In Estate of Mann (1986) 184 Cal. App. 3d 593, the decedent's nephew (who, not incidentally, like Cushing here, was the decedent's conservator) urged the decedent to make a will, took her to an attorney (who was also the nephew's friend), was present at the execution of the will, and possibly discussed with decedent the revocation clause in the will. In an opinion exhaustively discussing all relevant authority, the court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding that the nephew actively participated in procuring execution of the will, concluding that "there is absolutely no evidence the nephew in any way affected the dispositive contents of the will." ( Id. at p. 608.) Mann went on to hold it was error to refuse the nephew's proposed jury instruction, described as a "correct statement of law" ( id. at p. 613), which instruction included that "merely taking the testatrix to the attorney or paying for the drafting of the will" is insufficient ( id. at p. 612.)