale under 810-812, not 6100.5. | Probate court correctly applied lower testamentary standard. | Probate Code 810-812 governs trust capacity; higher standard applies. |
| May undue influence be proven by circumstantial evidence? | Circumstantial evidence supports undue influence at execution. | No direct evidence of overbearing at signing time. | Undue influence may be proven by circumstantial evidence. |
| Should presumption of undue influence apply to interspousal transactions? | Presumption shifts burden to defendant for transmutations and the trust. | Presumption not properly invoked or limited to specific acts. | Presumption under Family Code 721 applies to interspousal transfers and related trust instruments. |
| Did the court correctly void post-tenth-amendment trusts based on undue influence? | Void trust instruments to protect decedent’s testamentary intent. | Invalidation went beyond evidence of undue influence at signing. | Yes; proper to void post-tenth amendment trust instruments given undisputed undue influence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Hunt, 196 Cal.App.4th 722 (Cal. Ct. of App. 2011) (capacity for transfer to trust evaluated by sliding-scale standard)
- In re Welsh, 43 Cal.2d 173 (Cal. 1954) (undue influence can be shown circumstantially)
- Rice v. Clark, 28 Cal.4th 89 (Cal. 2002) (undue influence as coercion affecting testamentary acts)
- In re Marriage of Fossum, 192 Cal.App.4th 336 (Cal. App. 2011) (presumption of undue influence in interspousal transactions)
- Hagen v. Hickenbottom, 41 Cal.App.4th 168 (Cal. App. 1995) (undue influence analysis in estate planning context)
- In re Estate of Bodger, 130 Cal.App.2d 416 (Cal. App. 1955) (trusts as contracts between trustor and trustee)
- Keithley v. Civil Service Bd., 11 Cal.App.3d 443 (Cal. App. 1970) (undue influence inquiry close to will-contest standards)
- In re Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367 (Cal. App. 1934) (undue influence defined via overbearing pressure on will)