Andersen v. Hunt
196 Cal. App. 4th 722, 126 Cal. Rptr. 3d 736, 2011 Cal. App. LEXIS 732 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mental capacity required to execute a trust amendment that is simple in content and testamentary in nature is the standard for testamentary capacity set forth in Probate Code § 6100.5, not the higher standard for contractual capacity.
Facts:
- In 1992, Wayne Andersen and his wife created a family trust, naming their children, Stephen Andersen and Kathleen Brandt, as the sole beneficiaries upon their deaths.
- Wayne's wife passed away in 1993.
- Wayne subsequently entered into a long-term romantic relationship with Pauline Hunt.
- In 2003, after suffering a stroke, Wayne executed an amendment to his trust, allocating 60 percent of his estate to Pauline Hunt.
- Wayne made further simple amendments in late 2003 and 2004, maintaining the 60 percent allocation to Pauline.
- Wayne Andersen died on April 28, 2006.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Andersen and Kathleen Brandt (petitioners) filed an action in the probate court to invalidate the 2003 and 2004 amendments to their late father's trust.
- The probate court found that the decedent, Wayne Andersen, lacked the mental capacity to execute the amendments.
- The probate court applied the general standard of capacity under Probate Code §§ 810-812, which is typically associated with contractual capacity.
- Pauline Hunt, the beneficiary of the amendments, appealed the probate court's judgment to the California Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the mental capacity required to execute a simple, testamentary trust amendment governed by the lower standard of testamentary capacity (§ 6100.5) instead of the higher standard of general contractual capacity (§§ 810-812)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Suzukawa
Yes. The capacity to execute a trust amendment that is simple and testamentary in nature is governed by the standard of testamentary capacity, not a higher standard of contractual capacity. While the Probate Code generally governs capacity to execute trusts under sections 810-812, those sections require a court to evaluate a person's ability to understand the consequences 'with regard to the type of act or decision in question.' The court reasoned that when a trust amendment is simple and serves only to direct the distribution of property after death, it is functionally indistinguishable from a will or a codicil. Therefore, the specific standard for testamentary capacity (§ 6100.5) is the appropriate measure. A higher standard, such as that for complex contracts or irrevocable inter vivos trusts, is not required for simple, will-like amendments.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a previously inconsistent area of California law by establishing that the standard for mental capacity is not uniform for all trust-related actions. It creates a sliding scale where the complexity of the legal instrument dictates the requisite level of capacity. By holding that simple, will-like trust amendments are subject to the lower testamentary capacity standard, the court makes it more difficult to challenge such amendments on grounds of incapacity. This provides greater certainty for estate planners and individuals wishing to make straightforward changes to their post-death distributions without meeting the rigorous standards required for complex business contracts.
