Estate of Kaila

Good Law
114 Cal. Rptr. 2d 865·94 Cal. App. 4th 1122
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 27, 2001D036065California5,771 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDONALD, J.

Aune Maria Pihlajamaa (Maria) appeals an order denying her Probate Code section 21320 [1] petition (Petition) for a determination whether her proposed action (Proposed Action) to enforce an alleged domestic partnership agreement with and interpret the will of Viljo Peter Kaila (Viljo) would be a contest under the no contest clause of Viljo's will. Maria contends the trial court erred by concluding (1) extrinsic evidence was admissible to interpret the no contest clause, and (2) admission of extrinsic evidence to interpret that clause would require a determination of the merits of her Proposed Action and therefore section 21320 relief was precluded. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Although Viljo and Maria never married, they apparently lived together for over 30 years. In 1992 Viljo executed a will (Will) that, inter alia, devised 20 percent of his estate to Maria if she survived him and divided the remainder of his estate among his seven brothers and sisters. [2] Viljo nominated Maria and his brother Verner Kaihlan (Verner) to be co-executors of the Will. The Will contained the following no contest clause:

In 1999 Viljo…

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.