In Estate of Gelonese (1974) 36 Cal.App.3d 854, one of decedent's five children challenged the validity of a will that divided the bulk of the estate into three equal shares between three of the children: Robert, Lena, and Peter, and gave the remaining two children only $100 each. The court held that there was sufficient evidence of a confidential relationship between decedent, Robert and Lena based on evidence that "following her last hospitalization . . . and until her death, decedent was cared for by Lena, Robert and Robert's wife. There was ample evidence that decedent discussed her business affairs, including the dispositions to be made under her will, with Robert and Lena." (Id. at p. 865.) The appellate court explained: "The presumption of undue influence, when established, is a rebuttable presumption. . . . 'The effect of a presumption affecting the burden of proof is to impose upon the party against whom it operates the burden of proof as to the nonexistence of the presumed fact.' (Evid. Code, 606.) Accordingly, when the contestant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the proponent of a will sustained a confidential relationship toward the testator, actively participated in procuring the execution of the will, and unduly profited thereby, a presumption of undue influence, i.e., the presumed fact, arises, and the burden then shifts to the proponent to prove that the will was not induced by his undue influence. This burden requires that the proponent produce proof by a preponderance of the evidence that the will was not induced by his undue influence. (Evid. Code, 115; see Sierra Nat. Bank v. Brown, 18 Cal.App.3d 98, 105-106 . . . .)" (Estate of Gelonese, supra, 36 Cal.App.3d at pp. 862-863.)