Estate of Tarlow

Case Number: B333665

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2025-02-27

Case Brief – Estate of Tarlow

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: B333665
Disposition: The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order sustaining the demurrer and remanded for further proceedings under Probate Code §§ 11700 et seq.; appellant awarded costs on appeal.

Holding

The court held that a trustee named in a decedent’s will is a “person claiming to be … entitled to distribution of a share of the estate” under Probate Code § 11700 and therefore has standing to file a petition seeking a court determination of that share.

Narrative

Lead – When a will creates a trust and designates a trustee, the trustee’s right to petition the court on the estate’s distribution has been unsettled. The Court of Appeal clarified the issue in Estate of Tarlow, holding that the named trustee possesses statutory standing under Probate Code § 11700 to seek a determination of his entitlement to the trust assets.

Procedural background – Barry Tarlow executed a 2005 will that left his residuary estate in equal shares to his sister Barbara Tarlow Rapposelli and brother Gerald Tarlow. Barbara’s share was to be placed in the “Barbara Tarlow Trust,” with David Henry Simon named as trustee. Upon Barry’s death on April 30, 2021, Barbara and Gerald declined the executor role, leaving Simon as trustee only. The will was admitted to probate in July 2021.

In December 2021 Barbara contracted to purchase the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund’s remainder interest in the Trust for $100,000, a transaction premised on her expectation that she might predecease Gerald. Early in 2022 Barbara and Gerald filed an ex‑parte petition to replace Simon as trustee and to modify the Trust’s terms; the trial court denied the petition for procedural deficiencies. Later that year they filed a petition for final distribution, asserting that Barbara had disclaimed her share of the residuary estate and that Gerald had disclaimed tangible personal property. Simon objected, arguing that Barbara’s disclaimer was improper and that the Trust would be deprived of its funding.

Simon then filed a petition under Probate Code § 11700 seeking a court order that Barbara’s share be distributed to him as trustee and that the purchase of the Fidelity interest be rescinded as an illegal contract. Barbara and Gerald demurred, contending Simon lacked standing. The trial court sustained the demurrer, first with leave to amend and later without, concluding Simon had not presented a cognizable claim. Simon appealed.

Issues – The appeal centered on two questions: (1) whether a trustee named in a will is a “person claiming to be … entitled to distribution of a share of the estate” within the meaning of § 11700, thereby conferring standing to file a petition; and (2) whether the trial court erred in assuming the validity of Barbara’s disclaimer without an evidentiary hearing.

Court’s analysis – The appellate court emphasized that probate proceedings are strictly statutory; standing is defined by the language of the governing code. § 11700 authorizes any “person claiming to be … entitled to distribution of a share of the estate” to petition the court. The court reiterated that a trustee named in a will is a devisee, not a beneficiary, and thus holds legal title to the trust property at the decedent’s death (In re Wellings’ Estate; § 34(b), Probate Code). Consequently, Simon, as the designated trustee, fits squarely within the class of persons the statute contemplates.

The court rejected the respondents’ reliance on Probate Code § 48, noting that the term “interested person” defined there does not appear in § 11700 and therefore cannot limit the standing provision. Moreover, the court held that a demurrer is not the proper vehicle for testing the presumptive validity of a disclaimer; such factual disputes are reserved for evidentiary hearings under § 11704, not for a pure standing determination.

Having concluded that Simon possessed standing, the appellate court found no need to address the merits of his claims regarding the disclaimer or the Fidelity Fund purchase. The case was remanded so the trial court could conduct the appropriate evidentiary hearing and resolve the substantive issues.

Closing analysis – Estate of Tarlow provides a clear precedent that a trustee named in a will may invoke § 11700 to protect the trust’s interests, expanding the pool of parties who can initiate a distribution petition. Practitioners should now recognize that trustees need not wait for a final distribution order to assert their rights; they may proactively seek clarification of their entitlement. The decision also underscores the limited role of demurrers in probate disputes involving factual determinations such as disclaimer validity. Unresolved, however, is the extent to which § 11700 proceedings can adjudicate ancillary contract disputes like Barbara’s purchase of the Fidelity remainder interest—a question that may surface in future litigation.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Probate Code § 11700 (petition for determination of persons entitled to distribution)
Probate Code § 11704 (court’s discretion to order evidentiary hearing)
Probate Code § 34(b) (devise to trustee on trust)
Probate Code § 44 (definition of “heir”)
Probate Code §§ 32, 34 (definition of “devisee”)
Probate Code § 48 (definition of “interested person”)

Key Cases Cited