Orange county business lawyer

Appellant friend sought review of the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California) which denied probate of a will which divided decedent's estate among appellant and respondent grandchildren, based on the conclusion that the will submitted by appellant was executed as the result of undue influence.

Elderly decedent's witnessed will, executed two months before her death, divided her estate equally among appellant friend and respondent grandchildren. The will had been drafted by appellant. The trial court denied probate, concluding that the will was executed as a result of undue influence. Appellant contended the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of undue influence. The court held that, under the standard of review and resolving all conflicts and inferences in favor of the prevailing party, the evidence sufficiently supported the trial court's determination. Great weight was given to the trial court's observation and evaluation of witnesses. A confidential Orange county business lawyer was inferred by the fact that decedent reposed the necessary trust and confidence in appellant to ask him to draft her will. Based on the facts, even though they were scant, the court could not say as a matter of law that no confidential relationship existed. Undue influence was presumed because appellant in a confidential relationship actively participated in drafting the will by which he unduly profited. Appellant did not meet the burden of rebutting the presumption. Judgment was affirmed.

The court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in denying probate because the evidence on behalf of respondent grandchildren, though sketchy, was sufficient to support the presumption of undue influence and appellant friend then failed to overcome that presumption.

Petitioner husband sought a writ of mandamus challenging respondent trial court's refusal to expunge a notice of lis pendens on certain property filed by real party in interest wife.

The husband was a trustee of a living trust that owned three houses. The trust conveyed title to the three houses to a company formed to manage the properties. The wife handled many of the details of the management. The wife later filed for dissolution in a petition that did not mention the company or the houses. The company began the process of selling one of the houses. The wife believed the company was selling the house for an inadequate price, so she filed a notice of lis pendens on the property. The trial court denied the husband's motion to expunge. On appeal, the court granted the husband mandamus relief. The court held that a family law petition for dissolution of marriage that did not allege a community interest in specific real property did not state a "real property claim" so as to support a filing of a notice of lis pendens with regard to that property. The plain language of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 405.4 required a pleading that alleged a claim that affected title or possession specific to real property. The wife's pleading mentioned no specific property at all as required. Thus, the husband was entitled to have the notice expunged as requested.

The court granted the writ and directed the trial court to vacate its order and enter a new order granting the husband's motion to expunge.