HUSCHER

HUSCHER v. Wells Fargo Bank

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 4th 956·18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 27·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1375·2004 Daily Journal DAR 10268·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7693
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 19, 2004B168103California6,386 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

Scott A. Huscher appeals from the probate court order denying his petition to determine that he was a beneficiary of a family trust. We affirm that order.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

George B. Marx established a tmst in his name on June 8, 1983 (the Marx Trust or the Tmst). Among the named beneficiaries were his four step-grandchildren, including Scott A. Huscher. The tmst proceeds were to be distributed among the step-grandchildren after both Marx and his wife died. The Tmst provided that Marx, as trustor, “may at any time amend any of the terms of the tmst by an instrument in writing signed by [Marx] and the Tmstee (the Bank or the Trustee).” Between November 1983 and November 1991 Marx made eight amendments to the Trust by way of handwritten instructions which were signed by him, but not by the Trustee. One of those amendments, in September 1990, removed Huscher as a trust beneficiary. Marx wrote that he did so because a separate fund he established for Huscher had grown so large that Huscher no longer needed money from the Marx Trust. Some of the other amendments added various charities as beneficiaries, including the Long Beach Rotary Scholarship Foundation (the…

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.