Lintz v. Lintz
222 Cal. App. 4th 1346, 167 Cal. Rptr. 3d 50, 2014 WL 123604 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The mental capacity required to execute a complex trust is determined by a sliding-scale contractual capacity standard, not the lower standard for testamentary capacity applicable to simple wills. Furthermore, when an interspousal transaction advantages one spouse, a statutory presumption of undue influence arises, shifting the burden of proof to the advantaged spouse.
Facts:
- Robert Lintz, a wealthy retiree, remarried his third wife, Lois Lynne Lintz, in February 2005.
- At the time of the remarriage, Robert's estate plan provided for his children and grandchildren.
- In May 2005, Robert executed a 10th amendment to his trust, granting Lois 50 percent of his assets upon his death.
- Between May 2005 and 2008, Robert executed several additional trust amendments that progressively increased Lois's share of the estate while disinheriting his two eldest children.
- In June 2008, Lois's attorney, acting at her direction, prepared the Lintz Family Revocable Trust.
- Robert and Lois executed this new trust, which reclassified all of Robert's separate property as community property, gave Lois an exclusive life interest in the estate, and granted her the power to disinherit Robert's remaining child in favor of her own children.
- During this period, Robert was described as being fearful of Lois and susceptible to her influence regarding his money.
- Robert Lintz died in October 2009 at the age of 81.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert Lintz's children, Susan D. Lintz and James Lintz, sued Lois Lynne Lintz in California probate court.
- Following a 15-day bench trial, the probate court found for the plaintiffs, holding Lois Lintz liable for financial elder abuse, undue influence, and breach of fiduciary duty.
- The probate court issued a judgment voiding all trust instruments executed after the 10th amendment, invalidating real property deeds, and awarding the plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs.
- Lois Lintz, the defendant, appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Sixth District.
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 substantial circumstantial evidence of a spouse's pattern of control over a decedent's finances and estate planning, which results in the spouse gaining a significant advantage at the expense of the decedent's children, support a finding of undue influence sufficient to void testamentary instruments, even without direct evidence of coercion at the moment of execution?
Opinions:
Majority - Grover, J.
Yes, substantial circumstantial evidence of a spouse's pattern of control is sufficient to support a finding of undue influence and void testamentary instruments. Undue influence is defined as pressure sufficient to overcome a testator’s free will, and it can be proven by inferences drawn from all the surrounding facts and circumstances; direct evidence of coercion at the moment a document is signed is not required. The court found that the probate court's judgment was amply supported by evidence of Lois's increasing control over Robert's estate planning, his susceptibility and fear of her, and the unnatural disposition of his property, which was contrary to his known affections. Although the probate court made two legal errors—applying the lower testamentary capacity standard instead of the higher contractual one for complex trusts, and failing to apply the statutory presumption of undue influence in an interspousal transaction under Family Code § 721—these errors were harmless. The evidence of undue influence was so strong that the plaintiffs prevailed even under a higher burden of proof, and the outcome would have been the same under the correct legal standards.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that the legal capacity required to execute a testamentary instrument is not one-size-fits-all; it must be commensurate with the complexity of the document, applying a higher contractual standard for complex trusts. It significantly highlights the power of Family Code section 721's presumption of undue influence in interspousal transactions, which shifts the evidentiary burden to the spouse who benefits from a transaction. For future will and trust contests involving spouses, this presumption will be a critical factor, making it easier for challengers to establish a prima facie case of undue influence. The ruling also reaffirms the established principle that undue influence cases often hinge on circumstantial evidence demonstrating a pattern of coercion, rather than direct proof of a specific coercive act.
Unlock the full brief for Lintz v. Lintz