Summary
In Hagen v. Hickenbottom, 41 Cal.App.4th 168 (1995), the California Court of Appeal reversed summary judgment for a defendant accused of unduly influencing a decedent’s trust and will. The court held that the “defense of truth”—that the defendant’s statements to the decedent were true—is not a complete defense to undue influence claims because undue influence does not require false statements and is not analogous to defamation. The court further ruled that the defendant failed to meet her initial burden under the 1992 amendments to Code of Civil Procedure § 437c to show that the plaintiff could not establish his case, so the burden never shifted to the plaintiff to produce evidence.
Holdings
- The 'defense of truth' is not a complete defense to claims of undue influence. Undue influence focuses on whether the influencer's conduct overcame the testator's free agency, not on the truth or falsity of statements made. Therefore, true statements can still form part of a course of conduct constituting undue influence.
- A defendant moving for summary judgment who does not present a complete defense must make an affirmative showing that plaintiff cannot reasonably expect to obtain a prima facie case. This requires more than merely pointing out an absence of evidence; the defendant must produce direct or circumstantial evidence of the plaintiff's inability to prove an essential element. Factually vague deposition responses from plaintiffs who would not be expected to have personal knowledge of the crucial events are insufficient, especially when the defendant, the alleged influencer, does not submit her own declaration or use targeted discovery.
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on a 'defense of truth' where the causes of action were for undue influence, not defamation.
- Whether defendant met her initial burden under the 1992 amendment to Code of Civil Procedure section 437c to show that plaintiff's causes of action could not be established.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (40)
- Saldana v. Globe-Weis Systems Co., 233 Cal. App. 3d 1505 (1991)(cited)
- Parsons Manufacturing Corp. v. Superior Court, 156 Cal. App. 3d 1151 (1984)(cited)
- Hejmadi v. AMFAC, Inc., 202 Cal. App. 3d 525 (1988)(cited)
- Wood v. Riverside General Hospital, 25 Cal. App. 4th 1113 (1994)(cited)
- J'Aire Corp. v. Gregory, 24 Cal. 3d 799 (1979)(cited)
- In re Estate of Fritschi, Estate of Fritschi, 60 Cal. 2d 367 (1963)(cited)
- Estate of Lingenfelter, 38 Cal. 2d 571 (1952)(cited)
- Estate of Smith, 200 Cal. 152 (1926)(cited)
- Estate of Sarabia, 221 Cal. App. 3d 599 (1990)(cited)
- Estate of Goetz, 253 Cal. App. 2d 107 (1967)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 40.
Cited In (5)
- Michael John Hagen v. Terry Hickenbottom, Hagen v. Hickenbottom, 41 Cal.App.4th 168 (1995)(discussed)
- Michael John Hagen v. Terry Hickenbottom, Hagen v. Hickenbottom, 41 Cal. App. 4th 168 (1995)(cited)
- Michael John Hagen v. Terry Hickenbottom, Hagen v. Hickenbottom, 41 Cal. App. 4th 168 (1995)(applied)
- Michael John Hagen v. Terry Hickenbottom, Hagen v. Hickenbottom, 41 Cal. App. 4th 168, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 197 (1995)(cited)
- Michael John Hagen v. Terry Hickenbottom, Hagen v. Hickenbottom, 41 Cal.App.4th 168 (1995)(applied)