Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde
The court held that, under California Probate Code §15401(a)(2), a settlor may revoke a living trust by the statutory method-including the authority to revoke-unless the trust instrument expressly declares its own revocation procedure to be exclusive, so the February Trust was properly revoked despite the absence of the attorney's signature.
Date Filed: June 29, 2020
Case Name: Cundall v. Mitchell-Clyde
Case Number: B293952
Court: California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two
(‘The court decides whether a settlor may revoke a living trust using the statutory method in Probate Code §15401(a)(2) when the trust instrument itself prescribes a different revocation procedure. It holds that the statutory method is available—and the authority to revoke is part of that method—unless the trust explicitly states that its own procedure is exclusive; therefore the February Trust is properly revoked despite lacking the attorney’s signature. This ruling clarifies that California trusts are not bound by their internal revocation language unless exclusivity is expressly declared, guiding practitioners in drafting and revoking trusts.’, ‘e3ad1bcc’)
This case summary was prepared for educational purposes. For the authoritative version, please refer to the full opinion or the official California Courts website.