Myers

Smith v. Myers

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 10, 2024C098169California4,329 words

Opinion

Opinion

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Factual Background

Kathleen is Ernest’s daughter. Bruce is Kathleen’s husband. Emma is Ernest’s widow.

2 Ernest owned an agricultural property that consisted of two parcels (the ranch). In 1992, after the death of his prior wife, Ernest granted Kathleen a 45.8 percent interest in the ranch. In 1999, Ernest married Emma. On March 14, 2000, Ernest restated the Ernest Wilbur Myers 1992 Family Trust (trust). In the trust, as restated in 2000, Ernest stated he purposefully made no gifts to Kathleen, and he provided no gift to Bruce. The 2000 trust document states Ernest did not make a gift to Kathleen because he had or would make a gift of real or personal property to her outside of the trust. The trust directed the trustee to distribute Ernest’s remaining 54.2 percent interest in the ranch to Emma upon Ernest’s death. According to the trust, during his life, Ernest was both the settlor and trustee of the trust. An amendment to the trust dated July 19, 2016, (amendment), which Emma maintained was not valid, identified the Smiths as beneficiaries of the trust. According to the amendment, Ernest’s remaining right, title, and interest in the ranch…

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.