Donkin v. Donkin
58 Cal. 4th 412
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Rodney and Mary Donkin executed a revocable Family Trust in 1988 for lifetime benefit and posthumous distribution to four children; the Trust was amended in 2002 to alter post-death asset allocation under Mary’s control as surviving spouse.
- Mary died in 2005; the Trust’s Second Amendment granted successor trustees broad discretion over asset retention, liquidation, and discretionary distributions.
- The Trust contained no contest clauses, including one added by the Second Amendment.
- In 2008–2009, Donkin beneficiaries filed a safe harbor application under former Probate Code § 21320 to determine if their potential petition would violate no contest clauses; arbitration issues arose.
- Former safe harbor provisions were repealed and replaced by a new statutory regime effective Jan. 1, 2010, altering how no contest clauses are enforced and eliminating the safe harbor process.
- The probate court initially ruled the beneficiaries’ proposed petition did not violate the no contest clauses; the Court of Appeal partially reversed, leading to a grant of review by the California Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether current law or former law governs no contest clauses in this case | Beneficiaries: current law applies to instruments irrevocable after 2001. | Trustees: former law should apply to acts under the interim regime where pending. | Current law applies to irrevocable instruments post-2001; unenforceable against the beneficiaries’ claims under current law. |
| Whether the beneficiaries’ claims trigger the no contest clauses under the applicable law | Claims do not attack the validity or distributive scheme; interpretive actions are allowed. | Claims attack the trust’s distributive scheme and should trigger no contest provisions. | Under current law, no contest clauses are unenforceable for the beneficiaries’ proposed claims. |
| Whether the successor trustees may invoke a fairness exception to retroactive application | Retroactive application would undermine beneficiaries’ rights. | Fairness exception could mitigate retroactive effects. | Fairness exception not available; retroactive application applied; no difference in result from former law. |
| Whether safe harbor proceedings pending before 2010 remained viable post-repeal | Safe harbor status should be preserved for pending matters. | Safe harbor procedure repealed; pending matters must follow new law. | Procedural matters remained governed by old law; substantively, current law governs no contest outcomes. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burch v. George, 7 Cal.4th 246 (Cal. 1994) (no contest clauses enforceable unless against public policy)
- In re Estate of Kitchen, 192 Cal. 384 (Cal. 1923) (no contest clauses rooted in public policy; strict construction)
- Estate of Ferber, 66 Cal.App.4th 244 (Cal. App. 1998) (safe harbor and fiduciary misconduct considerations under public policy)
- Johnson v. Greenelsh, 47 Cal.4th 598 (Cal. 2009) (indirect contests defined; interpretation as contest mechanics)
- Bradley v. Gilbert, 172 Cal.App.4th 1058 (Cal. App. 2009) (fiduciary misconduct claims can be raised without violating no contest clause)
- Colburn v. Northern Trust Co., 151 Cal.App.4th 439 (Cal. App. 2007) (no contest clause considerations in fiduciary contexts)
- Cory v. Toscano, 174 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. App. 2009) (interpretation disputes about instruments do not necessarily violate no contest clauses)