Radin v. Jewish National Fund
352 P.3d 863, 61 Cal. 4th 871 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
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.
Facts:
- In 1984, Irving Duke prepared a holographic will leaving all of his property to his wife, Beatrice Schecter Duke.
- Irving's will provided that if he and Beatrice died at the same moment, his estate would be equally divided between the City of Hope (COH) and the Jewish National Fund (JNF).
- The will also explicitly left one dollar to his brother, Harry Duke, and contained a clause disinheriting all other persons not specifically mentioned who might claim to be his heirs at law.
- The will contained no provision addressing the disposition of his estate if Irving lived longer than Beatrice.
- Beatrice died in July 2002.
- Irving died in November 2007, leaving no spouse or children, and his will had not been changed since Beatrice's death.
- The Radins, sons of Irving's predeceased sister, asserted they were entitled to the estate as Irving's sole intestate heirs.
Procedural Posture:
- Irving Duke died in November 2007.
- In March 2008, the City of Hope (COH) and the Jewish National Fund (JNF) petitioned the Los Angeles County Superior Court (probate court/court of first instance) for probate and for letters of administration.
- In October 2008, Seymour and Robert Radin (the Radins) filed a petition in the probate court for determination of entitlement to estate distribution, asserting they were Irving's sole intestate heirs.
- The Radins moved for summary judgment in the probate court.
- The probate court granted summary judgment for the Radins, finding the will unambiguous and declining to consider extrinsic evidence of Irving's intent.
- COH and JNF appealed the probate court's decision to the California Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) (Claimants and Appellants vs. Petitioners and Respondents at this stage).
- The California Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court's judgment, relying on Estate of Barnes.
- The California Supreme Court granted review (Claimants and Appellants, COH and JNF; Petitioners and Respondents, Radins).
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 California law permit the reformation of an unambiguous will when clear and convincing evidence demonstrates a mistake in the expression of the testator's intent and the testator's actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted?
Opinions:
Majority - Cantil-Sakauye, C. J.
Yes, California law permits the reformation of an unambiguous will 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 that time. The court concluded that the categorical bar on reforming unambiguous wills is no longer justified. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to correct errors in other donative documents (such as trusts and contracts) and has been historically used to 'construe' wills in ways that effectively reformed them, despite their apparent clarity. The court noted that legislative actions in this area have codified judicial expansions of extrinsic evidence admissibility but have not restricted courts from further common law development regarding will interpretation or reformation. Concerns about the reliability of evidence due to the testator's death can be mitigated by requiring a heightened 'clear and convincing evidence' standard, a burden used in other contexts like equitable adoption. The court reasoned that the formalities required by the Statute of Wills are satisfied by the testator's execution of a complying writing, and reformation primarily addresses the evidentiary purpose of these formalities, which is sufficiently met by the clear and convincing evidence standard. Denying reformation in such cases would defeat the testator's intent, leading to unjust enrichment for unintended beneficiaries, and this outcome is inconsistent with the paramount purpose of the law governing wills. The court rejected arguments that allowing reformation would increase litigation or undermine intestacy laws, stating that probate courts already consider extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguities, and reformation, when properly supported, upholds the testator's wishes over default statutory distribution. Finally, the court observed that modern legal trends, including the Restatement Third of Property and the Uniform Probate Code, support the reformation of wills. The charities' specific theory of mistake and intent was deemed sufficiently particularized to be eligible for reformation.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally shifts California's approach to will interpretation by overturning a long-standing common law rule prohibiting the reformation of unambiguous wills. By allowing extrinsic evidence to correct drafting mistakes, the ruling aligns wills with other donative instruments like trusts and contracts, promoting greater fairness and ensuring that a testator's true intent is paramount. While this change may increase the complexity of probate litigation, the requirement of 'clear and convincing evidence' aims to prevent frivolous claims, and the ruling ultimately enhances the ability of courts to prevent unjust enrichment and avoid intestacy when a testator's specific intent can be proven.
