Ike

Ike v. Doolittle

Bad Law
1998 Cal. App. LEXIS 65·61 Cal. App. 4th 51·70 Cal. Rptr. 2d 887·98 Daily Journal DAR 949·98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 756
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 27, 1998D026752California15,111 words

Opinion

Opinion

Nares, J.

Introduction

This case requires us to independently interpret language in both a declaration of trust (the Trust) which created an inter vivos trust known as the Ike Family Trust, and in a related property agreement (Property Agreement) contemporaneously executed by trustors Virgil W. Ike (Virgil) and his wife Jeannette B. Ike (Jeannette), both of whom are deceased. Following the death of Virgil, who had survived Jeannette, disputes arose among the trustors’ respective designated beneficiaries and Jeannette’s intestate heirs over distribution of the trust estate.

This matter arose from three consolidated petitions for construction of the trust instruments and a determination of how the trust property should be distributed. (Prob. Code, §§ 17200, subd. (b), 17201, & 17206.) Mark W. Ike (Mark), who is Virgil’s son and one of Virgil’s designated beneficiaries, brought the first petition claiming the Trust is unambiguous and the entire trust estate should be distributed to him and his brother Robert (the only other beneficiary named by Virgil).

Successor trustee G. Arnold Doolittle (Doolittle), who is one of Jeannette’s designated beneficiaries, filed the second petition…

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.