National Federation of the Blind of California, Inc. v. Carson

Summary

The California Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment finding that Patricia A. Carson exerted undue influence over Kathryne J. Auen. The court upheld revocation of Auen’s 1990 will, cancellation of a deed transferring the Women's Hotel, recovery of funds from business-related joint accounts, and setting aside of alleged inter vivos gifts. The court also rejected challenges to the charities’ standing and the consolidation of the probate and civil proceedings.

Holdings

1. A presumption of undue influence arises when the alleged influencer had an attorney-client relationship with the testator when the will was prepared, actively participated in its preparation or execution, and benefited from the will; separate proof that the benefit was 'undue' is not required to trigger the presumption.
2. Substantial evidence supported the finding that Carson obtained an undue benefit and that appellants failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence.
3. The entire 1990 will was properly revoked because the trial court found, with substantial evidentiary support, that Carson's undue influence permeated the will.
4. Probate Code section 5302 did not apply to the Auen-Carson Properties joint accounts because the accounts were established to deposit funds of a joint venture or other association for business purposes.
5. The trial court properly set aside the deed and alleged inter vivos transfers based on undue influence and properly rejected the alleged oral gifts because there was no substantial evidence of delivery.
6. The charities had standing to challenge the will and transfers; consolidation was proper; the participating parties were properly allowed to participate; and the Cancer Society was entitled to recover costs.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the attorney-client relationship, Carson's active participation in preparing or executing the 1990 will, and her benefit under the will were sufficient to trigger a presumption of undue influence without separate proof that the benefit was undue.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the finding that Carson received an undue benefit and failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence.
3. Whether the entire 1990 will, rather than only the Women's Hotel devise, was properly invalidated.
4. Whether Probate Code section 5302 applied to the joint accounts and barred relief concerning postdeath withdrawals.
5. Whether the trial court properly set aside the inter vivos deed and alleged oral gifts.
6. Whether the charities had standing, whether consolidation was proper, and whether the intervening parties were properly allowed to participate and recover costs.

Disposition

affirmed