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