In May 2012, H. Douglas Williams, 93, the settlor and original trustee of the H. Douglas Williams Revocable Trust, amended his trust to include a $1 million donative transfer to Michelle Ansted, his paid caregiver. Williams later died in March 2014 and his son, Robert Williams, refused to make the transfer. Robert Williams relied on Probate Code § 21380, which states that a provision of an instrument making a donative transfer to a care custodian of a dependent adult is presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence. To rebut the presumption, Ansted had to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, the absence of fraud or undue influence. Ansted filed a petition to determine the validity of the 2012 amendment. Robert Williams filed a counter-petition, alleging forgery, fraud, undue influence, and financial elder abuse. Ansted’s counsel contended that although H. Douglas Williams suffered from physical infirmities that required him to depend on caregivers for assistance with meal preparation, home making, bathing, and transportation, he nevertheless remained clear-minded and strong-willed. Counsel also contended that H. Douglas Williams had no difficulty communicating and expressed no concerns regarding Ansted. Counsel further argued that the people closest to H. Douglas Williams — his friends, family, and medical professionals — never witnessed Ansted attempting to persuade, coerce, or manipulate him. Ansted’s counsel argued that, to the contrary, evidence showed that Ansted had a positive effect on the life of H. Douglas Williams, in that Ansted’s care lifted H. Douglas Williams’ spirits to such an extent that his family members noticed, expressed their appreciation, and actively sought her continued involvement with his care. Robert Williams’ counsel pointed to H. Douglas Williams’ alleged deference to Ansted regarding financial matters even though his family members and medical professionals all testified that H. Douglas Williams was mentally sharp and good with numbers. Counsel contended that H. Douglas Williams paid careful attention to his finances and maintained a detailed check register, which he reviewed daily, but that because his hand shook, he would sometimes ask his caregivers to draft checks for his signature. Counsel also relied on the fact that Ansted received money and other gifts from H. Douglas Williams before his death. Robert Williams’ counsel contended that H. Douglas Williams gave money to his family and close friends annually and that in 2011, H. Douglas Williams included Ansted in his annual gift-giving. Counsel argued that each such gift to Ansted was a product of her undue influence over H. Douglas Williams. However, Robert Williams testified that he was aware of the gifts to Ansted and that his father wanted her (and the others) to have the money. The gifts were calculated to reduce future estate taxes, and all of the gifts were reported on H. Douglas Williams’ tax returns., Ansted’s neuropsychology expert opined that H. Douglas Williams’ gift-giving was actually evidence of his self-control, and not evidence of susceptibility to influence. Ansted’s counsel argued that, although physically infirm, H. Douglas Williams was cognitively competent, but that he was embarrassed by his physical failings, such as incontinence, and did not want outsiders caring for him. However, counsel contended that H. Douglas Williams felt safe with Ansted, trusted her, and knew he would need professional care for his remaining years. Counsel further contended that by giving Ansted gifts, H. Douglas Williams created an incentive for her continued care. Thus, Ansted sought recovery of the principle sum of $1 million from the trust, plus costs and prejudgment interest.