Dixon v. Eckenroth (1934)

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].) “ ‘ “The unbroken rule in this state is that courts must refuse to set aside the solemnly executed will of a deceased person upon the ground of undue influence unless there be proof of ‘a pressure which overpowered the mind and bore down the volition of the testator at the very time the will was made.’ (Estate of Gleason, 164 Cal. 756, 765 [ 130 P. 872 ].) ” ’ (Citations.) “It is not sufficient for a contestant merel…

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].)” And circumstantial evidence is sufficient only when it is inconsistent with the absence of undue influence.

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].)" " 'The unbroken rule in this state is that courts must refuse to set aside the solemnly executed will of a deceased *176 person upon the ground of undue influence unless there be proof of "a pressure which overpowered the mind and bore down the volition of the testator at the very time the will was made." ' (Estate of Gleason, 164 Cal. 756, 765 [ 130 P. 872 ].)" See also Estate of Carithers, 156 Cal. 422, 428 [ 105 …

(Estate of Morcel, 162 Cal. 188, 197 [ 121 P. 733 ] ; Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 376 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].) Lenore suggests that the purported holographic will which Vivian took to Powell had been dictated by Madge.

(Estate of McGivern, 74 Cal.App.2d 150, 154 [ 168 P.2d 232 ]; Estate of Nolan, 25 Cal.App.2d 738, 742 [ 78 P.2d 456 ]; Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 377 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].) In view of the fact that respondent had been Mrs. Fraser’s closest friend for many years the will cannot be said to be unnatural.

(Estate of McGivern, 74 Cal.App.2d 150, 154 [ 168 P.2d 232 ]; Estate of Nolan, 25 Cal.App.2d 738, 742 [ 78 P.2d 456 ]; Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 377 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].) In view of the fact that respondent had been Mrs. Fraser's closest friend for many years the will cannot be said to be unnatural. *103 [4] It is claimed that a confidential relationship existed between respondent and testatrix which together with the latter's condition resulting from her illness affor…

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [35 PaCal.2d 614].) "The unbroken rule in this state is that courts must refuse to set aside the solemnly executed will of a deceased person upon the ground of undue influence unless there be proof of 'a pressure which overpowered the mind and bore down the volition of the testator at the very time the will was made'." (Estate of Gleason, 164 Cal. 756, 765 [ 130 P. 872 ].) We will examine the evidence in this case adduced on behalf of…

But plaintiffs are not required to prove their case by direct evidence. *1355 “Direct evidence as to undue influence is rarely obtainable and hence a court or jury must determine the issue of undue influence by inferences drawn from all the facts and circumstances.” (Estate of Hannam (1951) 106 Cal.App.2d 782, 786 [ 236 P.2d 208 ]; see David v. Hermann (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 672, 684 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 622 ] [proof of undue influence in the execution of a testamentary instrume…

(Estate *117 of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 376 [ 35 P.2d 614 ]; Estate of Morcel, 162 Cal. 188, 197 [ 121 P. 733 ].) 5.

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].) “ ' “The unbroken rule in this state is that courts must refuse to set aside the solemnly executed will of a deceased person upon the ground of undue influence unless there be proof of ‘a pressure which overpowered the mind and bore down the volition of the testator at the very time the will was made.’ ” (Estate of Gleason, 164 Cal. 756, 765 [ 130 P. 872 ].)’ (Citing cases.)” “Undue influence,” obviously, is not some…

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 376 [35 P.2d 614]; Estate of Morcel, 162 Cal. 188, 197 [ 121 P. 733 ].) See also Estate of Welch, 43 Cal.2d 173, 180 [ 272 P.2d 512 ], Estate of Gagliasso, supra, 150 Cal.App.2d 65 , which is relied on by contestants, does not help them.

(Estate of Morcel, 162 Cal. 188, 197 [ 121 P. 733 ] ; Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 376 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].) “ ‘ “The unbroken rule in this state is that courts must refuse to set aside the solemnly executed will of a deceased person upon the ground of undue influence unless there be proof of ‘a pressure which overpowered the mind and bore down the volition of the testator at the very time the will was made.’ ” ’ ” (Citations.) See also Estate of Keeney, 140 Cal.App.2d 688 [ 295 P.2d 479 , 297 P.2d 636 ], In Estate of Pelle…

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].)” (Estate of Arnold, 16 Cal.2d 573, 577 [ 107 P.2d 25 ].) “It is not sufficient for a contestant merely to prove circumstances consistent with the exercise of undue influence; but before the will can be overthrown the circumstances must be inconsistent with voluntary action on the part of the testator. ’ ’ (Estate of Welch, 43 Cal.2d 173, 178 [ 272 P.2d 512 ].) “Proof of conduct which merely inspires affection and gra…

However, there is not one iota of evidence that they attempted to do so. “• - . as was said in Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ], ‘proof of mere opportunity to influence the mind of the testatrix, even though coupled with an interest or with a motive to do so, is insufficient.

In Estate of Trefren, 86 Cal.App.2d 139, 146 [ 194 P.2d 574 ], the court quotes with approval the following statement of the rule from Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 370 [ 35 P.2d 614 ] : “ ‘The legal principles to be used in determining whether a will is the product of undue influence are well settled by a continuous line of decisions.

(Estate of Lances, 216 Cal. 397, 403 [ 14 P.2d 768 ]; Estate of Shay, 196 Cal. 355, 363 [ 237 P. 1079 ]; Estate of Gallo, 61 Cal.App. 163, 175 [ 214 P. 496 ]; Estate of Ehle, 115 Cal.App. 656, 663 [ 2 P.2d 398 ]; Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 376 [ 35 P.2d 614 ]; Estate of Trefren, 86 Cal.App.2d 139, 147 [ 194 P.2d 574 ].) The appellant in this case argues that before the burden shifts and the proponent is required to affirmatively prove that the will is not the produc…

But, as was said in Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ], “proof of mere opportunity to influence the mind of the testatrix, even though coupled with *476 an interest or with a motive to do so, is insufficient.

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 377 [ 35 P. 2d 614 ] ; Estate of Jacobs, 24 Cal.App.2d 649 [ 76 P.2d 128 ].) In Estate of Finkler, 3 Cal.2d 584, 597 [ 46 P.2d 149 ], it was held that nephews and nieces of a predeceased spouse, though heirs at law, were not the natural objects of the bounty of the testator.” It is a settled rule of our appellate procedure that the appellant must show at whose request criticized instructions were given.

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 377 [ 35 P. 2d 614 ]; Estate of Jacobs, 24 Cal.App.2d 649 [ 76 P.2d 128 ].) In Estate of Finkler, 3 Cal.2d 584, 597 [ 46 P.2d 149 ], it was held that nephews and nieces of a predeceased spouse, though heirs at law, were not the natural objects of the bounty of the testator." [4] It is a settled rule of our appellate procedure that the appellant must show at whose request criticized instructions were given.

(See Estate of Jacobs (1938), 24 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [ 76 P.2d 128 ]; Estate of Nolan (1938), 25 Cal.App.2d 738, 742 [ 78 P.2d 456 ]; Estate of Easton (1934), 140 Cal.App. 367, 377 [ 35 P.2d 614 ]; Estate of Finkler (1935), 3 Cal.2d 584, 597 [ 46 P.2d 149 ]; 26 Cal.Jur. 695-696.) Mrs. Provost, the only contestant to testify at the trial, did not offer any testimony to establish or show any close or intimate relationship between herself and Mrs. Del Fosse.

(See Estate of Jacobs (1938), 24 Cal.App.2d 649, 651 [ 76 P.2d 128 ]; Estate of Nolan (1938), 25 Cal.App.2d 738, 742 [ 78 P.2d 456 ]; Estate of Easton (1934), 140 Cal.App. 367, 377 [ 35 P.2d 614 ]; Estate of Finkler (1935), 3 Cal.2d 584, 597 [ 46 P.2d 149 ]; 26 Cal.Jur. 695-696.) Mrs. Provost, the only contestant to testify at the trial, did not offer any testimony to establish or show any close or intimate relationship between herself and Mrs. Del Fosse.

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].) “ ‘The unbroken rule in this state is that courts must refuse to set aside the solemnly executed will of a deceased person upon the ground of undue influence unless there be proof of “a pressure which overpowered the mind and bore down the volition of the testator at the very time the will was made.” ’ (Estate of Gleason, 164 Cal. 756, 765 [ 130 P. 872 ].) ” Respondent urges that “Where one who unduly profits by a wi…

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].) ” (Estate of Arnold (1940), 16 Cal.2d 573, 577 [ 107 P.2d 25 ].) The comment of the court on the claimed undue influence, consisting of the alleged domination and control of beneficiaries under the will of Mrs. Purcell, in the Estate of Purcell (1912), 164 Cal. 300, 302 [ 128 P. 932 ], is pertinent in our consideration of the present case. ‘ ‘ The most that can be said of the evidence on this branch of the case is th…

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal.App. 367, 371 [ 35 P.2d 614 ].) “ ‘The unbroken rule in this state is that courts must refuse to set aside the solemnly executed will of a deceased person upon the ground of undue influence unless there be proof of “a pressure which overpowered the mind and bore down the volition of the testator at the very time the will was made”.’ (Estate of Gleason, 164 Cal. 756, 765 [ 130 P. 872 ].)” In that case a nonsuit was granted in favor of one of the pro…

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal. App. 367, 371 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 614 ].)” (Estate of Arnold, supra, page 577.) It is claimed, however, that the evidence showed that the Ovalles stood in a confidential relationship to the testator and this shifted the burden to them to show a lack of undue influence.

(Estate of Easton, 140 Cal. App. 367, 377 [ 35 Pac. (2d) 614 ] ; Estate of Jacobs, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 649 [ 76 Pac. (2d) 128 ].) In Estate of Finkler, 3 Cal. (2d) 584, 597 [ 46 Pac. (2d) 149 ], it was held that nephews and nieces of a predeceased spouse, though heirs at law, were not the natural objects of the bounty of the testator.