Estate of Eimers - Case Brief

5 Mins read

Estate of Eimers

Case Number: B295609

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2020-05-18

Case Brief – Estate of Eimers

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-04
Case Number: B295609
Disposition: The order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend is affirmed. Respondent James N. Eimers, as Trustee, is awarded costs on appeal.

Holding

The court held that a probate court may not reform a holographic will to insert a “specific reference” to a power of appointment when the governing trust instrument expressly requires such a reference; the statutory prohibitions in Probate Code §§ 630, 631(b), and 632 preclude any judicial cure of the non‑compliance.

Narrative

Lead – The California Court of Appeal affirmed a lower‑court ruling that barred the amendment of a decedent’s holographic will to satisfy a trust’s “specific reference” requirement, underscoring the rigidity of Probate Code §§ 630, 631, and 632 when a donor conditions the exercise of a power of appointment on an explicit reference to that power.

Procedural backdrop – Timothy W. Eimers executed a two‑page holographic will on February 8, 2013, bequeathing his shares in the Norbert Theodore Eimers Family Trust to Charles and Caryn Saletta. The will was admitted to probate in Los Angeles County in 2014. Concurrently, James N. Eimers, the trust’s successor trustee, sought guidance in Sonoma County on whether the Salettas could receive the shares. The Sonoma court held that the will failed to meet the trust’s specific‑reference condition and barred distribution. The Salettas appealed, and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on Probate Code § 632’s prohibition against “substantial compliance” where a donor demands a specific reference.

In 2018 the Salettas filed a petition in the Los Angeles probate proceeding to amend the holographic will, proposing to insert the phrase “under the power of appointment.” The trustee demurred, arguing that §§ 631(b) and 632 barred any such amendment. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend. The Salettas appealed, raising three intertwined issues: (1) whether a court may reform a will to cure a missing specific reference; (2) whether the trust’s requirement is satisfied by a reference to the trust itself; and (3) whether the trustee possessed standing to oppose the amendment.

Statutory framework – Probate Code § 630(a) obliges a donee to follow any manner, time, or condition the creating instrument prescribes for exercising a power of appointment. § 632 makes that requirement absolute when the instrument expressly directs that the exercise must contain a “specific reference” to the power or to the creating instrument; such a reference is a condition precedent to validity. § 631 provides a limited “excuse” power, allowing a court to validate a defective exercise only when the failure does not defeat the donor’s significant purpose, but subsection (b) expressly excludes the “specific reference” scenario from that discretion.

Court’s analysis – Applying a de novo standard to the demurrer, the appellate panel accepted the petition’s factual allegations but rejected the Salettas’ reliance on Estate of Duke (61 Cal.4th 871) for reformation. The court emphasized that Duke concerns ambiguous or mistaken expressions of intent, not a clear statutory non‑compliance. Here, the will unambiguously conveyed the testator’s desire to give his trust shares to the Salettas, but it omitted the statutory phrase required to validly exercise the power of appointment.

The court parsed § 632’s language, noting the legislature’s use of “or” to create two independent pathways: a specific reference to the power itself or a specific reference to the creating instrument. The trust’s language—“specifically referring to and exercising this power of appointment”—demands a reference to the power, not merely to the trust document. Consequently, the Salettas’ proposed amendment would create a reference that the statute expressly forbids the court from supplying. To do so would “nullify” the statutory condition, effectively rewriting the donor’s mandate.

Regarding standing, the court found the trustee to be an “interested person” under Probate Code § 48(b). As fiduciary of the trust, he bears a duty to enforce the donor’s expressed conditions, and the prior Sonoma and appellate rulings already bound him to withhold distribution. Thus, his participation in the probate proceeding was proper.

Conclusion – The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s demurrer, holding that the omission of a required specific reference cannot be cured by judicial amendment. The decision reinforces the strict compliance model for powers of appointment that carry an express reference condition, limiting the scope of § 631(b)’s remedial discretion.

Impact and unresolved questions – Practitioners should counsel clients that when a trust instrument imposes a specific‑reference requirement, any deviation—whether intentional or inadvertent—renders the exercise ineffective, and courts will not rewrite the instrument to achieve the testator’s substantive intent. The ruling also clarifies that trustees, as fiduciaries, have standing to defend the trust’s statutory conditions in related probate actions.

Nevertheless, the opinion leaves open how courts might treat ambiguous language that arguably satisfies both reference tests, or whether a “dual‑reference” clause (referencing both the power and the instrument) could provide a safer fallback. Future litigation may explore the boundary between permissible “excuse” under § 631(a) and the categorical bar of § 631(b) when a donor’s drafting is less precise.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code §§ 630, 631, 632 – Requirements and excusability of powers of appointment, specific‑reference condition.
  • Probate Code § 48(b) – Definition of “interested person” and standing in probate proceedings.
  • Estate of Duke, 61 Cal.4th 871 (2015) – Standard for will reformation based on clear and convincing evidence.
  • Estate of Kime, 144 Cal.App.3d 246 (1983) – Construction of wills according to testator intent.
  • Estate of O’Connor, 26 Cal.App.5th 871 (2018) – Distinction between reference to the power versus reference to the creating instrument.
  • Sefton v. Sefton, 206 Cal.App.4th 875 (2012) – General principles governing powers of appointment.
  • Law Revision Commission Comment, Relocation of Powers of Appointment Statute (1991) – Legislative intent behind § 632’s specific‑reference requirement.