Tunstall

Tunstall v. Wells

Good Law
144 Cal. App. 4th 554·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1713·2006 Daily Journal DAR 14545·50 Cal. Rptr. 3d 468·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10182
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 31, 2006B188711California6,356 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rothschild, J.

In this case, we hold that a testamentary trust’s no contest clause providing that one beneficiary’s contest voids other noncontesting beneficiaries’ bequests along with the contestant’s does not, in itself, violate public policy.

Elizabeth H. Wells (Elizabeth) appeals from an order following the trial court’s finding that the no contest clause in a trust established by her father was void as against public policy. She contends that the provision in question does not violate public policy and is not otherwise void. Following our review of California and foreign authorities in this case of first impression, we agree with Elizabeth and reverse.

FACTS

Robert and Hazel Wells, parents of the parties in this case, created a living trust in November 1986. When Hazel died in 1994, the trust assets were divided into a survivor’s trust, a bypass trust, and an exemption trust pursuant to the living trust’s terms. Robert Wells (Wells), trustee of the survivor trust, distributed all of that trust’s assets to himself, then in January 2004 created the Robert Sheaff Wells Family Trust (Trust) and transferred the survivor trust assets into it. The Trust named his five children as…

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.