Estate of Smith CA1/5

California Court of Appeal Jun 20, 2025 No. A171689Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment against the appellant, holding that the presumption of undue influence between spouses does not apply to parties who are divorced and that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record for appellate review.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by failing to apply a presumption of undue influence to a property transfer between divorced parties.
Whether the appellant met her burden of demonstrating prejudicial error in the absence of a reporter's transcript of the trial.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the existence of a marital relationship is a necessary predicate to the presumption’s application.”

“It is a cardinal rule of appellate review that “a judgment or order of the trial court is presumed correct and prejudicial error must be affirmatively shown.”

“if the record is inadequate for meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.”

Filed 6/20/25 Estate of Smith CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Estate of JEFFREY V. SMITH, Deceased. ___________________________________ TARYN O’KANE,

Plaintiff and Appellant, A171689

v. (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. KAREN COOPER-SHAW, as CV2400410) Executor, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Acting in propria persona, Taryn O’Kane appeals the trial court’s order, entered after trial, declining to set aside a deed transferring real property to her ex-husband, Jeffrey V. Smith. O’Kane argues the trial court failed to apply a presumption of undue influence, which would have shifted the burden to Smith’s estate to prove the deed had not been procured by undue influence. We conclude that O’Kane fails to meet her burden on appeal to show error and affirm.

1 We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion

pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1. 1

O’Kane and Smith divorced in 1999. At that time, they executed a marital settlement agreement, under which O’Kane and Smith agreed that Smith would transfer a house in Eureka, “together with the obligation owed thereon,” to O’Kane in exchange for her refinancing and assuming the mortgage, releasing her community property interest in Smith’s pension, and making a $10,000 equalizing payment. In the interim (pending O’Kane’s refinance of the mortgage loan and Smith’s execution and delivery of a signed transfer deed), Smith agreed to continue paying the mortgage.

Estate of Smith CA1/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

JACKSON, P. J. CHOU, J.

AI Brief