## Facts

- Irving Duke executed a holographic will stating that his entire estate would pass to his wife, Beatrice, if she survived him.
- The will further provided that if Duke and his wife died “at the same moment” (including a common disaster), Duke’s estate would be distributed among several named charities.
- The will did not expressly address the situation in which Beatrice died before Duke and Duke later died alone.
- Beatrice predeceased Duke; Duke did not revise the will before his death.
- Duke died without a surviving spouse or children.
- Duke’s collateral heirs (the Radins) asserted the estate passed by intestacy because the will did not dispose of the estate under the circumstances that occurred.
- The charitable beneficiaries sought to introduce extrinsic evidence that Duke intended the charities to take if Beatrice was not alive at his death and that the simultaneous-death language was a drafting or expression mistake.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may reform a textually unambiguous will to correct a mistake in the expression of the testator’s intent.
2. Whether reformation requires clear and convincing evidence of both an expression mistake and the testator’s actual specific intent at the time of drafting.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and remanded.
- The court held that an unambiguous will may be reformed to conform to the testator’s intent if clear and convincing evidence proves:
  - the will contains a mistake in the expression of the testator’s intent at the time it was drafted, and
  - the testator’s actual specific intent at that time.
- The probate court was directed to consider the proffered extrinsic evidence under this standard and determine whether reformation was warranted; if the charities failed to meet the standard, intestacy would apply.

## Legal Principles

- Testamentary intent controls; literal text does not bar correction of proven expression mistakes.
- Extrinsic evidence may be admitted to reform an unambiguous will when used to show an expression error and the testator’s actual specific intent, not to supply conjectural intent or post-execution changes of mind.
- Reformation is permitted only on clear and convincing evidence, reflecting concerns about fraud, uncertainty, and the testator’s unavailability.
- Reformation doctrine complements will formalities by preventing outcomes that defeat proven intent due to drafting or wording errors.

## Conclusion

California courts may reform even an unambiguous will when clear and convincing evidence establishes a mistake in expression and the testator’s actual specific intent at the time of drafting, and the matter must be evaluated by the probate court on remand using that standard.


In re Estate of Duke, 61 Cal. 4th 871 (Cal. 2015)