Trusts and Estates
Packard v. Packard
Cite as D082480
Filed February 24, 2025
Fourth District, Div. One
By Golnaz Yazdchi
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
https://www.sheppardmullin.com
Headnote: No Contest Clauses – Reformation Petitions
Summary: Petition for construction and reformation of a trust amendment was not a contest where the petition sought to reform the trust to correct an alleged mistake as to trustor’s intent.
Trustor created a trust whereby he left the trust estate in equal shares to his two sons, Greg and Scott. Trustor later amended the trust to leave his personal residence to Greg, with an equalizing sum to Scott, and the trust residue split equally between the two sons. Trustor then interlineated a handwritten change, which he initialed and dated. The interlineated change would have had the effect of giving Scott an equalizing sum to one-half, as opposed to the full value, of the house. The trust contained a no contest clause. Following trustor’s death, Scott filed a petition for reformation and construction, asserting the handwritten interlineation did not reflect trustor’s true intent that his assets be distributed equally between his sons and that the court should consider extrinsic evidence to construe trustor’s intent. Greg argued the petition constituted a contest because Scott was challenging the handwritten interlineation, and that the contest was time-barred. The court ruled in Greg’s favor and granted his motion for judgment on the pleadings.
The appellate court reversed. Scott’s petition did not seek to nullify his father’s trust, nor did it challenge the validity of the amendment. Instead, the petition sought judicial construction and reformation to reflect trustor’s true intent of leaving his assets equally between his two sons. Accordingly, the petition was not a contest and should proceed on the merits. This result is consistent with the rule that a no contest clause must be strictly construed and may not be extended beyond what was plainly intended by the trustor.