Jasmine Nograles

Finance 240
Class Section 1
Case 52-2
In Re Estate of Lazelle
California Court of Appeals, Fifth District
Cal. APP. 5
th
Dist., 2008 WL 4150311
Facts: Lazelle and Lee had been together for 48 years. They discussed marriage but not got to
actually getting married. Lees family accepted Lazelle as a member of their family. Lazelle worked as
a self-employed accountant. Eventually he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and became ill. He
signed a handwritten, witnessed will leaving all of his property, assets, and belongings to Lee or
Hacker. Lazelle stated that he wanted to leave his property to Lee and he wanted Hacker to help her.
Hacker signed a written disclaimer of any interest he might have under the will, leaving Lee as sole
beneficiary, as he thought Lazelle intended. Lazelles grandnephew contested the will and believed
that he had procured by undue influence over Lazelle.
Issue: Was the will made by Lazelle procured by undue influence?
Ruling: The order for probate is affirmed and the costs on appeal are awarded to Hacker and Lee
Reasons: Keffer contends that the will wasnt witnessed by two disinterested witnesses, which lead
to the presumption that the will was procured by fraud or undue influence. Justice Wiseman seeks
to determine whether the will was in fact procured by undue influence by going over the basic
ground rules of producing a will. Keffer challenges numerous points in the superior courts ruling.
But because overriding principles of California are being dealt with, the Court of Appeals can only
review the trial courts ruling and not its reasoning. It is established that any devise to Mary Lou
and/or Ray Hacker was the decision and intent of Lazelle. It was not procured by duress, menace,
fraud, or undue influence. Additionally, if Hacker failed to meet the burden of overriding the
statutory presumption, only the devise made to him would fail. It is concluded that the superior
court properly handled this case. The reversal is not warranted.