27 Cal. App. 5th 1
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Joan Mauri Barefoot (appellant) is one of six children of Joan Lee Maynord, settlor of the Maynord 1986 Family Trust.
- Between 2013 and 2016 Maynord executed the 17th–24th amendments; the 24th was the operative trust at her death and expressly disinherited appellant and removed her as successor trustee.
- Appellant sought to set aside the 17th–24th amendments and declare the 16th amendment effective, alleging lack of capacity, undue influence, and fraud by respondents (siblings, including trustee Shana Wren).
- Appellant filed a petition under Probate Code §17200 (court petitions concerning internal affairs of a trust), asserting standing as a former beneficiary/trustee under the 16th amendment and that invalidity of later amendments would restore her status.
- Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of standing because appellant is neither beneficiary nor trustee under the operative (24th) amendment; the trial court granted dismissal and denied reconsideration. Appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a former beneficiary/trustee under an earlier trust version has standing under §17200 to challenge later amendments | Barefoot: She was beneficiary and trustee under the 16th amendment; §17200 should allow her to challenge later amendments that she alleges are invalid | Respondents: §17200 is limited to beneficiaries or trustees of the current (operative) trust; Barefoot is disinherited under the 24th and lacks §17200 standing | Held: §17200 standing applies only to beneficiaries or trustees of the contested (current) trust; former beneficiaries lack standing to file under §17200 |
| Whether allegations of settlor incapacity/undue influence allow a former beneficiary to proceed under §17200 after settlor's death | Barefoot: Alleged incapacity/undue influence renders later amendments void, so she should be allowed to proceed under §17200 | Respondents: Challenges based on invalidity/redress of wrongful amendments may be pursued by other causes of action; §17200 is not the proper vehicle for a former beneficiary | Held: Allegations of incapacity may permit a beneficiary to proceed while settlor alive, but they do not convert a former beneficiary into a §17200 petitioner after settlor's death; alternative remedies (complaint causes of action) are available |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Giraldin, 55 Cal.4th 1058 (2012) (inter vivos trust property remains settlor's during life; beneficiaries' interests are potential and revocable)
- Babbitt v. Superior Court, 246 Cal.App.4th 1135 (2016) (standing issues dependent on statutory authority reviewed de novo)
- Poole v. Orange County Fire Authority, 61 Cal.4th 1378 (2015) (statutory interpretation begins with plain language and legislative intent)
- Lintz v. Lintz, 222 Cal.App.4th 1346 (2014) (separate causes of action available to challenge validity of trust documents apart from §17200)
- Drake v. Pinkham, 217 Cal.App.4th 400 (2013) (allegations of settlor incompetence can overcome procedural bars while settlor lives, but do not authorize a former beneficiary to proceed under §17200 once removed)