Lauermann v. Superior Court
26 Cal. Rptr. 3d 258, 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2753, 127 Cal. App. 4th 1327 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under California Probate Code section 6124, the term 'duplicate original' of a will refers to a copy that was executed with the same formalities as the original will, such as being personally signed by the testator and witnesses, and does not include an unexecuted photocopy.
Facts:
- In 1987, Werner Lauermann executed a will leaving certain real property to Ranu Muongpruan and her children.
- Lauermann was survived by neither a spouse nor issue.
- Following Lauermann's death, the original, signed version of this will could not be located.
- A photocopy of the will was found among Lauermann's possessions.
- The photocopy bore no markings or defacement indicating an intent to revoke it.
Procedural Posture:
- Anuchar Muongpruan, a beneficiary, petitioned the trial court to admit a photocopy of Werner Lauermann's will to probate.
- Gerda Lauermann (decedent's sister) and Eva Lauermann (representative of decedent's brother's estate), opposed the petition and filed a will contest.
- In a preliminary hearing, the trial court ruled that the photocopy qualified as a 'duplicate original' under Probate Code § 6124, which would prevent the presumption of revocation from applying at trial.
- The trial court certified its order for immediate appellate review, believing it involved a controlling question of law.
- Gerda and Eva Lauermann (petitioners) filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal to overturn the trial court's interlocutory order. The appellate court stayed the trial court proceedings pending its decision.
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 an unexecuted photocopy of a will qualify as a 'duplicate original' under California Probate Code section 6124, thereby preventing the application of the presumption that a missing will was destroyed with intent to revoke?
Opinions:
Majority - King, Acting P. J.
No. An unexecuted photocopy of a will does not qualify as a 'duplicate original' under Probate Code section 6124. The court reasoned that the phrase 'duplicate original' in section 6124 must be interpreted consistently with the phrase 'will executed in duplicate' in section 6121, both of which require that the document be formally signed by the testator and witnesses. The purpose of the presumption of revocation is to prevent fraud when an original will, last known to be in the testator's possession, is missing. Allowing a mere photocopy—which is easily made and lacks the formal solemnity of an executed will—to defeat this presumption would undermine this purpose. A reasonable testator understands the legal significance of a formally executed original and would not expect an unexecuted copy to have the same legal effect. Therefore, a testator who destroys their original will with the intent to revoke it should not be expected to track down and destroy all existing photocopies for the revocation to be effective.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly construes the term 'duplicate original' in the context of lost wills, reinforcing the critical legal distinction between a formally executed will and a simple copy. By holding that a photocopy cannot, by itself, prevent the presumption of revocation from applying, the court strengthens this presumption. The ruling makes it more difficult for proponents of a lost will to have it probated based solely on an unexecuted copy, thereby upholding the strict formalities associated with testamentary acts and placing a higher evidentiary burden on those seeking to rebut the presumption of revocation.
