Stewart v. Downey (Estate of Stewart)

• Decision Date: 18 April 2019
• Docket Number: A150463,A148501,A151849,A148396
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Estate of PATRICIA STEWART, Deceased. JOHN H. STEWART, Contestant and Appellant, v. MICHAEL DOWNEY, as administrator, etc., et al., Contestants and Respondents. DEBORAH BASON LEAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JAMES LEWIS TAYLOR, Defendant and Respondent. JOHN H. STEWART, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHAEL DOWNEY, as administrator, etc., Defendant and Respondent; JAMES TAYLOR et al., Intervenors and Respondents.

Estate of PATRICIA STEWART, Deceased.

JOHN H. STEWART, Contestant and Appellant, v. MICHAEL DOWNEY, as administrator, etc., et al., Contestants and Respondents.

DEBORAH BASON LEAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JAMES LEWIS TAYLOR, Defendant and Respondent.

JOHN H. STEWART, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MICHAEL DOWNEY, as administrator, etc., Defendant and Respondent;

JAMES TAYLOR et al., Intervenors and Respondents.

A148396

A151849

A150463

A148501

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

April 18, 2019

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. PR090102, PR090073)

(Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. PR090102)

(Humboldt County Super. Ct. Nos. DR081020)

In these consolidated appeals,¹ John H. Stewart appeals from the probate court's orders dismissing the probate of decedent Patricia Lean Stewart's April 2007 will and disallowing his contest to the probate of her February 2009 will on the ground that he lacks standing. Deborah Bason Lean, Patricia's surviving sister, appeals from the court's order dismissing her petition to revoke probate of the February 2009 will after she failed to join in Stewart's earlier will contest. In two other appeals, Stewart challenges the judgment following a jury trial in a breach of contract action he commenced against Patricia shortly before her death and the posttrial order denying his motion to tax costs. We dismiss Deborah's appeal for lack of standing, and otherwise affirm in all respects.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The procedural history of this decade-long case is tangled and lengthy. Because the parties and this court are familiar with the factual circumstances and extensive litigation surrounding these matters, we will set forth only as much background as is relevant to the disposition of these appeals.

A. Patricia and Stewart Marry and Divorce

Appellant John H. Stewart (Stewart) and decedent Patricia Lean Stewart (Patricia) married in October 1994. Prior to their marriage, they entered into an oral agreement in 1993 by which they resolved to take care of each other and share equally in their property until one or the other died.² The following year, Patricia acquired ranch property on Crooked Prairie Road in Humboldt County (the Ranch) with proceeds from a family inheritance, holding title as "a single woman." She and Stewart took up residence on the Ranch. In August 1994, Stewart and Patricia allegedly modified their Marvin agreement to provide that the Ranch "would become the sole property of the survivor upon the death of the other party." They married two months later.

In April 2007, Patricia executed a will (April 2007 Will) that left her estate to Stewart. Marital discord followed shortly thereafter. In October, Stewart was ordered tovacate the Ranch after Patricia filed a petition against him under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Fam. Code, § 6200 et seq.). In November, Patricia executed a will revoking her previous will and naming her sister, Deborah Bason Lean (Deborah), as sole beneficiary. The next day, Patricia filed for divorce from Stewart.

During the divorce proceedings, Stewart filed a petition to establish a conservatorship over Patricia, who suffered from multiple sclerosis and was physically disabled. Stewart sought to stay the divorce to require an assessment of Patricia's capacity. The family law court denied Stewart's stay request, and in August 2008, a jury found that conservatorship was unnecessary. His conservatorship petition was ordered dismissed.³ Stewart also initiated a civil action against Patricia, alleging breach of their Marvin agreement and requesting specific performance over the Ranch.⁴ As described below, the breach of contract action was tried before a jury in 2016 and is the subject of two of the pending appeals.

On December 16, 2008, the family court issued a written decision granting Patricia's petition and declaring the marriage dissolved. After a two-day bench trial, the court found Patricia competent and able to participate in the dissolution proceedings, and found that an interspousal deed quitclaiming the Ranch to Stewart in 2005 had been procured by undue influence and was invalid. The court therefore ruled that the Ranch was Patricia's sole and separate property. A judgment of dissolution was entered on February 5, 2009.⁵ Following her divorce, Patricia sold the Ranch to respondents William and Ronda Rolff (referred to herein as Rolff).

B. Stewart Contests the February 2009 Will

In the meantime, respondent James Taylor was hired in March 2007 to be Patricia's registered nurse and caretaker. Patricia was by then a dependent adult who required assistance with all aspects of daily living. On February 20, 2009, Patricia executed a last will and testament naming Taylor the executor of the estate and primary beneficiary (February 2009 Will). Pursuant to Probate Code section 21384, a certificate of independent review was prepared by attorney Douglas Kaber, who independently reviewed the circumstances of the will and found both the will and its bequests to be legitimate and in keeping with Patricia's wishes. Patricia died on February 23, 2009. The next day, Stewart recorded the interspousal transfer deed for the Ranch that the family law court had declared unenforceable two months earlier. (See Parris v. Stewart (In re Lean) (Jan. 26, 2012, A124777 [nonpub. opn.].)⁶

Shortly after Patricia's passing, Stewart filed a petition to admit the April 2007 Will into probate. Taylor filed a competing petition for probate of the February 2009 Will. On April 16, 2009, Stewart filed a will contest and opposition to probate of the February 2009 Will. As set forth in his petition, and by later amendments, Stewart alleged he was a person interested in Patricia's estate as her surviving spouse and as the named beneficiary of the April 2007 Will. Taylor then filed a demurrer to the will contest and served Deborah with a copy. The probate court consolidated the actions and appointed the Humboldt County Public Administrator as special administrator ofPatricia's estate. Although provided with notice, Deborah did not join in the will contest or file objections to the February 2009 Will.

The probate matters were relatively quiet until October 2014 when Taylor filed a motion in limine asserting that Stewart lacked standing to contest the February 2009 Will. Taylor asserted that Stewart was not an interested person in the estate because, upon dissolution of his marriage to Patricia prior to her death, his beneficial interest in the April 2007 Will was voided by operation of law, and he cannot be deemed to be a "surviving spouse."

On December 16, 2014, Deborah executed an assignment granting Stewart all her rights as an heir of Patricia, including her right to contest any will signed by Patricia, but reserving for herself the right to nominate a personal representative. One year later, on December 28, 2015, the probate court heard argument on the motion in limine. Stewart, apparently acting as Deborah's attorney as well as an assignee on his own behalf, argued that the assignment gave him standing to contest the will. Stewart also claimed to have standing by virtue of his breach of contract action against the estate and the related creditor's claim he had filed with the probate court. The court granted the motion in limine and, by minute order, ruled that Stewart did not have standing to maintain a will contest and that the will contest was no longer at issue in the probate proceedings.

C. The Probate Court Concludes the February 2009 Will Is Valid

On March 24, 2016, the probate court held a trial on the validity of the February 2009 Will, addressing Patricia's testamentary capacity and the certificate of independent review. The court reviewed Patricia's recent hospital records, including Dr. Michael Fratkin's notes that Patricia was alert, oriented, and in no acute distress. Counsel for the special administrator reported that Dr. James S. Guetzkow, referred to her by Stewart, had submitted a letter expressing his doubts as to Patricia's capacity.⁷ Dr. Guetzkowreportedly did not respond to counsel's follow-up questions about Patricia's medical records, and the court declined to admit Dr. Guetzkow's letter into evidence.

John Davis represented Patricia during her divorce proceedings and had been her attorney since March 2008. He testified that Patricia was physically disabled and required the use of a wheelchair. Patricia had some problems speaking, her hands were a bit shaky, she sometimes had a tremor in her voice, and she tired easily. However, Davis always believed Patricia had the capacity to make her own decisions. He noted that during the marriage dissolution hearing in December 2008, Stewart raised multiple unsuccessful challenges to her competency.⁸

Davis testified that in February 2009, he was summoned to the hospital because Patricia wanted to make a new will. When he arrived, Taylor was present but left the room. Patricia instructed Davis that she wanted to revoke her prior will leaving everything to Deborah. She explained she had not had much contact with her sister in the last several years, and Deborah had not visited when Patricia was ill. Patricia wanted $10,000 of her estate to go to a hospice organization, with the remainder going to Taylor. She later added a $10,000 bequest for the ASPCA. To Davis, she seemed clear and lucid about her wishes, understanding the nature of the testamentary act as well as the nature and status of her property. She also understood her relationship to Deborah. Davis prepared a draft will and returned to the hospital that afternoon. He explained that...