Trust and Probate Litigation in California

Most estate disputes are not really about the law. They are about someone who has control and will not answer questions. A brother who is trustee and has gone quiet. A stepmother who moved money in the last eighteen months of a marriage. A caregiver who appeared two years before the end and left holding the house. The legal theory comes later. The first question is whether what happened is something a court can fix, and whether you are still inside the deadline to ask.

I am Eric Ridley. I handle trust and probate litigation for beneficiaries, trustees and executors throughout Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties, from my office in Port Hueneme. Because I also draft estate plans and administer trusts, I tend to see quickly whether a dispute is a genuine breach or a badly run administration that can be corrected without a fight. Those are very different problems and they should not be priced or litigated the same way.

The disputes that actually come through the door

Five patterns account for most of this work. They overlap constantly, and a single set of facts often supports several of them at once, which matters a great deal for what the case is worth.

A trustee who will not account or will not communicate

Under Prob. Code § 16060 a trustee has a duty to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed of the trust and its administration. Silence is not a neutral act. Neither is a trustee who pays themselves without authority, lives in trust property rent-free, sits on a distribution with no explanation, or hires their own spouse to do the work.

Removal is governed by Prob. Code § 15642, which lists the grounds: breach of trust, insolvency or unfitness to administer, compensation that is excessive under the circumstances, substantial inability to manage the trust’s financial resources, and substantial inability to resist fraud or undue influence. A settlor, cotrustee or beneficiary may petition under § 17200.

One provision is worth knowing about specifically. Where the sole trustee is a person described in § 21380(a), meaning a drafter, a transcriber in a fiduciary relationship, a care custodian, or someone related to or employed by them, § 15642(b)(6) makes that person removable unless the court finds the appointment was consistent with the settlor’s intent and not the product of fraud or undue influence. If the court finds it was not consistent with intent, or was procured that way, § 15642(c) puts all costs of the proceeding, including reasonable attorney’s fees, on the removed trustee.

Trust and will contests

A direct contest, defined at Prob. Code § 21310(b), is a challenge to the validity of an instrument on one of six grounds: forgery, lack of due execution, lack of capacity, menace, duress, fraud or undue influence, revocation, or disqualification of a beneficiary under § 6112, § 21350 or § 21380.

The typical case is an amendment or a restatement signed late in life that moves a substantial share to whoever was closest at the end. Capacity and undue influence are usually pleaded together because the evidence overlaps, but they are distinct: a person can have full capacity and still be unduly influenced, and the vulnerability that supports one supports the other.

Financial elder abuse

This is the claim that most often changes what a case is worth, and it is the one most frequently left out of the original petition.

Financial abuse under Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30 occurs when a person takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains or retains an elder’s property for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud, or assists someone else in doing so, or does it by undue influence. A person is deemed to have acted for a wrongful use if they knew or should have known the conduct was likely to be harmful to the elder. Critically, the statute reaches deprivation of any property right “including by means of an agreement, donative transfer, or testamentary bequest.” A trust amendment is squarely within that language.

Where financial abuse is proven by a preponderance of the evidence, Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.5(a) says the court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Not may. That is a fee-shifting statute, and it is the single most important reason to evaluate an elder abuse theory at the outset rather than after the pleadings are set.

Property that was never transferred

A house left out of the trust. A deed signed but never recorded. An account still titled in an individual name. Record title says one thing and the estate plan says another.

These are resolved by petition under Prob. Code § 850, which allows a trustee or any interested person to petition where the trustee holds title to property claimed to belong to another, where the trustee has a claim to property held by someone else, or where a decedent died in possession of or holding title to property claimed to belong to another. Many of these are cooperative, not adversarial, and are handled as a Heggstad petition. Some are not, and the same statute covers both.

Executor and personal representative misconduct

The probate side has its own version: self-dealing, commingling, failure to marshal assets, distributions made in the wrong order, property sold below value to someone convenient, compensation never authorized by the court. Prob. Code § 8502 allows removal where the personal representative has wasted, embezzled, mismanaged or committed a fraud on the estate, is incapable of properly executing the duties, has wrongfully neglected the estate, or where removal is otherwise necessary for the protection of the estate or interested persons. That last ground is broader than most people expect. See what an executor cannot do.

§ 859 and the arithmetic of a case

Probate Code § 859 is the provision that most changes whether a case is worth bringing, and most people have never heard of it.

Where a court finds that a person has in bad faith wrongfully taken, concealed or disposed of property belonging to a trust, an estate, an elder, a dependent adult, a minor or a conservatee, or has done so through undue influence in bad faith or through elder or dependent adult financial abuse as defined in Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30, that person is liable for twice the value of the property recovered. The court may also, in its discretion, award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, and the statute says the remedies are in addition to any others available.

The measure matters. In Estate of Ashlock (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1066, the Court of Appeal held that the twice-the-value penalty is on top of returning the property, not instead of it. Take $10,000 in bad faith and the judgment is $30,000: $10,000 returned under § 856 and $20,000 as the § 859 penalty. The court reasoned that § 859 is punitive while § 856 is merely restitutionary, and that there is nothing punitive about making a thief give back what was stolen. That reading rejected the contrary approach in Conservatorship of Ribal (2019) 31 Cal.App.5th 519, and Asaro v. Maniscalco (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 717 agreed with Ashlock as the reading most consistent with how other courts have applied the statute.

This changes the arithmetic in two directions. A dispute that looks too small to litigate on a straight recovery basis often is not, once trebled exposure and a possible fee award are on the table. And it changes settlement posture, because the other side’s downside is no longer capped at giving back what they took.

It is not automatic. Bad faith has to be proven, and it is a subjective inquiry into state of mind, dishonesty of belief, purpose or motive. But it should be evaluated at the start of any case involving a transfer that looks wrong, and frequently it is not.

What undue influence actually means in California

Undue influence has a statutory definition, and it is more useful than the general sense of the phrase. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70 defines it as excessive persuasion that causes another person to act or refrain from acting by overcoming that person’s free will and results in inequity. The court must consider four things:

1. The vulnerability of the victim. Incapacity, illness, disability, injury, age, education, impaired cognitive function, emotional distress, isolation or dependency, and whether the influencer knew or should have known of it.
2. The influencer’s apparent authority. Status as a fiduciary, family member, care provider, health care professional, legal professional, spiritual adviser or expert.
3. The actions or tactics used. Controlling necessaries of life, medication, the victim’s interactions with others, access to information or sleep. Use of affection, intimidation or coercion. Initiating changes in property rights, and the use of haste or secrecy in effecting them, at inappropriate times and places.
4. The equity of the result. The economic consequences, any divergence from prior intent or course of dealing, the relationship of value conveyed to services received.

Then the sentence that decides a lot of cases: evidence of an inequitable result, without more, is not sufficient to prove undue influence. An unfair-looking will is not a case. An unfair-looking will plus isolation, plus a new adviser, plus a document signed in haste at a hospital, is a case.

There is also a shortcut worth knowing. Under Prob. Code § 21380, a donative transfer to certain people is presumed to be the product of fraud or undue influence: the drafter of the instrument, a person who transcribed it while in a fiduciary relationship, a care custodian of a dependent adult where the instrument was signed during the care period or within 90 days either side of it, and people related to, cohabiting with or employed by those persons. The presumption shifts the burden of proof and must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. For transfers to the drafter and those associated with the drafter, the presumption is conclusive. A beneficiary who fails to rebut it bears all costs of the proceeding, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

The deadlines that end cases before they start

More potential claims die on limitations than on the merits. These are short, and several start running on a document that arrives in the mail looking like routine paperwork.

The 120-day trust contest clock

When a revocable trust becomes irrevocable because a settlor died, the trustee must serve a notification under Prob. Code § 16061.7 within 60 days on every beneficiary and every heir of the deceased settlor. That notice must carry a warning in at least 10-point boldface stating that you may not bring an action to contest the trust more than 120 days from service, or 60 days from the date a copy of the trust terms is delivered to you during that 120-day window, whichever is later.

Section 16061.8 makes that binding, and it applies whether the trustee served the notice on time or late. If you have received a trust notice, the practical advice is short: the day it arrives, the clock is running. See what to do when you receive a § 16061.7 notice and how long you have to contest a trust.

120 days to revoke probate of a will

On the probate side, Prob. Code § 8270 gives an interested person 120 days after a will is admitted to probate to petition to revoke it. A person who was a minor or was incompetent with no guardian or conservator when the will was admitted may petition any time before the order for final distribution. See trust contest versus will contest.

Three years on breach of trust

Prob. Code § 16460 gives a beneficiary three years to bring a claim against a trustee for breach of trust. If the beneficiary received a written account or report that adequately disclosed the claim, the three years run from receipt. If no account was provided, or the account did not adequately disclose the claim, the three years run from when the beneficiary discovered or reasonably should have discovered the subject of the claim. An account adequately discloses a claim if it gives enough information that the beneficiary knows of it or reasonably should have inquired.

The practical consequence is that a trustee who provides no accounting does not gain a limitations advantage. They lose one.

One year from the date of death

Code Civ. Proc. § 366.2 gives one year from the date of death to bring an action on a liability of the person who died, whether the claim had accrued or not, and it replaces whatever limitations period would otherwise have applied. It is not tolled or extended except in a handful of narrow circumstances tied to creditor claim procedures. This is the deadline that most often surprises people, because it can cut off a claim that would have had years left had the person lived.

Thirty days of notice on a § 850 petition

A petition under § 850 requires that notice of hearing and a copy of the petition be served at least 30 days before the hearing, and Prob. Code § 851(d) says the court may not shorten that time. If the petition seeks § 859 relief, the notice must describe that relief specifically. Build the 30 days into your timeline, because no judge can compress it for you.

No contest clauses, and what they no longer do

Most instruments contain one. Most people misunderstand what it does now.

Under Prob. Code § 21311(a), a no contest clause is enforceable in only three situations: against a direct contest brought without probable cause; against a pleading challenging a property transfer on the ground the property was not the transferor’s, but only if the clause expressly says so; and against a creditor’s claim, again only if the clause expressly says so.

Probable cause is defined in § 21311(b): it exists if, at the time of filing, the facts known to the contestant would cause a reasonable person to believe there is a reasonable likelihood the requested relief will be granted after an opportunity for further investigation or discovery. That is a genuinely forgiving standard, and it is measured at filing, not with hindsight after you lose.

So the real question is not whether the clause exists. It is whether you have a reasonable basis, and that is an assessment worth getting before you file rather than after. Note also that the probable cause safe harbor applies to direct contests. A petition that is not a direct contest, such as one challenging a transfer on the ground the property was never the transferor’s, can be caught by an expressly drafted clause regardless of probable cause. More at no contest clauses in California trusts.

Whether you have standing to be in court at all

A recurring problem: someone is written out by the very amendment they want to challenge, and the trustee argues they are not a beneficiary, so they cannot petition.

The California Supreme Court closed that off in Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, holding that the Probate Code grants standing in probate court to individuals who claim that trust amendments eliminating their beneficiary status arose from incompetence, undue influence or fraud. If you would be a rightful beneficiary should the challenged amendments be invalid, you have standing under § 17200, and the court must treat properly pleaded allegations as true when deciding the question.

A second standing rule matters where the complaint is about what a trustee did while the settlor was still alive. During the settlor’s lifetime a trustee of a revocable trust owes duties to the settlor, not to the beneficiaries. But under Estate of Giraldin (2012) 55 Cal.4th 1058, once the settlor has died the beneficiaries may sue the trustee for breach of the duty owed to the settlor, to the extent that breach harmed them, and they may bring that action directly rather than through a personal representative. That is the doctrine that reaches a child who served as trustee or agent and drained accounts in the last years.

How these cases actually get handled

Most of these disputes settle. The ones that settle well are the ones where evidence was gathered early. An accounting demanded properly under § 16060 and § 16061. Bank and brokerage records subpoenaed while they still exist, which for many institutions means within seven years. Medical records covering the period around execution. A clear timeline of what moved, when, and who had access. That does far more than an aggressive first letter, which mostly teaches the other side to hire counsel and stop talking.

Fee structure is worth being direct about. Some of these cases support a contingency arrangement, particularly where § 859 and the § 15657.5 fee provision are genuinely in play and the property is identifiable and recoverable. Many do not, and are handled hourly. Which one applies depends on the strength of the bad faith evidence and whether there is a solvent defendant at the end of it. See our fees page for how that conversation starts.

I also tell clients when a case is not worth bringing. A slow trustee is not necessarily a breaching trustee. A distribution you dislike is not a breach. Family anger is not a claim. An honest assessment in the first month is far cheaper than discovering the same thing in month fourteen, and a fair number of the calls I take end with me explaining why the answer is no.

Frequently asked questions

How long do I have to contest a trust in California?

If a trustee served you with a notification under Prob. Code § 16061.7, you have 120 days from the date it was served, or 60 days from the date you were given a copy of the trust terms during that 120-day window, whichever is later. Section 16061.8 enforces that deadline whether or not the trustee served the notice within the 60 days the statute allows. If no notice was ever served, the 120-day clock has not started, but other limitations periods may still apply to your particular claim.

Can I be disinherited for challenging a trust or will?

Usually not, if you have a reasonable basis. Prob. Code § 21311 allows a no contest clause to be enforced against a direct contest only when it is brought without probable cause, and probable cause exists if the facts known to you at filing would cause a reasonable person to believe there is a reasonable likelihood of success after further investigation or discovery. The exposure is real but narrower than most people assume, and it is worth getting an assessment before filing rather than after.

What is the double damages provision everyone mentions?

Probate Code § 859. Where a court finds property was taken, concealed or disposed of in bad faith, or through undue influence in bad faith, or through elder financial abuse, the wrongdoer is liable for twice the value of the property recovered, and the court may award attorney’s fees and costs. Under Estate of Ashlock (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1066 that penalty is in addition to returning the property, so a $10,000 bad faith taking produces a $30,000 judgment. Bad faith has to be proven and it is not presumed from a bad outcome.

The trustee will not give me an accounting. What can I do?

Probate Code § 16060 requires a trustee to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed, and § 16061 requires the trustee to provide requested information about the administration. A beneficiary can petition under § 17200 to compel an account, and persistent refusal supports removal under § 15642 as a breach of trust. A trustee who provides nothing also does not start the three-year limitations clock in § 16460, so the silence tends to work against them over time rather than for them.

My father was clearly competent, so is undue influence still possible?

Yes, and this is one of the most common misunderstandings. Capacity and undue influence are separate grounds under § 21310(b). A person with full testamentary capacity can still have their free will overcome by excessive persuasion, which is what Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70 defines. The four factors are the victim’s vulnerability, the influencer’s apparent authority, the tactics used, and the equity of the result. Isolation, secrecy and haste around signing tend to matter more than a diagnosis.

Do I need to be a named beneficiary to bring a petition?

Not if you were written out by the document you are challenging. In Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822 the California Supreme Court held that a person who claims trust amendments eliminating their beneficiary status were the product of incompetence, undue influence or fraud has standing to petition under § 17200. If the amendment falls, you are a beneficiary, and the court cannot assume the amendment is valid in order to decide you have no standing to attack it.

Do you take these cases on contingency?

Sometimes. It depends on whether § 859 double damages and the mandatory fee provision in Welf. & Inst. Code § 15657.5 are genuinely available on the facts, whether the property is identifiable and recoverable, and whether there is a defendant able to satisfy a judgment. Many trust disputes, particularly accounting and removal work, are handled hourly instead. I will tell you which category a case falls into in the first conversation rather than after you have signed something.

What areas do you serve?

Ridley Law is based in Port Hueneme and handles trust and probate litigation in Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties, including Camarillo, Oxnard, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Ventura, Ojai, Moorpark, Newbury Park, Westlake Village, Calabasas and Agoura Hills.

If you are a beneficiary who cannot get answers, a trustee facing accusations, or a family member who believes something was taken, the first conversation is about whether you have a problem the courts can fix and whether you are still inside the deadline to raise it. That is a short conversation and it is worth having early.

Talk to Eric

Book a consultation at ridley.click/eric-60 or call 805-244-5291. Ridley Law handles trust and probate litigation throughout Ventura, Santa Barbara and Los Angeles Counties.