The California Appellate Court holds that an unwitnessed will can be probated because extrinsic evidence and the contents of the document suggest the testator intended to create a will. In Estate of Berger (Cal. Ct. App. B321347, May 25, 2023).
Melanie Berger was engaged to Maria Coronado. Before undergoing major surgery, Ms. Berger wrote a letter purporting to be a will, leaving everything for Ms. Coronado. Although Ms. Berger signed the letter, there were no witnesses. She emailed her fiancée to inform her about her intent to leave everything to her and said she would place the document on her chair.
The relationship ended, and a marriage never occurred. Ms. Berger became religious and expressed wanting to leave her estate to the church prior to her passing but did not create a known will. When the pastor of Melanie’s church went through her personal effects, he discovered the letter at the bottom of one of her desk drawers.
Ms. Coronado attempted to probate the letter as a valid will, and Ms. Berger’s surviving sister opposed it. The trial court denied Ms. Coronado’s petition to probate the proposed will, and she appealed.
On appeal, the California appellate court considers whether the court may consider extrinsic evidence of the circumstances surrounding the document’s execution if the intent expressed by the document’s terms is unambiguous. The second issue is whether the facts of the case warrant a finding as a matter of law by clear and convincing evidence that the drafter intended the document to be a will.
When a testamentary document lacks witnesses, it may still be valid if the individual seeking to validate the will establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended it to be a will at the time of signing. Although Ms. Coronado argued that the court should limit the inquiry to the four corners of the document, where the issue is determining whether something is a will, it is necessary to look to external evidence, as per precedent. Applying a four corners limitation would eliminate the two-witness requirement.
In this case, substantial evidence, including the words of the letter and external evidence, suggest that Ms. Berger intended to create a will. The letter is comprehensive, naming Ms. Coronado as the sole beneficiary and giving her full discretion over the estate. Ms. Berger used her company paper and included her Social Security number.
When she made the document, she was about to undergo serious surgery, such that she likely contemplated her death. Over email, she informed Ms. Coronado that she was executing a will and that Ms. Coronado was the beneficiary. Treating the letter like a will, she gave Ms. Coronado a copy and retained a copy for herself. Even if they did not discuss the will further and Ms. Coronado did not search for it, this does not show that it was not a will. It is not the court’s place to determine whether creating the will after a six-month relationship was prudent.
The extrinsic evidence and contents of the document establish a valid will.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
