Hamilton v. Green - Case Brief
Case Number: B323621
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four
Date Filed: September 01, 2025
Holding
The court held that a civil complaint whose practical effect is to challenge the validity of a trust amendment is an “action to contest the trust” within Probate Code § 16061.8, and therefore the 120‑day statute of limitations triggered by the trustee’s notification applied, rendering the complaint time‑barred.
The appeal turned on whether Dominic Hamilton and Eric Hamilton Jr. could pursue a suite of tort and fiduciary claims against their aunt, LaDonna Green, after the statutory deadline to contest their grandmother’s trust had expired. The trial court had sustained LaDonna’s demurrer without leave to amend, concluding that the plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by Probate Code § 16061.8. The appellate panel affirmed, emphasizing that the substance—not the label—of the suit determines the applicable limitations period.
Procedural backdrop. Lena Grace Hamilton executed a revocable trust in 1991, naming her daughter LaDonna as trustee and her son Eric Sr. as co‑beneficiary. A handwritten amendment dated September 26 2002 purportedly altered the distribution scheme to favor the surviving beneficiary. After Lena’s death in 2019, LaDonna claimed sole ownership, refusing to produce the original trust instrument. Dominic and Eric Jr. filed a probate petition in January 2020 seeking the trustee’s removal and the trust’s documents. In April 2020 LaDonna served the required “notification by trustee” under Probate Code § 16061.7, warning beneficiaries that any contest must be filed within 120 days. The plaintiffs missed that deadline, later seeking to amend their probate petition in March 2021 to allege forgery of the amendment—request denied by the trial court.
Undeterred, the brothers filed a civil complaint on July 29 2021 asserting seven causes of action, each predicated on the alleged invalidity of the 2002 amendment. LaDonna demurred, arguing the complaint was an “action to contest the trust” subject to the 120‑day bar. The trial court agreed, sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and treating the order as a dismissal for purposes of appeal. The appellate court first addressed appealability, finding that a demurrer sustained without leave to amend, when it eliminates all causes of action, functions as a dismissal and is therefore appealable.
Legal analysis. The court applied the standard de novo review for demurrers and the “practical effect” test articulated in Estate of Stoker (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 236. Under § 16061.8, any suit that challenges the validity of a trust—or a protected instrument thereof—is an “action to contest the trust.” The appellate panel rejected the plaintiffs’ reliance on the “direct contest” definition in Probate Code § 21310, noting that § 16061.8 does not incorporate that language and that the statute’s purpose is to enforce the notification deadline regardless of the pleading’s nomenclature. Because every cause of action required a determination of the amendment’s authenticity, the complaint’s practical effect was to contest the trust, triggering the statutory limitations period. The filing occurred more than a year after the April 2020 notification, well beyond the 120‑day window.
The court also examined whether leave to amend could cure the defect. The plaintiffs failed to show that any amendment could overcome the statutory bar; thus, the trial court’s discretion was not abused.
Implications. Hamilton v. Green reinforces that California’s probate notice regime extends to parallel civil actions that, in substance, seek to invalidate trust provisions. Practitioners must vigilantly monitor the 120‑day deadline and advise beneficiaries that even tort or fiduciary claims rooted in alleged forgery will be barred if filed after the notice period. The decision also clarifies that the “direct contest” language of § 21310 is not controlling for § 16061.8 purposes, narrowing the scope for arguments that a civil suit falls outside the probate limitations scheme.
Unresolved questions remain regarding the interplay between the statute of limitations and equitable defenses such as laches in trust‑related disputes, and whether a court might entertain a post‑deadline claim when the alleged fraud was discovered only after the limitations period expired. Those issues may surface in future appellate review as litigants test the boundaries of the “practical effect” doctrine.
Referenced Statutes and Doctrines
- Probate Code § 16061.7 (trustee notification requirement)
- Probate Code § 16061.8 (120‑day statute of limitations to contest a trust)
- Probate Code § 21310 (definition of “direct contest”)
- Definition of “trust” – Probate Code § 82
- No‑contest clause doctrine (Probate Code §§ 21310(b), (c), (e))
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Stoker (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 236
- Carter v. Prime Healthcare Paradise Valley LLC (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 396
- Austin v. Medicis (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 577
- Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311
- Rakestraw v. California Physicians’ Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39
- Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386
- Bullock v. City of Antioch (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 407