Trusts and Estates
Ca. Trs. & Estates Quarterly Volume 10, Issue 3, Fall 2004
- A Legislative Proposal To Abolish Enforcing No Contest Clauses In California
- California's No Contest Statute Should Be Reformed Rather Than Repealed
- Incapacity Alert: Medi-cal
- No Contest Clauses Need To Be Reformed, Not Abolished
- Trust and Estates Section Executive Committee
- Why Repealing the No Contest Clause Is a Good Idea
- A Practitioner's View
A PRACTITIONER’S VIEW
By David A. Baer*
Probate Code §§ 21305(a) and (b) now do provide greater clarity as to which actions do not constitute a contest. Nevertheless, parties and their counsel continue to make frequent use of Probate Code § 21320 petitions for declaratory relief as a precautionary measure. The purpose is not just to eliminate the risk that filing the underlying petition could result in the client’s disinheritance, but also to eliminate the risk of a potential malpractice claim. Unfortunately, the frequent use of Probate Code § 21320 petitionsâa procedure that the proposed legislation would eliminateâis creating substantial additional expense and delay in probate litigation.
Probate Code § 21320 petitions are presently being used in a variety of circumstances. First, the exceptions to the enforceability of a no contest clause under Probate Code § 21305(a) do not apply to instruments created before January 1, 2001, and most of the exceptions under Probate Code § 21305(b) do not apply to instruments of decedents who died before January 1, 2001.1
Second, while Probate Code §§ 21305(a) and (b) create a safe harbor for numerous types of actions, they do not include certain actions that might also reasonably be argued not to constitute contests. For example, no reported opinion holds that a petition to disinherit a beneficiary for allegedly violating a no contest clause cannot itself constitute a violation of the clause.