Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mitchell Jercich died unmarried and intestate in 2022. Paul Jercich petitioned for probate, identified himself as Mitchell's son, and was appointed administrator. Mitchell's brother, George Jercich, later sought Paul's removal, asserting that Paul was not Mitchell's biological child. The parties stipulated that the 2024 trial would decide whether Mitchell had held Paul out as his son and who was entitled to administer the estate. No reporter's transcript was prepared; the appellate record instead used a settled statement summarizing testimony, exhibits, and the trial court's observations.
The evidence included testimony from Paul, his mother Shawneeray Berryman, Mitchell's friend Bruce Smith, and George. Berryman described living with Mitchell when Paul was born in 1963, Mitchell's presence at the birth, and his lifelong support of Paul. Paul's birth records named Mitchell as father, Paul's middle name was Mitchell, and Mitchell had custody and care of Paul after divorcing Berryman. Smith described the men openly treating each other as father and son. The trial court found parentage under Probate Code section 6453(a), and alternatively by clear and convincing evidence under section 6453(b)(2), denied George's competing administrative petition, and rejected his posttrial request for DNA testing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. It first confined the appeal to the issues identified in the certified settled statement. George could not obtain review of trust-property ownership or misappropriation because those matters were outside the stipulated trial issues and were not included as appellate issues in the settled statement. His attack on the statement's accuracy also failed: he had opportunities to object and seek augmentation, the appellate court partially granted augmentation and returned the matter to the trial court, and the resulting certified revised statement controlled what the court could review.
Any asserted burden-of-proof error under section 6453(a) was harmless because George conceded that the trial court applied the correct clear-and-convincing standard under section 6453(b)(2), which independently supported the judgment. The court also found no affirmative evidence of burden shifting. It then held that substantial evidence supported the holding-out finding: Mitchell welcomed Berryman back during her pregnancy, attended Paul's birth, was named on his birth records, supported and raised him, publicly treated him as a son, and designated him as beneficiary. Authentication and testimony challenges failed for lack of an adequate record or lacked relevance-based merit.
Finally, denial of postjudgment DNA testing was proper because paternity had already been determined and the judgment did not depend on a biological relationship. The appellate court awarded Paul his costs on appeal but denied his motion for sanctions. The opinion did not resolve the excluded trust-property or misappropriation claims.
Key Takeaways
- Probate Code section 6453(b)(2) can establish intestate parentage through clear and convincing evidence that a decedent openly held a person out as his child, without requiring proof of biological parentage.
- An alternative finding made under the correct burden of proof can make any claimed error under another statutory theory harmless on appeal.
- When trial proceeds without a reporter's transcript, issues omitted from the settled statement generally cannot be added through appellate briefing.
- Birth records, lifelong financial and personal support, public father-son conduct, witness observations, and beneficiary designations collectively supplied substantial evidence supporting the parentage finding.
- Postjudgment DNA testing was unnecessary because the trial court had already decided parentage and its ruling did not turn on biology.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how California probate courts may determine intestate parentage from the reality of an openly acknowledged family relationship rather than treating genetic testing as indispensable. It also demonstrates the practical importance of preserving evidentiary objections and creating an adequate record when trial testimony is not reported.
The settled-statement rulings are equally consequential for appellate practice. A party cannot expand a limited probate trial into new property or misconduct disputes on appeal, and the trial court's certified revised statement supplies the controlling account after the parties have had an opportunity to object and seek augmentation.