15 Cal.App.5th 1182
Cal. Ct. App.2017Background
- Decedent Allyne Urick executed a charitable remainder annuity trust in 2013 naming Willis, Dana, and Dana’s son as annuity recipients and Phillips Academy as remainder beneficiary; she restated the trust in 2014. A 2014 handwritten note suggested disinheriting Willis but a later full restatement reinstated him.
- Dana (daughter) became successor trustee and, after Allyne’s death, filed a petition to reform the trust alleging drafting errors, misrepresentation, and mistake to change distributions (effectively eliminating Willis and reducing the charity’s share).
- Willis (son) filed a petition asking the probate court to determine whether Dana’s reformation petition violated the trust’s no contest clause and whether Dana lacked probable cause to file a direct contest.
- Dana, in her capacity as trustee, filed an anti‑SLAPP special motion to strike Willis’s petition, arguing the reformation petition was protected petitioning activity and that Willis could not show a probability of prevailing.
- The probate court granted Dana’s anti‑SLAPP motion and attorney fees. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the anti‑SLAPP statute applies to petitions in probate but reversed because Willis made the minimal showing of merit required to defeat the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Willis) | Defendant's Argument (Dana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the anti‑SLAPP statute apply to a petition to enforce a no contest clause? | Anti‑SLAPP should not apply because applying it undermines no contest policy and Probate Code special rules should control. | Anti‑SLAPP applies: filing a reformation petition is protected litigation activity under §425.16. | Anti‑SLAPP applies; petition arises from protected judicial petitioning activity. |
| Did Willis show Dana filed the reformation petition as a beneficiary (not solely as trustee)? | Yes — pleadings, signature/verification, and attorney caption indicate Dana acted as beneficiary; petition benefits her personally. | No — Dana filed in her capacity as trustee and had standing under Probate Code §17200. | Willis made a prima facie showing that Dana filed (or acted) as a beneficiary or in a dual capacity. |
| Was the reformation petition a "direct contest" alleging grounds (e.g., fraud) under Probate Code §21310? | Yes — petition alleged misrepresentation and nondisclosure by the drafting attorney, which are grounds for fraud. | No — petition sought reformation for mistake/misrepresentation, not to invalidate the trust. | Substance controls over labels; Willis showed the petition alleged grounds (fraud/misrepresentation) that constitute a direct contest. |
| Did Dana have probable cause to bring the reformation petition? | No — decedent executed and restated trusts twice in favor of Willis and Phillips Academy; the unsigned amendments and handwritten note do not establish a reasonable likelihood of relief. | Yes — further investigation/discovery could reveal intent and justify reformation. | Willis met the minimal showing that a reasonable person would not have believed reformation was likely based on facts known to Dana; no probable cause shown at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (establishes two‑step anti‑SLAPP framework)
- Donkin v. Donkin, 58 Cal.4th 412 (discusses no contest clauses, Law Revision Commission recommendations, and balancing policies)
- Greco v. Greco, 2 Cal.App.5th 810 (applies anti‑SLAPP in probate context and examines protected activity)
- Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631 (elements of fraud for deceit/actionable misrepresentation)
- Cassel v. Superior Court, 51 Cal.4th 113 (statutory construction and limits of judicial policy substitution)