An American expat widow living in Mexico learns that she can’t serve as the administrator of her husband’s probate estate.
To serve as a court-appointed administrator of an estate in California, you must be a resident of the United States. But in today’s highly mobile society, facilitated by jet travel, instant communications, virtual meetings, and, for some, second or third homes, what does “resident” really mean?
The answer, according to the California Court of Appeal, is that it has the same meaning now as it would have had to your grandparents (El Wardani v El Wardani.)
Ramsey Walter El Wardani died in 2016, without a will or trust. He was survived by his wife Janine, who married him in 2009, and Alexandria, a daughter from a previous marriage.
In 2017, Janine was appointed administrator of Ramsey’s estate by the San Diego County probate court.
When Janine asked to be appointed as administrator, she checked a box on a legal form indicating that she was a California resident, listing as her address a post office box in Bonsall, a small community east of Oceanside.
She told the court that the couple jointly owned five condominiums, which they rented to tenants. She also filed a $250,000 claim against the estate, saying Ramsey had misappropriated her separate property while leading a double life during their marriage.
Janine told the court that Ramsey managed the couple’s finances and had planned for them to retire to Mexico. To help make that happen, Janine said, she had sold a home in Carlsbad she owned separately, using the proceeds to buy a house in Baja California Sur, Mexico. She had “lived in that home full time” since then, she told the court.
Disagreements between Janine and Alexandria (referred to as “Ali” in the court filings) resulted in four years of litigation, culminating in Ali’s request that Janine be removed as administrator.
The trial judge noted that Janine’s appointment as administrator had expired, and that while serving she had failed to inform Ali and other heirs of hearings, as her position required.
Janine asked the court to renew her appointment, but the judge ruled she was not eligible to be an administrator because she was not a resident of the United States, as required by California’s Probate Code.
Janine protested, pointing out her strong ties to California.
While she had a home in Mexico, she said, she was not a citizen of that country. She had grown up in California; her friends, her children, and her extended family all lived in the state; she had a California driver’s license; she voted and paid state and federal income taxes here; and her doctors, bank accounts, attorneys and accountants were all in California.
She said she stayed in Mexico only because Ramsey’s actions had placed her “in a state of financial limbo” after his death, and she could live there inexpensively in a house she owned free and clear.
Her plan, she testified, was to sell her home in Mexico and return to the U.S. as soon as the probate case ended.
The trial judge was not persuaded, ruling that Janine was not a resident of the United States and thus could not serve as administrator of Ramsey’s estate.
Janine herself had stated that she had lived in Mexico “full time” since moving there in 2014, the judge pointed out. Her plan to return to the United States “as soon as the probate case is over” meant that she “had no intention” of living in this country while serving as administrator.
Janine appealed the judge’s decision, but the appellate justices came to the same conclusion as the lower court.
They traced the history of the residency requirement in probate statutes back to 1878, when an administrator had to be “a bona fide resident of the State.” In 1980, that was relaxed to allow residency anywhere in the United States.
The legislature made numerous changes to probate laws over the years, but “did nothing to abrogate the long line of (court) cases construing ‘resident’ to mean ‘domicile,'” the justices noted.
The statute requires “actual residence rather than temporary or transitory presence in the U.S.,” such as Janine’s frequent visits to see her doctors, lawyers, accountants, and family, they said. “Those visits did not establish residency.”
Because Janine was not a resident of the United States, the lower court was correct in removing her as administrator, the justices ruled. Ali was awarded her costs on appeal.