Master California Supreme Court adopted the modern rule permitting reformation of an unambiguous will to correct a mistake upon clear and convincing evidence of the testator’s actual intent. with this comprehensive case brief.
In re Estate of Duke is a landmark California Supreme Court decision that reshaped the law of wills by embracing reformation to correct mistakes—even when a will is textually unambiguous. Prior California doctrine strictly limited courts to the four corners of an unambiguous instrument, often forcing partial intestacy that defeated the testator’s actual wishes. Duke rejects that formalism. It aligns California with the Restatement (Third) of Property and the Uniform Probate Code by authorizing courts to reform a will if clear and convincing evidence shows both a mistake in expression and the testator’s specific intent at the time of execution.
For law students, Duke is essential because it reframes the balance between the Statute of Wills’ formalities and the paramount principle of effectuating testamentary intent. It introduces a rigorous, evidence-based pathway—short of rewriting a will—that permits correction of drafting or expression errors while preserving safeguards against fraud and uncertainty. The case thus sits at the crossroads of interpretation, reformation, evidentiary standards, and probate policy.
In re Estate of Duke, 61 Cal. 4th 871, 352 P.3d 863, 190 Cal. Rptr. 3d 295 (Cal. 2015)
The decedent executed a will leaving his estate to his spouse, but included an additional clause providing that if he and his spouse died simultaneously (or in a common disaster), designated charitable organizations would receive his estate. Years later, the spouse predeceased the testator under circumstances not involving simultaneous death. The testator then died without children and without revising his will. Because the will did not expressly address the contingency in which the spouse predeceased the testator in a non-simultaneous manner, the probate court concluded the instrument failed to dispose of the estate in that circumstance, resulting in partial intestacy and distribution to the decedent’s collateral heirs under intestacy laws. The charitable organizations named in the simultaneous-death clause petitioned to admit extrinsic evidence and to reform the will to reflect the testator’s alleged actual intent—to benefit the charities if his spouse did not survive him—asserting that the simultaneous-death limitation was a drafting or expression mistake. The probate court, and then the Court of Appeal, declined to reform the unambiguous will under traditional California precedent. The California Supreme Court granted review.
May a court reform an unambiguous will to correct a mistake in the expression of the testator’s intent when clear and convincing evidence establishes both the mistake and the testator’s actual specific intent at the time of drafting?
An unambiguous will may be reformed to conform to the testator’s intent if (1) clear and convincing evidence establishes that a mistake of expression occurred in the will and (2) clear and convincing evidence establishes the testator’s actual specific intent at the time the will was drafted and executed, such that the proposed reformation will carry out that intent. Courts may consider relevant extrinsic evidence to prove the mistake and the testator’s intent. This modern rule aligns with Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Other Donative Transfers § 12.1 and UPC § 2-805 and does not contravene will-execution formalities because it corrects expression rather than dispenses with execution requirements.
Yes. The California Supreme Court adopted the modern reformation doctrine for wills and held that a court may reform an unambiguous will upon clear and convincing evidence of a mistake in expression and the testator’s specific actual intent. The Court reversed the judgment and remanded for the probate court to consider the extrinsic evidence and determine whether the charities met the stringent evidentiary standard for reformation.
The Court began by reaffirming the primacy of effectuating testamentary intent, noting that rigid adherence to text alone can frustrate that goal when drafting or expression errors occur. Historically, California allowed extrinsic evidence to resolve latent or patent ambiguities but barred its use to contradict unambiguous terms. The Court concluded that this formalistic divide is unsatisfactory when credible evidence shows that the instrument does not reflect what the testator actually intended at execution. Drawing on modern authorities, including Restatement (Third) of Property § 12.1 and UPC § 2-805, the Court reasoned that reformation of wills is justified for the same reasons California already permits reformation of unambiguous trusts and contracts: mistakes in expression are a common, recognized ground for equitable correction. The policy concerns underlying will formalities—the cautionary, channeling, and evidentiary functions—are not undermined by reformation because the instrument still must be validly executed, and any correction requires rigorous proof. To guard against fraud and hindsight bias, the Court imposed a clear and convincing evidence standard and required proof of both the mistake and the testator’s specific intent at the time of execution, not merely generalized testamentary preferences or post hoc speculation. The Court rejected the contention that the Statute of Wills categorically forbids reformation, explaining that the doctrine corrects the expression of an already-existing testamentary intent rather than creating a new disposition without compliance with formalities. It distinguished interpretation (resolving ambiguity) from reformation (correcting mistake) but authorized both to rely on extrinsic evidence subject to the heightened standard. Applying these principles, the Court held that the lower courts erred by refusing to consider extrinsic evidence and by treating the absence of ambiguity as dispositive. The matter was remanded to determine whether the charities could prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the testator intended them to take in the event his spouse predeceased him and that the simultaneous-death limitation was a mistaken expression.
Duke is the leading California authority authorizing reformation of wills, bringing wills doctrine into parity with trusts and contracts and aligning the state with the Restatement and UPC. It replaces a formalistic bar on correcting unambiguous instruments with a calibrated, evidence-intensive framework that prioritizes testamentary intent while preserving strong safeguards. For students and practitioners, Duke teaches (1) the distinction between interpretation and reformation, (2) the elevated clear-and-convincing proof standard, (3) the admissibility and role of extrinsic evidence, and (4) practical drafting implications—particularly the need to address alternative contingencies and to preserve contemporaneous evidence of intent.
Yes. Duke expressly permits reformation of an unambiguous will when clear and convincing evidence establishes both a mistake in the will’s expression and the testator’s specific intent at the time of execution.
Clear and convincing evidence. The proponent must show both the existence of a mistake and the testator’s actual specific intent that the proposed reformation would implement.
Courts may consider communications by the testator, drafting notes, attorney files, prior or contemporaneous documents, patterns of giving, and other surrounding circumstances. Evidence Code provisions (such as hearsay exceptions for statements concerning a will) and Probate Code provisions govern admissibility, but Duke authorizes consideration of relevant extrinsic evidence subject to those rules.
No. The Court explained that reformation corrects a mistaken expression of an intent that existed at execution; it does not create a new testamentary disposition without formalities. The will must still have been validly executed, and the reformation must be supported by clear and convincing proof.
Yes. The Court saw no principled reason to treat them differently. In both contexts, reformation may be available upon clear and convincing evidence of mistake and actual intent.
Duke provides a mechanism to avoid unintended partial intestacy when a will’s language fails to address a contingency due to mistake. If the proponent meets the standard, the court can reform the will to carry out the testator’s proven intent rather than default to intestacy.
In re Estate of Duke modernizes California’s approach to testamentary mistakes by authorizing courts to reform even unambiguous wills when rigorous proof shows the will misstates the testator’s actual intent. The decision places the goal of effectuating intent at the forefront while carefully preserving the evidentiary and cautionary functions of will formalities through a demanding clear-and-convincing standard.
For students and practitioners, Duke is a touchstone for understanding how courts balance textualism against equitable correction. It invites careful drafting and recordkeeping, underscores the value of contemporaneous evidence of intent, and provides a concrete framework for litigating and resolving cases where the written will does not reflect the testator’s true plan.