The Trial Court’s Inconsistencies In Its Findings And A Lack of Substantial Evidence Means A New Trial Is Required To Re-Evaluate The Claims And Defenses.
Miranda v. Alford, Case No. G054897 (consolidated with G055167) (4th Dist., Div. 3 March 8, 2019) (unpublished) is a case involving a man’s wife of eight years, and his two adult daughters, who have been embroiled in litigation over his estate since his passing in 2014 from an aggressive form of brain cancer.
Daughters filed a petition challenging the validity of a restated trust and will executed by their father in 2014 that left Wife with 1/3rd of his estate – claiming Wife had exerted undue influence and father lacked the mental capacity to understand the documents he signed in early 2014, after being moved to an assisted living facility due to diminished mental capacity stemming from the brain cancer.
The case was tried over 15 days in May and June of 2016. After the daughters presented their case-in-chief, Wife moved for judgment in her favor on the lack of capacity and undue influence claims – pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. section 631.8. The trial court granted the motion as to the lack of capacity claim, but denied it as to the undue influence claim. Trial then continued with Wife’s defense to the undue influence claim. At the conclusion of trial, the trial court accepted closing briefs and took the matter under submission. In its tentative ruling, the trial court found the restated trust and will were invalid – based on both the lack of capacity and undue influence claims.
In its ruling, the trial court found “[t]here was a rush by [Wife] to get estate documents in order before [Daughters] came back to town in March,” that it was “not credible that James initiated the topic of a new trust and will or transfers of his real property in March 2014,” and that [Wife] acted on her influence over her now mentally and physically weak husband over whom she had physical control over his residential care and finances in order to persuade him to provide for her on his death . . .” On the flipside, the trial court also observed that “[t]here is no credible evidence that [Wife’s] actions were primarily motivated by malice. She was his wife and the day to day responsibility was hers and she appears to have acted as a caring wife throughout this final illness,” and that “[he] may well have said he wanted to take care of [Wife] and probably did.”
In a later hearing, Wife’s counsel pointed out the trial court’s inconsistencies between its mid-trial section 631.8 ruling in Wife’s favor on the lack of capacity claim and its tentative ruling, but the court explained it was reconsidering the 631.8 ruling. Wife’s counsel then pointed out the prejudice to Wife who did not defend against the lack of capacity claim based on the 631.8 ruling – requesting a vacate of the trial court’s findings and a new trial. The trial court denied the request, and entered a final decision changing the “lacked the necessary capacity” language from the tentative ruling to “had diminished capacity” in the final statement of decision, and further awarded daughters $500,000 in attorney fees. Wife appealed.
In an opinion authored by Justice Goethals, the 4/3 DCA observed the following about the parties and this case: “Our record suggests they may have collectively incurred as much as $1 million in attorney fees through the end of the May 2016 trial. The intensity of the litigation does not seem to have abated in the wake of trial and, unfortunately, our resolution of the issues before use will not bring it to a close.”
Ultimately, based on inconsistencies in the trial court’s rulings, and the lack of substantial evidence for the undue influence ruling, the 4/3 DCA reversed the final statement of decision, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a new trial on the undue influence and lack of capacity claims. Because the judgment was reversed, Wife’s appeal of attorney fees awarded to daughters became moot as the award fell with the judgment.
Comments