Estate of Richter
Filed 7/27/06 Estate of Richter CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
| Estate of OLEITA RICHTER, Deceased. | B184317 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KP009263) |
| SUSIE TUCKER, as Executor, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. MARJORIE H. STOLL, Objector and Appellant; CONGREGATIONAL HOMES, INC., Claimant and Respondent. |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert M. Martinez, Judge. Affirmed.
Mahoney & Soll and Paul M. Mahoney for Objector and Appellant.
No appearance for Petitioner and Respondent.
Roger A. Ginsburg for Claimant and Respondent.
* * * * * *
Marjorie Stoll (appellant) appeals from a judgment against appellant and in favor of Congregational Homes, Inc., doing business as Mt. San Antonio Gardens (MSAG), Susie Tucker, and the Estate of Oleita Richter (collectively respondents) entered after a court trial on appellant's objection to probate of the will of Oleita Richter (Richter). We affirm.
CONTENTIONS
Appellant contends that: (1) the trial court erred in granting summary adjudication on the issue of Richter's capacity to make her will; (2) the trial court erred in ruling that Probate Code section 21350[1] was inapplicable; (3) section 21351, subdivision (f), which exempts charity organizations from the requirements of section 21350, is unconstitutional; (4) the trial court erred in ruling that Health and Safety Code section 1289 was inapplicable; (5) if appellant had the burden to prove undue influence, she met that burden; and (6) MSAG breached its fiduciary duty to Richter and thus should not be permitted to benefit from her will.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Appellant's relationship with Richter
Appellant first met Richter in Chicago in 1939, when she was dating Richter's son, Judd. While appellant was never formally engaged to Judd, their relationship was serious and they did discuss marriage. Judd was killed in a plane crash while training with the Navy Air Force in 1943. Despite the tragedy, appellant and Richter maintained a very close bond. Appellant moved to California in 1945, but she and Richter continued to communicate by telephone and visit when possible. Richter traveled to California in 1948, to become the godmother of appellant's son. In 1963, Richter moved to Palm Desert, California. After Richter's other son died in the late 1960's, appellant began assisting Richter with her financial affairs. Richter put appellant's name on her bank account so that appellant could write checks for her. Appellant assisted her with the sale of real property and helped her with her decision to move to MSAG, a retirement and assisted living facility located in Pomona, California, in 1983. Richter's decision to move to MSAG was based partly on a desire to be closer to appellant. Richter spent every holiday with appellant's family. In sum, as Richter indicated on her admission papers when she first entered MSAG, appellant was â€
