Nathanson v. Nathanson
5 Cal. App. 5th 29
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Margor Dayan executed a 2009 will directing "all title, rights and interests" in 11470 Vanowen St. (the property) to a testamentary trust for Ermond Nathanson; the will revoked prior trusts including the Nathanson Trust and contained a broad no‑contest clause.
- Title history showed deeds from 1978–1994 that resulted in Anthony Nathanson holding legal title to an undivided one‑third interest in the property by 1986; inventory/appraisal listed the estate as owning two‑thirds.
- Ermond (plaintiff) petitioned under Probate Code §850(a)(2) to establish the estate owned the property outright and sought enforcement of the will’s no‑contest clause against Anthony (defendant), who opposed, asserting his one‑third ownership by deed.
- Plaintiff moved for judgment on the pleadings that Anthony’s opposition violated the no‑contest clause and forfeited his interest; the court denied that motion and tried the §850 petition.
- The probate court found substantial evidence (deeds, lack of quiet‑title or re‑transfer by Dayan, inventory) that Dayan did not own full title at death and denied the §850 petition and the judgment‑on‑the‑pleadings; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the estate held full title to the property such that §850 relief should convey all title to the trust | Dayan intended to transfer all property by will; plaintiff relied on will language and claimed Dayan had equitable title to whole property | Deeds from 1983–1986 conveyed a one‑third interest to Anthony; those recorded deeds control and survive the will | Court: Denied §850 petition — substantial evidence supports that Anthony owned an unconditional one‑third interest by deed and Dayan only owned two‑thirds |
| Whether Anthony’s opposition to the §850 petition violated the will’s no‑contest clause and forfeited his interest | Plaintiff: Anthony’s claim of an adverse property interest contravened the no‑contest clause and forfeits his bequests/interest | Anthony: He asserted rights under prior quitclaim deed, not seeking to invalidate the will | Court: Denied judgment on the pleadings — pleadings did not show a statutory no‑contest violation (no direct contest, no covered attack on transfers), so forfeiture not established |
| Appealability of denial of judgment on the pleadings | Plaintiff: Order should be reviewed with the appeal from §850 ruling under CCP §906 | Defendant: Denial of judgment on the pleadings is not separately appealable | Court: Considered the order under CCP §906 because it involved the same merits and substantially affected rights |
| Standard for enforcing no‑contest clause | Plaintiff: Clause is broad and applies to claims asserting property interests inconsistent with the will | Defendant: Enforcement is limited by statutes defining types of contests that trigger forfeiture | Court: Applied Probate Code §§21310–21312/21311 — clause strictly construed; only specified contest types may be penalized; here none were shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co., 62 Cal.2d 861 (de novo interpretation of written instruments)
- City of Manhattan Beach v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.4th 232 (effect of quitclaim deed as release of grantor’s interest)
- Donkin v. Donkin, 58 Cal.4th 412 (scope and application of probate no‑contest statutes)
- Johnson v. Greenelsh, 47 Cal.4th 598 (strict construction of no‑contest clauses)
- Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174 (subsequent instruments do not override earlier deed conveying title)