## Facts

- Steven Wayne Stoker executed a formal will and revocable trust in 1997, naming Destiny Gularte as executor and successor trustee and leaving the residuary estate to the trust.
- Stoker and Gularte ended their relationship in 2001.
- A witness testified Stoker destroyed the 1997 will by urinating on it and burning it.
- In 2005, Stoker dictated a new handwritten document to a friend, who wrote it out; Stoker signed it.
- The 2005 document revoked the 1997 trust, stated Gularte would take nothing, and left everything to Stoker’s children, Danine Pradia and Darrin Stoker.
- The 2005 document lacked witness signatures required for ordinary attested wills.
- Two witnesses testified Stoker signed the 2005 document and stated it was his last will.
- After Stoker died in 2008, Gularte petitioned to probate the 1997 will and serve as executor; the children objected and petitioned to probate the 2005 document.
- The probate court admitted the 2005 will under Probate Code § 6110(c)(2), found the 1997 will and trust revoked, denied probate of the 1997 plan, and granted probate of the 2005 will.

## Issues

1. Whether an unwitnessed will may be admitted to probate under Probate Code § 6110(c)(2) upon clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended the signed document to be a will.
2. Whether objections asserting revocation or invalidity of a revocable trust are barred by the 120-day limitations period in Probate Code § 16061.8 after service of statutory notice.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported findings that the decedent revoked the 1997 will and trust by physical act and by a later instrument.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed.
- The 2005 instrument was properly admitted as a will under § 6110(c)(2) because it was signed and supported by clear and convincing evidence of testamentary intent.
- The challenges concerning the continued validity of the 1997 trust were not barred by § 16061.8’s 120-day period on the record presented.
- Substantial evidence supported findings that Stoker revoked the 1997 will and trust, including physical destruction of the will and express revocation in the 2005 will.

## Legal Principles

- A signed document that fails the witness-signature requirement for an attested will may still be treated as a valid will if clear and convincing evidence shows the decedent intended it to be his or her will. (Prob. Code § 6110(c)(2).)
- Section 6110(c)(2) operates as a limited “harmless error” rule for execution defects concerning witnessing; it does not excuse the absence of the testator’s signature.
- On appeal, testamentary-intent determinations and revocation findings supported by credible testimony are reviewed for substantial evidence, with deference to trial-court credibility determinations.
- The 120-day period in Probate Code § 16061.8 does not necessarily foreclose litigation where the dispute concerns whether a later instrument revoked, terminated, or otherwise eliminated the operative validity of an earlier revocable trust.

## Conclusion

The court upheld admission of an unwitnessed, signed 2005 will because the evidence clearly established the decedent intended it as his will, and it further upheld findings that the decedent revoked his earlier 1997 will and trust; the statutory 120-day trust-contest period did not bar the objections at issue.


In re Estate of Stoker, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 529 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)