In Estate of Benjamin C. Williams (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 374, the court reaffirmed the strict evidentiary burden placed on California omitted children seeking a share of a decedent’s estate under California Probate Code section 21622.
The petitioner, Carla Montgomery, discovered through DNA testing that she was the biological daughter of the decedent, Benjamin C. Williams, after his passing.
Carla was one of seven children of the decedent. At the time he executed his estate plan, the decedent was aware of six out of his seven children, and he intentionally omitted all but the youngest two of them, whom he shared with his then–wife.
Carla sought a share of his trust estate, arguing that she was omitted solely because the decedent was unaware of her existence at the time he executed his estate plan. The trial court denied her claim, finding that Carla failed to meet her burden, as the decedent’s action of excluding his other four known children supported an inference of his intent to benefit only the youngest two.
Estate of Williams Background: Was Carla Excluded Solely Because She Was Unknown?
The decedent fathered seven children, five before moving to California and two with his wife after relocating to California. In 1999, he executed a trust naming only the two youngest children, Benita Ligia Williams (“Benita”) and Benjamin S. Williams, whom he shared with his wife, as trust beneficiaries. The trust did not include a general disinheritance clause, nor did it mention his other known or unknown children.
Carla, born from a brief relationship between the decedent and Annie Elliott in the 1960s, was unaware of her paternity until 2019, when her daughter connected with Benita via a genealogy website. Upon learning of the decedent’s death and the trust, Carla petitioned for a share of the estate under Probate Code section 21622, claiming she was omitted solely because the decedent had been unaware of her existence.
Does Carla Qualify as an “Omitted Child” Under Section 21622?
Section 21622 provides that a child omitted from a decedent’s testamentary instruments may receive a share of the estate only if the omission was solely due to the decedent’s unawareness of the child’s birth. This provision places a high burden on the petitioner to prove the decedent would have provided for them had they known of their existence.
The court in Estate of Williams heavily relied on the reasoning from Rallo v. O’Brian (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 997, which clarified that the omitted child must not only show that the decedent was unaware of their birth, but also that this was the sole reason for the omission.
As Rallo stated, “To recover under section 21622, the omitted child must show the decedent would have provided for the child but for the fact that the decedent was unaware of the child’s existence.”
Is a Disinheritance Clause the Sole Way to Show an Intent to Disinherit?
The trial court found credible testimony that the decedent was unaware of Carla’s birth when he executed the trust and that he had intentionally omitted four other known children from the trust.
Although the decedent’s trust lacked a general disinheritance clause, the court found that his consistent exclusion of four known children showed a clear intent to benefit only his two youngest children whom he shared with his then–wife in California. The court emphasized that intent to disinherit can be shown in various ways, not just through a disinheritance clause.
Moreover, Carla’s argument that it was “substantially likely” the decedent would have provided for her if he had known of her was similarly rejected. As the court noted, “substantially likely” is not the relevant standard under section 21622.
In short, the appellate court affirmed, holding that Carla failed to meet the “sole reason” standard under section 21622. The absence of a general disinheritance clause could not change the outcome, as the court found that the decedent’s consistent exclusion of other children demonstrated a clear testamentary intent.
Key Takeaways: What Families Should Know About California Omitted Children Claims
- The burden of proof is on the omitted child. Petitioners must show that the decedent’s unawareness was the only reason for their exclusion.
- Intent matters more than awareness. Courts will look beyond whether a decedent knew of a child’s existence and examine the broader pattern of testamentary intent.
- The “sole reason” standard is strict. Petitioners must prove that the only reason for their omission was the decedent’s lack of awareness, not just that they were unknown.
- Intent can be inferred. A general disinheritance clause is helpful but not required to demonstrate intent to omit.
- “Substantial likelihood” is not a legal standard. Courts require proof that the decedent would have provided for the child but for their unawareness, not simply because it is likely they would have.
Have questions about California omitted children claims?
Is someone trying to claim a portion of a decedent’s estate through a California omitted child claim? Are you wondering whether you qualify as an omitted child under Probate Code section 21622? Whether you’re filing the claim or defending against one, our skilled probate attorneys are prepared to guide you through the process.
California omitted child claims can be complex and stressful. Let our team handle the legal details so you can focus on what matters. Call us today to discover how we can assist.
