Estate of El Wardani - Case Brief
Estate of El Wardani
Case Number: D079406
Court: Cal. Ct. App.
Date Filed: 2022-08-31
Case Brief – Estate of El Wardani
Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: D079406
Disposition: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order removing Janine White El Wardani as administrator of Ramsey Walter El Wardani’s estate and awarded costs to the respondent, Alexandria El Wardani.
Holding
The court held that, under Probate Code § 8402(a)(4), a “resident of the United States” must actually live in the United States; Janine White El Wardani’s prolonged residence in Mexico from 2014 onward demonstrated that she was not a U.S. resident, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing her as administrator.
Narrative
Lead – In a four‑year probate battle over an intestate estate, the California Court of Appeal clarified that statutory residency for personal representatives is a factual, physical‑presence test, not a matter of “ties” or intent. The decision affirms the removal of Janine White El Wardani, who had lived in Mexico for most of the probate, and underscores the continuing weight of historic case law that equates “resident” with “domicile” for purposes of Probate Code § 8402(a)(4).
Procedural background – Ramsey Walter El Wardani died intestate in August 2016, leaving a California‑resident wife, Janine, and a daughter from a prior marriage, Alexandria “Ali” El Wardani. Janine petitioned for letters of administration in 2017, checked the required box on Judicial Council form DE‑111 indicating California residency, and was appointed administrator with limited authority. Her letters expired in June 2019; three months later she filed a creditor’s claim in her own name, prompting the trial court to set the claim aside in January 2020 and to caution Janine that re‑issuance of letters was not automatic.
Janine subsequently sought an extension of her letters, arguing that the estate’s complexity required more time. The hearing on the extension was repeatedly continued. At a June 11, 2021 hearing, Ali moved to have Janine removed and to be appointed administrator herself. The trial court, after supplemental briefing on residency, issued a tentative ruling removing Janine and later entered a final order appointing Ali. Janine appealed, asserting that the court erred in finding her ineligible under § 8402(a)(4).
Factual matrix – Janine and Ramsey purchased a home in Baja California Sur in 2014, sold Janine’s Carlsbad house, and moved to Mexico “full time.” She remained there for the next seven years, returning to California only for visits, voting, and occasional medical appointments. In a 2019 declaration supporting her creditor’s claim, Janine described the Mexico home as her primary residence. In a 2021 declaration, she emphasized extensive California contacts—driver’s license, voter registration, bank accounts, family, and a P.O. Box—but admitted she still lived in Mexico and would not return permanently until the probate concluded.
Legal issue – Whether Janine satisfied the statutory requirement that a personal representative be a “resident of the United States” under Probate Code § 8402(a)(4). The appellate court framed the inquiry as a question of statutory construction and factual determination, reviewing the trial court’s factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions de novo.
Statutory construction – The court traced the residency requirement from its 1878 origin (requiring a “bona fide” California resident) through the 1980 amendment that broadened the geographic scope to “resident of the United States” while deleting the “bona fide” qualifier. The court noted that the Legislature never expressly altered the long line of cases interpreting “resident” as synonymous with “domicile.” Accordingly, the court adopted the historic view that residency entails actual physical presence and an intent to remain, not merely a collection of contacts.
Application of precedent – The court relied heavily on early California cases—In re Estate of Weed (1898) 120 Cal. 634, In re Estate of Gordon (1904) 142 Cal. 125, and In re Estate of Donovan (1894) 104 Cal. 623—each of which required a person to “actually live” in the state for a non‑temporary purpose to be deemed a resident. The court distinguished tax‑law cases that permit a “temporary‑or‑transitory” presence analysis, emphasizing that probate residency is a jurisdictional prerequisite aimed at ensuring the court can exercise personal jurisdiction over the administrator.
Factual determination – The appellate court found substantial evidence that Janine’s primary abode was the Mexican home from October 2014 onward. The 2019 creditor’s declaration, filed before residency became contested, was deemed more credible than the later 2021 declaration, which the court viewed as an after‑the‑fact attempt to recharacterize her status. Janine’s own statements that she spent only about one‑third of days in the United States and that she would not return permanently until the probate ended reinforced the conclusion that she had relinquished U.S. residency in 2014 and had not re‑established it.
Standard of review – Applying the abuse‑of‑discretion standard, the court held that the trial court’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and that its legal construction of “resident” was consistent with controlling precedent. No reversible error was identified.
Disposition – The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s order removing Janine as administrator and appointing Ali, and awarded costs to the respondent.
Closing analysis – This decision reaffirms that, for probate purposes, “resident” remains a concrete, physical‑presence concept despite the statutory shift from California to United States residency in 1980. Practitioners should be mindful that a personal representative who relocates abroad—even temporarily—may lose eligibility unless she can demonstrate a clear, continuous domicile in the United States. The ruling also signals that courts will give greater weight to contemporaneous declarations over later, self‑serving statements when assessing residency. Unresolved questions linger regarding whether the Legislature might someday amend § 8402 to expressly define “resident” in a way that accommodates modern, mobile families, or whether future appellate panels will diverge from the historic domicile‑equivalence approach.
Referenced Statutes and Doctrines
- Probate Code § 8402(a)(4) – Residency requirement for personal representatives.
- Probate Code §§ 8460, 8465 – General qualifications and duties of administrators.
- Government Code § 244 – Definition of “residence” (place where one remains when not elsewhere, intent to return).
- Revenue & Tax Code § 17014(a)(1) – State income‑tax residency standard (physical presence for non‑temporary purpose).
- Case law – Estate of Sapp (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 86 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard); Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706 (review standards); Estate of Heath (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 396 (historical residency analysis); Estate of Damskog (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 78 (U.S. residency requirement); Estate of Weed (1898) 120 Cal. 634 (residence = domicile); In re Estate of Gordon (1904) 142 Cal. 125; In re Estate of Donovan (1894) 104 Cal. 623; Smith v. Smith (1955) 45 Cal.2d 235 (distinction between residence and domicile); Estate of Glassford (1952) 114 Cal.App.2d 181 (residence synonymous with domicile for venue purposes).
These authorities collectively shape the court’s interpretation that “resident of the United States” under § 8402(a)(4) requires actual, ongoing physical presence in the United States, not merely a web of connections or an intention to return.