Noggle

Noggle v. Bank of America Nt & Sa

Good Law
1999 Cal. App. LEXIS 204·70 Cal. App. 4th 853·82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 829·99 Daily Journal DAR 2393
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 25, 1999B119164, B119254California3,536 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

J.A number of residuary beneficiaries of several related testamentary trusts sued the bank acting as the trustee of all of the trusts. A judgment was entered in favor of the beneficiaries but for less than they thought was due to them. The bank appeals, contending specified claims were barred by a three-year statute of limitations. The beneficiaries cross-appeal, contending other claims were not (as the probate court found) barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with directions.

Facts

Clyde E. Blosser and Alice R. Blosser, husband and wife, each established 10 testamentary trusts for the benefit of their 10 siblings (thus creating a total of 20 trusts, 2 for each sibling). The trusts established two classes of beneficiaries. The primary beneficiaries of each trust were a sibling and that sibling’s spouse. The residuary beneficiaries of each trust (or, as the parties call them, the remaindermen) were the children of the sibling. The primary beneficiaries were to receive the income of the trusts for life. Upon the death of the last income beneficiary of each trust, the corpus of that trust was to be distributed per capita to…

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.