39 Cal.App.5th 546
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- James Robert Anderson executed a revocable trust in 2004; paragraph 3.2 required any amendment to be "made by written instrument signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee."
- Anderson executed a compliant First Amendment in 2008 adding paragraph 5.5 with shares to 15 beneficiaries.
- In early 2014 Anderson handwrittenly interlineated the 2008 First Amendment to change beneficiary percentages and add Grey Dey as a beneficiary.
- Anderson, who was both settlor and trustee, sent the original trust and the interlineated First Amendment to a new attorney with a Post-it note asking the attorney to prepare a formal second amendment for Anderson to sign; Anderson died before signing any formal amendment.
- Successor trustee Margaret Pena moved for summary judgment that the interlineations did not validly amend the trust; the trial court granted judgment for Pena.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Pena) | Defendant's Argument (Dey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anderson's handwritten interlineations validly amended the trust | Interlineations are not a valid amendment because the trust requires an amendatory writing signed by the settlor; Anderson did not sign the interlineations | Interlineations manifest settlor intent and, standing alone or with the Post-it signature, effectuate the amendment; holographic-will rules allow adoption of earlier signature | Interlineations are a separate written instrument delivered to the trustee but not signed by the settlor; therefore they did not amend the trust; Post-it did not supply the required signature; holographic-will principles do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Cory v. Toscano, 174 Cal.App.4th 1039 (2009) (handwritten interlineations on a trust document can be a separate written "instrument")
- King v. Lynch, 204 Cal.App.4th 1186 (2012) (if a trust specifies a method to modify, that method controls over statutory revocation/ modification methods)
- Estate of Archer, 193 Cal.App.3d 238 (1987) (handwritten additions to a holographic will may be treated as part of the will and adopt its signature/date)
- In re Finkler's Estate, 3 Cal.2d 584 (1935) (holographic will principles allowing later handwritten additions to be part of the will)
- Gardenhire v. Superior Court, 127 Cal.App.4th 882 (2005) (settlor-trustee's delivery/execution of documents can constitute notice of revocation intent; distinguished here because a signed writing was present in that case)