State High Court: Probate Code Requires Witnesses To Sign Will Before Testator's Death

Today, the California Supreme Court held that when a witness signs a will after the testator's death, the will violates the Probate Code (section 6110). Declining to follow the trend of other jurisdictions, the court, in one of Justice Carol Corrigan's first opinions since her recent appointment, concluded that any other result would "allow the validity of a will to depend upon the will or caprice of one who had been requested to perform the very simple act of becoming a witness by allowing such a person to wait until after the testator’s death to decide whether or not to subscribe his or her signature to the will. Such an interpretation would invite fraud and subvert the basic intent of will authentication requirements." Estate of Saueresig, Case No. S129110.

Pleading Requirements in Child Abuse Cases Up For Grabs

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court agreed to decide what a plaintiff claiming child abuse must plead regarding the defendant non-perpetrator's notice of the abuser's proclivities. Cal. CCP section 340.1 reinstates certain time-barred causes of action, by adult plaintiffs molested as children, against the abusers and those considered responsible for the abuser. Under the statute, the non-perpetrator must have had notice (actual knowledge ?) of the abuser's wrongful acts and failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a recurrence. The issue to be decided is what standard must the plaintiff meet in order to adequately allege the non-perpetrator defendant had the requisite notice. Doe v. City of Los Angeles, S142689, formerly at 137 Cal.App.4th 438, review granted 6/21/06.

Here are the issues, as described in the court's weekly summary:

"Were plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Los Angeles and the Boy Scouts of America for sexual abuse by a city police officer while they participated in police department programs in the 1970’s barred by the statute of limitations, or did plaintiffs sufficiently invoke the provisions of CCP 340.1 (b)(2), which permits the revival of certain claims of sexual abuse that would otherwise be barred where the defendant `knew or had reason to know, or was otherwise on notice, of any unlawful sexual conduct by an employee, volunteer, representative, or agent, and failed to take reasonable steps, and to implement reasonable safeguards, to avoid acts of unlawful sexual conduct in the future by that person'”?

California: Major Indemnity Issue Up For Decision

In late May, a great many contractors and their lawyers heaved a sigh of relief when the California Supreme Court granted review in Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg. There, in a published opinion with a vigorous dissent, the court of appeal had held that a subcontractor owes a present duty to defend the general contractor based only on allegations that the sub was negligent.

Here is the issue accepted for review, as described on the high court's website: did a contract under which a subcontractor agreed to "defend any suit or action" against a developer "founded upon" any claim "growing out of the execution of the work" require the subcontractor to provide a defense to a suit against the developer even if the subcontractor was not negligent? Crawford v. Weather Shield Mfg., Inc., S141541, formerly published at 136 Cal.App.4th 304, mod. 136 Cal.App.4th 1181e, review granted 5/24/06.