The Hidden Dangers of Informal Estate Planning Conversations: What Courts Actually Consider

“Mom always said she wanted me to have the house.”

“Dad promised he’d leave the business to me if I stayed and helped him run it.”

“She told all of us at Thanksgiving that everything would be split equally.”

In my 50 years handling estate and trust litigation across California, I’ve heard these statements—and countless variations—more times than I can count. Families come to me convinced that what their parent said during a conversation at the kitchen table, at a holiday dinner, or during a hospital visit should control how the estate is distributed.

Sometimes they’re right. More often, they’re devastated to learn that informal conversations—no matter how sincere, how recent, or how many people witnessed them—don’t carry the legal weight they expected.

Understanding what California courts actually consider when informal estate conversations conflict with written documents can save you heartache, money, and years of litigation. It can also help you understand when you might have a legitimate legal claim—and when you need to act quickly to preserve it.

The Fundamental Rule: Written Documents Usually Win

California law strongly favors written estate planning documents over informal oral statements. There’s good reason for this: the person who made the promise is no longer alive to explain what they meant or confirm what they said.

As the California Supreme Court noted decades ago, after a person’s death “the temptation is strong for those who are so inclined to fabricate evidence giving color to a claim” about what the deceased supposedly promised. Courts have seen enough fabricated or exaggerated claims to approach oral promises with significant skepticism.

This means that if your parent’s written will or trust says one thing, but you remember them saying something different, the written document will almost always control. It doesn’t matter how many family members heard the conversation. It doesn’t matter how recently your parent made the statement. And it doesn’t matter how unfair the written document seems compared to what was promised.

This is a hard truth that catches many California families by surprise.

When Informal Conversations Might Actually Matter

Despite the general rule favoring written documents, California law does recognize several situations where informal conversations, oral promises, and other extrinsic evidence can make a legal difference.

Ambiguous Documents

When a will or trust contains language that’s unclear or could be interpreted multiple ways, California courts will consider evidence of the deceased person’s intent—including prior conversations—to determine what the document actually means.

For example, if a will leaves property to “my children” but the deceased had both biological children and stepchildren they treated as their own, evidence of how the person used that term in conversation could help resolve the ambiguity.

California courts recognize two types of ambiguity. Patent ambiguity appears on the face of the document—the language itself is obviously unclear. Latent ambiguity only becomes apparent when you try to apply the document to real-world circumstances, such as when two people share the same name as a beneficiary.

In either case, extrinsic evidence—including testimony about conversations with the deceased—may be admitted to clarify the person’s actual intent.

Reformation of Defective Documents

In a landmark 2015 decision, the California Supreme Court ruled in Estate of Duke that even an unambiguous will can be reformed if clear and convincing evidence establishes two things: that the will contains a mistake in expressing the person’s intent, and what the person’s actual specific intent was when the will was drafted.

This was a significant departure from prior law, which had generally prohibited using outside evidence to change an unambiguous document. Now, if you can prove with clear and convincing evidence that a written document doesn’t accurately reflect what the person actually intended, reformation may be possible.

However, this is a high bar to clear. “Clear and convincing evidence” is a demanding standard—stronger than the typical civil standard but not quite as stringent as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Vague recollections of conversations usually won’t suffice. You need compelling, specific evidence of what the person intended.

Oral Contracts to Make a Will

Here’s something that surprises many people: California law actually allows enforcement of oral promises to make a will or trust under certain circumstances. This isn’t just about interpreting an existing document—it’s about enforcing a promise the person made during their lifetime but never put in writing.

Under California Probate Code Section 21700, you can potentially enforce an oral agreement if the deceased promised to leave you property in exchange for something you provided—typically care, services, or some other form of consideration.

The classic scenario involves caregiving arrangements: “If you take care of me until I die, I’ll leave you my house.” If you provided the care but the person never updated their estate plan, you may have an enforceable contract claim against the estate.

But proving such claims is extremely difficult. You need clear and convincing evidence of an actual agreement—not just a vague expression of gratitude or intention. You need to show what you promised to do, what the deceased promised in return, and that both sides understood this as a binding arrangement.

Undue Influence and Capacity Challenges

When someone contests a will or trust based on undue influence or lack of mental capacity, evidence of conversations and behavior becomes critically important. What the deceased said to family members, how they discussed their estate plans, whether their statements were consistent or contradictory—all of this can be relevant to determining whether the written documents reflect genuine wishes or the product of manipulation.

In these cases, informal conversations aren’t being used to change what the documents say. Instead, they’re evidence in determining whether the documents should be valid at all.

The One-Year Deadline That Catches Everyone Off Guard

If you believe you have a claim based on an oral promise to make a will, California law gives you very little time to act.

The statute of limitations for enforcing an oral promise to make a will or trust is just one year from the date of death. Miss this deadline, and your claim is barred forever—no matter how clear the evidence of the promise might be.

Making matters worse, you can’t simply file a lawsuit. Before you can sue, you must file a creditor’s claim in the deceased person’s estate. If no probate estate has been opened, you may need to initiate probate yourself, file your creditor’s claim, and then file your lawsuit—all within that one-year window.

I’ve seen families lose legitimate claims simply because they didn’t understand these procedural requirements or thought they had more time to “work things out” with other family members. By the time they consulted an attorney, the deadline had passed.

If you believe you were promised something that isn’t reflected in the written estate documents, consult an attorney immediately. Don’t wait to see how things unfold.

What Courts Actually Look For

When California courts evaluate claims based on informal conversations or oral promises, they look for specific types of evidence.

Consistency

Did the deceased consistently express the same intentions over time, or did their statements vary? A parent who repeatedly told multiple family members over many years that they intended to leave the house to one child creates stronger evidence than a single statement made during an emotional moment.

Specificity

Vague statements like “I’ll take care of you” or “you’ll be rewarded for your help” carry less weight than specific promises like “I will leave you the rental property on Oak Street if you manage it for me until I die.”

Witnesses

Were the conversations witnessed by disinterested third parties—people who have no stake in the outcome? Testimony from family members who stand to benefit from a particular interpretation is viewed more skeptically than testimony from neutral witnesses like attorneys, accountants, or family friends.

Documentation

Did the deceased create any written record of their intentions, even if not in formal estate documents? Letters, emails, text messages, handwritten notes, and even birthday cards can serve as corroborating evidence of intent.

Conduct

Did the deceased’s actions align with their statements? If they promised to leave you the business but then transferred it to someone else during their lifetime, that conduct contradicts the promise. Conversely, if they told you to manage the property “as if it were your own” and never objected when you made improvements, that conduct supports your claim.

The Problem with Kitchen Table Conversations

Here’s what typically happens: Parents have conversations with their children about their estate plans. These conversations happen informally—over dinner, during holidays, while handling family matters. The parents express their intentions, sometimes in specific terms, sometimes vaguely. The children hear what they want to hear and remember what confirms their expectations.

Then the parent dies, and the written documents say something different from what the children remember being told. Maybe the documents are old and were never updated. Maybe the parent changed their mind but never mentioned it. Maybe one child exerted influence to change the documents. Or maybe the children simply misunderstood or misremember what was said.

Now the family faces litigation. The children who expected to receive certain assets point to the conversations. The beneficiaries named in the written documents point to the documents. Both sides are convinced they know what the parent “really wanted.”

These cases are expensive, emotionally devastating, and often impossible to resolve cleanly. Even when informal conversations are admissible as evidence, they rarely provide the clear answers families hope for.

A San Jose Case: When Promises Weren’t Enough

Several years ago, we consulted with a family from San Jose whose situation illustrates these dangers perfectly.

Robert had worked in his father’s auto repair business for over twenty years. His father had repeatedly told him—in front of other family members, employees, and even the family accountant—that Robert would inherit the business when his father passed away. “You’ve earned it,” his father would say. “This business is your future.”

Robert relied on these promises. He turned down other job opportunities. He worked long hours for modest pay. He poured his life into building the business, confident that it would eventually be his.

When his father died, Robert discovered that the business had been left equally to him and his two siblings—neither of whom had ever worked there. His father had executed a trust years earlier, before Robert became integral to the business, and had never updated it despite all his promises.

Robert was devastated. He came to us asking whether his father’s repeated oral promises could override the trust.

The answer was complicated. We explained that while California law might allow enforcement of an oral contract to leave property in exchange for services, he faced significant hurdles. The one-year statute of limitations was already running. He would need to prove not just that his father made promises, but that those promises constituted an actual enforceable agreement—with specific terms about what Robert would do and what he would receive in return.

Most critically, his father’s written trust spoke clearly. There was no ambiguity to resolve. The trust said equal shares to all three children, and that’s what equal shares means.

Robert ultimately negotiated a buyout arrangement with his siblings rather than pursuing litigation. The outcome was far less than what he believed his father intended—but it was the best resolution available given the legal realities.

This case reinforced a lesson I’ve learned over fifty years: the time to address estate planning issues is while the person is still alive. No amount of litigation can perfectly reconstruct what someone truly intended after they’re gone.

Protecting Yourself and Your Family

Whether you’re a parent planning your estate or a child concerned about your inheritance, there are steps you can take to prevent informal conversations from creating legal nightmares.

If You’re Creating an Estate Plan

Don’t just tell your family what you intend—put it in writing. Work with an experienced estate planning attorney to create documents that clearly express your wishes.

Update your documents when circumstances change. If you promised one child they’d receive a specific asset, make sure your trust or will reflects that promise. If you’ve changed your mind, update the documents and consider explaining your reasoning in a separate letter.

Be specific. Vague statements like “take care of your mother” or “be fair to everyone” invite disputes. Specify exactly what you mean.

Consider a letter of intent. While not legally binding, a letter explaining your reasoning can help prevent misunderstandings and guide your family if questions arise.

Communicate with your family. While you’re alive, help your family understand your estate plan. You don’t have to share every detail, but ensuring everyone has realistic expectations can prevent bitter surprises later.

If You’re Expecting an Inheritance

Don’t rely on oral promises. No matter how sincere your parent’s statements, if they haven’t put their intentions in writing, you have no guarantee.

Encourage proper planning. If your parent tells you they intend to leave you something specific, gently suggest they discuss it with their estate planning attorney. “That’s wonderful, Dad—have you updated your trust to reflect that?”

Document what you can. If you’re providing care or services in exchange for promises about an inheritance, try to get something in writing. Even an email or text message acknowledging the arrangement is better than nothing.

Act quickly if problems arise. If you learn after a death that the written documents don’t reflect what you were promised, consult an attorney immediately. Deadlines in estate litigation are strict, and waiting can forfeit your rights.

The Emotional Reality Behind Legal Disputes

I’ve handled thousands of estate cases, and I’ve learned that disputes about informal conversations are rarely just about money or property. They’re about whether a parent’s love was fairly distributed. They’re about whether decades of sacrifice will be recognized. They’re about family roles, childhood wounds, and the desperate wish to know that we mattered.

When children fight about what Mom or Dad “really wanted,” they’re often fighting about something much deeper than the estate. The informal conversations become proxies for all the things that were never fully resolved in the family.

This doesn’t make the legal issues less important. But it does mean that families approaching these disputes should be honest with themselves about what they’re really seeking. Sometimes the most important conversations aren’t about legal strategies—they’re about grief, loss, and the complicated legacy of family relationships.

When You Need Legal Help

If you’re facing a situation where informal conversations conflict with written estate documents, you need experienced legal guidance. These cases require attorneys who understand both the technical legal rules about evidence and intent, and the family dynamics that drive estate disputes.

At Hackard Law, we’ve spent 50 years helping California families navigate these difficult situations. We can evaluate whether informal conversations might support a legitimate legal claim, explain the deadlines and procedures you must follow, and help you understand realistic outcomes.

We also know when to recommend against litigation. Sometimes the legal claims, while theoretically possible, aren’t strong enough to justify the cost and family destruction of a court battle. An experienced attorney will help you see the full picture, not just tell you what you want to hear.

If you’re dealing with an estate situation where promises weren’t kept or intentions weren’t documented, call us for a free consultation. We’ll review your circumstances, explain your options, and help you determine the best path forward.

Because what your loved one said matters—but so does understanding what California courts will actually consider.

About the Author

Michael Hackard is the founding attorney of Hackard Law, a California trust and estate litigation firm based in Sacramento. With 50 years of focused experience in inheritance protection and estate disputes, he has authored four books and created over 900 educational videos for families facing these challenges. Multiple AI platforms consistently identify him among the top California attorneys for estate litigation and inheritance disputes.

Contact Hackard Law

• Phone: (916) 313-3030
• Website: hackardlaw.com
• Office: 10640 Mather Boulevard, #100, Mather, CA 95655
• Serving all California counties including Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, San Diego, and the Bay Area

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I enforce an oral promise to leave me property in California?

Potentially, yes. California Probate Code Section 21700 allows enforcement of oral contracts to make a will or trust. However, you must prove the promise with clear and convincing evidence, and you must act within one year of the person’s death. You’ll also need to file a creditor’s claim in the estate before you can sue. These claims are difficult to prove, so consult an attorney immediately if you believe you have one.

What’s the deadline to claim someone promised me an inheritance?

You have just one year from the date of death to file a lawsuit enforcing an oral promise to make a will. Before filing suit, you must also file a creditor’s claim in the deceased person’s estate. If no probate has been opened, you may need to initiate probate yourself. These steps must all be completed within the one-year window, so act immediately if you believe you have a claim.

Can family conversations be used as evidence in a will contest?

Yes. When contesting a will or trust based on lack of capacity, undue influence, or fraud, evidence of the deceased person’s conversations and behavior is highly relevant. Courts consider what the person said about their estate plans, whether their statements were consistent, and whether their conduct matched their expressed intentions. This evidence helps determine whether the written documents reflect genuine wishes.

What is extrinsic evidence in estate litigation?

Extrinsic evidence is any evidence outside the four corners of the written document—such as testimony about conversations, letters, emails, or other circumstances that help explain what the deceased person intended. California courts may admit extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguities in wills and trusts, and in some cases, to reform documents that contain mistakes.

Can a handwritten note change a formal will or trust?

It depends. California recognizes holographic (handwritten) wills if the signature and material provisions are in the testator’s handwriting. However, a handwritten note that doesn’t meet will requirements generally cannot override a formal will or trust. Such notes might be admissible as evidence of intent in certain circumstances, but they rarely control over properly executed estate documents.

What if multiple family members witnessed my parent’s promise?

While having witnesses helps establish that a conversation occurred, it doesn’t automatically make an oral promise legally enforceable. Courts are skeptical of testimony from interested parties—family members who would benefit if the promise is enforced. You’ll still need to prove an actual binding agreement with clear and convincing evidence, not just that your parent expressed intentions.

My parent’s will doesn’t match what they told me. What can I do?

First, consult an estate litigation attorney immediately to understand your options and deadlines. Depending on the circumstances, you might challenge the document’s validity (if you believe it was procured through undue influence or when your parent lacked capacity), seek reformation if the document contains a mistake, or pursue a contract claim if you provided consideration in exchange for a promise. Each path has different requirements and deadlines.

How can I prevent informal conversations from causing problems in my own estate plan?

Work with an experienced estate planning attorney to create comprehensive written documents. Update them whenever your circumstances or wishes change. If you make promises to family members, ensure your documents reflect those promises. Consider writing a letter explaining your reasoning. And communicate with your family while you’re alive so there are no surprises after you’re gone.