Reich v. Reich - Case Brief

5 Mins read

Case Number: B332714
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two
Date Filed: August 31, 2025

Holding

The court held that the proceeds of Thomas Reich’s individual retirement account are a non‑probate asset that never passed through the decedent’s revocable trust, and therefore are excluded from the estate for purposes of calculating Pamela Reich’s omitted‑spouse share.

Narrative

When a surviving spouse is omitted from a pre‑marital testamentary plan, California law obliges the estate to provide a statutory share. The question of whether that share can be drawn from assets that bypass probate—most notably individual retirement accounts (IRAs)—has long divided practitioners. Reich v. Reich resolves that dispute, confirming that an IRA designated to pass directly to separate trusts created by a decedent’s revocable trust remains outside the estate for omitted‑spouse calculations.

Procedural backdrop. Thomas M. Reich executed a revocable trust in 2003, later amended in 2016. The trust earmarked $1.5 million in specific gifts to his ex‑wife, brother, and nephew, and directed that any residue be held for his daughter Shannon or, if she predeceased him, his granddaughter Leah in “separate trusts” created by the trust. In November 2016 Thomas named two distinct trusts—one for Shannon and one for Leah—as equal beneficiaries of his PNC Bank IRA, which held roughly $1.5 million at his death on July 2, 2021. He married Pamela Reich on November 20, 2020, seven months before his death, and never amended the trust to provide for her.

Pamela filed a petition for an omitted‑spouse share, asserting that the IRA proceeds should be treated as part of Thomas’s estate because the designated beneficiaries were “sub‑trusts” created by the primary trust. The trial court initially entertained that view, but after a partial settlement that excluded the IRA, it later dismissed her subsequent petitions, holding the IRA to be a non‑probate asset that never passed through the trust. Pamela appealed.

Legal issue. Does an IRA whose beneficiary designations are separate trusts created by a decedent’s revocable trust constitute part of the decedent’s estate for purposes of calculating an omitted‑spouse share under Probate Code §§21600‑21612?

Court’s analysis. The appellate court applied a de novo review, emphasizing the statutory definition of “estate” as (1) the probate estate and (2) property that passes through a revocable trust that becomes irrevocable at death (Prob. Code §§21600, 21601(b)). It noted that non‑probate transfers are enumerated in Probate Code §§5000(a) and 5011(a), which expressly include IRAs. Citing Estate of Davis (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 854, 858, the court reiterated that IRA proceeds do not become part of the probate estate.

The court rejected Pamela’s five arguments. First, it held that labeling the beneficiary trusts as “sub‑trusts” does not alter the fact that the IRA’s title passed directly to those trusts under the beneficiary designation, not through the primary trust. Second, the “what‑would‑have‑happened” test in §21610 is meant to determine the size of the omitted‑spouse share, not to pull non‑probate assets into the estate. Third, the irrevocability of the separate trusts upon Thomas’s death is irrelevant because only the decedent’s own testamentary instruments (the primary trust) trigger the omitted‑spouse scheme. Fourth, the trust’s internal IRA provisions address accounting after the IRA lands in the separate trusts; they do not indicate an intent to route the IRA through the primary trust. Fifth, the earlier demurrer ruling is not binding on a different judge deciding a separate petition.

Relying on the plain language of the IRA beneficiary form, federal law prohibiting trusts from holding an IRA (26 U.S.C. §408(a)), and the California non‑probate framework, the court concluded that the IRA proceeds never entered Thomas’s estate. Consequently, Pamela’s omitted‑spouse share cannot be drawn from that $1.5 million.

Conclusion and impact. By affirming the lower court, the Second District clarified that an IRA designated to pass to trusts created by a decedent’s revocable trust remains a non‑probate asset, even when those trusts are themselves created by the primary trust document. The decision reinforces the principle that omitted‑spouse rights are confined to assets that either pass through probate or flow through a revocable trust that becomes irrevocable at death. Practitioners must therefore scrutinize beneficiary designations carefully; merely naming a trust as a beneficiary does not convert a non‑probate asset into estate property for omitted‑spouse purposes. Unresolved questions linger regarding hybrid arrangements where a trust is both a direct IRA beneficiary and the primary vehicle for estate distribution, a scenario that may invite further appellate guidance.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code §§21600‑21612 – omitted‑spouse share, definition of estate.
  • Probate Code §§5000(a), 5011(a) – non‑probate transfers, including IRAs.
  • 26 U.S.C. §408(a) – federal definition of an IRA as an individual‑benefit account.

Major Cases Cited

  • Estate of Davis (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 854.
  • Estate of Petersen (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 1742.
  • Estate of Torregano (1960) 54 Cal.2d 234.
  • Estate of Stewart (1968) 69 Cal.2d 296.
  • Estate of Katleman (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 51.
  • Placencia v. Strazicich (2019) 42 Cal.App.5d 730.
  • Brown v. Labow (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 795.
  • Araiza v. Younkin (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 1120.
  • Burch v. George (1994) 7 Cal.4th 246.
  • Estate of Dito (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 791.
  • Clark v. Rameker (2014) 573 U.S. 122.
  • Estate of Piatt (1943) 57 Cal.App.2d 211.
  • Estate of Shimun (1977) 67 Cal.App.3d 436.
  • Trolan v. Trolan (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 939.
  • Summers v. City of Cathedral City (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1047.
  • Wrightson v. Dougherty (1936) 5 Cal.2d 257.