Denial of admission of wills & codicils; Undue influence; Bill & Dena Brown Trust v Garcia; Credibility determinations; Guardian ad litem (GAL)

Holding that the trial court did not err in finding that the wills and codicils at issue were obtained through undue influence, the court affirmed the order denying admission of the documents. Appellant and appellee are the decedents’ (Streate and Lucille) son and daughter. Appellant sought admission of documents he alleged were the decedents’ wills and codicils. He admitted that he drafted the documents. Appellee objected, asserting “they were obtained on the basis of appellant’s undue influence over the decedents[.]” The trial court, after a bench trial, found that appellee “established a rebuttable presumption of undue influence that appellant failed to rebut.” The court noted the case turned “on the weight the trial court afforded the testimonies provided below.” In light of its “deference to the trial court’s credibility determinations and the testimonies provided, we are not left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” The record reflected “that, while in appellant’s care, hospital staff treating Streate for a fall observed marks on his wrists consistent with being held by restraints. He also had pressure sores on his genitals and buttocks. As a result, hospital staff contacted Adult Protective Services (APS). Appellant claimed that his resistance to APS’s investigation was due to his parents’ desire to avoid the agency, but appellee disagreed. APS” petitioned for a guardianship. Witness-K was appointed as Streate’s GAL “and assigned to investigate Streate’s alleged abuse and neglect. [K] testified that he interviewed appellant and was not satisfied with his explanation that Streate’s condition was caused by sitting on a rattan chair without padding, but Streate died before he finished his reports.” In addition, appellee “testified that, after Streate’s death, Lucille fled with her to California with only a suitcase.” The trial court impliedly found that appellee and K “were more credible than appellant. Appellee’s and [K’s] testimonies support the trial court’s conclusion that decedents were subject to appellant’s control and suffered abuse at his hands.”