The Only One Of Four Will Contestants Who Showed For Trial Provided No Evidence To Support The Request For Admission Denial.
Estate of Moshier, Case No. G057076 (4th Dist., Div. 3 June 29, 2020) (unpublished) involved a will contest brought by decedent’s adoptive brother and three adult nieces against decedent’s wife. Decedent’s will named wife as the executor of his estate and left the entire estate to her – which included the house decedent had inherited from his late father where decedent and wife lived. Decedent had no children. When wife petitioned to probate the will, brother and nieces contested – seeking an intestate share of the estate as, they argued, the will did not comply with Probate Code sections 6110 and 6111 because it was witnessed only by wife instead of two individuals, and was not signed by decedent because the signature omitted decedent’s middle initial.
When wife propounded discovery, contestants denied a Request for Admission asking for admission that decedent’s intent was to leave his entire estate to wife. Instead, contestants claimed the house decedent inherited was meant to stay in the family and decedent would not have left the house to anyone but decedent’s adoptive brothers. At trial, decedent’s best friend and his biological half-sister testified that decedent’s intent was to leave his entire estate to his wife. On the other side, only one person showed for trial – a niece who had not seen the decedent in over 25 years, had never spoken with decedent about his property, will or intentions as to his estate, and who had no documents or other witnesses to support the contention that the house was to stay in the family. The trial court found evidence supporting decedent’s intent to leave everything to his wife to be clear and convincing, and denied the will contest. Afterward, wife successfully moved for Code of Civil Procedure § 2033.420 costs of proof sanctions to recover the fees she incurred in proving the truth of the matter regarding decedent’s intent, and was awarded $23,675 in fees and $3,707 in costs.
The 4/3 DCA affirmed. Contestants’ argument that the trial judge, rather than a temporary judge, was required to hear the sanctions motion fell flat. First, contestants had stipulated to having the temporary judge hear the motion and had failed to withdraw that stipulation. Second, the motion for costs of proof sanctions involved sanctionable conduct during pretrial discovery, not sanctionable conduct during trial, and ruling on the motion did not require the trial judge’s knowledge of the parties’ trial conduct. Beyond this, the 4/3 DCA concluded there was no abuse of discretion in awarding the costs of proof sanctions – wife proved the truth of decedent’s intent at trial, and contestants had no reasonable ground to believe they would prevail on the issue of decedent’s intent.
Comments