Murphy v. Murphy

Bad Law
164 Cal. App. 4th 376·2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 955·78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 784
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 26, 2008A115177California11,732 words

Opinion

Opinion

Simons, J.

Pursuant to Probate Code section 2580 et seq., a person subject to a conservatorship may invoke the jurisdiction of the probate court to execute a testamentary instrument. The probate court has discretion, circumscribed by the statutory scheme, to order a “substituted judgment” that authorizes a conservator on behalf of a conservatee to take necessary or desirable action to facilitate estate planning, when a reasonably prudent person in the conservatee’s position would do so. In 2003, the probate court issued such an order on behalf of William J. Murphy, the father of the two parties. The probate court’s order authorized William’s conservator to execute a living trust and pour-over will implementing an estate plan that effectively disinherited William’s son, William J. Murphy, Jr. (respondent). In 2004, following William’s death, respondent sued his sister, Maureen Murphy, individually and as trustee of the William J. Murphy Revocable Living Trust (appellant), alleging breach of an oral contract, undue influence, intentional interference with contract, and fraud. Following a lengthy trial, the court issued a judgment in favor of respondent imposing a constructive trust…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.