In Re Estate of Coplan

Good Law
123 Cal. App. 4th 1384·20 Cal. Rptr. 3d 686
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 9, 2004B167909California2,207 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nott, J.

Debra D. Coplan, in pro. per., appeals from orders settling the final account and report of Francine Coplan, personal representative of the Estate of Arthur M. Coplan, and denying Debra’s motion for enforcement of the no-contest clause of the will of Arthur M. Coplan against Francine in her individual capacity and against the Estate of Ronald S. Coplan. Debra contends that Francine’s conduct violated the no-contest clause of the will.

We hold that under the facts presented, the act of Francine as personal representative in seeking compensation for administrative services does not violate the no-contest clause. Such act thus does not disinherit her in her capacity as a beneficiary.

PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts are not contested and include the following. Arthur M. Coplan executed his last will and testament (Will) in March 1983. The Will provides that no personal representative shall receive compensation for service as executor. The Will also contains a no-contest clause providing that any heir or beneficiary under the Will who contests the Will or any provision of the Will, or who “shall not if called upon defend or assist in good faith in the defense”…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.