Trotter

Trotter v. Van Dyck

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 27, 2024D081916California3,864 words

Opinion

Opinion

Buchanan, J.

Filed 6/27/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY J. TROTTER, as Trustee, D081916 etc.,

Petitioner and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 37-2022- v. 00031695-PR-TR-CTL)

WENDY TROTTER VAN DYCK,

Objector and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Julia C. Kelety, Judge. Affirmed. Yale & Baumgarten and David W. Baumgarten for Appellant. The Inheritance Recovery Attorneys and Edward Terzian for Respondent. Timothy J. Trotter (Timothy), successor trustee of the Trotter Family Revocable Trust (Trust), petitioned the probate court seeking guidance about whether certain e-mails from his mother, Mary Trotter (Mary), constituted a valid amendment to the Trust’s beneficiaries. The court found that Mary’s writings were insufficient to constitute an amendment to the Trust, and it ordered that the Trust be distributed to its original beneficiaries, including Wendy Trotter Van Dyck (Van Dyck). Timothy contends on appeal that each of the various grounds upon which the probate court based its order was erroneous. We conclude that at least two…

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.