## Facts

- In August 2002, Melanie P. Berger and Maria L. Coronado were engaged; Melanie faced imminent gender-reassignment surgery while Maria and her daughters were abroad.
- On August 16, 2002, Melanie handwrote, dated, and signed a letter addressed “To whom it may concern” stating that, upon Melanie’s death, Maria should receive all of Melanie’s possessions and property.
- The letter was not witnessed by two attesting witnesses.
- The same day, Melanie emailed Maria stating she decided to leave her property to Maria and had written a letter to that effect and left a copy for her.
- Melanie and Maria separated in 2003 and had no further contact; in later years Melanie became reclusive and religious and reportedly told neighbors she wanted her assets to go to her church.
- Melanie died in 2020; a pastor later found the 2002 letter in Melanie’s desk drawer and informed Maria.
- Maria petitioned to admit the letter to probate as a will under Probate Code § 6110(c)(2); Melanie’s sister, Glee Berger (intestate heir), objected.
- The probate court denied probate, finding Maria did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that Melanie intended the letter to be her will, relying in part on the passage of time, Maria’s failure to tell her daughters about the letter, and credibility concerns.

## Issues

1. Under Probate Code § 6110(c)(2), may a court consider extrinsic evidence of the circumstances surrounding execution to decide whether an unwitnessed document was intended as a will, even if the document’s language is unambiguous?
2. Did the record compel a finding, as a matter of law, by clear and convincing evidence that Melanie intended the 2002 letter to constitute her will at the time she signed it?

## Decision

- Yes. Extrinsic evidence is admissible to determine whether the testator intended the document itself to operate as a will, even if the document’s terms are facially clear.
- Yes. The undisputed evidence compelled the conclusion that Melanie intended the 2002 letter to have testamentary effect when signed, satisfying § 6110(c)(2).
- The order denying probate was reversed, and the matter was remanded with directions to admit the letter to probate as Melanie’s will.

## Legal Principles

- A noncompliant will may be admitted under Probate Code § 6110(c)(2) if the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that, when the testator signed the document, the testator intended it to constitute the testator’s will.
- In applying § 6110(c)(2), the intent inquiry concerns whether the document was intended to function as a will, not merely what its words mean; therefore, extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances is admissible even absent textual ambiguity.
- Clear indicia of testamentary intent include a signed, death-effective disposition of property, corroborated by contemporaneous communications and contextual circumstances showing purposefulness at execution.
- Later statements suggesting a different desired beneficiary do not defeat proof of testamentary intent at execution where the statutory focus is intent at signing and the testator did not revoke or replace the document.

## Conclusion

The court held that § 6110(c)(2) permits consideration of extrinsic evidence to determine whether an unwitnessed document was intended as a will and concluded that the signed 2002 letter, reinforced by contemporaneous email and execution context, established testamentary intent by clear and convincing evidence, requiring probate of the letter as the decedent’s will.


Estate of Berger (Coronado v. Berger), 91 Cal. App. 5th 1293 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023)