Garcia v. Garcia

Filed 8/16/06 Garcia v. Garcia CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. John E. Griffin, Jr., Judge.

Law Offices of Gant & Gant and Vernon F. Gant for Defendants and Appellants and Petitioner and Appellant.

Ronald L. Holmes for Plaintiff, Contestant and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

A judgment was entered after a trial court found that Ernest Garcia (Ernest) and his wife, Esther Garcia (Esther), obtained the title to various items of real and personal property originally owned by Ernest's deceased mother, Refugia Tellez Garcia (Refugia), through forgery, fraud, or undue influence.^[1] Ernest and Esther argue the judgment was not supported by substantial evidence. We disagree and will affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

I. The Facts

On April 3, 1990, Refugia, and her husband, Louis Morales Garcia (Louis), executed separate wills that left all their property to the surviving spouse and, if there was no surviving spouse, then to five of their six children equally (the 1990 will). The five children to share in the estate were Ernest, Francisca (hereafter Frances), Jesus, Juanita, and Alfredo (hereafter Alfred). The sixth child, Roberto (hereafter Robert), was bequeathed a specific sum.

The following events led to the current dispute. On May 2, 1990, less than one month after the wills were executed, a grant deed was recorded that transferred ownership of the house in which Refugia and Louis lived to their son Ernest and his wife Esther (the deed). Louis and Refugia had several different bank accounts with a different child acting as a cosigner on each account. Over the years, these accounts were consolidated into a single account on which Ernest and Esther were the only cosigners. The total in the account was in excess of $90,000.

Louis predeceased Refugia. On November 22, 2000, after Louis's death, Refugia executed a second will (the 2000 will). The 2000 will revoked all prior wills and left Refugia's entire estate to Ernest and Esther. Refugia died on July 26, 2001.

II. The Pleadings

Jesus filed a complaint in December 2002 seeking to quiet title to the residence originally owned by Louis and Refugia. Jesus claimed title to the property pursuant to the 1990 will, along with his brothers and sisters, except for Robert. Jesus alleged the deed was forged and sought a declaration from the trial court confirming ownership in the property as alleged in the complaint. In a separate cause of action, Jesus sought to quiet title to funds in the various bank accounts he alleged were converted by Ernest. Jesus also sought punitive damages (Civ. Code, § 3294) and attorney fees pursuant to the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15600 et seq.).

Ernest and Esther filed an answer to Jesus's complaint, and in a separate action Ernest petitioned to have the 2000 will probated. Jesus filed a contest to the 2000 will and requested the 1990 will be probated. Apparently the two actions were consolidated. A single trial was held.

III. The Testimony

A. The 2000 will

Ernest thought the 1990 will gave Refugia's property equally to her children, except for Robert, who was to receive $2,000. After the 1990 will was executed, Ernest obtained title to his mother's real property and was named on her bank accounts. Ernest intended to distribute Refugia's estate according to the 1990 will, until the 2000 will was executed.

In 2000 Refugia asked Ernest to find an attorney for her so she could execute a new will. She wanted to change the 1990 will because Jesus had been harassing her. Jesus asked Refugia to sign papers and reported to social services that Ernest was abusing Refugia. Ernest procrastinated for a while, but eventually found an attorney because Refugia insisted he do so.

Ernest found Robert L. Buchler through an advertisement and made an appointment with him. Ernest and Refugia visited Buchler one time. They brought with them a copy of the 1990 will. Ernest, Esther, the interpreter, Buchler, and Stacy Goff, Buchler's paralegal, were present at the meeting. Buchler provided the interpreter.

Ernest was present while Buchler was talking with Refugia, but he was not allowed to speak. Buchler asked Refugia questions, although it appeared the 2000 will already had been prepared by the time everyone arrived. The interpreter read the 2000 will to Refugia word for word. Ernest observed his mother sign the 2000 will. Goff and Buchler also were present.

Ernest did not know he and his wife were the sole beneficiaries of the 2000 will until he read it after it was executed. He was surprised Refugia had changed the disposition. Refugia told Ernest not to share her estate with his siblings because Refugia felt Ernest earned it by â€