Estate of Berger
Unpublished (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Probate Code § 6110(c)(2), an unwitnessed document must be admitted to probate if the proponent establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended it to be their will at the time of signing. Extrinsic evidence regarding the circumstances of the document's creation is always admissible to determine such testamentary intent, regardless of whether the document itself is ambiguous.
Facts:
- In the spring of 2002, Melanie Berger began dating Maria Coronado.
- In early August 2002, Coronado proposed to Berger, and the two became engaged.
- Berger was scheduled to undergo gender reassignment surgery in late August 2002.
- On August 16, 2002, while Coronado was traveling in Spain, Berger printed, signed, and dated a letter on her work stationery.
- The letter named Coronado as Berger's 'sole beneficiary in the event of my death' and listed specific assets to be transferred to Coronado.
- On the same day, Berger emailed Coronado, stating she had created her 'will' and would leave a copy for Coronado to find upon her return.
- Coronado found a copy of the letter on her desk chair when she returned home.
- Berger and Coronado ended their relationship in the spring of 2003 and ceased contact.
- Berger died on November 30, 2020, and the original signed letter was found in a drawer of her desk.
Procedural Posture:
- Maria Coronado filed a petition in the probate division of the Los Angeles County Superior Court (trial court) to probate a letter as the will of Melanie Berger.
- Melanie Berger's sister, Glee Berger, filed an objection to the petition.
- The probate court conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing and denied Coronado's petition.
- Coronado filed a motion to reopen the evidentiary hearing, which the trial court granted.
- After a further hearing, the probate court re-adopted its earlier ruling and again denied the petition.
- Coronado, as appellant, filed a timely appeal to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, against appellee Glee Berger.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the harmless error doctrine of Probate Code § 6110(c)(2), must an unwitnessed document be probated as a will when clear and convincing evidence, including the document's text and surrounding extrinsic circumstances, demonstrates the creator intended it to be their will at the time of signing?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hoffstadt
Yes, an unwitnessed document must be probated as a will when clear and convincing evidence establishes the creator's testamentary intent at the time of signing. The court reasoned that its task is to determine if the drafter intended to make a 'revocable disposition of h[er] property to take effect upon h[er] death.' This inquiry requires examining both the words of the document and the surrounding circumstances. The court clarified that, per Probate Code § 6111.5 and established precedent, extrinsic evidence is always admissible to determine testamentary intent, not just when the document is ambiguous. Here, the evidence overwhelmingly compelled a finding of intent: the letter's text was explicitly testamentary ('in the event of my death'), its format was formal, and the surrounding circumstances—including Berger's same-day email calling it a 'will' and her impending major surgery—conclusively confirmed her intent. The probate court's reasons for doubt, such as the couple's later breakup or failure to discuss the will, were deemed irrelevant to Berger's intent at the time of execution.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces and clarifies California's 'harmless error' rule for wills, emphasizing that the central inquiry is the testator's intent at the moment of signing. It firmly establishes that extrinsic evidence is always admissible to prove testamentary intent, settling any potential ambiguity from prior cases and aligning with the plain language of Probate Code § 6111.5. The case serves as a powerful example of an appellate court reversing a trial court's factual finding under the high 'clear and convincing' evidence standard, demonstrating that while the standard is deferential, it is not insurmountable. The ruling gives greater effect to the wishes of testators who self-draft wills but fail to meet formal witness requirements, thereby reducing the chances that such wills are invalidated due to procedural mistakes.
