Estate of Callahan v. Callahan

Estate of JOHN P. CALLAHAN, Deceased.

ANGELA M. CALLAHAN, et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. MICHAEL THOMAS CALLAHAN, et al., Objectors and Appellants.

B251025

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN

May 11, 2016

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP108910)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marvin Lager, Judge. Affirmed.

Roquemore, Pringle & Moore, John P. Pringle and Maria Ajhar Thompson for Petitioners and Appellants.

Law Offices of David Patrick Callahan and David Patrick Callahan for Objectors and Appellants.

____________________ Angela Callahan petitioned to probate the 2007 will of her husband John Callahan. John's¹ four children filed a will contest and argued that both the 2007 will and the will he had executed in 2006 were the product of undue influence. After a lengthy trial, the probate court concluded that John's 2007 will was the product of undue influence and denied probate of that will. The court found that John's 2006 will was not unduly influenced and admitted it to probate. All parties appeal. We affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

John and Pauline Callahan were married for many years and had four children: Michael, David, Christine, and Catherine. John made a will in 1970 leaving all his property to Pauline, and providing that if Pauline predeceased him his estate should be divided equally among his four children. Pauline died in September 1999.

John and Angela met in early February 2000 when she became John's caregiver. They were married on September 26, 2000. John did not inform his children of the marriage until 2003.

In 2003, John executed a codicil to his 1970 will in which he stated that he had separately provided for Angela to be a beneficiary of his civil service annuity. John confirmed the terms of his previous will, except that he gave Angela the right to remain in his home for a period of five years, plus one-half the term of their marriage.

On December 9, 2006, John executed a holographic will providing that upon his death, Angela would receive a life interest in his home where they lived. When Angela died, the house was to be conveyed to John's four children, with an interest also given to Ethel Meneses, Angela's daughter from her first marriage.

On December 15, 2007, John signed a holographic will giving both Angela and Ethel a life estate in his home, with the property passing after their deaths to John's children. John suffered a heart attack on December 17, 2007, and died on December 27, 2007.

In February 2008 Angela filed a petition for probate of the 2007 will and for letters of administration with will annexed, as well as a petition to administer John's estate. She attached a copy of the 2007 will to the petition for probate. John's children objected to the admission to probate of the will, to Angela's request to be appointed personal representative to administer John's estate, and to her request for authority to administer the estate under the Independent Administration of Estates Act. They also filed a will contest.

The court conducted a lengthy trial from March 2011 to November 2012 in which issues relating to the 2006 and 2007 wills were litigated extensively. John's children argued that Angela and Ethel had perniciously influenced John from shortly after they met him until the time of his death. In their opening statement, the children observed that Angela had come into John's life as a caregiver but suddenly and secretly became his wife. The children alleged that Angela used John for immigration purposes, and that she began "scamming" and transferring John's money to her relatives outside the United States. They claimed that Angela isolated an aging John and prompted him to support her family. Then, the children contended, "that's when you have a will that is written in, I think it's the ninth of December 2006, with my then 88-year-old dad, after he's had some health problems, giving a life estate to Angela, and that's what the scam was all about, that was the getting everything that was going to go on." In 2007, the children argued, John began to have health problems that Angela concealed from them, and she misled John into believing she was more qualified in health care than she was. The children maintained that John was vulnerable, isolated, and unduly influenced, and that "there was supposedly a will drawn" on December 15, 2007, shortly after which John died.

In contrast, Angela and Ethel maintained that Angela and John's marriage was a normal and happy marriage; that the 2007 will was a properly executed holographic will; and that John was competent and of sound mind when he executed the 2007 will. They maintained that John's children, specifically David, exerted undue influence on John by pressuring him in 2003 to limit Angela's right to stay in the house to a short term. John,they argued, later rethought this decision, and told Angela in the emergency room before he died that he had prepared documents "to protect you from David." The children, moreover, had repeatedly attempted to pressure John into establishing a trust. As far as funds being sent to Angela's family elsewhere in the world, Angela and Ethel maintained that this was part of their culture and pointed out that Angela had been sending money to her family since before the marriage.

After the extensive presentation of evidence, in closing argument John's children again articulated their theory that Angela and Ethel had targeted John "as soon as they recognized how vulnerable he was. Rich, old man, in his 80's, ready to die." The children argued that John was "already had" and had "done [Angela and Ethel's] bidding" since the spring of 2000, when he began to directly employ Angela rather than securing her services from the agency that had placed Angela with him. The children contended that the Callahan marriage was a sham and that John was "victimized by [Angela and Ethel's] constant influence" into marrying Angela, giving her money, and providing care and housing for Ethel.

The children challenged the wills John wrote in 2006 and 2007. They argued that Angela and Ethel "got my dad in 2006 to give a holographic will giving her a life estate," and that the 2006 will was "suspicious because it uses language about a burial mass," which would not be the terminology used by a Catholic person such as John. The will was "supposedly" signed, they argued, and then was kept in Angela's safe deposit box and not in John's papers. The children questioned the 2006 will because it provided for no executor, was not witnessed, and was limited to disposing of the house and not other assets—telling omissions, they claimed, because John was an attorney with experience in this area of law. The children argued that the 2007 and 2006 wills contained unnatural provisions allowing Angela and Ethel to profit unduly.

The probate court issued a statement of decision noting that "This case was tried on the theory that the December 15, 2007 and December 9, 2006 holographic wills were the product of undue influence and other wrongdoing." The court concluded that "Angela and Ethel had great influence with Decedent" but that the court did "not findundue influence, fraud or similar wrongful conduct by Angela or Ethel in connection with the December 9, 2006 will." In explanation, the court wrote, "I have considered—among other factors: The life estate to Angela is consistent with Decedent's stated intention in August, 2003. The bequest is a natural one to a second middle-aged wife who otherwise would be without a house. The gift does not result in an undue profit. All four natural children had marketable skills and were 'set for life' despite their share of the family home being deferred; Angela was not in such a good position. There is no evidence—direct or circumstantial—that Angela sought to procure the disposition. Decedent was in relatively good physical and mental health. He was not isolated. He was in frequent contact with his children who gave him medical, legal and personal advice. [Fn. omitted.] "

The court found, however, that the 2007 will was the product of undue influence. The court explained, "As a practical matter the will defers any benefit to the families of the four natural children by decades. This upsets Decedent's written estate plan in existence since 1970 that his children (or their children) would receive their bequest upon his and his wife's death. Favoring a step-daughter over natural children and grandchildren is not natural. Under the circumstances Ethel gains an undue profit. By December 15, 2007, Decedent's physical and mental condition had substantially deteriorated. He was dependent on Angela and Ethel. [¶] Angela testified that she and Ethel first learned of the December 15, 2007, will when told of it by Decedent in the hospital. I do not credit this testimony. They further testified to a heated conversation between Decedent and his son David just before the December 15th will was written, in an apparent attempt to explain it. I also do not credit this testimony. [¶] In addition to the foregoing, I find that there is no explanation for the December 15, 2007, will other than undue influence by Angela and Ethel."

The court denied probate of the 2007 will and admitted the 2006 will to probate. Angela was appointed administrator with will annexed. All parties appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. Cross-Appeal: Denial of Probate of 2007 Will

We begin by addressing the cross-appeal because if we were to find meritorious Angela and Ethel's argument that the 2007 will should have been...