## Facts

- Ernest William Henault, also known as Eric W. Henault (decedent), died on July 20, 1996, at age 48 from liver failure; he was HIV-positive, struggled with alcoholism, and left no spouse, children, or surviving parents.
- Decedent had a long-standing, close friendship with Charles Castagna II and Castagna’s wife, Lori, who assisted him as his health declined.
- Castagna took decedent to a store where decedent prepared a will using a form.
- Decedent later signed the will at the Castagnas’ home in the presence of Lori Castagna and two disinterested witnesses.
- The witnesses believed decedent was mentally sound, understood what he was doing, and signed voluntarily.
- The will left decedent’s house to Castagna and divided the remainder: 50% to Castagna, 10% to decedent’s friend Jen Atkinson, and 40% to one brother; other siblings received $1 each. The will nominated Castagna as executor.
- In the following two weeks, decedent executed documents giving Castagna authority over decedent’s affairs and health care (power of attorney), transferred the house into joint tenancy with Castagna, and named Castagna as beneficiary of a retirement account.
- After decedent’s death, Atkinson and decedent’s siblings objected to the will’s admission to probate, asserting lack of capacity and that the will resulted from undue influence, fraud, or duress. They also raised disputes about the joint-tenancy transfer.
- The probate court found the will was properly executed and witnessed but denied probate, concluding the will was the product of undue influence and also treating Castagna as disqualified from taking under Probate Code § 21350. The court appointed decedent’s brother, Emile Joseph Henault, Jr., as administrator and purported to invalidate the joint-tenancy deed.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate court erred in concluding Castagna was disqualified from taking under Probate Code § 21350 based on an alleged fiduciary relationship at the time the will was executed, or based on Lori Castagna’s alleged status as a caregiver.
2. Whether the contestants proved by clear and convincing evidence that the will was the product of undue influence, fraud, or duress, or that decedent lacked testamentary capacity.
3. Whether the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction by determining the validity of the joint-tenancy grant deed when that issue was not properly placed before the court.
4. Whether the matter should be remanded for the probate court to decide, in the first instance, whether Castagna should serve as executor under the will.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the order denying admission of the will to probate and the appointment of the administrator.
- The court held the probate court committed legal error in applying Probate Code § 21350 to disqualify Castagna; the finding that Castagna was decedent’s fiduciary as of the will’s execution was wrong as a matter of law.
- The court held Lori Castagna’s alleged caregiver status did not disqualify Castagna because spouses of caregivers are not disqualified under § 21350.
- The court held the contestants did not meet their burden (clear and convincing evidence) to show undue influence, whether by presumption or otherwise, and there was no supporting evidence of fraud, duress, or lack of testamentary capacity.
- The court held the probate court acted in excess of its jurisdiction by ruling on the joint-tenancy deed’s validity when that issue had not been placed before it.
- The court remanded with instructions to admit the will to probate and to determine whether Castagna should serve as executor.

## Legal Principles

- Probate Code § 21350 disqualifies only specified categories of transferees; a claimed fiduciary-based disqualification depends on the fiduciary status existing at the time the donative instrument is executed.
- Probate Code § 21350 does not disqualify a beneficiary solely because the beneficiary is married to an alleged care custodian.
- Will contestants bear the burden to prove undue influence, fraud, duress, or lack of testamentary capacity by clear and convincing evidence.
- A finding of undue influence requires evidence that improper pressure overcame the testator’s free will; suspicion, friendship, or later assistance with finances or care is not enough without proof tied to execution of the will.
- A probate court exceeds its authority when it adjudicates the validity of property transfers not placed in issue by the pleadings or a properly presented petition in the probate proceeding.

## Conclusion

In In re Estate of Henault, the Court of Appeal reversed the probate court’s refusal to admit a properly executed will that left most of the estate to the decedent’s close friend, holding that § 21350 did not disqualify the beneficiary, the contestants failed to prove undue influence (or fraud, duress, or incapacity) by clear and convincing evidence, and the probate court lacked power in that proceeding to invalidate an unpled joint-tenancy deed; the case was remanded to admit the will and decide whether the named executor should serve.


In re Estate of Henault, G025278, 2002 WL 1335602 (2002)