Reversing a San Diego probate judge in a trust dispute, the California Court of Appeal held that a petition to reform a trust based on alleged drafting errors is not a “trust contest” subject to the relevant 120-day statute of limitations.
The decision allows Scott Packard to proceed with his claim that his late father, Newton Roy Packard, intended to divide his estate equally between his two sons, despite a handwritten amendment suggesting otherwise (Packard v. Packard, 108 Cal.App.5th 1284 [330 Cal.Rptr.3d 203]).
The case arose after Newton Packard’s death in 2020, when his son Scott filed a petition to reform the trust. Scott argued that Newton’s handwritten insertion of the phrase “one-half” into a 2012 trust amendment was a mistake and did not reflect Newton’s true intent to provide equal distributions to Scott and his brother, Gregory. Gregory, the trustee, contended that Scott’s petition was a time-barred trust contest under Probate Code section 16061.8. The probate court agreed and dismissed the petition.
Drafting Corrections Subject to 3-Year Limitation
The Court of Appeal disagreed, ruling that Scott’s petition sought to reform the trust to reflect Newton’s true intent, not to contest its validity. The court said reformation claims, which aim to correct drafting errors, are governed by a three-year statute of limitations and are not barred by the 120-day limit for trust contests. The court also clarified that extrinsic evidence is admissible to prove a trustor’s intent, even when the trust language appears unambiguous.
The appellate court remanded the case to the probate court, allowing Scott the opportunity to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Newton intended to divide the estate equally.
This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between trust contests and reformation claims, reaffirming the equitable power of courts to ensure that a trustor’s true intent is honored.
Contact Us
If you’re facing a probate dispute that’s escalating quickly, contact our team to discuss your options. As this post explains, timing is critical.
Disclaimer: This article is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this content does not create an attorney–client relationship. If you have questions about your specific legal situation, you should consult a qualified attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction. This content is provided in accordance with the California Rules of Professional Conduct governing attorney advertising and public communications.
