In Re Estate of Stoker

California Court of Appeal
193 Cal.App.4th 236 (2011)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under California Probate Code § 6110(c)(2), a will not executed with the required witness signatures shall be treated as valid if the proponent of the will establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be their will at the time of signing.

Facts:

On May 22, 1997, Steven Wayne Stoker executed a formal will and a revocable trust, naming his then-girlfriend Destiny Guiarte as a primary beneficiary and successor trustee.
In 2001, Stoker's relationship with Guiarte ended. A witness later testified that Stoker expressed his disapproval of the 1997 will's contents by urinating on and then burning his original copy of the document.
On August 28, 2005, Stoker dictated a new, handwritten will to his friend, Anne Marie Meier, who wrote it down verbatim.
The 2005 document stated, 'I, Steve Stoker revoke my 1997 trust... Destiny Guiarte and Judy Stoker to get nothing. Everything is to go to my kids Darin and Danene Stoker.'
Stoker signed the 2005 document in the presence of Meier and another friend, Homer Johns, but neither friend signed the document as a witness.
Stoker told both Meier and Johns that the 2005 document represented his 'last will and testament' and his 'final wishes.'
Steven Wayne Stoker died on February 27, 2008.

Procedural Posture:

After Steven Wayne Stoker's death, Destiny Guiarte filed a petition in probate court to probate Stoker's 1997 will and trust.
Stoker's children, Danine Pradia and Darrin Stoker (respondents), filed an objection to Guiarte's petition.
Respondents then filed their own petition to probate a handwritten document from 2005 as Stoker's valid will.
The trial court held a hearing on the competing petitions.
The trial court denied the petition to probate the 1997 will and granted the petition to probate the 2005 will, finding clear and convincing evidence of the decedent's intent.
Destiny Guiarte, Donald Karotick, and Robert Rodriguez (appellants) appealed the trial 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:

Does a will that lacks the required witness signatures nevertheless become valid under California Probate Code § 6110(c)(2) if the proponent establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended it to be his will at the time of signing?

Opinions:

Majority - Gilbert, P. J.

Yes, a will lacking witness signatures is valid if clear and convincing evidence shows the testator intended it to be his will. The plain language of Probate Code § 6110(c)(2) creates a harmless error rule for wills that are not executed in formal compliance with witness requirements. The statute's broad, remedial purpose is to prioritize the testator's intent over procedural deficiencies. The court reasoned that this statutory provision, which became effective after the decedent's death, could be applied retroactively, consistent with the strong public policy of upholding the validity of wills whenever possible. Furthermore, the appellants' rights under the 1997 will had not vested because the decedent had already revoked that will, as evidenced by both the 2005 document and his physical act of destroying the 1997 will. Substantial extrinsic evidence, including testimony from two friends who were present at the signing, confirmed that the decedent intended the 2005 document to be his final will.

Analysis:

This case solidifies the application of California's 'harmless error' doctrine in will execution, formally shifting the focus from strict compliance with statutory formalities to the testator's intent. The court's willingness to apply Probate Code § 6110(c)(2) retroactively demonstrates a significant commitment to this modern approach, allowing the validation of wills created when stricter rules were in effect. This decision lowers the bar for probating wills with technical defects, provided the proponent can meet the high evidentiary standard of 'clear and convincing evidence' to prove testamentary intent. Consequently, future litigation in this area will likely center on the quality and sufficiency of evidence regarding the testator's intent rather than on minor procedural missteps.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: In Re Estate of Stoker (2011)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature