Estate of Boyajian - Case Brief

5 Mins read

Estate of Boyajian

Case Number: G063155

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2025-07-07

Case Brief – Estate of Boyajian

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: G063155
Disposition: The September 20, 2023 probate order is reversed and the matter remanded for (1) vacating the letters of administration, (2) admitting the 2006 holographic will to probate, and (3) proceeding consistent with this opinion.

Holding

The court held that (1) revocation of a will by “cancellation” under Probate Code § 6120(b) requires a physical act performed on the will itself, and (2) a stand‑alone document that merely expresses intent to revoke does not constitute a “subsequent will” under § 6120(a) because it lacks testamentary intent, a beneficiary designation, and the statutory witnessing formalities. Accordingly, the 2018 document could not revoke the 2006 holographic will, and the trial court’s finding of undue influence was affirmed.

Narrative

Lead – In a tightly contested sibling dispute, the California Court of Appeal restored a 2006 holographic will that had been set aside by a later, unsigned‑by‑witnesses document. The decision sharpens the line between a statutory “cancellation” of a will and a mere statement of intent, reaffirming California’s historic requirement that revocation by cancellation be effected through a physical alteration of the instrument itself.

Procedural History – After Layla Boyajian’s death in 2020, her daughter Anush filed a petition to probate a two‑page holographic will executed in 2006 that left the entire estate to her. Robert, another child, objected, asserting that a 2018 notarized document prepared by him revoked the earlier will. The Orange County Superior Court held the 2018 document validly revoked the 2006 will, entered letters of administration, and denied Anush’s petition. Robert appealed both the revocation ruling and the trial court’s refusal to find undue influence. The Court of Appeal certified the opinion for partial publication and reversed the lower court’s revocation ruling while affirming the lack of undue influence.

Facts – Layla Boyajian, age 71, executed a holographic will in 2006 bequeathing all assets to Anush, who then lived with her. In 2018, Layla signed a notarized, unwitnessed document stating, in plain language, that she “leaves everything…to my daughter Anush” and expressly disclaims any benefit to Robert or her ex‑husband Mike. The 2018 document contains no beneficiary designations beyond Anush, no disposition of property, and no execution formalities beyond the notary’s acknowledgment. After Layla’s death, Anush presented the 2006 will; Robert argued the 2018 document cancelled it.

Issues – (1) Does a stand‑alone revocation document satisfy Probate Code § 6120(b)’s “cancellation” requirement? (2) Can the 2018 document be treated as a “subsequent will” under § 6120(a) despite lacking witnesses and a beneficiary designation? (3) Did the trial court err in finding no undue influence?

Court’s Reasoning

Revocation by Cancellation – The appellate court read the term “canceled” in its ordinary, historical sense, citing Estate of Olmsted (1898) and the Uniform Probate Code’s commentary that revocation “by act” must be performed “to the document.” The court rejected a broad, modern reading that would allow any separate written notice to serve as cancellation. Because the 2018 instrument did not physically alter, destroy, or obscure the 2006 will, it could not effect revocation under § 6120(b).

Subsequent Will Theory – The court examined Probate Code §§ 88 and 45, which define a “will” as a testamentary instrument that designates a beneficiary or makes a donative transfer. The 2018 document named no beneficiary, transferred no property, and lacked the two‑witness requirement of § 6110(c)(1). The 2008 amendment to § 6110(c)(2) permits an unwitnessed will only when the proponent proves the testator intended the instrument to be a will; it does not extend to pure revocations. Consequently, the 2018 document could not be classified as a “subsequent will” capable of revoking the earlier will.

Undue Influence – The appellate panel affirmed the trial court’s factual finding that Robert failed to meet his heavy burden of clear and convincing evidence. Anush’s testimony consistently denied any involvement in the 2006 will’s creation, and the record showed Layla was capable of informed decision‑making. The court emphasized that appellate review of undue‑influence findings is limited to clear error, which was absent.

Disposition – The appellate court reversed the probate order that had treated the estate as intestate, vacated the letters of administration, and remanded for admission of the 2006 holographic will. Robert, as special administrator of Anush’s estate, was awarded costs.

Impact and Unresolved Questions – This opinion reasserts California’s strict formalism for revocation by cancellation, signaling to practitioners that a separate revocation notice—no matter how clear—cannot replace the statutory physical act. The decision also underscores that California has not adopted the Uniform Probate Code’s “harmless error” provision for revocations, leaving a gap where extrinsic evidence of intent cannot overcome formal deficiencies. Future litigants may press the Legislature to modernize § 6120(b) or to expand § 6110(c)(2) to cover stand‑alone revocations, but until then, the “lattice‑work” requirement remains controlling.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code §§ 6120(a) & (b) – Grounds for revocation (subsequent will; cancellation by physical act).
  • Probate Code § 6110(c)(1) & (c)(2) – Witness requirements and limited harmless‑error exception.
  • Probate Code §§ 45 & 88 – Definitions of “instrument,” “will,” and “testamentary instrument.”
  • Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 15610.70(a) & 86 – Definition and factors of undue influence.
  • Uniform Probate Code §§ 2‑507(b) & 2‑503(2) – Model language on revocation by act and harmless‑error analysis.
  • Key Cases – Estate of Olmsted (1898) 122 Cal 224 (narrow “cancellation”); City of Los Angeles v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (2024) 17 Cal.5th 46 (statutory interpretation principles); Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871 (extrinsic evidence and formalities); Estate of Saueressig (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1045 (harmless‑error discussion); Estate of Garibaldi (1961) 57 Cal.2d 108 (undue influence standard).