When will the probate court's comments on the issues of lack of consideration and fraud reflect the economic duress defense?

But "[a] judgment or order of a lower court is presumed to be correct on appeal, and all intendments and presumptions are indulged in favor of its correctness. [Citations.]" (In re Marriage of Arceneaux (1990) 51 Cal.3d 1130, 1133.) Furthermore, "error in eliminating a legal theory from a case is not categorically reversible," and "[t]he [appellant] must articulate prejudice specific to the particular case . . . ." (Paterno v. State of California (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 68, 107.) For example, in cases where findings

Page 11

are required, "[t]he failure to make a finding on a material issue is harmless where the evidence is such that 'had a finding been made on such issue it would have been adverse to the contentions advanced by the appellant.' [Citation.]" (Bowyer v. Burgess (1960) 54 Cal.2d 97, 101; see also Brown v. Shroeder (1927) 88 Cal.App. 192, 201 ["It is not always necessary to make a specific finding as to each of several material issues where the findings taken as a whole, or construed together, clearly show that they include the court's conclusion upon all the material issues"].)

As for determining whether the record supports a finding of economic duress, generally "courts 'are reluctant to set aside settlements and will apply "economic duress" only in limited circumstances and as a "last resort." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" (Perez v. Uline, Inc. (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 953, 959.) The probate court's comments on the issues of lack of consideration and fraud reflect the economic duress defense would fail as well.