undue influence presumption in California

2024It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the presumption will apply and whether the burden of rebutting it has been satisfied.” (Estate of Sarabia (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 599, 605 (Sarabia).) In applying the undue influence presumption, the probate court necessarily found that a confidential relationship existed between Dr. Head and Jendayi; that Jendayi actively participated in procuring the Trust; and that the Trust would unduly benefit Jendayi.

2024It is for the trier of fact to determine whether the presumption will apply and whether the burden of rebutting it has been satisfied.” (Estate of Sarabia (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 599, 605 (Sarabia).) In applying the undue influence presumption, the probate court necessarily found that a confidential relationship existed between Dr. Head and Jendayi; that Jendayi actively participated in procuring the Trust; and that the Trust would unduly benefit Jendayi.

2022(In re Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 991, 998 ; In re Marriage of Fossum, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 345 [“the form of title presumption simply does not apply in cases in which it conflicts with the presumption that one spouse has exerted undue influence over the other”].) The undue influence presumption can trump the “default rule that form of title controls at death . . . .” (In re Brace, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 934.) In Lintz v. Lintz (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1353 , the appellate court concluded that the probate court should have applied the undue influence presumption “to

2022(In re Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 991, 998 ; In re Marriage of Fossum, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 345 [“the form of title presumption simply does not apply in cases in which it conflicts with the presumption that one spouse has exerted undue influence over the other”].) The undue influence presumption can trump the “default rule that form of title controls at death . . . .” (In re Brace, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 934.) In Lintz v. Lintz (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1353 , the appellate court concluded that the probate court should have applied the undue influence presumption “to

2022(In re Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 991, 998 ; In re Marriage of Fossum, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 345 [“the form of title presumption simply does not apply in cases in which it conflicts with the presumption that one spouse has exerted undue influence over the other”].) The undue influence presumption can trump the “default rule that form of title controls at death . . . .” (In re Brace, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 934.) In Lintz v. Lintz (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1353 , the appellate court concluded that the probate court should have applied the undue influence presumption “to

2022(In re Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 991, 998 ; In re Marriage of Fossum, supra, 192 Cal.App.4th at p. 345 [“the form of title presumption simply does not apply in cases in which it conflicts with the presumption that one spouse has exerted undue influence over the other”].) The undue influence presumption can trump the “default rule that form of title controls at death . . . .” (In re Brace, supra, 9 Cal.5th at p. 934.) In Lintz v. Lintz (2014) 222 Cal.App.4th 1346, 1353 , the appellate court concluded that the probate court should have applied the undue influence presumption “to

2021(In re Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 991, 998 [“In cases such as this, involving interspousal property transactions, the ‘irreconcilable conflict’ between the two presumptions established by section 721 and Evidence Code section 662 has been resolved in favor of section 721, based on the intent of the Legislature in enacting fiduciary protections for interspousal transactions and general rules of statutory construction”]; In re Marriage of Fossum (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 336, 345 [“the form of title presumption simply does not apply in cases in which it conflicts with the presumptio

2014It provides, “in transactions between themselves,” a husband and wife owe each other a fiduciary duty “of the highest good faith and fair dealing . . . .” This has been interpreted to mean that “when an interspousal transaction advantages one spouse over the other, a presumption of undue influence arises.” (In re Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 277, 287 .) When the undue influence presumption conflicts with 3 Some aspects of the Lucas opinion have been superseded by statute, including the statutes now codified as sections 2581 and 2640.

2020(Hagen v. Hickenbottom (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 182 .) Defendants also argue that (1) Sherman did not have a serious medical need, (2) Officer Bryant was not deliberately indifferent, and (3) Sherman had no resulting damages.

2014(Hagen v. Hickenbottom, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 182 [undue influence in testamentary act requires showing that proven circumstances are inconsistent with voluntary action of testator].) We conclude the probate court applied the proper undue influence standard to void the trust documents.

2025Prell nonetheless argues he was “unduly susceptible” to his employer’s “domination” because he had worked for The Lobster for many years as a lead server and his only choice was to sign the arbitration agreement “or be out of a job.” Susceptibility in this context means “a lessened capacity” “to make a free contract.” (Odorizzi, supra, 246 Cal.App.2d at p. 131 ; see also Martinez-Gonzalez v. Elkhorn Packing Co. LLC (9th Cir. 2022) 25 F.4th 613 , 619, 625–626 (Martinez-Gonzalez) [citing Odorizzi and finding arbitration agreements were not invalid under California law under doctrine of undue inf

2022(Estate of Goetz (1967) 253 Cal.App.2d 107, 115, 117 (Goetz)) The trial court found that Bennett failed to establish the second and third elements of the undue influence presumption.

2021(In re Marriage of Delaney (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 991, 998 [“In cases such as this, involving interspousal property transactions, the ‘irreconcilable conflict’ between the two presumptions established by section 721 and Evidence Code section 662 has been resolved in favor of section 721, based on the intent of the Legislature in enacting fiduciary protections for interspousal transactions and general rules of statutory construction”]; In re Marriage of Fossum (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 336, 345 [“the form of title presumption simply does not apply in cases in which it conflicts with the presumptio

2006(Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524, fn. 2 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 393 P.2d 689 ] [opinions are not authority for propositions they do not consider].) It is thus evidently a question of first impression whether Maciej was properly required to bear the burden of proof on Anna’s Family Code section 2122 motion.

2006(Ginns v. Savage (1964) 61 Cal.2d 520, 524, fn. 2 [ 39 Cal.Rptr. 377 , 393 P.2d 689 ] [opinions are not authority for propositions they do not consider].) It is thus evidently a question of first impression whether Maciej was properly required to bear the burden of proof on Anna’s Family Code section 2122 motion.

1999Citing a Senate Rules Committee Floor Analysis of the legislation, the Graham court observed: “In enacting sections 21350 and 21351, the Legislature was aware that certain individuals are uniquely positioned to procure gifts from elderly persons through fraud, menace, duress or undue influence. [Citation.] To prevent such individuals from taking advantage of trustors and testators, the Legislature shifted the normal burden of proof in establishing an undue influence claim. [Citation.]” (Graham v. Lenzi, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 256 .) The remedial nature of the statute, and the “ ‘evils to

1999Citing a Senate Rules Committee Floor Analysis of the legislation, the Graham court observed: “In enacting sections 21350 and 21351, the Legislature was aware that certain individuals are uniquely positioned to procure gifts from elderly persons through fraud, menace, duress or undue influence. [Citation.] To prevent such individuals from taking advantage of trustors and testators, the Legislature shifted the normal burden of proof in establishing an undue influence claim. [Citation.]” (Graham v. Lenzi, supra, 37 Cal.App.4th at p. 256 .) The remedial nature of the statute, and the “ ‘evils to

1987Petitioner contends that because the undue influence presumption does not apply to agreements relating to the hiring and compensation of the trustee (e.g., Walton v. Broglio (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 400, 404 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 123 ] [fee agreement]), the rule 5-101 requirements should not apply to transactions arising out of trust instruments which establish the relationship between a trustor and an attorney serving as a trustee.

1987Petitioner contends that because the undue influence presumption does not apply to agreements relating to the hiring and compensation of the trustee (e.g., Walton v. Broglio (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 400, 404 [ 125 Cal.Rptr. 123 ] [fee agreement]), the rule 5-101 requirements should not apply to transactions arising out of trust instruments which establish the relationship between a trustor and an attorney serving as a trustee.