In California probate court, the Probate Code is just the beginning. Each year, appellate decisions refine — and sometimes rewrite — how the law is interpreted and enforced. From trust amendments to no-contest clauses and healthcare powers, every year delivers several game-changing rulings that every practitioner, trustee, and beneficiary should know.
Below are some of the most fascinating probate and trust cases from 2024 that are already influencing how California lawyers approach estate matters.
Email Amendments Don’t Count — Even If They’re Clear
Trotter v. Trotter Van Dyck (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 126
In this digital-age dispute, a settlor emailed her attorney and son detailed instructions to change her trust — but never formally signed the amendment. The court ruled that emails and questionnaires didn’t satisfy the trust’s amendment requirements and that the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) didn’t apply.
Key Takeaway:
A trust amendment must meet the specific formalities stated in the trust — intent isn’t enough.
Digital communications ≠ legal amendments.
No-Contest Clause Applies Across All Trust Docs
Key v. Tyler (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 365
A sibling who unduly influenced a parent to amend the family trust later tried to claim protection because the no-contest clause wasn’t repeated in the later amendments. The court disagreed — the original no-contest clause applied broadly across the trust.
Key Takeaway:
No-contest clauses carry powerful consequences, even if later amendments are silent.
Beneficiaries who litigate against the trust risk total disinheritance.
Trust Amendments Can Use the Statutory Method — Unless Specifically Prohibited
Haggerty v. Thornton (2024) 15 Cal.5th 729
The California Supreme Court confirmed that unless a trust expressly says its amendment method is exclusive, the statutory method under Probate Code §15401 is also valid. This resolved years of confusion stemming from competing appellate decisions.
Key Takeaway:
A trust must say “this is the only way to amend” to block statutory alternatives.
Estate planners: Add clear exclusivity language if you want to control future amendments.
Healthcare Agents Can’t Sign a Skilled Nursing Facility’s Optional Arbitration Agreement
Harrod v. Country Oaks Partners, LLC (2024) 15 Cal.5th 939
The California Supreme Court ruled that an agent acting under a standard health care power of attorney can’t bind a patient to optional arbitration agreements when admitting them to a nursing facility. The court emphasized that such agreements go beyond medical decision-making.
Key Takeaway:
The health care agent in this matter moved to sue the Skilled Nursing Facility after the patient was severely injured due to negligent care by the Facility. Had the Skilled Nursing Facility been able to enforce its abitration agreement, the health care agent would have been prevented from suing for damages.
Trustee Suspensions Are Not Appealable Orders
Young v. Hartford (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 730
In a key procedural ruling, the Court of Appeal held that an order suspending a trustee and appointing an interim trustee is not directly appealable. The court emphasized that probate matters are often ongoing and that such orders are interim relief — not final judgments.
This case resolves a common point of confusion in trust litigation and establishes clear precedent on appealability.
Key Takeaways:
Suspensions of trustees are not appealable orders under the Probate Code.
The ruling helps streamline probate litigation by reducing premature or improper appeals.
Lis Pendens Allowed in Trust Amendment Dispute
Newell v. Superior Court (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 728
In this late-2024 decision, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a lis pendens may be validly recorded in trust litigation when real property is at stake — even if the property was acquired after the initial petition.
The case involved a caregiver who used trust funds to purchase real estate after allegedly coercing an elderly settlor into amending the trust to disinherit his daughter. The daughter sought to invalidate the amendment under Probate Code §21380 and later amended her petition to request a constructive trust over the newly purchased property.
Although the trial court granted a motion to expunge the lis pendens, the Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the petition substantially affected property rights and therefore justified the lis pendens.
Key Takeaways:
A lis pendens is proper in trust litigation when the outcome would affect ownership or control of real property.
A claim for a constructive trust over misappropriated assets — even if acquired post-petition — supports the use of a lis pendens.
The case strengthens the tools available to beneficiaries seeking to preserve real estate during trust disputes.
