15 California opinions name it 2 courts 1951–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Weil v. Weilgreen2 sentences2006The question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] (Mathews); see Weil v. Weil, supra, 37 Cal.2d at p. 788 .) Mathews is directly on point, as the trial court in that case improperly refused to apply the presumption of undue influence. 1970As stated in Weil v. Weil, 37 Cal.2d 770 at p. 788 [ 236 P.2d 159 ]: “It is true, as defendant contends, that when a husband secures a property advantage from his wife, the burden is cast upon him to show there has been no undue influence. [Citations.] It is also true . . . that whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. [Citations.]” 3 Martha contends that the trial court erred in determining that she cannot take both | 4 | 5 |
Burkle v. Burklegreen2 sentences2025(See Burkle, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 734 [“[w]hether an interspousal transaction gives one spouse an unfair advantage is a question for the trier of fact”]; see also id. at p. 737 [“[t]he question ‘whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue 4 influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence’ ”].) O’Kane is not exempt from the rules because she represents herself on appeal. 2022In such cases, it is evident one spouse has obtained an advantage— the deeded property—from the other.” (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 712, 730 .) “ ‘ “When a presumption of undue influence applies to a transaction, the spouse who was advantaged by the transaction must establish that the disadvantaged spouse’s action ‘was freely and voluntarily made, with full knowledge of all the facts, and with a complete understanding of the effect of’ the transaction.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] The advantaged spouse must show, by a preponderance of evidence, that his or her advantage was n | 2 | 3 |
In Re Marriage of Mathewsgreen2 sentences2020Alcohol Co. (1930) 209 Cal. 596, 598 ; see also In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624, 630 .) The advantaged spouse must “overcome that presumption [of undue influence] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (In re Marriage of Starr (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, 281 ; see also Mathews, at p. 631.) The question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (Mathews, at p. 632; see also Burkle, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 2006The question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624, 632 [ 35 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] (Mathews); see Weil v. Weil, supra, 37 Cal.2d at p. 788 .) Mathews is directly on point, as the trial court in that case improperly refused to apply the presumption of undue influence. | 2 | 2 |
Fossum v. Fossumgreen2 sentences2022(In re Marriage of Fossum (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 336, 344 .) “‘“The question ‘whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not 10 be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.’”’” (Ibid.) 2. 2022In such cases, it is evident one spouse has obtained an advantage— the deeded property—from the other.” (In re Marriage of Burkle (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 712, 730 .) “ ‘ “When a presumption of undue influence applies to a transaction, the spouse who was advantaged by the transaction must establish that the disadvantaged spouse’s action ‘was freely and voluntarily made, with full knowledge of all the facts, and with a complete understanding of the effect of’ the transaction.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.] The advantaged spouse must show, by a preponderance of evidence, that his or her advantage was n | 1 | 5 |
Brown v. Canadian Indus. Alcohol Co.green2 sentences2020Alcohol Co. (1930) 209 Cal. 596, 598 ; see also In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624, 630 .) The advantaged spouse must “overcome that presumption [of undue influence] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (In re Marriage of Starr (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, 281 ; see also Mathews, at p. 631.) The question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (Mathews, at p. 632; see also Burkle, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. 1951(Brown v. Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Taylor v. Taylor, 66 Cal.App.2d 390, 396-397 [ 152 P.2d 480 ]; Combs v. Combs, supra, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904-905 .) In only one of the many cases cited by defendant was the trial court’s finding that there was no undue influence reversed. | 1 | 2 |
Rice v. Clarkgreen1 sentence2020Alcohol Co. (1930) 209 Cal. 596, 598 ; see also In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624, 630 .) The advantaged spouse must “overcome that presumption [of undue influence] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (In re Marriage of Starr (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, 281 ; see also Mathews, at p. 631.) The question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (Mathews, at p. 632; see also Burkle, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. | 1 | 1 |
Griffith v. Hannamgreen1 sentence2020Alcohol Co. (1930) 209 Cal. 596, 598 ; see also In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624, 630 .) The advantaged spouse must “overcome that presumption [of undue influence] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (In re Marriage of Starr (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, 281 ; see also Mathews, at p. 631.) The question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (Mathews, at p. 632; see also Burkle, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Starrgreen1 sentence2020Alcohol Co. (1930) 209 Cal. 596, 598 ; see also In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624, 630 .) The advantaged spouse must “overcome that presumption [of undue influence] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (In re Marriage of Starr (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, 281 ; see also Mathews, at p. 631.) The question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (Mathews, at p. 632; see also Burkle, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Marriage of Rossingreen1 sentence2020Alcohol Co. (1930) 209 Cal. 596, 598 ; see also In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624, 630 .) The advantaged spouse must “overcome that presumption [of undue influence] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (In re Marriage of Starr (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, 281 ; see also Mathews, at p. 631.) The question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (Mathews, at p. 632; see also Burkle, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. | 1 | 1 |
Lintz v. Lintzgreen1 sentence2020Alcohol Co. (1930) 209 Cal. 596, 598 ; see also In re Marriage of Mathews (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 624, 630 .) The advantaged spouse must “overcome that presumption [of undue influence] by a preponderance of the evidence.” (In re Marriage of Starr (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, 281 ; see also Mathews, at p. 631.) The question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.” (Mathews, at p. 632; see also Burkle, supra, 139 Cal.App.4th at p. | 1 | 1 |
Gaines v. California Trust Co.green2 sentences1960Code, § 158; Gaines v. California Trust Co., 48 Cal.App.2d 709, 714 [ 121 P.2d 28 ].) When a husband secures a property advantage from his wife, the burden is cast upon him to show that there has been no undue influence and whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. 1960Code, § 158; Gaines v. California Trust Co., 48 Cal.App.2d 709, 714 [ 121 P.2d 28 ].) When a husband secures a property advantage from his wife, the burden is cast upon him to show that there has been no undue influence and whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Combs v. Combsgreen2 sentences1951Code, §§ 158, 2235; Bryson v. Byrer, 87 Cal.App. 320, 323 [ 262 P. 461 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Jorgenson v. Pardee, 101 Cal.App.2d 96, 98 [ 224 P.2d 884 ]; see Estate of Cover, 188 Cal. 133, 143-144 [ 204 P. 583 ].) It is also true, however, that whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. 1951Code, §§ 158, 2235; Bryson v. Byrer, 87 Cal.App. 320, 323 [ 262 P. 461 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Jorgenson v. Pardee, 101 Cal.App.2d 96, 98 [ 224 P.2d 884 ]; see Estate of Cover, 188 Cal. 133, 143-144 [ 204 P. 583 ].) It is also true, however, that whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Jorgenson v. Pardeegreen2 sentences1951Code, §§ 158, 2235; Bryson v. Byrer, 87 Cal.App. 320, 323 [ 262 P. 461 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Jorgenson v. Pardee, 101 Cal.App.2d 96, 98 [ 224 P.2d 884 ]; see Estate of Cover, 188 Cal. 133, 143-144 [ 204 P. 583 ].) It is also true, however, that whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. 1951Code, §§ 158, 2235; Bryson v. Byrer, 87 Cal.App. 320, 323 [ 262 P. 461 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Jorgenson v. Pardee, 101 Cal.App.2d 96, 98 [ 224 P.2d 884 ]; see Estate of Cover, 188 Cal. 133, 143-144 [ 204 P. 583 ].) It is also true, however, that whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Taylorgreen2 sentences1951(Brown v. Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Taylor v. Taylor, 66 Cal.App.2d 390, 396-397 [ 152 P.2d 480 ]; Combs v. Combs, supra, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904-905 .) In only one of the many cases cited by defendant was the trial court’s finding that there was no undue influence reversed. 1951(Brown v. Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co., 209 Cal. 596, 599 [ 289 P. 613 ]; Taylor v. Taylor, 66 Cal.App.2d 390, 396-397 [ 152 P.2d 480 ]; Combs v. Combs, supra, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904-905 .) In only one of the many cases cited by defendant was the trial court’s finding that there was no undue influence reversed. | 1 | 1 |
Bryson v. Byrergreen2 sentences1951Code, §§ 158, 2235; Bryson v. Byrer, 87 Cal.App. 320, 323 [ 262 P. 461 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Jorgenson v. Pardee, 101 Cal.App.2d 96, 98 [ 224 P.2d 884 ]; see Estate of Cover, 188 Cal. 133, 143-144 [ 204 P. 583 ].) It is also true, however, that whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. 1951Code, §§ 158, 2235; Bryson v. Byrer, 87 Cal.App. 320, 323 [ 262 P. 461 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Jorgenson v. Pardee, 101 Cal.App.2d 96, 98 [ 224 P.2d 884 ]; see Estate of Cover, 188 Cal. 133, 143-144 [ 204 P. 583 ].) It is also true, however, that whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Covergreen2 sentences1951Code, §§ 158, 2235; Bryson v. Byrer, 87 Cal.App. 320, 323 [ 262 P. 461 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Jorgenson v. Pardee, 101 Cal.App.2d 96, 98 [ 224 P.2d 884 ]; see Estate of Cover, 188 Cal. 133, 143-144 [ 204 P. 583 ].) It is also true, however, that whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. 1951Code, §§ 158, 2235; Bryson v. Byrer, 87 Cal.App. 320, 323 [ 262 P. 461 ]; Combs v. Combs, 75 Cal.App.2d 903, 904 [ 171 P.2d 949 ]; Jorgenson v. Pardee, 101 Cal.App.2d 96, 98 [ 224 P.2d 884 ]; see Estate of Cover, 188 Cal. 133, 143-144 [ 204 P. 583 ].) It is also true, however, that whether or not the spouse gaining such an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re Marriage of Haines
green
2 sentences2021(Haines, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 296 .) ‘ “The question ‘whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.’ ” [Citation.]’ (Lund, at p. 55.)” (In re Marriage of Fossum (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 336, 344 .) 2. 2020(In re Marriage of Haines, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 296 .) ‘ “The question ‘whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.’ ” [Citation.]’ (Lund, at p. 55.)” (In re Marriage of Fossum (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 336, 344 .) Although the trial court did not use the term “undue advantage,” a finding of undue advantage is implicit in its decision. | 4 | 2005–2021 |
Nwosu v. Uba
green
1 sentence2025(Nwosu v. Uba (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1229, 1246-1247 .) She demonstrates no error. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In Re Marriage of Mix
green
1 sentence2022(In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 614 .) We may not reweigh the evidence— if the record is subject to differing inferences, we assume the commissioner resolved any conflicting inferences in favor of the judgment. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
In Re Marriage of Lund
green
1 sentence2019Code, § 605), and “‘[t]he question “whether the spouse gaining an advantage has overcome the presumption of undue influence is a question for the trier of fact, whose decision will not be reversed on appeal if supported by substantial evidence.”’” (In re Marriage of Lund (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 40, 45 .) So if the court’s ruling (that the 2008 amendment was 18 free of undue influence) is supported by substantial evidence, we need not analyze whether the presumption was triggered by the trust amendment. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.