Hudson v. Hudson CA2/7

California Court of Appeal Nov 16, 2022 No. B322589Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a beneficiary's filing of a creditor's claim against a probate estate did not violate a trust's no contest clause, which specifically prohibited only claims filed 'against the trust.'

Issues

Whether a creditor's claim filed against a probate estate constitutes a claim 'against the trust' under a no contest clause.
Whether the phrase 'directly or indirectly' in a no contest clause expands the scope of a prohibited claim against the trust to include claims against an estate.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the plain meaning of the phrase “against the trust” is not reasonably susceptible to the expansive definition proposed by Robert’s sons”

“the words “directly or indirectly” do not modify the phrase “against the trust,” they modify the act of filing the claim.”

“the plain meaning of the trust language in this case does not demonstrate an unequivocal intent on Robert’s part to disinherit a beneficiary who files a creditor’s claim against the probate estate.”

Filed 11/16/22 Hudson v. Hudson CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

DANIEL HUDSON et al., B322589

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. 18PR184315) v.

KENNON HUDSON,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Julie A. Emede, Judge. Affirmed. Hopkins & Carley, Steven A. Ellenberg and Ryan D. Cunningham for Plaintiffs and Appellants Daniel Hudson and Michael Hudson. McManis Faulkner, James McManis and Abimael Bastid for Defendant and Respondent. ________________________

Daniel Hudson and Michael Hudson appeal from the probate court’s order denying their petition to enforce the no contest clause in the 2017 Amendment and Restatement of the Robert B. Hudson Trust against their stepmother, Kennon Hudson.1 Daniel and Michael contend the probate court erred in finding Kennon’s creditor’s claim in the probate proceeding did not violate the no contest clause in the trust. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1. The 2017 Amendment and Restatement of the Robert B. Hudson Trust In 2007 Daniel and Michael’s father, Robert Hudson, established the Robert B. Hudson Trust, which was amended several times, most recently on July 12, 2017. The trust stated that, upon Robert’s death, the trust assets were to be distributed mainly to Kennon, Daniel and Michael. After $10,000 gifts to two of Robert’s nephews, Kennon was to receive $350,000 cash, the contents of all bank and brokerage accounts, certain real and personal property and interests in several partnerships and corporations. Daniel and Michael were to receive interests in various corporate entities. In addition, certain real estate and corporate interests would be held in a qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) trust for Kennon’s benefit and, upon her death, the QTIP trust property would be distributed to Daniel’s and Michael’s children or grandchildren. Any remaining assets of the trust were to be divided between Daniel and Michael.

Hudson v. Hudson CA2/7

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

KENNON HUDSON,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

PERLUSS, P. J.

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.

AI Brief