Dagodag

Dagodag v. Dagodag CA2/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 26, 2016B264192California4,714 words

Opinion

Opinion

Johnson, J.

BACKGROUND

I. Facts of the case

In Bernato v. Peasley, supra, B256486, we provided a detailed recitation of the parties’ conflicting factual allegations which concern the events before Betty’s death related to her estate planning. Here, it is sufficient to note as follows: (1) in 1998, Betty executed a will and trust that directed the manner of distribution of the assets of her estate and she later amended the trust in 2001 and 2003 (2003 Trust) and (2) in 2009, Betty executed a handwritten trust revocation that revoked the 2003 Trust and she also executed a handwritten will (2009 Will). The parties dispute the validity of the competing 2003 Trust and 2009 Will: Respondents are proponents of the 2003 Trust; Appellants are proponents of the 2009 Will. A. The first complaint (LP017194) After Betty’s death in February 2013, Respondents began administering the 2003 Trust; however, on March 4, 2013, Rick filed in the probate court a petition for probate of the 2009 Will. In September 2013, Respondents filed a motion to revoke the probate of the 2009 Will and for “transfer of assets to trustee,” a petition for an order to confirm the

3 validity of the 2003 Trust “and confirm…

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.