Filed 11/12/20 Bakkers v. Bakkers CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.11 15.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

MICHAEL Y. C. BAKKERS et al. , Plaintiffs and Respondent s ,

v.
GABY J.P. BAKKERS et al.,

Defendants and Appellant s

. G058261
(Super. Ct. No. 30

- 2017

- 00902317 )

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Ora nge County, Edward W. Hall, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.

Law Office of John A. Belcher and John A. Belcher for Defendants and Appellant s

. No appearance for Plaintiffs and Respondents.2 Gaby J.P. Bakkers 1 and her son, Jeffrey Parham , appeal from a judgmen t after the tr ial court ruled in favor of Gaby’s sibl ings, Michael Y.C. Bakkers, Andrew Bakkers, and Joyce Leidelmeyer in their petition to invalidate certain documents and confirm their parents trust . Gaby and Jeffrey argue the trial cour t’s conclusion various documents were obtained by undue influence w as erroneous

. 2 None of their contentions have merit, and we affirm the judgment.
FACTS 3
A. Substantive Facts

The Bakkers , who were real estate investors, were married for over 70 years and had six childre n, four of whom are parties to t his litigation : Michael, Andrew, Joyce , and Gaby. 4 The Bakkers primary residence was located at 244 Juanita Way, Placentia, CA 92870 (the Bakkers ’ residence ). Gaby lived across the street at 237 Juanita Way, Placentia , CA 92870 (Gaby’s residence). The Bakkers helped Joyce, Gaby, and Andrew purchase homes.

I n J anuary 1989, the Bakkers created a trust that provided for two specific bequests and the balance of the trust property to be distributed to Michael, Andrew, Joy ce, and Gaby.

1 Because the parties share the same last name, and for clarity and convenience , we refer to the parties by their first names, except when referring to Paul Bakkers (Father) and Joan Bakkers (Mother) and collectively as the Bakkers.

2 Michael, Andrew, and Joyce did not file a respondent’s brief.

3 On our own moti on, we take judicial notice of the record in the nonpublished opinion Bakkers v. Bakkers (Jan. 24, 2019, G054865) [nonpub. opn.] ( Bakkers I

). (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

4 The other two siblings are Inge J.P. Cornelius (deceased) and Marjorie J.P. Waclawick.3 In February 2009 , the Bakkers created a new trust , T he Bakkers Living Trust (Trust). The Tr ust’s typewritten portion stated Joyce, Andrew, and Gaby were to
each receive a one

- third intere st. However, the Trust included in handwriting Micha el’s name, and a new distribution

— one

- quarter interest each to Mic hael, Joyce, Gaby, and
Andrew. The Tr

ust’s typewritten portion stated Andrew was successor trustee bu t the handwritten portion stated Michael was first successor trustee and Andrew was seco nd

successor trustee.

In March 2012, the Bakkers purchased an investment property at 1907 Whitman Drive, Placentia, CA 92870 (Whitman Property). Andrew owned the Whitman Property, which was going into foreclosure. Michael was the realtor, and Michael’s girlfriend (Girlfriend) was Father and Mother ’s agent. Andrew transfer red the Whitman Property to Girlfriend, and she transferred the Whitman Property to the Bakkers. In January 2013, the Bakke rs executed a grant deed giving Michael joint te nant ownershi p rights in the Bakkers ’ residence. ( Bakkers I, supra, G054865.)

In May 2013, Father , Mother , Michael, and Gaby had a meeting where they discussed, in Dutch, the Bakkers testamentary intent. The meeting was video recorded. 5 During the meeting, Father stated he g ave houses to Michael and Andrew

. He said Gaby used her “$200,000,” and asked, “ You used it right? $280,000.” He added Gaby bought a house for “almost $300,000[]” and he gave her the rest “as a gift.” Father stated he gave Joyce $200,000 to buy a house but she only spent $100,000, and he would give her
the balance. The conversation turned to the Bakkers remaining cash reserves, about $400,000. Mother said to divide it among the four children. Father said, “[Micha el] take care of me as well as her, without my finances from Holland. [¶] That’s the only thing I ask in exchange for this house.” Father told Gaby he gave Michael the Bakkers ’ residence in exchange for him caring for them and Michael could “use [his] mo ney . . .

5 Later, the meeting was translated and transcribe d

.4

[and] everything of [his].” Father said , “Oh yeah Gaby, so what? [¶] And now about y ou what do you want

. . . to bring up ? [ ¶] What do you want to know?” Gaby replied, “Nope, I wa nt nothing to do with it. [¶] I’ll see what crumbs are gonna [ sic ] be thrown my way.” In September 2013 , the Bakkers amended the Trust (2013 Trust Amendment). The 2013 Trust Amendment stated Michael was first successor trustee and
Andrew was second successor trustee. The 2013 Trust Amendment provided Joyce, Gaby, Andrew, and Michael would each receive a on e

- quarter interest in the estate

.

In January 2014, Father exhibited signs of dementia. A doctor made a primary diagnosis of dementia and refer red him to a neurologist and pre scribed him
medication. Father did not see the neurolog ist or pick up the medication.

On Apr il 30, 2014, the Bakkers executed a reconveyance of Gaby’s residence to Gaby (2014 Reconveyance)

. In June 2014, the Bakkers moved into Gaby’s
residence so she could care for them.

On August 13, 2014 , the Bakkers executed a restatement and amendment of the Trust (2014 Trust Amendment). At this time, the Bakkers were both in their early
90’s. The 2014 Trust Amendment named Mo ther and Gaby as trustees, and if both ceased to serve as trustees, J effrey would serve as trustee. The 2014 Trust Amendment made five bequests of real estate, one bequest of an investment account, and one bequest
of a trust account. The 2014 Trust Amend ment provided Joyce, Gaby, and Andrew
would each receive a one

- third inter est in the residue of the estate. The 2014 Trust
Amendment stated Michael and Inge’s heirs were disinherited. Father and Mother also executed power of attorney and health care dire ctives naming each other for asset decisions, and each other, Gaby, and Jeff rey for health care decisions. The day after the Bakkers executed the 2014 Trust Amendment, Mother sought temporary elder abuse restraining orders for her, Father , Gaby, Jeffrey, and Joyce5

against Michael. The court grante d the temporary restraining order as to the Bakkers b ut denied it as to the others.

At the October 20, 2014, hearing on the elder abuse restraining orders , Mother testified Michael improperly to ok $1 million and the Bakkers ’ residence. Mother
wanted all her children to get the Bakkers’ residence. On cross

- examination, Mother
admitted Father told Michael that upon both of their deaths, the Bak kers’ residence belonged entirely to Michael

. Mother said Gaby and Jeffrey helped her with her
finances. After Michael’s counsel asked Mother a couple questions about the Bakkers’
T rust documents, counsel asked, “And wa s there a modification to that [T] rust recently, just about a month and a half a go?” Mo ther replied, “No modification that I know of.”
Coun sel asked whe ther she knew the T rust was recently amended and Gaby was trustee.
Mother answered, “It’s not changed.” Joyce testified that since the Bakkers moved in with Gaby, it was diff

icult for Joyc e to visit them. Joyce stated that since July 2014, she
was not allowed to be alone with Mother

. Andrew testified Jeffrey would not let him see his parents alone. After hearing argument, Judge Kim R . Hubbard denied the request for a restraining order be cause there was insufficient evidence of abuse

.

In November 2014, the Ba kkers executed an “Exercise of General Power of Appointment ” (2014 Power of Appointment). (All caps. omitted.) The 2014 Power of Appointment made two $100,000 bequests, one to Joyce and one to Andrew. It distributed the residue of the Trust property to Gaby (two

- thirds) and Jeffrey (one

- third).

In December 2014, the Bakkers executed a document forgiving Gaby’s $200,000 debt for the purchase of 237 Juanita Way, Placentia, CA 92 870 (2014 Monetary Gift). The documents titled, “The Bakkers Living Trust Gifts of Tangible Personal Property,” stated the $200,000 not e secured by a deed of trust on Gaby’s residence was

“ to be forgiven on our demise.”

In March 2015, the Bakkers execu ted an “Exercise of General Power of Appointment ” (2015 Power of Appointment). (All caps. omitted.) The 2015 Power of6

Appointment distributed the Trust property to Gaby (two

- th irds) and Jeffrey (one

- third). It disinherited Michael, Marjorie, Jo yce, Andr ew, and Inge’s heirs.

Mother passed away on May 30, 2016. Father passed away December 15,
2017.
B. Procedural Facts

After Mother but before Father passed away , Michael , Andrew, and Joyce filed a petition against Gaby and Jeffre y

. The petiti on sough t to do the following: (1) invalidate the 2014 Reconveyance , the 2014 Monetary Gift, the 2014 Trust Amendment, the 2014 Power of Appointment, and the 2015 Power of Appointment ; (2) confirm the 2013 Trust Amendment; (3) remove Gaby as trustee and Jeffrey as second successor trustee; (4) order a trust accounting; and (5) order Gaby and Jeffr ey to return all Trust assets.

In Bakkers I, supra, G054865, we affirmed the trial court’s ruling on
Father ’s causes of action against Michael for cancellation of interest and quiet title. In that case, the court cancelled Michael’s joint tenancy interest in the Bakkers’ resid ence and restored title to the 2013 Trust . The court also cancelled deed s of trust on the Bakkers’ residence and the Whitman Property.

Trial began on this case three months later. Michael, Andrew, and Joyce were in propria persona. 1. Michael’s Testimony

Michael testified Father never selected Gaby as trustee or executor because
he believed her to be incapable. He added Father di d not intend to provide for his grandchildren. M ichael testified that on May 22, 2013, there was a meeting between
Father , Mother , Michael, and Gaby, and the Bakkers intended to divide their estate in
fourths and Michael was to care for them. He stated t hat in 2012, Father began to forget people a nd occasions, and lose things. He said Mother suffered from macular degeneration, was “basically . . . blind ,” and they had to read to her. He stated Father7

worked in real estate investments , and he would help his father

. Father took care of their
finan ces, but Michael assisted him. Michael would check to dete rmine if there were liens on the Bakkers’ properties, which is how he found the 2014 Reconveyan ce and the 2014 Monetary Gift. He sai d that in late 2013 or early 2014, Gaby be gan to care for the
Bakkers for $600 p er month, although she wanted $2,000 per month

. Michael stated that beginni ng in July 2014, Gaby and Jeffre y would not let him see his parents.

On cross

- examination, Michael testified concerning the Bakkers withdrawing $350,000 to purchase the Whitman Property to avoid fore closure. Michael
admitted G irlfriend acted as a “ straw person ” to purchase the property a nd transfer it to
the Bakkers. 2. Brian Mandel’s Testimony

Attor ney Brian Mandel testified conc erning his representation of Mother

. Mandel stated another attorney referred Mother to him and in preparation for the meeting
M andel reviewed a deed for the Bakkers ’ residence indicating Father , Mother , and Michael were join t tenants

. Mandel said Gaby and Jeffrey brought Mother to the meeting, but they did not try to influence him and he spoke to Mother alone. Mother told Mandel that Michael procured the deed to the Bakkers ’ residence through trickery.
Mandel also reviewed the 2014 Trust Amendment , a doctor’s report for Father indicating he was incapacitated , and a doctor’s report for Mother

. Mandel admitted he was not a
doct or, but stated he believed “[ Mother ] knew exactly what she was t alking about.” Based upon Father ’s incapacity and Mother ’s desire to amend the T rust to disinherit Michael and change the distributions , Mandel prepared the 2014 Power of Appointment
and the 2015 Power of Appointment to disinherit Michael and ch ange the beneficiaries.
Mother executed the 2014 Power of Appointment on November 24, 2014, and it was notarized by Mandel’s partner. Mother left the meeting with the 2015 Power of Appointment a nd signed it on March 3, 2015.8

3. Mother ’s Testimony and Exhibits

The parties sti pu lated a transcript of the video recording of Mother ’s October 29, 2015 , deposition could be admitted into evidence. The deposition was part of Michael’s unsuccessful action to obtain a conservatorship for Mother

. The vide o was played but not reported. The trial court also admitted exhibits into evidence.

Mother testif

ied Michael stole $1 million from them and G irlfriend was “not [her] favorite

. ” Sh e added she never forgave Gaby’s debt

. Mother said she began losing her sight three years earlier an d had been blind for one year. She said people need
to read to her and tell her where to sign things. After Mother said she had to ask the person what the document is about, she added, “And if I like what I hear and it’s all right, I always ask Gaby, ‘Do you want me to si gn it? Where do I sign?’ [¶] And she say s that ‘[b]etween these two lines.’” She added that she did not always sign documents Gaby asks her to sign, but she could not offer a speci fic example. She said she wanted Gaby and Jeffrey to get her assets when she passed away and Gaby could decide how her assets
should be divided. Everyone, including Gaby and Father , told her that Michael was stealing money from them. She stated Jeffrey was studying to be a lawyer. He called the
bank and found out Michael was stealing money from them.

Mother stated none of her children were calling her “that [she] can remember.” No one told her Joyce was trying to call her. S he did not remember if
any one told her that M ichael or Andrew called to speak with her. She did not think Joyce
or Andrew would want to visit wi th her. Mother said she and Andrew “we re very close, but not anymore.” She added, “That is [Michael’s] work. Everybody must be promise d the money that he gets in this lawsuit. And he has everybody now on his side. Before, they were all against him. And now he seem[s] to have promised all the kids that he’s winning this a nd they’re getting the money.” After Mother stated she and Fathe r owned
the Bakkers ’ residence, th e following colloquy occurred.9 “Q. Did you ever want [Michael] to have it after you pass away? “A. After we all passed away. “Q. Okay. So you signed papers

-- do you remember signing papers saying that, after you all pass away, that [Michael] gets the house?

“A. Not [Michael]. “Q. Not [Michael]? “A. Never [Michael] alone. “Q. So who? “A. All the kids. “Q. So you wa nted all the kids to get th e [Ba kkers ’ residence] after you pass away? “A. Yeah.

“Q. And did you want all the kids to get equally? “A. Of course. “Q. And did you want all the kids to get all of your assets equally? [¶] . . . [¶] “A. Yeah.”
Mother denied she and Fat her signed a document giving Michael joint

ten ant ownership in the Bakkers’ residence. She did not know of anything Michael did improperly concerning the Whitman Property, but she heard G i rlfriend did and “[s]he steals.” One exhibit was a report from neu ropsychologist Stephanie Moore dated Augu st 2, 2014, 11 days before the Bakkers executed the 2014 Trust Amendment.
Moore stated she evaluated Mother and she knew “the bounty of her estate” and “retains all forms of decisional capacity,” and her decision t o amend her T rust was “not the result
of the influence of othe rs.” Two other exhibits were Fall 2015 visit reports from Marla10

Feldman, a gerontologist, who stated Mother was “mentally intact,” clearly expressed her preferences and likes, and “show[ed] no s igns of cognitive impairment.” 4. Jeffrey’s Testimony

Jeffrey testifie d he lived at Gaby’s residence. Jeffrey stated that on July 21, 2014, Mother walked from the Bakkers ’ residence across the street, knocked on the d oor, and said she needed help. He said Mother , who was upset, told him, Gaby, and Joyce, “‘I think [Michael] is stea ling again. Please help me.’” He added that Mother was concerned Mi chael was going to poiso n her.

Jeffrey testified he worked in a law firm during 2013, and he told Mother problems arise when children have to resolve the ir parents’ financial affairs. When Michael asked Jeffrey whether he told Mother that her will and testament were incomplete, Jeffrey st ated he could not remember. When presented with a transcript of his testimony from Bakkers I, supra, G054865, to refresh his recollection, Jeffrey
admi tted he may have told her that. Jeffrey also admitted he told Mother he saw blanks
and handw riting on her will and trust, and Michael had control

. Jeffrey stated he told
Mother that he wanted to help her but he coul d not if Michael was involved. He also told
Mother that her will and trust left h alf of everything to G irlfriend. When Mother aske d him whether they needed a lawyer, Jeffrey said, “Yes.” Jeffrey testified he saw handwriting on the trust. When shown the 2013 Trust Amendment , the wills, the powers of attorney, and health care directives, Jeffrey admitted they did not have blank s,

cro ssovers, or handwriting. Jeffrey testifie d he saw handwriting on the will

. Jeffrey testified he found an attorney to help his grandp arents with their trust. He went to he r office a few times but only his grandparents were in the room with the attorney when discussing and signing the 2014 Trust Amendment. Jeffrey said he did not read the 2014
Trust Amendment un til after they left.11

5. Gaby’s Testimony

Gaby testified she began to be paid as a caregiver for her parents in 2013 and they mov ed into her house in June 2014. Gaby stated they initially payed her $600 per month but it increased to $5,600 per month. She provided for their daily needs and managed the ir finances. Michael questioned Gaby about three dee ds of trust totaling $312,000. Gaby said her parents paid that amount, placed a $200,000 lien on her property, and forgave the balance, $112,000. She made $600 payments to her parents,
but she could no t rem ember whether she paid the amount off. She added though she did not have a mortgage and h er parents forgave the amount. When Michael asked her about the language of the 2014 Monetary Gift, Gaby said it was her handwriting

. Gaby stated
Mother wanted to reconvey Gaby’s residence to her, Jeffrey drafted it, and she rea d the document to her parents. She could not remember which parts s he read to them. Gaby admitted she knew her parents had a trust attorney for many years, but that Jeffrey found

a new attorney to assist Mother

. 6. Trial Court’s Ruling

In its statement of decision , the trial court ruled for Michael, Andrew, and Joyce

. At the outset, the court opined Gaby and Jeffrey were not credible, A ndrew and Joyce were credible, and Mich ael’s credibility was suspect. The court provided both the statutory and common law tests for undue influence and a detailed recitation of the trial testimony

. The court stated the B akkers were a vulnerable elderly couple who were in deteriorating health and moved in with Ga by so she could care for them. Specifically, Gaby had to read to Mother , who was blind. Jeffrey, who Mother believed was studying law, t old her, incorrectly, that her T rust had blanks and was in complete, and G irlfriend stood to inherit half of her estate. Numerous family members, including Gaby and Jeffrey, convinced Mother that Michael was stealing from her. Jeffrey found the attorney
who assisted Mother in disinheriting Michael and leaving he r estat e to Gaby, Andrew, and Joyce. Later, Mother went to another attorney that eventually resulted in only Gaby12

and Jeffrey sharing the Bakkers estate, although Mother later stated she intended her four
children to share their assets equally.

The court concluded that under both theories, there was clear and convincing evidence Gaby and Jeffrey unduly influenced Mother

. The court explained the evidence established Gaby isolated her parents from Joyce and Andrew. The court
added the evidence demonstrate d J effrey lied to Mother about her beneficiaries and told
Mother that Michae l was stealing from her. The court stated that although neither Gaby

nor Jeffrey participated in the meeting with their attorneys, they did not overcome the evidence they unduly i nfluenced Mother

. The court opined the 1989 Trust and the 2013
Trust both provided the bulk of the T rust assets must be divided eq ually among the four
children. T he court concluded that regardless of what Mother signed after that, it was her
intent to di stribute their assets equally to her four children. The court ruled the 2014
Trust Amendment, the 2014 Power of Appointment, the 2015 Power of Appointment, the 2014 Reconveyance , and the 2 014 Monetary Gift were all invalid.
DISCUSSION
I. Miscellaneous Matters

Gaby and Jeffrey’s opening brief is not the model of clarity and violates the
California Rules of Court. As we explain below in greater detail, it does not include a summary of all the significant facts, which is ma ndatory in all op ening briefs. ( Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(2)(C); see Kleveland v. Siegel & Wolensky, LLP (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 534, 558 [appellants failure to provide summary of significant facts violated court rules and justified sanctions]; Evans v. Centerston e Development Co. (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 151, 166 [recitation of facts improper because not in summary style and included argument] .)

Instead, its statements of fact , which comprises pages 12

- 28, and is titled, “The Evidence at Trial Does not Establish Undue Influence,” is argument that masks as13

fact s

. Two subheadings are worth mentioning. 6 Subheading F is titled, “The trial court improperly admitte d an uncertified translation.” Subheading G is titled, “The trial court improperly admitted Andrew [ sic ] and Joyce’s hearsay.” These subheadings, which include argument, are noteworthy because they are included in what purports to b e a statement of facts, but they are not included in their legal analysis section that begins on page 29. Their argumentative presentati on of the limited facts they provid e violates the
California Rules of Court

. F ailing to include these arguments in the legal analysis section forfeits appellate review of them. (See Provost v. Regents of University of California ( 2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1289, 1294 [failure to address issue independently under separate heading in discussion section may forfeit argument]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)( 1 )( B ) .)

I n any event, their claims are meritless. As to translation of the May 2013 family meeting from Dutch to English, there is no requirement the meeting had to be translated by a court certified Dutch translator. Dutch is not one of California’s certified languages. (Jud. Council of Cal., Operations and Programs Div ision, 2020 Language Need and Interpreter Use Study (Mar. 2020), p. 11, fn. 9 [listing Cal ifornia certified languages] < https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2020

- Language

- Need

- and

- Interpreter

Use

- Study

- Report

- to

- the

- Legislature.pdf > [ as of Nov. 2 , 2020].) Gaby and Jeffrey cite to
California R ules of Court, rule 3.1110(g)’s requirement a translation must be certified under oath by a qualified interpreter. It was. The interpreter signed a declaration stating she was a California registered court interpreter

. Additionally, the Bakkers intent in May 2013 was relevant evidence and explained their thinking just months before they
executed the 2013 Trust. ( Estate of Aiello (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 669, 676 [letters hearsay but admissible pursuant to Evidence Code section 1250 as declarant’s then existing mental state].)

6 We have omitted initial capitalizations throughout.14 With respect to Andrew’s and Joyce’s testimony at the restraining order hearing, Gaby and Jeffrey’s trial c ounsel did not argue the witnesses were available at
trial. C ounsel simply argued the transcrip t was hearsay, not properly authenticated, and not a certified copy

. Counsel forfeited appellate review of this issue when he failed to object on this basis below. ( Cinnamon Square S hopping Center v. Meadowlark Enterprises (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1837, 1844 [party not free to change theory of recovery or relief on appeal.] ) II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Criticizing the trial court for not “drill[ing] down” on when the documents

wer e prepared, Gaby and Jeffr ey argue insufficient evidence supports the trial court’s
conclusion there was c lear and convincing evidence they procured the documents through
undue influence. Not so.

Generally , California law allows a testator to dispose of her /his property as she /he sees fit regardless of whether the dispositions specified are fair or proper. ( Estate of Sarabia (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 599, 604 ( Sarabia ) , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Rice v. Clark (2002) 28 Cal.4th 89, 96

- 97 ( Rice ). ) This presumption

can be overcome if it is established the testator was affected by undue influence

. ( Sarabia, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 604.) Undue influence is pressure brought to bear
di rectly on the testamentary act sufficient to ove rcome the testator’s free will amounting to coercion destroy ing the testator’s free agency. ( Rice, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 96.)

Undue influence may be established i n two ways. First, the person challenging the testamentary instrument may submit direct or circumstantial evidence demonstrating a number of factors that in combination support the inference of undue influence. ( David v. Hermann (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 67 2, 684 ( David ) .) Those factors
include the victim’s vulnerability, the influencer’s apparent authority, the influencer’s actions or tactics, and the fairness of the result. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.70.) Additionally, it is important the chief benefi ciaries actively procured the instrument to be15

executed. ( David, supra, 129 Cal.App.4th at p. 684.) The person contesting a trust bears the burden of proving undue influence by clear and convincing evidence. ( Estate of
Clementi (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 37 5, 384 .)

Second, a presumption of undue influence may arise shifting to the proponent of the disposition the burden of proving by a pre ponderance of the evidence
the donative instrument was n ot procured by undue influence. ( Rice, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 97.) The presumption of undue influence arises if the challenger establishes the following: “ (1) the person alleged to have exerted undue influence had a confidential relationship with the testator; (2) the person actively participa ted in p rocuring the instrument’ s preparation or execution; and (3) the person would benefit unduly by the testamentary instrument. [Citations.]” ( Ibid .)

“ When determining whether there is sufficient evid ence to support the trial
court’ s finding of undue benefi t, we follow establi shed rules of appellate review: We view factual matters most favorably to the prevailing party and in support of the judgment. We defer issues of cr edibility to the trier of fact. Additionally, we resolve all
conflicts in the evidenc e in favor of the respondents. [Citation.] Our power ‘ begins and ends with a determination as to whether there is any substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, which will support the conclusion’ reached by the trier of fact. [Citation.]” ( E

state of Auen (1 994) 30 Cal.App.4th 300, 311 ( Auen ) , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Rice, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 96

- 97

. )

“An appealed judgment is presumed correct, and the appellant must affirmatively demonstrate error. [Citation .] An appellant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment must cite the evidence in the record supporting the judgment and explain why such evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. [Citations.] An appellant who fails to cit e and discuss the evidence supporting the judgment cannot
demonstrate that such evidence is insufficient. The fact that there was substantial evidence in the record to support a contrary finding does not compel the conclusion that16

there was no substantial evidence to support the judgment. An appellant . . . who cites and discusses only evidence in [their] favor fails to demonstrate any error and waives the contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the judgment. [Citations.]” ( Rayii
v. Gati ca (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 1402, 1408.)

Here, Gaby and Jeffrey fail to cite and discuss the evi dence supporting the judgment. They do not discuss Michael’s, Andrew’s , or Joyce’s testi mony. They do not
discuss evidence of Father’s and Mother ’s advanced age or health. They do not discuss
Mother ’s testimony she relied on Gaby to read to her and tell her where to sign documents. They do not discuss evidence Jeffrey told his blind grandmother he worked
at a law firm and her T rust was incomplete. Instead, they provide a self

- serving recitation of those facts that support their desired outcome. Their failure to acknowledge or mention the conflicting testimony and other evidence supporting the judgment, and lack of explanation as to why such evidence was insufficient as a matter of law, is fatal to
their sufficiency of the evidence claim. Thus, we conclude substantia l evidence supported the finding Gaby and Jeffrey procured the documents through undue influence.

In any event , substantial evidence supported the trial court’s conclusion Gaby and Jeffrey exerted undue influence over Mother under either theory. We begin with the court’s determination Gaby and Jeffrey were not credible.

The evidence demonstrated the statutory elem ents were satisfied. A t the
time of the 2014 Trust Amendment, the Bakkers were both in their early 90s. Father had dementia, an d Mother was blind . Thus, the Bakkers were vulnerable to undue influence. Additionally, Gaby and Jeffrey exercised authority over the Bakkers . The Bakkers lived with Gaby and Jeffrey. Because Mother was blind, Gaby had to read to her. At her deposition, Mother testified Gaby would tell her where to sign documents. Jeffrey told
Mother that he was studying the law, suggesting he possessed some experience in estate planning.17 Furthermore, Gaby’s and Jeffrey’s actions demonst rate they unduly
influenced Father and Mother . Gaby and Jeffrey isolate d the Bakkers from three of their children while they lived in Gaby’s residence. At trial, Jeffrey admitted he told Mother
her T rust documents were incomplete and had blanks and handwriting, but when presented with all the documents conceded they did not have blanks, handwriting , or
crossouts

. Jeffrey incorrectly told his grandm other that G irlfriend, who she did not like, would get half of her assets.

And the evidence supported the conclusion Gaby and Jeff rey actively procured the documents benefitting them. Gaby and Jeffrey complain the trial court did not evaluate whether they unduly influenced Mother whe n they procured each document. ( Estate of Welch (1954) 43 Cal.2d 173, 175

- 176 [ undue i nfluence at time will was
made ].) Gaby and Jeffrey did more than dri ve Mother to the attorneys’ offices. ( Estate of Lingenfelter (1952) 38 Cal.2d 571, 586 [ merely accompanying testator to lawyer’s office insufficient to establish undue influence].) The record supports the conclusion that Gaby and Jeffrey embarked on a ca mpaign to unduly influence the Bakkers from the moment they moved in with her. After they moved in with Gaby, who isolated them from their other children, the Bakkers executed four of the five documents in question. Again, J effrey told his grandmother th at her T rust documents were incomplete , but they
were not. Jeffre y selected the attorney to assist Mother. Jeffrey and Gaby took Father
and Mother to the attorney who assisted the Bakkers with the 2014 Trust Amendment.
Mother , who relied on Gaby to read to her and tell her where to sign, testified she did not forgive any debt of Gaby’s, yet the Bakkers executed the 2014 Monetary Gift, a document Gaby admitted she wrote. A lthough Mandel spoke with Mother alone, Gaby and Jeffrey assisted Mother in the meeting with Mandel and in executing the 2014 Power of Appointment and the 2015 Power of Appointment, both of which benefitted Gaby and Jeffrey.18 Finally, the result was unfair. Although in May 2013 Gaby stated she did
not want to be involv ed with her parents estate planning, in August 2014 she was assisting her parents in amending their T rust to disinherit Michael and increa se her share
of their assets . Eight months later, she and her son had control of the Bakkers assets. At her depositi on five months later, Mother stated she wanted her four children to share their estate equally . That is not what the T rust docum ents provided. At the hearing on the restraining order, just two months after the Bakkers amended their trust to disinherit
Mi chael and increase Gaby’s percentage of inheritance, Mother testified the T rust was

no t recently modified or changed. Finally, Gaby and Jeffrey assert they did not unduly profit because the Bakkers wanted to provide for Gaby because she cared for them. T he
evidence demonstrated the Bakkers paid her to care for them.

The same evidence established the presumption arose. Gaby and Jeffrey clearly had a confidential relationship with Mother . They actively participated in procuring the documents that benefit ted them. Because the pre sumption of undue
influence arose, the burden shifted to Gaby and Jeffrey to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the donative instruments were not procured by undue influence. They
failed. Although the evidence demonstrated Mother met with both attorneys alone, the damage was done. Gaby and Jeffrey isolated nonagenarian Mother from her children,
and Jeffrey posed as an aspiring lawyer t o convince his grandmother her T rust wa s incomplete and a non

- family member who she did n ot care for would share half of her estate. Meeting with attorneys without Gaby and Jeffrey could not undo the isolation and fear their undue and improper influence instilled in her.

Gaby and Jeffrey argue Mandel’s testimony alone establishes they did no t unduly influence Mother in procuring the documents. They also rely on Moore’s and Feldman’s statements regarding Mother ’s mental capacity. The trial court heard, considered, and necessarily found their testimony lacking . Whether or not the19

presumption of undue influence has been dispelled is one of fact for the trial court. ( Auen, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 311; Estate of Gecht (1958) 165 Cal.App.2d 431,
444

- 445 .) The fact the trial court did not prove a detailed recitation of Mandel’ s
te stimony, or mention M oore’s or Feldman ’s , does not alter our conclusion.

Gaby and Jeffrey criticize the trial court for basing its conclusion on
Mother ’s deposition testimony in October 2015, after all the documents were executed,
that she wanted all her children to share her assets. But they hang their hat on Mother ’ s testimony during the same deposition that she wanted Gaby and Jeffrey to get her assets upon her death. This inconsistency only serves to illustrate an aging person who was unduly infl uenced. Again, at the hearing on the restraining order 10 weeks after executing the 2014 Trust Amendment, Mother insisted she and Father did not amend the
2013 Trust.
DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover his costs on appeal.

O’LEARY, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

THOMPSON, J.

GOETHALS, J.