Author: CPT Team

A finding of bad faith is a prerequisite to an award of double damages under Probate Code section 859 based on a theory of undue influence.

Robert Levin amended his trust at various times before his death in 2015, including in 2008 and 2012. The latter amendments largely benefited his surviving spouse, Debra, at the expense of his daughter from a prior marriage, Elizabeth. Elizabeth sued to invalidate those amendments on the grounds that they were procured as a result of Debra’s undue influence, and sought an order to compel Debra to return property distributed to her under the disputed 2012 amendment and for double damages under Probate Code section 859. The court found that Debra failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence, as it applied to the 2012 amendment, given Robert’s significant mental decline by that point of time. The court invalidated that amendment, and ordered Debra to return to the trust property that she had obtained under that amendment and a related deed. The court found that Robert had executed the 2008 amendment of his own free will and volition. Elizabeth appealed. She contended that the court erred by not awarding double damages under the elder abuse statutes given the finding of undue influence, by upholding the validity of the 2008 amendment, and by voiding the entire 2012 amendment instead of just those portions that benefited Debra.

Affirmed. Double damages under Probate Code section 859 are available in undue influence cases only when the court finds bad faith. Although undue influence may give rise to liability for financial elder abuse, which provides enhanced remedies, double damages under section 859 require an additional showing of bad faith. Not all instances of undue influence entail bad faith. The court acknowledged the ambivalence of the relevant statutes but concluded that because all other bases for double damages under section 859 require bad faith, double damages for elder abuse based on undue influence also required bad faith. The court also held that the entire 2012 amendment was tainted by undue influence, and it would be impossible to invalidate only the portions benefiting Debra without upending Robert’s well-established testamentary intent to strike a balance between his wife and his daughter. Finally, substantial evidence existed to support the court’s findings as to the validity of the 2008 amendment.

Case Details:

Source: California Lawyers Association – Elizabeth Levin v. Debra Winston-Levin

Full Opinion: Third District Opinion PDF

When Can You Recover Double Damages in California Trust Disputes? Understanding Undue Influence and Bad Faith

If you’re a California resident managing a loved one’s estate or trust—or planning your own—you may wonder: What happens when someone manipulates a family member into changing their trust? Can you recover more than just what was taken?

A landmark 2019 California Court of Appeal case, Elizabeth Levin v. Debra Winston-Levin, clarifies a critical point: proving undue influence alone is not enough to claim double damages under California Probate Code section 859. You must also prove bad faith.

This distinction matters for families navigating trust disputes, elder financial abuse claims, and probate litigation in California.

What Happened in the Levin Case?

Robert Levin amended his trust twice before his death in 2015—once in 2008 and again in 2012. The 2012 amendment heavily favored his second wife, Debra, at the expense of his daughter from a prior marriage, Elizabeth.

After Robert’s death, Elizabeth filed a lawsuit arguing that Debra used undue influence to manipulate her father during a period of significant mental decline. She sought to:

The trial court agreed that Debra’s influence over the 2012 amendment was undue, given Robert’s declining mental state. It voided the entire 2012 amendment and ordered Debra to return the property. However, it did not award double damages.

Elizabeth appealed, arguing that undue influence should automatically trigger double damages under California’s elder abuse statutes.

The Court’s Ruling: Bad Faith Is Required

The California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that double damages under Probate Code section 859 require a separate finding of bad faith—even in cases involving undue influence.

Here’s why this matters:

The court acknowledged that while undue influence can lead to financial elder abuse claims with enhanced remedies, double damages specifically demand proof that the wrongdoer acted in bad faith.

Why the Entire 2012 Amendment Was Voided

Elizabeth also argued that only the portions of the 2012 amendment benefiting Debra should be invalidated—not the whole thing.

The court disagreed. It ruled that the entire 2012 amendment was tainted by undue influence, and selectively removing only Debra’s benefits would contradict Robert’s long-standing intent to balance provisions for both his wife and daughter.

The 2008 amendment, however, was upheld as valid because substantial evidence showed Robert executed it freely and voluntarily.

What This Means for California Families

If you’re dealing with a trust dispute or suspect a loved one was manipulated into changing their estate plan, this case offers important lessons:

How California Probate and Trust, PC Can Help

At California Probate and Trust, PC, we understand how overwhelming it is to navigate probate litigation, trust disputes, and elder abuse claims—especially when family relationships are at stake.

Whether you’re:

We provide transparent, compassionate guidance tailored to California residents and those managing California-based assets. Our team handles both the legal structure and financial management aspects—so you have a true one-stop-shop for probate and estate planning.

Contact us today at cpt.law to schedule a consultation and protect what matters most: your family and your legacy.

Case Details

Source: California Lawyers Association – Elizabeth Levin v. Debra Winston-Levin

Full Opinion: Third District Opinion PDF

Where the trust expressly required that amendments be made by a signed writing, handwritten interlineations on a trust instrument did not constitute a valid amendment because they were not signed.

Anderson created a revocable trust and amended it to name 15 different beneficiaries. Anderson later decided to amend his trust for a second time to reduce the number of beneficiaries and modify their respective percentages under the trust. He made handwritten interlineations to the first amendment, naming his friend Dey and others as beneficiaries. He then mailed to his attorney the original trust, the first amendment with the handwritten interlineations, and a Post-it® note asking his attorney to formalize his notes into a second amendment for his signature. Anderson then died without signing the second amendment. Pena, the trustee, sought instructions from the court confirming the handwritten interlineations did not constitute a valid amendment. The court granted summary judgment in Pena’s favor and Dey appealed.

The court of appeal affirmed. Although it was clear Anderson intended to amend the trust, it was also clear he never actually signed a writing in compliance with the trust’s terms to effectuate his intent. The trust required that amendments “be made by written instrument signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee.” The interlineations did constitute a writing separate and apart from the printed trust instrument itself, as required. And because Anderson was also the trustee he also effected delivery. However, the document was not signed. The interlineations therefore did not comply with the trust’s express requirement that amendments be signed. Nor can the Post-it® note Anderson attached to the documents he sent his attorney be deemed a part of the written instrument such that Anderson’s signature on the note effectively signed the interlineations. That Post-it® note was a separate writing that simply identified the enclosed documents.

Case Details:

Source: California Lawyers Association – Pena v. Dey

Full Opinion: Third District Opinion PDF

# Why Handwritten Trust Amendments Fail in California: What Pena v. Dey Means for Your Estate Plan

If you’re a California resident with a revocable trust, you might assume that simply writing changes on your trust document is enough to update it. A critical 2019 California Court of Appeal case proves otherwise—and the consequences of this misunderstanding can be devastating for your family.

## The Problem: When Good Intentions Aren’t Enough

Many Californians create revocable trusts to protect their families and avoid probate. But what happens when you make handwritten changes to your trust without following the proper legal requirements? In Pena v. Dey, the Third District Court of Appeal ruled that even clear intent to amend a trust isn’t sufficient if the amendment isn’t properly signed.

## What Happened in Pena v. Dey?

Anderson created a revocable trust and initially amended it to name 15 beneficiaries. Later, he decided to reduce the number of beneficiaries and adjust their inheritance percentages. He made handwritten notes directly on his first amendment, identifying his friend Dey and others as new beneficiaries.

Anderson then mailed these handwritten changes to his attorney along with a Post-it note requesting that the attorney formalize the changes into a proper second amendment for his signature. Tragically, Anderson died before signing the formal amendment.

## The Court’s Decision: Form Matters as Much as Intent

The trustee asked the court to confirm that the handwritten changes weren’t valid. The court agreed, and the Court of Appeal affirmed this decision.

Here’s what the court found:

## What This Means for California Trust Holders

Key takeaway: Your trust document is a legally binding contract with specific requirements. If your trust requires signed amendments, you must follow that procedure—no exceptions.

This case answers critical questions for California residents:

## How to Properly Amend Your California Trust

To ensure your wishes are honored, follow these steps:

## Real-World Impact: Protecting Your Beneficiaries

In Pena v. Dey, Anderson’s friend Dey lost out on an inheritance entirely because of a missing signature. The beneficiaries from the earlier, properly executed amendment received the estate instead—likely not what Anderson intended.

This isn’t just a technical legal issue. When trust amendments fail, families face:

## Case Details

Source: California Lawyers Association – Pena v. Dey

Full Opinion: Third District Opinion PDF

## Get Professional Guidance for Your California Trust

Don’t let a simple procedural mistake undermine your estate plan. If you have a revocable trust in California and need to make changes, or if you’re unsure whether your existing amendments were properly executed, professional guidance is essential.

California Probate and Trust, PC specializes in helping California residents navigate complex trust and estate planning issues. Our experienced attorneys understand the technical requirements that courts enforce and can ensure your trust amendments are legally valid and will withstand scrutiny.

We offer a FREE estate planning consultation where we can:

Don’t wait until it’s too late. Contact California Probate and Trust, PC today to schedule your free consultation and ensure your trust amendments are legally sound.

Protecting your family’s future is too important to leave to chance.