Gularte

Gularte v. Pradia

Good Law
122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 529·193 Cal. App. 4th 236
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 3, 2011No. B220317California2,967 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Gilbert, J.

At one time the Probate Code appeared to refute the dictum, “Nothing endures but change.” Not anymore.

A purported will is not executed in compliance with Probate Code requirements because it lacks witnesses’ signatures. We conclude the will is *239 valid because the trial court found by clear and convincing evidence that the testator who signed it intended it to be his will. (Prob. Code, § 6110, subd. (c)(2).)

Destiny Guiarte, Donald Karotick and Robert Rodriguez (appellants) appeal a judgment that denied a petition to probate a 1997 will and a trust of Steven Wayne Stoker (decedent), and granted the petition of Danine Pradia and Darrin Stoker (respondents) to probate decedent’s 2005 will. We conclude, among other things, that (1) challenges to the validity of decedent’s 1997 trust were not barred by the 120-day limitations period in section 16061.8, (2) the trial court did not err by ruling that the 2005 will was valid, and (3) substantial evidence supports the judgment and the findings that decedent had revoked the 1997 will and trust. We affirm.

FACTS

On May 22, 1997, decedent executed a will and nominated Guiarte to be the executor of his estate. In article two…

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.