Yes. A judge can change a will if there is very convincing proof that it contains a mistake. The most important goal is to follow the true wishes of the person who wrote the will. The old rule that said you can never change a clear will was too strict and often led to unfair results where the wrong people got the money. We can trust judges to look at outside evidence, but only if the proof of the mistake is really, really strong (a standard called 'clear and convincing'). This new rule makes sure wills are treated like other important legal documents, like contracts or trusts, which courts are already allowed to fix if there's a mistake.

Yes, a court can change a will that seems clear if there is very strong proof of two things: 1) The will has a mistake and doesn't say what the person wanted when they wrote it, and 2) We know exactly what the person actually wanted the will to say. It's not right to always refuse to fix mistakes in wills. That would go against the main goal of making sure a person's property goes where they wanted it to go. It would also unfairly benefit people who weren't meant to inherit. The case is being sent back to a lower court. That court will look at the evidence to see if it clearly and convincingly shows Irving made a mistake in his will and that he really wanted the charities to inherit if Beatrice died before him. This is because the most important thing in deciding what a will means is figuring out what the person who wrote it actually wanted. There have to be very big reasons to justify a rule that always denies fixing wills when there's clear proof of a mistake and what the person really wanted.

Yes, we can change a will that seems clear if there is very strong proof of two things: 1) The will has a mistake and doesn't say what the person wanted when they wrote it, and 2) We know exactly what the person actually wanted the will to say. It's not right to always refuse to fix mistakes in wills. That would go against the main goal of making sure a person's property goes where they wanted it to go. It would also unfairly benefit people who weren't meant to inherit. We are sending the case back to the lower court. That court must look at the evidence to see if it clearly and convincingly shows Irving made a mistake in his will and that he really wanted the charities to inherit if Beatrice died before him. This is because the most important thing is figuring out what the person who wrote the will actually wanted. There have to be very big reasons to justify a rule that always denies fixing wills when there's clear proof of a mistake and what the person really wanted.

Yes. An unambiguous will may be reformed if clear and convincing evidence establishes that the will contains a mistake in the expression of the testator's intent at the time the will was drafted and also establishes the testator's actual specific intent at that time. The paramount concern in construing a will is to determine the testator's subjective intent. The historical categorical bar against reforming unambiguous wills is not justified, as it can defeat the testator's intent and lead to the unjust enrichment of unintended beneficiaries. California law permits the reformation of other donative instruments, such as trusts and contracts, and there is no sound reason to treat wills differently. Concerns about fraud and the reliability of evidence, especially given the testator is deceased, are sufficiently addressed by imposing a heightened 'clear and convincing' standard of proof. Overturning precedent is warranted because the old rule has been inconsistently applied and modern jurisprudence, including the Restatement (Third) of Property and the Uniform Probate Code, favors a more flexible, intent-focused approach.

Yes, an unambiguous will may be reformed if clear and convincing evidence establishes a mistake in the expression of the testator's intent at the time the will was drafted and also establishes the testator's actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted. The categorical bar on reformation of unambiguous wills is not justified. Denying reformation would defeat the paramount purpose of distributing property according to the testator's intent and result in unjust enrichment of unintended beneficiaries. The case is remanded for the probate court to consider whether the charities can establish by clear and convincing evidence that the will contains a mistake in the expression of Irving's intent and that Irving actually intended the charities to inherit his estate if Beatrice predeceased him. This is because the paramount concern in construing a will is to determine the subjective intent of the testator. Only significant countervailing considerations can justify a rule categorically denying reformation when a mistake and the testator's actual intent are established by clear and convincing evidence.

In re Estate of Duke

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot