A unanimous Supreme Court today overturns longstanding precedent that had precluded the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to reform an unambiguous will. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, the court holds that “the categorical bar on reformation of wills is not justified, and . . . that an unambiguous will may be reformed if clear and convincing evidence establishes that the will contains a mistake in the expression of the testator’s intent at the time the will was drafted and also establishes the testator’s actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted.” The court thus remands the case — Estate of Duke — to the probate court to make the clear and convincing evidence determination.
Of interest generally and beyond the probate field, the court’s opinion discusses the circumstances where the Legislature, despite having enacted related statutes, has left room for the courts to change the common law. The court says that the history of legislation concerning the admissibility of evidence of a testator’s intent does not “suggest[ ] that the Legislature intended to foreclose further judicial developments of the law concerning the admissibility of evidence to discern the testator’s intent, and ‘we see no reason to interpret the legislation as establishing a bar to judicial innovation.’ ”
The Supreme Court reverses the Second District, Division Four, Court of Appeal, but you can’t hold this one against the lower court — it was following the Supreme Court precedent that today’s opinion overrules.