Wills

Question 1

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

1. Omitted Child

Answer 1

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

1. Omitted Child

Under California Probate Code § 21620, an omitted child – a child born or adopted after the execution of all of the testator’s testamentary instruments – is entitled to receive their intestate share of the testator’s estate, unless it is shown that:

• The testator’s failure to provide for the child was intentional and that intention appears from the testamentary instruments;
• The testator had one or more children and devised substantially all of the estate to the other parent of the omitted child; or
• The testator provided for the child by transfer outside of the testamentary instruments with the intent that the transfer be in lieu of a provision in the will.

__________

California Probate Code sections 21620-21623 address the rights of ‘omitted children’ (also called ‘pretermitted heirs’) – children who are unintentionally left out of a testator’s will.

General Rule (§ 21620): If a testator fails to provide in their testamentary instruments (wills and revocable trusts that become effective upon death) for a child born or adopted after the execution of all of the testator’s testamentary instruments, the omitted child is entitled to receive a share of the estate equal to their intestate share (what they would have received if the testator had died without a will).

Key Requirements:

• Born or Adopted After: The child must have been born or adopted after all testamentary instruments were executed. A child alive at the time of execution who is simply not mentioned is not an “omitted child” under this statute (although they might have a claim if they can prove the omission was due to a mistake of fact).
• All Testamentary Instruments: The omission must be from all testamentary instruments. If a later codicil or trust amendment mentions the child, the statute does not apply.

Exceptions (§ 21621): The omitted child receives no share if:

• Intentional Omission Appears from Instruments: The testator’s failure to provide was intentional, and that intent appears from the testamentary instruments themselves. Extrinsic evidence of intent is not admissible. (e.g., “I intentionally make no provision for any children born after the execution of this will.”).
• Substantially All to Other Parent: The testator had one or more children at the time the will was executed and devised substantially all of their estate to the other parent of the omitted child. This exception assumes the other parent will provide for the child.
• Provision Outside the Will: The testator provided for the child by a transfer outside the testamentary instruments (e.g., a life insurance policy, a trust, a gift), and the intent that this transfer be in lieu of a testamentary provision is shown by the testator’s statements, the amount of the transfer, or other evidence.

Calculation of Share: The omitted child’s share is their intestate share. This depends on the testator’s other surviving family members (spouse, other children, etc.).

Source of Share (§ 21622): The omitted child’s share is taken first from any portion of the estate not disposed of by will or trust (intestate property). If that is insufficient, the share is taken pro rata from all beneficiaries.

Comparison to Omitted Spouse: California also has an “omitted spouse” statute (Probate Code § 21610), which protects a spouse who marries the testator after the execution of all testamentary instruments. The rules are similar, but the exceptions differ.

Policy: The omitted child statutes are designed to protect against unintentional disinheritance, based on the presumption that a testator would not want to disinherit a child born or adopted after they made their will, unless they specifically indicate otherwise.

Question 2

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

2. Will Execution Requirements

Answer 2

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

2. Will Execution Requirements

__________

1. Writing
2. Signed – by testator
3. Witnesses Present – 2 disinterested persons
4. Witnesses Understand – it’s a will
5. Witnesses Sign – while testator is alive

__________

Under California Probate Code § 6110, a formal will must be:

1. In writing
2. Signed by the testator, or by someone else in the testator’s name, in the testator’s presence, and at the testator’s direction, or by a conservator.
3. Attested by two disinterested witnesses who are present at the same time and must witness either the testator signing the will, or the testator’s acknowledgment of their signature or acknowledgment of the will.
4. The witnesses must understand that the instrument they sign is the testator’s will.
5. The witnesses must sign the will during the testator’s lifetime.

__________

California law requires certain formalities for the valid execution of a will, to ensure authenticity, prevent fraud, and demonstrate testamentary intent. The requirements vary depending on the type of will:

1. Formal (Witnessed) Will (Probate Code § 6110): This is the most common type.

• Writing: Must be in writing.
• Testator’s Signature: Must be signed by:
  
  • The testator; or
  • Someone else in the testator’s name, in the testator’s presence, and at the testator’s direction; or
  • A conservator acting under court order.
• Witnessing: Must be witnessed by at least two persons, each of whom:
  
  • Being present at the same time, witnessed either the testator signing the will or the testator’s acknowledgment of their signature or acknowledgment of the will; and
  • Understand that the instrument they sign is the testator’s will
  • Sign the will during the testator’s lifetime.
• “Presence” (Conscious Presence):
  
  • California requires “conscious presence”
  • The testator and witnesses must be aware of each other and of the signing, even if not in direct line of sight.
• Interested Witnesses (Probate Code § 6112):
  
  • A will is not automatically invalid if the witnesses are interested
  • A bequest to an interested witness is presumptively the product of duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence
  • This can be rebutted
  • If not rebutted, the witness takes only their intestate share.
• Harmless Error Doctrine (Probate Code § 6110(c)(2)): A will that does not strictly comply with the witnessing requirements may still be admitted to probate if the proponent proves by clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended the document to be their will at the time they signed it.

2. Holographic Will (Probate Code § 6111):

• A will that is entirely handwritten by the testator.
• Must be signed by the testator.
• The material provisions must be in the testator’s handwriting.
• No witness requirement.
• Need not be dated, but may cause issues if there is another will.

3. California Statutory Will (Probate Code § 6240):

• A pre-printed form will, authorized by statute.
• Must be completed and executed according to specific statutory instructions.

Policy: The formalities of will execution are designed to prevent fraud, ensure that the testator’s wishes are accurately reflected, and provide reliable evidence of testamentary intent.

Question 3

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

2. Holographic Will

Answer 3

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

2. Holographic Will

__________

Will in testator’s handwriting

1. Signed
2. Material terms handwritten:
   
   • testamentary intent, beneficiaries, gifts
3. Not required:
   
   • witnesses, date

__________

In CA, a holographic will is valid if the signature and the material provisions are in the handwriting of the testator. A holographic will does not need to be witnessed.

__________

California Probate Code governs holographic wills, providing an exception to the formal witnessing requirements for attested wills. A holographic will is valid if:

• Signature: The will is signed by the testator. The signature need not be at the end, but if it is not, there may be doubt about whether the testator intended their name to be a signature.
• Material Provisions in Testator’s Handwriting: The material provisions of the will must be in the testator’s handwriting. This means the words identifying the property to be disposed of, the beneficiaries who are to receive it, and the testamentary intent must be handwritten. Pre-printed form wills with blanks filled in by the testator generally do not qualify as holographic wills, unless they can be probated using the harmless error rule.
• No witness required

Date: A holographic will does not need to be dated to be valid. However, the absence of a date can create problems:

• Inconsistent Wills: If there are multiple undated wills, it may be impossible to determine which one is the latest and therefore controlling.
• Capacity: If the testator’s capacity is at issue, the lack of a date may make it difficult to prove the testator had capacity at the time the will was written.

Testamentary Intent: The document must demonstrate testamentary intent – the intent to make a disposition of property upon death. This can be inferred from the language of the will itself.

Extrinsic Evidence:

• To Prove Intent: Extrinsic evidence (evidence outside the will itself) is generally admissible to prove the testator’s intent that a handwritten document be their will.
• To Interpret Ambiguities: Extrinsic evidence is also admissible to interpret ambiguities in the will’s provisions.
• Cannot Supply Material Provisions: Extrinsic evidence cannot be used to supply the material provisions that are missing from the handwriting.

Policy: Holographic wills provide a simple and accessible way for individuals to make wills without the formality of witnesses. However, the handwriting requirement serves as a safeguard against fraud and ensures that the will reflects the testator’s own wishes.

Comparison to Formal Wills: Holographic wills are an exception to the general rule requiring two witnesses for a valid will. They are less formal, but the handwriting requirement provides a degree of protection against forgery.

Question 4

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

2. Modification by Codicil

Answer 4

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

2. Modification by Codicil

__________

• Testamentary instrument
• Modifies a will
• Same requirements as formal or holographic will
• Republishes will to new date

__________

• A codicil is a testamentary instrument that modifies, amends, or supplements a prior valid will.
• It does not replace the entire will, but rather changes specific provisions.
• A codicil must be executed with the same formalities required for the execution of a will (either as a formal witnessed will or, if applicable, a holographic will).

__________

• A codicil is a testamentary instrument that serves to amend, alter, add to, subtract from, or otherwise modify a prior valid will.
• It is a supplement to the will, not a complete replacement.
• The will and any codicils are read together as a single instrument, reflecting the testator’s overall testamentary plan.

Requirements:

• Testamentary Intent: The testator must intend the codicil to have testamentary effect (to modify their will).
• Same Formalities as a Will: A codicil must be executed with the same formalities required for the execution of a will in CA:
  
  • Formal (Witnessed) Codicil: In writing, signed by the testator (or someone at their direction and in their presence), and attested by two witnesses who were present at the same time and witnessed either the signing or the testator’s acknowledgment.
  • Holographic Codicil: Signature and material provisions entirely in the testator’s handwriting; no witnesses required.

Effect:

• Modification: The codicil modifies the will to the extent specified. Provisions of the will that are not inconsistent with the codicil remain in full force and effect.
• Republication: A validly executed codicil republishes the will as of the date of the codicil. This “updates” the will’s date, which can be significant for:
  
  • Omitted Heirs: A child born after the will but before the codicil might not be considered an omitted heir.
  • Advancements: The date of the codicil might be relevant for determining whether a gift was an advancement.
  • Revival of Revoked Will: Codicil republishes
• Revocation: A codicil can expressly revoke prior codicils or specific provisions of the will. It can also impliedly revoke prior provisions to the extent they are inconsistent with the codicil.
• Integration: The will and all valid codicils are read together as one integrated instrument.

Policy: Codicils provide a flexible way for testators to update their wills without having to rewrite the entire document. The requirement of testamentary formalities ensures authenticity and protects against fraud.

Examples:

• A testator executes a will leaving their house to their spouse. Later, they execute a codicil changing the beneficiary of the house to their child. The codicil controls, and the child inherits the house.
• A testator executes a will leaving their estate equally to their two children. Later, they execute a codicil adding a bequest of $10,000 to a charity. The codicil is valid, and the charity receives $10,000; the remainder of the estate is still divided equally between the children.
• A testator writes a handwritten document, signed by them, stating, “I change my will to leave my car to my nephew, John.” This could be a valid holographic codicil, modifying the prior will.

Question 5

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

3. Intestate Distribution

Answer 5

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

3. Intestate Distribution

• In CA, when a person dies intestate – without a valid will – their property is distributed according to the statutory rules of intestate succession.
• All community property passes to the surviving spouse.
• The distribution of separate property depends on whether the decedent is survived by a spouse, children, parents, or other relatives.

__________

In CA, intestate succession provides a statutory scheme for distributing the property of a person who dies without a valid will (or whose will does not dispose of all of their property).

Community Property: All community property and quasi-community property passes outright to the surviving spouse.

Separate Property: The distribution of separate property depends on the surviving family members:

• Spouse and one child (or issue of deceased child)
  
  • 1/2 to spouse, 1/2 to child (or issue by representation)
• Spouse and two or more children (or their issue)
  
  • 1/3 to spouse, 2/3 to children (or their issue by representation)
• Spouse, no issue, but parents or siblings (or their issue)
  
  • 1/2 to spouse, 1/2 to parents (or if no parents, to siblings or their issue by representation)
• Spouse, no issue, no parents, no siblings
  
  • All to spouse
• No spouse, but issue
  
  • All to issue (by representation)
• No spouse, no issue, but parents
  
  • All to parents (equally, or to the survivor)
• No spouse, no issue, no parents, but siblings (or issue)
  
  • All to siblings (or their issue by representation)
• No spouse, no issue, no parents, no siblings
  
  • To more remote next of kin, according to degree of kinship
• No heirs
  
  • Escheats to the state

“Representation” (Per Capita with Representation): CA uses a system of ‘representation’ (per capita with representation) for dividing property among issue of unequal degree. This means:

• The property is divided into as many equal shares as there are
  
  1. living members of the nearest generation with any living members, and
  2. deceased members of that same generation who leave living issue.
• Each living member of that nearest generation receives one share.
• The share of each deceased member of that generation is divided in the same manner among their living issue. It’s not a strict per stirpes (by the root) distribution.

Examples:

• Decedent has two children, A and B. A is alive; B is deceased but has two children (grandchildren of decedent). A gets 1/2; the two grandchildren split B’s 1/2 (each gets 1/4).
• Decedent has three children, A, B, and C. A is alive; B is deceased with one child (grandchild 1); C is deceased with two children (grandchildren 2 and 3). A gets 1/3, grandchild 1 gets 1/3, and grandchildren 2 and 3 split 1/3 (each gets 1/6).

Special Situations:

• Adopted Children: Treated the same as biological children.
• Half-Bloods: Generally inherit the same as whole bloods.
• Afterborn Heirs: Children conceived before the decedent’s death but born after are treated as if they had been born during the decedent’s lifetime.
• Simultaneous Death: Specific rules apply if the order of death cannot be determined.
• Unworthy Heirs Those who feloniously and intentionally killed decedent do not inherit

Policy: Intestate succession laws are designed to distribute property in a way that reflects the presumed intent of most people, providing for spouses and close relatives.

Question 6

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

4. Revocation by Subsequent Will or Codicil

Answer 6

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

4. Revocation by Subsequent Will or Codicil

• In CA, a will or any part of a will can be revoked by a subsequent will or codicil.
• The revocation can be
  
  • Express: A clear statement revoking the prior will or part
  • Implied: The subsequent will or codicil makes provisions that are inconsistent with the prior will.

__________

California Probate Code § 6120 governs the revocation of wills by subsequent testamentary instruments.

A will, or any part thereof, can be revoked by:

• Subsequent Will or Codicil with Express Revocation Clause:
  
  • A later will or codicil may include an express clause of revocation.
    
    • “I hereby revoke all prior wills and codicils.”
  • Must be validly executed
• A Subsequent Will or Codicil (Express or Implied Revocation):
  
  • Express Revocation: The subsequent will or codicil contains a clear statement revoking the prior will or a specific part of it.
    
    • “I revoke the clause in my will leaving my car to John.”
  • Implied Revocation (by Inconsistency): The subsequent will or codicil makes provisions that are inconsistent with the prior will. The later instrument controls to the extent of the inconsistency.
    
    • Complete Disposition: If the subsequent will makes a complete disposition of the testator’s estate, it is presumed to revoke the prior will entirely.
      
      • “I leave all my property to X” in a later will presumptively revokes a prior will leaving specific gifts to A, B, and C.
    • Partial Disposition: If the subsequent will makes only a partial disposition of the estate, it is treated as a codicil, and the prior will remains in effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with the later will.
      
      • A later will stating “I leave my car to Y” would revoke a prior will’s provision leaving the car to Z, but the rest of the prior will would remain valid
  • Valid Execution: The subsequent will or codicil must itself be validly executed according to the requirements for a formal will or a holographic will.
  • An invalid will or codicil cannot revoke a prior will.

Policy: These rules ensure that the testator’s latest testamentary intent controls, while also requiring clear evidence of that intent to prevent accidental or fraudulent revocations.

Revival of Revoked Will: If a second will that wholly revoked a first will is itself revoked, the first will remains revoked unless it is evident from the circumstances, or from the testator’s declarations, that the testator intended the first will to take effect.

Examples:

• Will 1 leaves everything to A. Will 2 states, “I revoke all prior wills and leave everything to B.” Will 1 is expressly revoked.
• Will 1 leaves the house to A and the car to B. Will 2 leaves the house to C. Will 2 impliedly revokes the provision in Will 1 regarding the house; the car still goes to B.
• Will 1 leaves everything to A. Will 2 leaves everything to B. Will 2 impliedly revokes Will 1 in its entirety, even without an express revocation clause.

Question 7

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

5. Omitted Spouse

Answer 7

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

5. Omitted Spouse

In CA, an omitted spouse:

1. a spouse who married the testator after the execution of all testamentary instruments
2. is entitled to receive their intestate share of the testator’s estate.

• Exceptions:
  
  1. The testator’s failure to provide for the spouse was intentional, and that intention appears from the testamentary instruments;
  2. The testator provided for the spouse by transfer outside of the testamentary instruments with the intent that the transfer be in lieu of a provision in the will; or
  3. The spouse made a valid agreement waiving the right to share in the testator’s estate.

__________

Omitted Spouse: (also called ‘pretermitted spouse’) – spouse who is unintentionally left out of a testator’s will because the marriage occurred after the execution of all testamentary instruments.

General Rule: If a testator marries after executing all of their testamentary instruments (wills and revocable trusts that become effective upon death), and the surviving spouse is not provided for in those instruments, the omitted spouse is entitled to receive a share of the estate equal to their intestate share (what they would have received if the testator had died without a will).

Key Requirements:

1. Marriage After Execution: The marriage must have occurred after all testamentary instruments were executed. A spouse who was married to the testator at the time the will was made, but was simply not mentioned, is not an “omitted spouse” under this statute (although they might have other claims, such as challenging the will on grounds of undue influence).
2. All Testamentary Instruments: The omission must be from all testamentary instruments. If a later codicil or trust amendment mentions the spouse, the statute does not apply.

Exceptions: The omitted spouse receives no share if:

1. Intentional Omission Appears from Instruments: The testator’s failure to provide was intentional, and that intent appears from the testamentary instruments themselves. Extrinsic evidence of intent is not admissible. (eg, “I intentionally make no provision for any future spouse.”).
2. Provision Outside the Will: The testator provided for the spouse by a transfer outside the testamentary instruments (eg, life insurance, joint tenancy property, a transfer into a trust that does not become effective upon death), and the intent that this transfer be in lieu of a testamentary provision is shown by the testator’s statements, the amount of the transfer, or other evidence.
3. Valid Waiver: The spouse made a valid agreement waiving the right to share in the testator’s estate (eg, a premarital agreement that meets all the requirements for enforceability).

Calculation of Share: The omitted spouse’s share is their intestate share:

• All community property and quasi-community property.
• One-half or one third of separate property.

Source of Share:

• First, from any intestate property.
• The remaining is taken from all beneficiaries proportionally.

Comparison to Omitted Child: CA also has an “omitted child” statute, which protects children born or adopted after the execution of all testamentary instruments. The rules are similar, but the exceptions differ.

Policy: The omitted spouse statutes protect against unintentional disinheritance, based on the presumption that a testator would not want to disinherit a spouse they married after making their will, unless they specifically indicate otherwise.

Question 8

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

6. Validity of a Will Under California Law

Answer 8

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

6. Validity of a Will Under California Law

• CA courts generally recognize a will executed in another state as valid if it was executed in accordance with the laws of the state where:
  
  1. The will was executed
  2. The testator was domiciled at the time of execution
  3. The testator was domiciled at the time of death
  4. California law
  5. The Uniform International Wills Act
• CA takes a broad approach to recognizing out-of-state wills, aiming to uphold the testator’s intent as long as the will meets certain legal standards.
• If the will is not written in English, it must be translated to be admitted in court.

Question 9

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

6. Acts of Independent Significance

Answer 9

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

6. Acts of Independent Significance

__________

GENERAL RULE

• All testamentary dispositions must be made within a validly executed will.

EXCEPTION – Acts of Independent Significance

• A will may dispose of property by referring to events that have significance apart from their effect on the will.
• The events may occur after the will is executed.
• The events must be independently significant apart from the will.
• Eg, “I leave my car to whoever my spouse is.” Marrying a person is the event that can occur after the will is executed, which has significance independently from its significance in the will.

____________

• CA codifies the doctrine of acts of independent significance.
• This doctrine allows a will to dispose of property by referring to acts or events that have significance apart from their effect on the will, even if those acts or events occur after the will is executed or after the testator’s death.
• The key is that the act or event must have some lifetime significance independent of its impact on the will.

__________

• CA codifies the doctrine of acts of independent significance, which allows a will to dispose of property by referring to acts or events that have significance apart from their effect on the will’s dispositions.
• This is an exception to the general rule that all testamentary dispositions must be made within a validly executed will.

Key Principle:

• Independent Motive: The act or event must have some lifetime motive and significance that is independent of its impact on the will. The testator must be doing the act or causing the event to happen for reasons other than simply changing who gets what under their will.

Examples:

• Valid:
  
  • “I leave the contents of my safe deposit box at First National Bank to my niece, Sarah.”
    
    • Placing items in a safe deposit box has independent significance (safekeeping of valuables). The fact that this act changes what Sarah receives under the will is incidental.
  • “I leave $5,000 to each person employed by my company, Acme Corp., at the time of my death.”
    
    • Hiring and firing employees has independent significance (running the business).
  • “I leave my car to whoever is my spouse at the time of my death.”
    
    • Getting married or divorced has significant independent legal and personal consequences.
• Invalid:
  
  • “I leave $10,000 to the person whose name I will write on a piece of paper tomorrow.”
    
    • This act has no independent significance; its sole purpose is to change the will without complying with testamentary formalities.
  • “I leave my property as described in a letter I will write next week.”
    
    • This is an attempt to make a future testamentary disposition without complying with the will execution requirements.

Comparison to Incorporation by Reference:

• Acts of Independent Significance: Deals with acts or events that have significance apart from their testamentary effect. These acts can occur after the will is executed.
• Incorporation by Reference: Deals with incorporating existing writings into a will. The writing must be in existence at the time the will is executed, must be clearly identified in the will, and the will must manifest an intent to incorporate it.

Policy: The doctrine of acts of independent significance allows testators some flexibility in making their wills, recognizing that life events may change circumstances after the will is executed. However, the requirement of independent significance prevents testators from circumventing the will execution formalities.

Question 10

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

6. Undue Influence

Answer 10

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

6. Undue Influence

• A will, or a portion of a will, is invalid if it was procured by undue influence.
• Undue influence is excessive persuasion that overcomes the testator’s free will and causes them to make a testamentary disposition they would not otherwise have made.
• A presumption of undue influence may arise if there is a confidential relationship, active participation in procuring the will, and undue benefit to the influencer.

__________

• Undue influence is a ground for invalidating a will (or a portion of a will) in CA.
• It occurs when a person in a position of trust or confidence exerts excessive pressure on a testator, overcoming the testator’s free will and causing the testator to make a testamentary disposition that they would not otherwise have made.

Elements (Generally):

1. Influence Exerted: Influence must have been exerted on the testator.
2. Overpowering Free Will: The effect of the influence must have been to overpower the mind and free will of the testator, substituting the influencer’s wishes for the testator’s own. The testator’s will is essentially subverted.
3. Causation: The product of the influence must be a will (or a provision in a will) that would not have been made but for the influence.

Factors Indicating Undue Influence (Not a Checklist, but Relevant Considerations):

• Vulnerability of the Testator: Age, illness (physical or mental), weakness, isolation, dependence on the influencer.
• Influencer’s Apparent Authority/Confidential Relationship: Position of trust (family member, caregiver, attorney, financial advisor, doctor, clergy).
• Actions and Tactics of the Influencer: Active procurement of the will, controlling the testator’s access to information or other people, initiating the change in the will, using affection, intimidation, or coercion.
• Equity of the Result/Unnatural Provisions: A will that departs significantly from the testator’s prior expressed intentions, or that makes an “unnatural” disposition (e.g., leaving everything to a caregiver and nothing to close family), may raise suspicion, but is not sufficient on its own to prove undue influence.

Presumption of Undue Influence (Shifting the Burden): A rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises if the contestant shows all of the following:

1. Confidential Relationship: The alleged influencer had a confidential relationship with the testator.
2. Active Participation: The alleged influencer actively participated in procuring the will’s execution (eg, selecting the attorney, instructing the attorney, being present at the execution). Mere presence is usually not enough; there must be some active involvement.
3. Undue Benefit: The alleged influencer unduly benefits from the will. This does not mean any benefit; it must be a benefit that is disproportionate or unfair under the circumstances.

If this presumption arises, the burden shifts to the proponent of the will (the person seeking to uphold it) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the will was not the product of undue influence.

Examples:

• An elderly, frail testator, dependent on a caregiver, suddenly changes their will to leave everything to the caregiver, excluding close family members. The caregiver was present during the will’s execution and arranged for the attorney. This raises a strong inference of undue influence.
• A testator with a long-standing estate plan leaving their property to their children suddenly changes their will to leave everything to a new friend who has been isolating them from their family.

Comparison to Lack of Capacity:

• Lack of Capacity: Concerns the testator’s ability to understand the nature of the testamentary act, their property, and their relationships.
• Undue Influence: Concerns whether the testator’s will was overborne by another person, even if the testator had capacity. A testator can have capacity but still be subject to undue influence.

Policy: The law protects testators from having their testamentary wishes subverted by the improper influence of others, ensuring that wills reflect the testator’s true intent.

Question 11

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Incorporation by Reference

Answer 11

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Incorporation by Reference

Under California Probate Code § 6130, a writing in existence when a will is executed may be incorporated by reference into the will if: (1) the will manifests an intent to incorporate the writing; and (2) the will describes the writing sufficiently to permit its identification.

__________

California Probate Code § 6130 codifies the doctrine of incorporation by reference, which allows a will to incorporate by reference another existing writing, even if that writing does not meet the formal requirements for will execution. This doctrine provides some flexibility in estate planning, but it is subject to strict requirements to prevent fraud and ensure the testator’s intent is clear.
Requirements:
- Writing in Existence: The document to be incorporated must be in existence at the time the will is executed. This is a crucial requirement.
- Intent to Incorporate: The will must clearly manifest the testator’s intent to incorporate the other document. The language must be unambiguous. Phrases like “I incorporate by reference” or “as described in” are helpful.
- Sufficient Description: The will must describe the writing sufficiently to permit its identification without any reasonable doubt. This typically requires a specific description that leaves no ambiguity about which document is intended.
Effect: If the requirements are met, the incorporated document is treated as if it were physically written into the will. Its provisions are given full testamentary effect, even though the document itself was not witnessed or signed as a will.
Comparison to Acts of Independent Significance:
- Incorporation by Reference: Incorporates an existing writing.
- Acts of Independent Significance (Probate Code § 6131): Allows a will to refer to future acts or events that have significance apart from their effect on the will (e.g., “the contents of my safe deposit box”).
Policy: Incorporation by reference allows testators to avoid repeating lengthy provisions in their wills, but the strict requirements (existing writing, clear intent, sufficient description) are designed to prevent fraud and ensure that the testator’s intent is accurately reflected.
Examples:
- Valid: A will states, “I incorporate by reference the list of personal property and beneficiaries dated January 1, 2023, which is in my safe deposit box.” If the list exists on that date and is clearly identifiable, it can be incorporated.
- Invalid: A will states, “I incorporate by reference the letter I will write next week.” This is invalid because the letter does not exist when the will is executed.
- Invalid: A will states, “I leave my property as described in a separate document.” This is likely insufficient because it does not describe the document with enough specificity to identify it without doubt.

Question 12

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Testator Gift of Community and Separate Property

Answer 12

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Testator Gift of Community and Separate Property

A testator in California has the power to dispose of the following property by will: (1) all of their separate property; (2) their one-half interest in the community property; and (3) their one-half interest in the quasi-community property. The testator has no power to dispose of the surviving spouse’s one-half interest in the community property or quasi-community property.

__________

In California, a community property state, a testator’s power to dispose of property by will is limited by the community property system and the rights of the surviving spouse.
Testamentary Power:
- Separate Property (SP): A testator has unlimited testamentary power over their separate property. They can dispose of it by will to whomever they choose.
- Community Property (CP): A testator has the power to dispose of only their one-half interest in the community property. The other one-half belongs to the surviving spouse and is not subject to the testator’s testamentary disposition. This is a fundamental principle of community property – each spouse owns an undivided one-half interest in all CP.
- Quasi-Community Property (QCP): Similar to CP, a testator can only dispose of their one-half interest in quasi-community property. The other one-half belongs to the surviving spouse.
Widow’s Election (Spouse’s Election): This doctrine arises when a testator attempts to dispose of more than their one-half interest in the CP or QCP (e.g., attempting to give all of the family home, which is CP, to a child). The surviving spouse is put to an election:
- Take Under the Will: Accept the provisions of the will as written, which means relinquishing their own one-half community property interest in the property the testator attempted to over-dispose of. They receive whatever the will gives them, but they give up their CP rights.
- Take Against the Will: Assert their community property rights (taking their one-half share of the CP or QCP) and relinquishing any gifts given to them under the will, but only to the extent necessary to satisfy their community property share. They receive their one-half of the CP/QCP, but they may forfeit some or all of what the will tried to give them.
The election must be made within a reasonable time after the testator’s death.
Examples:
- Valid: A testator leaves “all my separate property to my children, and my one-half interest in our community property to my spouse.” This is a valid disposition.
- Potentially Requiring Election: A testator leaves “all property, both separate and community, to my children.” This attempts to dispose of all the community property, including the surviving spouse’s one-half interest. The surviving spouse would be put to an election.
Limitations:
- A testator cannot dispose of the surviving spouse’s one-half interest in CP or QCP.
- The testator’s power is also limited by other rules, such as those protecting omitted spouses and children.
Policy: These rules protect the surviving spouse’s vested one-half interest in community property and quasi-community property, ensuring that they are not disinherited by the unilateral act of the deceased spouse.

Question 13

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Revival of Revoked Wills

Answer 13

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Revival of Revoked Wills

California Probate Code § 6123 governs the revival of revoked wills. If a second will, which revoked a first will in whole or in part, is itself revoked (by a later will/codicil or by a revocatory act), the first will remains revoked, unless it is evident from the circumstances of the revocation of the second will, or from the testator’s contemporary or subsequent declarations, that the testator intended the first will to take effect as executed.

__________

California Probate Code § 6123 governs the revival of revoked wills, adopting a rule that is different from the traditional common law approach.
General Rule: If a second will, which wholly or partially revoked a first will, is itself revoked (either by a later will or codicil or by a physical act with the intent to revoke), the first will remains revoked, unless it is evident from the circumstances of the revocation of the second will or from the testator’s contemporary or subsequent declarations that the testator intended the first will to take effect as executed
Evidence of Intent to Revive: The testator’s intent to revive the first will can be shown by:
- Circumstances of the Revocation: The circumstances surrounding the revocation of the second will (e.g., tearing up the second will while saying, “I want my original will to be in effect”).
- Testator’s Declarations: The testator’s contemporary or subsequent declarations (oral or written) expressing an intent to revive the first will. These declarations can be made at the time of or after the revocation of the second will.
Presumption Against Revival: California law creates a presumption against revival. The burden is on the proponent of the first will (the person seeking to have it admitted to probate) to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the testator intended to revive the first will when they revoked the second will.
Partial Revocation: If Will 2 only revoked part of Will 1, that revoked part IS presumptively revived if Will 2 is revoked.
Policy: This rule is designed to prevent the automatic revival of a will that the testator may have long since abandoned, simply because a later revoking will is itself revoked. It requires affirmative evidence of the testator’s intent to revive the earlier will.
Comparison to Common Law: At common law, the rule was often different – revoking the second will automatically revived the first will (if the first will was still in existence). California rejects this automatic revival rule.
Examples:
- No Revival: Testator executes Will 1, then executes Will 2 (which revokes Will 1). Later, Testator tears up Will 2 with the intent to revoke it, but says nothing about Will 1. Will 1 remains revoked.
- Revival: Testator executes Will 1, then executes Will 2 (which revokes Will 1). Later, Testator tears up Will 2, stating, “I want my original will (Will 1) to be in effect again.” This statement, made at the time of revocation of Will 2, is strong evidence of intent to revive Will 1.
- Revival: Testator executes Will 1, then executes Will 2 (which revokes Will 1). Will 2 is later revoked. Testator later executes Will 3, and references Will 1.

Question 14

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Republication by Codicil

Answer 14

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Republication by Codicil

Under the doctrine of republication by codicil, a validly executed codicil to a prior valid will ‘republishes’ the will, meaning the will is treated as if it had been executed on the date of the codicil. This can affect the will’s operation, particularly regarding events that occurred between the original will’s execution and the codicil’s execution.

__________

Republication by codicil is a doctrine in California wills law that treats a validly executed codicil as re-executing or re-establishing a prior will, so that the will is deemed to speak from the date of the codicil, rather than the date of the original will.
Requirements:
- Valid Underlying Will: The original will must have been validly executed at the time it was made. Republication cannot validate a will that was void from the beginning (e.g., due to lack of capacity).
- Valid Codicil: The codicil itself must be a valid testamentary instrument, meeting the execution requirements for either a formal witnessed will (Probate Code § 6110) or a holographic codicil (Probate Code § 6111).
- Sufficient Reference to the Will: The codicil must refer to the prior will with sufficient certainty to identify it. It doesn’t need to be physically attached, but the intent to republish the will should be clear.
Effects of Republication:
- “Updates” the Will’s Date: The most significant effect is that the will is treated as if it had been executed on the date of the codicil. This can have important consequences:
- Omitted Spouses and Children: A spouse who married the testator, or a child born, after the original will’s execution but before the codicil’s execution might not be considered “omitted,” because the will is deemed to speak from the later date.
- Advancements: The date of the codicil may be relevant for determining whether a gift was an advancement.
- Revocation by Operation of Law: Events occurring between the will and the codicil (e.g., divorce) might be affected by the republication.
- Revives a revoked will:
- Cures Some Defects: Republication can sometimes cure certain defects in the original will’s execution, such as a lack of sufficient witnesses, if the codicil itself is validly executed and reaffirms the will. However, it cannot cure a lack of testamentary capacity at the time the original will was executed.
- Incorporation by Reference:
Policy: Republication by codicil provides a mechanism for testators to update their wills and reaffirm their testamentary intent without having to re-execute the entire will. It promotes efficiency and carries out the testator’s presumed wishes.
Examples:
- A testator executes a will in 2015. In 2020, they marry. In 2023, they execute a valid codicil making a minor change to the will. The codicil republishes the will as of 2023, after the marriage. The spouse is not an omitted spouse.
- A testator executes a will that is witnessed by only one person (invalid). Later, they execute a valid codicil, properly witnessed by two people, that refers to the will. The codicil may republish and validate the original will.
Limitations:
- Republication cannot revive a will that was void ab initio due to lack of capacity.
- The intent to republish must be clear.

Question 15

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Testamentary Capacity

Answer 15

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Testamentary Capacity

Under California Probate Code § 6100, a person 18 years or older who is of sound mind may make a will. Probate Code § 6100.5 defines the requirements for ‘sound mind,’ meaning the testator, at the time of executing the will, must have sufficient mental capacity to: (1) understand the nature of the testamentary act; (2) understand and recollect the nature and situation of their property; and (3) remember and understand their relations to their living descendants, spouse, parents, and those whose interests are affected by the will.

__________

California law requires that a testator possess testamentary capacity at the time they execute their will. This is a fundamental requirement for a valid will, ensuring that the will reflects the testator’s true wishes and is not the product of mental incompetence. The requirements are codified in Probate Code §§ 6100 and 6100.5.
Elements of Testamentary Capacity (§ 6100.5):
- Age: The testator must be at least 18 years old.
- Sound Mind: The testator must be of “sound mind” at the time of executing the will. This means they must have sufficient mental capacity to:
- Understand the Nature of the Testamentary Act: Understand that they are making a will – a document that will dispose of their property upon their death. They don’t need to understand all the legal intricacies, but they must grasp the basic concept.
- Understand and Recollect the Nature and Situation of Their Property: Have a general understanding of what they own – the general nature and extent of their assets. They don’t need to know every detail, but they must have a reasonable awareness.
- Remember and Understand Their Relations to Living Descendants, Spouse, and Parents, and Those Whose Interests Are Affected by the Will: Recognize their family members and other individuals who would naturally be considered beneficiaries, and understand how the will’s provisions affect them. They don’t need to be on good terms with them, but they must recognize them.
Presumption and Burden of Proof:
- Presumption of Capacity: A testator is presumed to have testamentary capacity. This is a strong presumption.
- Burden on Contestant: The contestant of the will (the person challenging its validity) has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the testator lacked capacity at the time the will was executed.
Factors Affecting Capacity (Evidence):
- Medical Evidence: Medical records, expert testimony from doctors, evidence of diagnoses (e.g., dementia, Alzheimer’s).
- Testimony of Witnesses: Testimony from the attorney who drafted the will, the witnesses to the will, and others who interacted with the testator around the time of execution.
- Testator’s Conduct: Evidence of the testator’s behavior, statements, and writings around the time of execution.
- Complexity of the Will: A very complex will might require a higher level of understanding than a simple one.
Lucid Intervals: Even a person who generally lacks capacity (e.g., due to dementia) can execute a valid will during a “lucid interval” – a period when they temporarily meet the requirements of sound mind.
Comparison to Undue Influence:
- Lack of Capacity: Focuses on the testator’s ability to understand.
- Undue Influence: Focuses on whether the testator’s free will was overcome by another person, even if the testator had capacity. They are distinct, but often related, grounds for challenging a will.
Policy: The testamentary capacity requirement protects individuals from making wills when they are unable to understand the nature and consequences of their actions. It ensures that wills reflect the testator’s true intent.
Examples:
- A testator with advanced Alzheimer’s disease who does not recognize their children or understand they are making a will likely lacks capacity.
- A testator who is taking strong medication that causes confusion might lack capacity at the time of execution, but this would depend on the specific facts and evidence.
- An elderly testator who is physically frail but mentally alert and understands what they are doing likely has capacity.

Question 16

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Interested Witness

Answer 16

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Interested Witness

Under California Probate Code § 6112, the signing of a will by an ‘interested witness’ (a witness who is also a beneficiary under the will) does not invalidate the will. However, it creates a rebuttable presumption that the witness procured the devise by duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence. If this presumption is not rebutted, the interested witness takes only their intestate share, not the larger gift in the will.

__________

California Probate Code § 6112 addresses the issue of ‘interested witnesses’ – witnesses to a will who are also beneficiaries under the will. This is a modification of the stricter common law rule, which often invalidated wills signed by interested witnesses.
General Rule: In California, a will is not invalid solely because it is signed by an interested witness. This allows for flexibility in will execution.
Presumption of Duress, Menace, Fraud, or Undue Influence: However, unless there are at least two other subscribing witnesses to the will who are disinterested, a rebuttable presumption arises that the witness procured the devise by duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence. This presumption protects against potential abuse by individuals who might exert improper influence over a testator.
Rebutting the Presumption: The interested witness can rebut this presumption by presenting evidence that they did not procure the devise through any wrongdoing. This might involve showing:
- The testator’s independent intent.
- The lack of any confidential relationship between the witness and the testator.
- The fairness of the bequest in light of the testator’s overall estate plan and relationships.
- The witness’s lack of involvement in the will’s preparation or execution (beyond simply signing as a witness).
Consequences if Presumption Not Rebutted: If the interested witness fails to rebut the presumption, they are entitled to take only the share of the estate they would have received if the will had not been established (i.e., their intestate share), and no more than what was willed. If they would get nothing through intestacy, then they inherit nothing.
Policy: Section 6112 balances the need to prevent fraud and undue influence with the desire to uphold a testator’s intent where possible. It avoids automatically invalidating wills signed by interested witnesses, but it creates a significant hurdle for such witnesses to overcome if they are to receive a gift larger than their intestate share.
Comparison to Common Law: At common law, an interested witness often rendered the entire will invalid. California’s rule is more lenient, preserving the will but potentially limiting the interested witness’s gift.

Question 17

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Lapse and Anti-Lapse

Answer 17

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Lapse and Anti-Lapse

Under California’s anti-lapse statute (Probate Code § 21110), if a beneficiary named in a will predeceases the testator, and the beneficiary is kindred of the testator or kindred of a surviving, deceased, or former spouse or domestic partner of the testator, and the beneficiary leaves issue (lineal descendants) surviving them, then the issue take the gift in the beneficiary’s place, unless the will expresses a contrary intention.

__________

California Probate Code § 21110 is an anti-lapse statute, designed to prevent gifts in a will from lapsing (failing) when a beneficiary predeceases the testator. It reflects a policy presumption that, in most cases, a testator would prefer a deceased beneficiary’s gift to go to that beneficiary’s descendants, rather than to fall into the residue or pass by intestacy.
Common Law Rule (Lapse): At common law, if a beneficiary died before the testator, the gift to that beneficiary lapsed. The property would either pass under the will’s residuary clause (if any) or, if there was no residuary clause, pass by intestacy.
California Anti-Lapse Statute (§ 21110): This statute modifies the common law rule, providing a “substitute taker” in certain situations. It states that if:
- Beneficiary Predeceases Testator: The beneficiary named in the will dies before the testator (or is treated as predeceasing under simultaneous death rules, or fails to survive for a required period).
- Beneficiary is “Kindred”: The deceased beneficiary is kindred (a blood relative, including adopted relatives) of the testator, or kindred of a surviving, deceased, or former spouse or domestic partner of the testator. This is a key limitation – the anti-lapse statute does not apply to a gift to the testator’s spouse (who is not kindred). It does apply to relatives of the spouse.
- Beneficiary Leaves Issue: The deceased beneficiary leaves issue (lineal descendants – children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, etc.) who survive the testator.
Then, the issue of the deceased beneficiary take the gift in the beneficiary’s place (by representation), unless the will expresses a contrary intention.
“Contrary Intention”: The testator can override the anti-lapse statute by clearly expressing a contrary intent in the will. Examples:
- “I leave my car to my brother, John, if he survives me.” This clearly requires survivorship.
- “I leave $10,000 to my friend, Mary, and if she predeceases me, to my friend, Susan.” This provides an alternate gift.
- Mere survivorship language “To A, if he survives me,” by itself, might not be enough to overcome.
How the issue take.
Examples:
- Will leaves “my estate to my brother, Bob.” Bob predeceases the testator, leaving two children. The children take Bob’s share under the anti-lapse statute (because Bob is kindred of the testator).
- Will leaves “my estate to my friend, Alice.” Alice predeceases the testator, leaving two children. The anti-lapse statute does not apply because Alice is not kindred of the testator (or of the testator’s spouse). The gift to Alice lapses.
- Will leaves “my estate to my child, if he survives me.” The child predeceases, leaving issue. The anti-lapse statute would likely not apply.
Related Concepts:
- Residuary Clause: If a gift lapses and the anti-lapse statute does not apply, the property typically falls into the will’s residuary clause (the clause that disposes of everything not specifically given away).
- Intestacy: If there is no residuary clause, lapsed gifts pass by intestate succession.

Question 18

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Ademption

Answer 18

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

7. Ademption

Ademption by extinction traditionally occurs when property specifically given in a will is not part of the testator’s estate at the time of death. Under the strict ‘identity theory’ of ademption, the gift fails completely, and the beneficiary receives nothing. California, however, follows a modified approach, with statutory provisions that attempt to avoid ademption in certain circumstances.

__________

Ademption refers to the failure or revocation of a testamentary gift because the property is not part of the testator’s estate at the time of death. California law addresses two main types of ademption:
- Ademption by Extinction: This occurs when property specifically devised in a will is no longer owned by the testator at death.
- Traditional “Identity Theory”: Under the strict common law identity theory, if the exact item of property was not in the estate, the gift was completely adeemed, and the beneficiary received nothing. The testator’s intent was irrelevant.
- California’s Modified Approach (Probate Code §§ 21133-21135): California has mitigated the harshness of the identity theory. While still focusing primarily on the identity of the property, California law provides specific statutory exceptions where the beneficiary may receive a substitute gift or the pecuniary value of the specific gift, even if the specific item is not in the estate. These exceptions often involve situations where the change in the property is largely a matter of form over substance, or where the testator did not voluntarily dispose of the property.
- Examples (where ademption might be avoided/mitigated under CA law):
- Securities changing form (stock splits, mergers, etc.) – beneficiary generally receives the changed securities.
- Conservator sells property: If a conservator for the testator sells the specifically devised property, the beneficiary may be entitled to a general pecuniary devise equal to the net sale price.
- Eminent domain award, insurance proceeds, or installment sale proceeds unpaid at death, relating to specifically devised property, may go to the beneficiary.
- Ademption by Satisfaction: This occurs when the testator gives the beneficiary the specific gift, or a substitute for it, during the testator’s lifetime, with the intent that it satisfy the testamentary gift. (See separate rule for Ademption by Satisfaction).
Specific vs. General vs. Demonstrative vs. Residuary Gifts:
- Specific Gift: A gift of a particular, identifiable item (e.g., “my grandmother’s diamond ring,” “my house at 123 Oak Street”). Ademption by extinction applies primarily to specific gifts.
- General Gift: A gift of a general economic benefit, usually a sum of money, payable out of the general assets of the estate (e.g., “$10,000 to my nephew”). General gifts are not subject to ademption by extinction. If there’s not enough money in the estate, other assets are sold to satisfy the general gift.
- Demonstrative Gift: A hybrid; a general gift payable from a specific source (e.g., “$10,000 from my Bank of America account”). If the specific source is insufficient, it’s paid from the general assets like a general gift.
- Residuary Gift: A gift of whatever remains in the estate after all specific, general, and demonstrative gifts are satisfied.
Policy: The modern trend is to try to avoid ademption where possible, to carry out the testator’s presumed intent. However, the identity of the specific property still matters significantly in California.

Question 19

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

8. Revocation by Physical Act
9. Dependent Relevant Revocation
10. Per Capita & Per Stirpes Distribution
11. General, Specific, Demonstrative, and Residual Gifts
12. Abatement
13. Adopted Children
14. Integration

Answer 19

WILLS & TRUSTS – Wills

8. Revocation by Physical Act

California Probate Code § 6120 provides that a will or any part thereof can be revoked by a physical act, if: (1) the act is one of burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will; (2) the act is done with the simultaneous intent to revoke; and (3) the act is done either by the testator, or by another person in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction.”

8. Dependent Relevant Revocation

Under the doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation (DRR), a court may disregard a testator’s revocation of a will (or a portion thereof) if the revocation was conditioned on the validity of a subsequent will or other disposition, and that subsequent disposition is ineffective. The court must find that the testator would not have revoked the original provision but for their mistaken belief that the new disposition was valid.

8. Per Capita & Per Stirpes Distribution

California Probate Code § 240 establishes the default method for distributing property among descendants when a will or trust, or the rules of intestacy, provide for distribution ‘by representation’ or ‘per stirpes’ without further specification. California uses a system often called ‘per capita with representation’ or ‘per capita at each generation.’ Under this system:
- The property is divided into equal shares at the first generation where there are living takers.
- Each living person at that generation receives one share.
- The shares of deceased members at that generation are combined and then divided equally among the living members of the next generation.

8. General, Specific, Demonstrative, and Residual Gifts

Testamentary gifts in California are classified as specific, general, demonstrative, or residuary. This classification is important for determining the order of abatement (if the estate has insufficient assets) and whether a gift is subject to ademption by extinction:
- Specific Gift: A gift of a specifically identified item of property (e.g., “my gold watch,” “my house at 123 Main Street”). Only that specific item satisfies the gift.
- General Gift: A gift of a general economic benefit, typically a sum of money, payable from the general assets of the estate (e.g., “$10,000 to my niece”).
- Demonstrative Gift: A general gift that is payable from a specific source (e.g., “$5,000 from my Bank of America account”). If the specific source is insufficient, it is paid from the general assets.
- Residuary Gift: A gift of the remainder of the estate after all other gifts are satisfied (e.g., “all the rest, residue, and remainder of my estate to my son”).
- Abatement: If the estate has insufficient assets to pay all debts and gifts, gifts abate (are reduced or eliminated) in a specific order, generally:
- Residuary gifts.
- General gifts.
- Demonstrative gifts
- Specific gifts.
Within each class, gifts typically abate pro rata.

8. Abatement

If a testator’s estate has insufficient assets to pay all debts, expenses of administration, and testamentary gifts, the gifts abate (are reduced or eliminated) in a specific order under California law. Generally, residuary gifts abate first, then general gifts, then demonstrative gifts, and finally, specific gifts.

8. Adopted Children

Under California Probate Code § 21115, an adopted person is generally treated as the child of the adopting parent(s) and not of the natural parents for purposes of inheritance under a will or by intestate succession. The adoption severs the parent-child relationship with the natural parents, except in certain circumstances involving stepparent adoptions or adoptions after the death of a natural parent.

8. Integration

Under the doctrine of integration, all papers that are physically present at the time of the will’s execution and are intended by the testator to be part of the will are treated as part of the will, even if they are not physically attached or individually signed. The key is the testator’s intent and the contemporaneous presence of the pages.