Source: https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/estate-duke-34429
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:33:54+00:00

Document:
Estate of IRVING DUKE, Deceased.
charities would inherit his estate in the event his wife was not alive when he died.
entered judgment in favor of the heirs at law, Seymour and Robert Radin.
charities in the event his wife was not alive to inherit the estate when he died.
2002, but the will was not changed to select a new executor.
Radins are the sons of Irving‟s sister, Rose Duke Radin, who predeceased Irving.
granted summary judgment for the Radins.
did not alter her will after his death.
assistance, we reversed the order distributing the estate to Henderson.
extrinsic evidence because the evidence did not address any ambiguity in the will.
his bequests, first to his wife and, should she predecease him, then to the charities.
Cal.2d 580, precluded consideration of the extrinsic evidence.
of extrinsic evidence to correct a mistake in a will when the will is unambiguous.
writings, and we conclude that the categorical bar on reformation is not justified.
in the event his wife was not alive at the time the testator died.
required that wills be in writing.3 (32 Hen. VIII, ch. 1, July 20, 1540; see Prob.
the code recognized the admissibility of extrinsic evidence in only two situations.
extrinsic evidence,” the court was authorized to correct the description. (Civ.
new Probate Code6 (see In re Estate of Armstrong (1937) 8 Cal.2d 204, 208 [Cal.
circumstances in which extrinsic evidence historically was admissible (id. at pp.
limitation on the continued development of the common law.
expressed in the will controls the legal effect of the dispositions made in the will.
intent as expressed in the will.” (Cal. Law Revision Com., Annual Rep. (Mar.
in the existing provisions.” (Recommendation Proposing New Probate Code (Dec.
Comments to the New Probate Code (Sept. 1990) 20 Cal. Law Revision Com Rep.
enacted provisions governing the construction of all donative documents. (Prob.
(Recommendation on Rules of Construction, supra, 31 Cal. Law Revision Com.
power of appointment over certain assets.
the language of the document is clear on its face.
imposing a burden of clear and convincing evidence.
(1955) 136 Cal.App.2d 689, 695 [mutual mistake in insurance policy]; Reina v.
Erassarret (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 258, 266 [gift deed]; Genuser v. Ocean Acc.
but also to determine whether a document was intended to be a will. (Halldin v.
prove that a will has been lost or destroyed, and to prove its contents. (Prob.
California courts appropriately admit evidence to establish a testator‟s intentions.
principles related to the statute of frauds.
allowing reformation of a contract. (Nat. Auto. & Cas. Co. v. Ind. Acc. Com.
(1949) 34 Cal.2d 20, 25; Burt v. Los Angeles Olive Growers Assn. (1917) 175 Cal.
subjective intent of a single individual. (Langbein & Waggoner, supra, 130 U.Pa.
admitted in the probate proceeding regarding a mistake in the will.
justify a rule categorically denying reformation.
testator of the seriousness of the act and clearly identifying the document as a will.
accordance with the testator‟s intent.
as a result of a mistake constitutes unjust enrichment.
the time the will was drafted.
governing rules of law.” [Citation.]‟ ” (Freeman & Mills, Inc. v. Belcher Oil Co.
inconsistent application of the principles applicable to the construction of wills.
have been stretched to allow the correction of mistakes.
instruments because trusts were increasingly being used in lieu of wills. (Assem.
are more likely to overlook flaws in the expression of their intent.
As the Radins note, to date only a few states allow reformation of wills.
§ 30.1-10-05); and Utah (Utah Code Ann. § 75-2-805).
we authorize in this case.
reformation in cases involving claims of general and putative intent.
§ 21102), do not apply where extrinsic evidence supplies the missing terms.
whether there is clear and convincing evidence of an intent to make a gift.
also establishes the testator‟s actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted.
consideration of extrinsic evidence as authorized by our opinion.
Richland, Robin Meadow, Robert A. Olson and Jeffrey E. Raskin for Claimants and Appellants.
Christine Sungaila for Petitioners and Respondents.
SCOCAL, Estate of Duke , S199435 available at: (https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/estate-duke-34429) (last visited Sunday April 21, 2019).

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 

§ 30
 § 75

§ 21102