California Court of Appeal

In a probate action, order finding that plaintiff-beneficiary's proposed action will not violate a no contest clause is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's contention that the ambiguous language of the trust is the result of a scrivener-s error could allow the trial court to reform the ambiguous language to implement the trustors' intent; 2) compliance with the conclusive presumption provision may be excused if plaintiff substantially complies with the manner of appointment prescribed by the trusts and does not defeat a significant purpose of the trustors.

Appellate Information

• Decided 03/12/2009
• Published 03/12/2009

Judges

• MALLANO, P.J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger and Michael A. Greene, Los Angeles, for Defendant and Appellant., Sacks, Glazier, Franklin & Lodise, Terrence M. Franklin, Matthew W. McMurtrey, Los Angeles;  Hoffman, Sabban & Watenmaker and Kenneth S. Wolf, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff and Respondent.