Cook

Cook v. Cook

Good Law
177 Cal. App. 4th 1436·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 1595·99 Cal. Rptr. 3d 913
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 29, 2009B205793California2,972 words

Opinion

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

In an amendment to their testamentary trust, testators stated that a beneficiary’s debt owed them should be offset against that beneficiary’s distribution. Here we conclude the beneficiary’s assertion that the debt is unenforceable violates the trust’s no-contest provision.

Trust beneficiary Daniel W. Cook appeals an order determining that his pleading regarding the distribution of his deceased parents’ trust violates the no-contest provision of the trust. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On October 23, 1997, Donald and Nancy Cook settled a revocable trust (Trust) and executed pour-over wills drafted by their attorney as an integrated estate plan. The beneficiaries of the Trust are their four children, Donald D. Cook, Jr., Daniel, Dennis, and Diane.

The Trust provides for equal distribution of Trust property among the four children, but requires the trustee to “take into account and allocate any debts owed to the settlors to the share created for the beneficiary owing said obligation.” (Trust, f 6.3(a).)

The Trust also contains this no-contest provision: “If any beneficiary under this instrument . . . directly or indirectly contests this instrument, any…

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.