Harustak

Harustak v. Wilkins

Good Law
100 Cal. Rptr. 2d 718·2000 Cal. App. LEXIS 798·2000 Daily Journal DAR 11279·84 Cal. App. 4th 208·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8476
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 18, 2000F032805California3,861 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vartabedian, J.

Frances Harustak and Richard Heinrich appeal from a trial court ruling that their petition contesting an amendment to a trast was untimely. Appellants argue their action is not time-barred because the trustee’s notice of appellants’ right to contest the trust did not comply with Probate Code section 16061.7, subdivision (g), which requires a notice printed in the “reasonable equivalent” of 10-point boldface type contained in a separate paragraph. The trustee argues the notice does meet this statutory standard because, although not bolded or otherwise distinguished from the remaining text, the notice was contained in a separate paragraph and printed in 12-point type, which is larger than 10-point type. Because the entire document was printed in the same 12-point type, we agree with appellants and reverse.

Factual and Procedural Background

On July 10, 1995, Vernon and Rosielee Wilkins created a trust providing that upon the death of both settlors a certain piece of real property would be distributed to Judy Wilkins and Richard Heinrich. The remainder of the estate would be divided equally between Judy Wilkins and Frances Harustak. Judy was named as first successor trustee…

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.