Much like Santa Claus, the California probate code can provide coal to those who act naughty. Although to be exact, the California probate code provides something much worse than coal in your stockings, money damages.
Probate Code § 859 reads "If a court finds that a person has in bad faith wrongfully taken, concealed, or disposed of property belonging to the estate of a decedent, conservatee, minor, or trust, or has taken, concealed, or disposed of the property by the use of undue influence in bad faith or through the commission of elder or dependent adult financial abuse, as defined in Section 15610.30 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the person shall be liable for twice the value of the property recovered by an action under this part. The remedy provided in this section shall be in addition to any other remedies available in law to a trustee, guardian or conservator, or personal representative or other successor in interest of a decedent."
In other words, a defendant found culpable of the above is liable for double damages as a penalty in addition to other remedies.
A real-world example of this resulted from the Estate of Moynes, San Mateo Superior Court Case # PRO116317. In this case, it was determined that the decedent's care-giver and daughter had in bad faith wrongfully obtained part of the decedent's estate prior to her passing, principally a home in Daly City for below-market value. Accordingly, the judgment, which was recently upheld by the California Court of Appeal, reads as follows:
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that
1. Petitioner Lynn Lintz have and recover from Respondent Marilu Ramirez the sum of $106,000, with interest thereon at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from January 31, 2005 to July 31, 2011 in the sum of $48,219.84 for a total sum of $154,219.84.
2. Petitioner Lynn Lintz have and recover from Respondent Marilu Ramirez the sum of $118,750 with interest thereon at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from January 10, 2005 to July 31, 2011 in the sum of $54,512.90 for a total sum of $173,262.90.
3. Petitioner Lynn Lintz have and recover from Respondent Marilu Ramirez the sum of $60,633.65 with interest thereon at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from October 31, 2006 to July 31, 2011 in the sum of $20,163.61 for a total sum of $80,797.26.
4. Petitioner Lynn Lintz have and recover from Respondent Marilu Ramirez twice the principal sums set out in paragraphs one through three hereof in the sum of $570,76730, with interest thereon at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from October 31, 2006 to July 31, 2011 in the sum of $189,807.49 for a total sum of $760,754.79
5. The total sum of the four items above is: $1,168,854.79. Interest thereon at the rate of seven percent (7%) per annum from August 1, 2011 to July 18, 2012 equals the sum of $78,905.70, for a total sum due of $1,247,760.49.
Therefore, Final Judgment shall be entered in favor of Petitioner Lynn Lintz and against Respondent Marilu Ramirez for $1,247,760.49, with simple interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the entry of this Final Judgment until the full amount of the judgment plus interest is paid.
In light of Probate Code § 859, this judgment had acute consequences for the defendants. Paragraph 4 specifically spells out how damages are doubled and added to the other damage totals. This results in a rather staggering total judgment, roughly $1.25M.
