Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealprobatetrustwill

appealtrustrespondentappellantcredibility

Related Cases

McQuone v. Brown, Not Reported in Cal.Rptr.2d, 2001 WL 1447232

Facts

The McQuone Family Living Trust was established by Hazel and her deceased husband, Marvin E. McQuone, with specific provisions regarding their children and disinheritance of Marvin's son, Marvin Leroy McQuone. After Marvin's death, an amendment to the trust inadvertently removed the disinheritance language, leading to confusion about the beneficiaries. Hazel filed a petition to clarify the trust's terms and assert that the no-contest clause would not be violated by her actions. The probate court ruled in her favor, prompting Tracy Brown's appeal.

The settlors had two children during their marriage, David J. McQuone (David) and Elizabeth Ann Cassady (Elizabeth). Decedent had one son from a previous marriage, Marvin Leroy McQuone (Marvin). Marvin died in April 1996. He was survived by his two children, appellant and Mark McQuone.

Issue

Did the probate court err in determining that Hazel McQuone's proposed petition would not violate the no-contest clause in the amended trust?

At issue in this appeal is whether the court erred in determining respondent's proposed petition would not violate the no-contest clause in the amended trust.

Rule

The interpretation of a written instrument, including a declaration of trust, presents a question of law. No-contest clauses are enforceable but will be strictly construed, and actions seeking to ascertain the true meaning of a trust do not constitute a contest.

The rules pertaining to construction of no-contest clauses are well settled. 'The interpretation of a written instrument, including a …. declaration of trust, presents a question of law unless interpretation turns on the competence or credibility of extrinsic evidence or a conflict therein.'

Analysis

The court analyzed Hazel's proposed petitions, determining that her requests for instructions and to ascertain beneficiaries did not constitute a contest under the no-contest clause. The court emphasized that these petitions sought to clarify the settlors' intent rather than to nullify or set aside the trust. However, the court found that Hazel's request to amend the trust would trigger the no-contest clause, as it sought to alter the terms of the bypass trust, which was intended to be irrevocable after Marvin's death.

Applying this principle to the present case, we conclude respondent's first and second petitions are not contests within the meaning of the no-contest clause at issue here, as they seek construction of the terms of the amended trust.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the probate court's ruling regarding Hazel's request to amend the trust, affirming that this would violate the no-contest clause, while upholding the court's decision that her other petitions would not.

The order declaring that respondent's proposed petition would not violate the no-contest clause is reversed in part, and affirmed in part.

Who won?

Hazel McQuone prevailed in part, as the court allowed her petitions for instructions and to ascertain beneficiaries, ruling they did not violate the no-contest clause.

We thus reject respondent's last argument that the no-contest clause was not intended to apply to a settlor.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sefton v. Sefton, 206 Cal.App.4th 875, 142 Cal.Rptr.3d 174, 12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6047, 2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7243

In re Estate of Leon Erson Barrenger Trust, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2017 WL 1967490

Dreher v. Dreher, 370 S.C. 75, 634 S.E.2d 646

In re Gerbing’s Estate, 61 Ill.2d 503, 337 N.E.2d 29, 74 A.L.R.3d 1087

Cresto v. Cresto, 302 Kan. 820, 358 P.3d 831