Radin v. Jewish National Fund
61 Cal. 4th 871
Cal.2015Background
- Irving Duke (holographic will, 1984) left his estate to his wife Beatrice; if they died simultaneously, half to City of Hope (COH) and half to Jewish National Fund (JNF). The will named Beatrice executrix and disinherited other heirs.
- Beatrice later died (2002); Irving died in 2007 without updating the will and with no surviving spouse or children.
- COH and JNF petitioned for probate claiming Irving intended charities to inherit if his wife predeceased him; the Radins (nephews) claimed intestacy because the will made no provision for Irving surviving his wife.
- Probate court granted summary judgment for the Radins, excluding extrinsic evidence as the will was unambiguous; the Court of Appeal affirmed relying on Estate of Barnes.
- California Supreme Court granted review to reconsider the categorical bar on reforming unambiguous wills and remanded for consideration of extrinsic evidence under a new standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extrinsic evidence may be admitted to reform an unambiguous will | COH/JNF: yes — will contains a mistaken expression; extrinsic evidence can show testator s specific intent at drafting | Radins: no — Barnes bars extrinsic evidence where will is unambiguous; courts may not rewrite wills | Court: yes — an unambiguous will may be reformed if clear and convincing evidence shows a mistake in expression and the testator s actual specific intent at drafting |
| Standard of proof for reformation of an unambiguous will | COH/JNF: require strong proof of intent — but admissible | Radins: categorical exclusion avoids unreliable posthumous evidence | Court: clear and convincing evidence required for both existence of mistake and actual specific intent |
| Whether charities proffered theory is sufficiently particular to permit reformation proceedings | COH/JNF: alleged precise mistake — intended charities to take if wife predeceased him | Radins: theory speculative; would override intestacy rules and formalities | Court: charities theory is sufficiently particularized to permit remand for factfinding under the clear-and-convincing standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Barnes, 63 Cal.2d 580 (Cal. 1965) (refused reformation where will had no provision for long survivorship and appeared unambiguous)
- Estate of Russell, 69 Cal.2d 200 (Cal. 1968) (extrinsic evidence admissible to determine testator s intent; modern interpretive approach)
- Estate of Dominici, 151 Cal. 181 (Cal. 1907) (historical restriction on oral declarations of testator interpreted narrowly)
- Estate of Karkeet, 56 Cal.2d 277 (Cal. 1961) (extrinsic evidence admissible where document naming executor but not beneficiaries suggested intent)
- Estate of Akeley, 35 Cal.2d 26 (Cal. 1950) (use of extrinsic facts to resolve disposition where will language alone was inadequate)
- Estate of Ford, 32 Cal.4th 160 (Cal. 2004) (clear-and-convincing standard applied where deceased principal s testimony unavailable; evidentiary burden protects against fabrication)