Estate of Ellias CA2/6

Filed 8/17/23 Estate of Ellias CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

Estate of YVONNE ELLIAS, 2d Civil No. B322805 Deceased. (Super. Ct. No. 56-2021- 00556111-PR-TR-OXN) (Ventura County)

VERONICA ELLIAS, as Trustee, etc.,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

DAVID WRIGHT,

Objector and Appellant.

David Wright appeals from the probate court’s order excluding him from receiving certain distributions from a trust established by his mother, Yvonne Ellias. David1 contends the

1 We refer to the parties by their first names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.

court erred when it found that Yvonne did not validly amend the trust. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Yvonne created the Yvonne Ellias Living Trust (Trust) in 2007. She amended the Trust in 2018, naming her stepdaughter, Veronica Ellias, as trustee. Section 1.04 of the Trust provides: “Any amendment, restatement, or revocation must be made in writing and delivered to my then-serving Trustee.” Yvonne passed away on February 20, 2021. The Trust became irrevocable upon her death. Yvonne purportedly amended the Trust twice more before she died, in June 2019 and July 2020.2 The amendments purportedly redistributed Yvonne’s assets, including her home, from Veronica to David upon Yvonne’s death. Veronica discovered the amendments after Yvonne died, inside a binder containing the original estate planning documents. Upon that discovery, Veronica petitioned the probate court to determine the amendments’ validity. She claimed the two amendments were invalid because they were not delivered to her as the “then-serving Trustee” during Yvonne’s lifetime. David objected to Veronica’s petition, maintaining the amendments were valid because they were delivered to Yvonne, the person holding the power of revocation, or because they were delivered to Veronica, albeit not during Yvonne’s lifetime. The court ruled the