Court Opinion

ID: 9846023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:33:01.064484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:31.403828
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I concur in the judgment of affirmance, but I cannot refrain from commenting upon the gracious declaration in the majority opinion, after narrating the overwhelming evidence in support of the finding of the trial court on the issue of testamentary incompetency of the testatrix, that: “We cannot say as a matter of law that the finding was unreasonable.” How any finding of fact based upon sufficient competent evidence could be anything but “reasonable” is beyond my comprehension. But for a majority of this court to uphold *188a finding of testamentary incompetency or undue influence in a will contest is such an unusual event that it can only be characterized by unusual language. The majority opinion also states: 11 Once it is shown that testamentary incompetency exists and that it is caused by a mental disorder of a general and continuous nature, the inference is reasonable [citations] . . . that the incompetency continues to exist.” It is not my understanding that the reasonableness of an inference or a conclusion reached by a trier of fact on sufficient competent evidence is for this court to determine. On the other hand, when the claim is made that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of the trier of fact, the function of this court is limited to a determination of whether there is any substantial evidence, including inferences or presumptions which may arise from proven facts, to support the conclusion reached, and when a trier of fact has resolved an issue of fact, its determination is binding upon an appellate court unless the evidence against such determination is such that reasonable minds could come to no other but a contrary conclusion than that reached by the trier of fact. In this process the reasonableness of the inferences to be drawn from the proven facts is for the trier of fact and not for an appellate court. The above quoted language from the majority opinion gives rise to a new concept of appellate court review of factual determinations by trial courts, which concept I assume will be invoked only in will contest cases when this court sees fit to affirm a determination by a trial court that a will is invalid because of the testamentary incompetency of the testator or was procured by the undue influence of the proponent of the will. As I have heretofore pointed out in my dissenting opinions (Estate of Lingenfelter, 38 Cal.2d 571 at page 588 [241 P.2d 990]; Estate of Welch, 43 Cal.2d 173 at page 181 [272 P.2d 512]; Estate of Bullock, 140 Cal.App.2d 944, 950 [295 P.2d 954, 297 P.2d 633]; Estate of Keeney, 140 Cal.App.2d 688, 694 [295 P.2d 479, 297 P.2d 636]), that with one single exception (Estate of Teel, 25 Cal.2d 520 [154 P.2d 384]) the majority of this court has taken the position that the determination of the factual issues in a will contest is the function of this court and not of the trial court or jury, thus repealing, by judicial fiat, section 19 of article VI of the Constitution of California and section 371 of the Probate Code. While the decision in the case at bar may seem to be a departure from the policy heretofore followed, I am convinced that the same legal philosophy which I have denounced *189in my dissents in the above cited cases still prevails and will be invoked in future cases involving will contests so long as this court remains as it is now constituted.
In my opinion the evidence of testamentary incompetency is no stronger in this case than it was in any of the cases which I have hereinbefore cited, which the majority of this court held, as a matter of law, was insufficient to invalidate the wiR involved in those cases, and while a correct conclusion is reached by the majority in the case at bar, the reasoning of the majority in arriving at such conclusion is out of harmony with the settled rule with respect to the function and power of an appellate court to review the determination of an issue of fact by a trial court.