Estate of Lensch
Decision Date | 31 August 2009 |
Docket Number | No. A123296.,A123296. |
Citation | 177 Cal.App.4th 667,99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 246 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | Estate of GLADYS MILDRED LENSCH, Deceased. JASON LENSCH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DARIN WRIGHT, as Executor, etc., Defendant and Respondent. |
Law Offices of Margaret M. Hand and Margaret M. Hand for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Bien & Summers, Elliot L. Bien, Catherine S. Meulemans; Wilkins & Johnson, Alfred S. Wilkins and Elizabeth W. Johnson for Defendant and Respondent.
Appellants Jason Lensch and Ean Lensch (appellants) appeal from the probate court's order denying their petition to determine survival and to determine persons entitled to distribution of the estate of their grandmother, Gladys Mildred Lensch, under Probate Code sections 220, 21109, and 21110.1 They argue that the trial court erred in denying their requests for an evidentiary hearing as well as denying their petition. We agree and conclude that the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we reverse the court's order, and remand this matter for an evidentiary hearing.
On March 12, 2008, at 2:30 a.m. Gladys Lensch died in a San Mateo County nursing home. She was 98 years old. She left the following three-sentence holographic will:
Eleven hours after Gladys died, Jay, Gladys's son, was found dead in his home in Trinity County. He had shot himself with a 12-gauge shotgun. The time of death on Jay's death certificate was recorded as the time his body was found: 1:15 p.m. on March 12, 2008. Jay's body was cremated without an autopsy and his remains were buried five days later.
In a 10-page handwritten will, with a four-page addendum, Jay made small cash gifts to friends, and left another friend an undeveloped parcel of land. The residue of his estate was left in equal shares to the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee and Direct Relief International. He left nothing in his will to his two sons, appellants Jason and Ean Lensch.
On June 25, 2008, Jason and Ean Lensch filed a "Petition to Determine Survival and to Determine Persons Entitled to Distribution." This petition was verified by petitioners' attorney because petitioners reside "out of this county and state."
The petition asked the court to find that
The petition stated that Petitioners asked the court to find that "it cannot be determined by clear and convincing evidence who died first, Gladys Clausen Lensch or Jay Alfred Lensch," and that the court deem Gladys to have survived Jay for the purpose of the transfers created by Gladys's will and that the court rule that the transfer made to Jay in Gladys's will fails.
On July 25, 2008, Jay's executor, respondent Darin Wright, filed an opposition to Jason and Ean's petition to determine survival. He argued that Jason and Ean had the burden of proving that Jay did not survive Gladys. He also argued that survival was not required by the terms of Gladys's will. Relying on the death certificate of both decedents, respondent argued that because death certificates are proof of time of death, and claimants' petition was based on "inadmissible opinions, speculation, and hearsay," the only evidence of time of death was the death certificate.
At a brief hearing on July 30, 2008, the court noted that its tentative ruling was that "there is no requirement for survival in the testamentary document." Petitioners immediately requested an evidentiary hearing. Counsel argued that Jay was required to survive Gladys in order to take under her will. The court rejected this argument and also ruled, in the alternative, that even if there was a survival requirement "the only evidence before the court being the death certificates demonstrate that Mr. — not Mr. Lensch — it is Mr. Lensch did survive his mother." Counsel pointed to "sworn testimony of my client who spoke to the coroner who declared that the time of death of Jay Lensch could not be determined." The court ruled that this statement was hearsay. At two other points in the hearing, appellants repeated their request for an evidentiary hearing.
The court denied the petition to determine survival. The court held that "the evidence offered shows that decedent's will did not require survival, but nevertheless, that Jay Lensch survived decedent Gladys Mildred Lensch, and that no further evidentiary hearing is required."
This timely appeal followed.
(1) Jason and Ean contend the trial court erred in denying their petition on the basis that Gladys's will did not require that Jay survive her in order to take under her will. We exercise de novo review in interpreting the terms of Gladys's will (Estate of Edwards (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1366, 1371 ) and conclude that, although the trial court was correct in finding that Gladys's will contains no survivorship requirement, it erred in denying appellants' petition on this basis, apparently because it did not understand the legal consequences of the lack of a survivorship requirement in Gladys's will.
Gladys's will does not express any intent with regard to survivorship. Nor does it contain any provision for an alternate disposition in the event Jay predeceased her. In this situation, we look to section 21109 and the antilapse statute, section 21110, for guidance. Section 21109, subdivision (a), provides that "A transferee who fails to survive the transferor of an at-death transfer or until any future time required by the instrument does not take under the instrument." Section 21110, subdivision (a), provides that "Subject to subdivision (b), if a transferee is dead when the instrument is executed, or fails or is treated as failing to survive the transferor or until a future time required by the instrument, the issue of the deceased transferee take in the transferee's place in the manner provided in Section 240." Subdivision (b) provides, however, that
(2) Therefore, in the absence of any requirement of survivorship, "a transfer that is to occur on the transferor's death lapses if the transferee dies first." (Burkett v. Capovilla (2003) 112 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1449 .) As the court explained in Estate of Mooney (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 654, 657 , "[u]nder ... the antilapse statute, if a bequest is made to kindred, and is not conditioned on survivorship and is not subject to an alternate disposition, and the beneficiary predeceases the transferor, the bequest passes to the predeceased beneficiary's issue."
Here, as the probate court found, Gladys's bequest was not conditioned on Jay's survival. Nor did she make an alternate disposition. Therefore, under sections 21109 and 21110, if Jay died before Gladys, then Gladys's bequest to Jay fails under section 21109 and passes to Jay's children, appellants, under section 21110. Put simply, the court's finding that Gladys's will contained no survival requirement was the beginning of the story, not the end.
Respondent, who seems to understand at this point in the proceedings the significance of the fact that Gladys's will contained neither a survival requirement nor an alternate disposition, argues that Jay's will, in which Jay complains about his sons' conduct toward him, constitutes extrinsic evidence from which the probate court "could reasonably infer ... that Gladys knew and disapproved of [Jason and Ean]'s conduct, and for that reason intended in her will to give Jay complete discretion over his bequest whether he survived her or not." In other words, respondent contends...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. Alameda Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. Aurora P. (In re Aurora P.)
... ... ( In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 681, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 246( Lensch ); accord, Hume, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th at p. 1389, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 906[where ... ...
-
San Diego Cnty. Emps. Ret. Ass'n v. Superior Court of San Diego Cnty.
... ... (See Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 678, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 246.) ... ...
-
Estate of Langman v. Greene
... ... Proc., 2015.5), this was a contested proceeding. "When a petition is contested, as it was here, 'affidavits and verified petitions may not be considered as evidence at a contested probate Page 31 hearing.' ( Evangelho v. Presoto (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 615, 620 ... )" ( In re Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676.) Although appellant states in his brief that Jodi Dionne was in the courtroom at that time, he does not support that statement with a citation to the record. As indicated, appellant had filed declarations by a number of people, including the Dionnes. Appellant's ... ...
-
T.B. v. O.B. (In re O.B.)
... ... Jacobs recommendations even though Dr. Jacobs report was not received in evidence. (See Estate of Nicholas , supra , 177 Cal.App.3d at p. 1088, 223 Cal.Rptr. 410.) Appellants other expert witness, Christopher Donati, is the probate ... [Citations.]" ( Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 676, 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 246.) On the other hand, a declaration or report received in evidence without objection at a ... ...
-
Now What? Enforcement and Collection of a Surcharge Order
...of Lock (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 892, 896-897.6. Code Civ. Proc., section 664.7. Prob. Code, sections 1022, 1046; Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal. App.4th 667, 675-678 (requiring evidentiary hearing to adjudicate contested petition); Prob. Code, section 825 (no general right to jury trial in p......
-
Autopsy of a Trusts and Estates Case: the Appellate Doctor Is in
...by a particular party. See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 2.956.73. Prob. Code, sections 1000, 1022, and 1046; Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, 675-678 (order granting contested petition without evidentiary hearing reversed); see also Evangelho v. Presoto (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 615, 6......
-
Mcle Self-study Article Roadblocks on the Road to Probate Trials
...the use of declarations in contested proceedings by framing the filing as a motion instead of a petition.In Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667, another dispute over competing claims to entitlement to a decedent's estate, the probate court denied a party's request for a trial where ......
-
Yellow Light: Trustee May Follow Authorization to Defend Contested Amendment Until Enjoined by Probate Judge
...Cal.App.4th 1303 (discussing interplay between Code Civ. Proc., section 2009, and Prob. Code, section 1022); Estate of Lensch (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 667 (also finding error in the failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing).65. Code Civ. Proc., section 904.1, subd. (a)(6); Prob. Code, sectio......