Gribbon v. Vosburgh

Gribbon v. Vosburgh

2026 WL 368518 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 2026)

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California, No. D086157

Relevant Facts

• James Gribbon filed a probate petition to invalidate two revocable transfer on death deeds (TODs) executed by his mother, Muriel Alexis Fries (Decedent), which named his sister Shalene Vosburgh as sole beneficiary of Decedent's two California real properties.

• Decedent was an alcoholic who was incarcerated for DUI in 2017; during her incarceration, Gribbon wrote numerous checks to himself from Decedent's account.

• After a series of hospitalizations in 2018, Decedent was transferred to hospice care; Gribbon disposed of Decedent's personal property and sold her beloved pet bird Daisy.

• Decedent made an unexpected recovery and moved to Brookdale Senior Living in July 2018; Vosburgh did not inform Gribbon of Decedent's location or provide Gribbon's number to Decedent's new phone.

• On September 2, 2019, Decedent executed two TODs leaving both properties to Vosburgh; Decedent died on January 3, 2021.

• Attorney Stephen Ensberg testified that Decedent initially intended to give one property to each child, but Vosburgh subsequently communicated to Ensberg that Decedent wanted both properties to go to Vosburgh; Decedent did not personally convey this change.

• Expert psychologist Dr. Gharibian was largely prevented from testifying about Decedent's capacity due to evidentiary rulings under People v. Sanchez.

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court misapplied the law of undue influence in finding that Vosburgh's influence over Decedent was not 'undue.'

• Whether the statutory presumption of undue influence under Probate Code section 21380 applied to the TODs.

• Whether the common law presumption of undue influence was triggered and adequately rebutted.

• Whether the trial court committed reversible error in excluding expert testimony from Dr. Gharibian and lay testimony from Brookdale's executive director Lujan under People v. Sanchez.

Positions of the Parties

• Gribbon (Appellant) argued that undue influence was blatant given that Decedent was an elderly alcoholic in assisted living who needed help managing finances and medication; that Vosburgh procured the TODs by directing the attorney and influencing Decedent's feelings; that the statutory and common law presumptions of undue influence were triggered; and that the trial court improperly excluded expert and percipient witness testimony.

• Vosburgh (Respondent) contended that Decedent was competent and voluntarily executed the TODs out of anger toward Gribbon for disposing of her property and selling her bird; that Decedent managed her own finances at Brookdale; and that the statutory presumption did not apply because Vosburgh was a blood relative within the fourth degree.

Decision of the Court and Reasons

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in Vosburgh's favor. On the undue influence claim, the appellate court held that the trial court properly distinguished between influence and 'undue' influence, correctly finding that Decedent acted of her own free will in executing the TODs. The statutory presumption under section 21380 was held inapplicable because the transfer was to a blood relative within the fourth degree (section 21382(a)) and because no fiduciary relationship existed between Vosburgh and Decedent. As to the common law presumption, the court found it was implicitly rebutted by the trial court's factual findings that Decedent was coherent, lucid, and competent. Regarding evidentiary rulings, the court found one harmless error in excluding Dr. Gharibian's overall capacity opinion, but held it was unlikely to change the result because the expert could not anchor his opinion to admissible case-specific facts. The court affirmed that Sanchez applies to probate bench trials and upheld the limitation of Lujan's testimony to matters she personally observed.