Also known as: rebut presumption · rebuts presumption · rebutted presumption · rebutting presumptions · rebuttable presumption
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Evidence introduced to overcome a rebuttable presumption that shifts the burden of proof to the opposing party.
Rachel Ramirez discovered voicemails showing that her uncle had signed a document labeled as his last will only to deter a compliance investigation. She introduced the recordings in probate court. The court treated the extrinsic evidence as sufficient to rebut the presumption of testamentary intent arising from the document's formal recitals.
Rising Sun Electronics hired a lawyer who had previously represented a competitor in a related patent dispute. The competitor moved to disqualify the firm. The firm presented affidavits detailing its screening procedures and fee allocation rules. The court found the evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption that confidential information had been shared.
Rina Rahman, the gestational carrier, presented medical records and witness testimony showing that the intended parents had supplied the genetic material. The court accepted the evidence as rebutting the presumption that the birth mother held parental rights.
In 1984 Crispina Calvert underwent a hysterectomy that left her ovaries capable of producing eggs. She and her husband Mark desired a child genetically related to both of them. In 1989 Anna Johnson, a licensed vocational nurse who had previously given birth to a daughter, learned of Crispina's situation from a coworker and offered to serve as a surrogate. On January 15, 1990, Mark, Crispina, and Anna signed a written contract providing that an embryo created from Mark's sperm and Crispina's egg would be implanted in Anna, who would carry the child to term and relinquish all parental rights to the Calverts upon birth. In exchange the Calverts agreed to pay Anna $10,000 in installments, with the final payment due six weeks after birth, and to purchase a $200,000 life insurance policy on Anna's life. The zygote was implanted on January 19, 1990, and an ultrasound confirmed Anna's pregnancy less than a month later. During the pregnancy relations between the parties deteriorated. Anna felt the Calverts were not providing sufficient attention or obtaining the required insurance policy in a timely manner. In July 1990 Anna demanded the balance of the payments or she would refuse to relinquish the child. The following month the Calverts filed suit in superior court seeking a declaration that they were the legal parents of the unborn child. Anna filed her own action to be declared the mother, the cases were consolidated, and the parties agreed to the appointment of a guardian ad litem for the child. The child was born on September 19, 1990. Blood samples taken from Anna and the child excluded Anna as the genetic mother. The parties stipulated that Mark and Crispina were the genetic parents. After a trial in October 1990 the superior court ruled that the Calverts were the child's genetic, biological, and natural parents, that Anna had no parental rights, that the surrogacy contract was enforceable, and that Anna was not entitled to visitation. Anna appealed. The Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court of California granted review.
View caseRaphael Rivera offered testimony from the drafting attorney that a scrivener's error had omitted a key clause. The court admitted the evidence to rebut the presumption that the executed document reflected the testator's true intent.
Alicia Erickson, the daughter of decedent Ronald K. Erickson, appealed from a trial court judgment that affirmed the Probate Court’s decree admitting her father’s will to probate in favor of defendant Dorothy Erickson, the executrix of the estate. On September 1, 1988, the decedent executed a will while unmarried and the father of three daughters. Two days later, on September 3, 1988, he married the defendant. He died on February 22, 1996. The will named the defendant as executrix and guardian of the decedent’s daughters and included among its beneficiaries the defendant’s four children—Thomas Mehring, Christopher Mehring, Maureen Mehring, and Kathleen Mehring—whose identities the trial court admitted into evidence. The plaintiff filed a motion in limine before trial seeking to limit proof to the will, the marriage certificate, and the death certificate. The defendant responded with a detailed offer of proof concerning the decedent’s intent and his communications with his attorney. The trial court granted the motion in limine as to most extrinsic evidence of intent but denied it regarding the beneficiaries’ identities. It then concluded after a de novo hearing that the will’s provisions and the two-day interval between execution and marriage supplied clear and convincing evidence that the instrument accounted for the contingency of marriage. The plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court, which transferred the case to the Supreme Court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c). The defendant cross-appealed the evidentiary ruling excluding the balance of her proffered proof.
View caseVoicemail messages and other extrinsic statements showing that a formally executed document was created only for a collateral purpose rebut the presumption. The evidence must demonstrate that the document was never intended to operate as a will.
The firm must demonstrate effective and timely screening measures that prevent the migrating lawyer from any involvement in the matter and from sharing in related fees.
No. The adjudication raises only a rebuttable presumption that the protected person lacked capacity to make an irrevocable gift at the time of the transfer.
Proof that the surviving spouse knew the decedent's financial situation, understood the rights altered by the agreement, and had independent counsel or a reasonable opportunity to obtain it shifts the burden to the surviving spouse.