Trust Contest Petition

PETITION TO CONTEST VALIDITY OF TRUST (AND/OR TRUST AMENDMENT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Caption
2. Introduction and Nature of Proceeding
3. Parties, Jurisdiction, Venue, and Standing
4. Settlor and Identification of Contested Trust Instrument(s)
5. Statute of Limitations — Timeliness
6. Factual Background
7. Ground One — Lack of Capacity at Execution
8. Ground Two — Undue Influence
9. Ground Three — Fraud
10. Ground Four — Duress / Menace
11. Ground Five — Improper Execution / Failure of Formalities
12. Ground Six — Mistake / Lack of Intent to Create Trust
13. Restoration of Prior Trust Instrument
14. No-Contest Clause Analysis
15. Prayer for Relief
16. Verification
17. Signature and Service Blocks
18. Certificate of Service
19. Sources and References

1. CAPTION

[SUPERIOR / PROBATE / DISTRICT / SURROGATE'S] COURT OF [____________________]

[PROBATE / TRUST] DIVISION

[COUNTY NAME] COUNTY, [STATE]

CASE / FILE NO. [________________________________]

PETITION TO CONTEST VALIDITY OF TRUST AND/OR TRUST AMENDMENT(S); TO DECLARE TRUST INSTRUMENT(S) INVALID; AND TO RESTORE PRIOR TRUST INSTRUMENT

2. INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF PROCEEDING

2.1 Petitioner [PETITIONER'S FULL LEGAL NAME] ("Petitioner") brings this Petition under [Cal. Prob. Code § 17200 / Tex. Property Code § 115.001 / Fla. Stat. § 736.0201 / UTC § 201 / other: __________] to:

☐ Declare invalid the [Name and Date] Trust Instrument dated [__/__/____] (the "Contested Trust") in its entirety;

☐ Declare invalid the [First / Second / Third / __] Amendment to the [Name] Trust dated [__/__/____] (the "Contested Amendment");

☐ Set aside all distributions made pursuant to the Contested Instrument and impose a constructive trust;

☐ Restore the prior version of the [Name] Trust dated [__/__/____] (and any amendments thereto valid as of the settlor's death) as the operative trust instrument; and

☐ Remove and surcharge the current trustee.

2.2 The Contested Instrument is invalid on one or more of the following independent grounds, each fully pled below: lack of capacity of the settlor; undue influence; fraud; duress; failure of statutory formalities; and/or mistake.

3. PARTIES, JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND STANDING

3.1 Petitioner

Petitioner [PETITIONER'S FULL LEGAL NAME], an adult resident of [CITY, COUNTY, STATE], has standing as:

☐ A beneficiary of the prior version of the Trust dated [__/__/____], whose beneficial interest is materially reduced or eliminated by the Contested Instrument;

☐ A beneficiary of the operative Trust whose share is reduced by the Contested Amendment;

☐ An heir-at-law of Settlor who would take by intestacy or resulting trust if the Contested Instrument is invalidated; or

☐ Other: [________________________________].

Petitioner has a direct, pecuniary, and presently-existing beneficial interest in the outcome of this proceeding.

3.2 Respondent Trustee

Respondent [TRUSTEE'S FULL LEGAL NAME] is the currently-acting trustee of the Contested Trust, having accepted the office on [__/__/____]. Trustee's address is [________________________________].

3.3 Other Interested Parties

The persons identified in the Caption and on the service list attached as Exhibit D are the named beneficiaries under the Contested Instrument and/or the prior trust instrument, and are entitled to notice of this proceeding.

3.4 Jurisdiction and Venue

3.4.1 This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the internal affairs of the Trust and over actions to determine the validity of trust instruments pursuant to [cite controlling statute].

3.4.2 Venue is proper in [COUNTY], [STATE] because the principal place of administration of the Trust is in this county and/or Settlor was domiciled in this county at the time of death.

4. SETTLOR AND IDENTIFICATION OF CONTESTED TRUST INSTRUMENT(S)

4.1 Settlor [SETTLOR'S FULL LEGAL NAME] ("Settlor") died on [__/__/____] at [CITY, STATE], aged [__] years, domiciled at [ADDRESS].

4.2 During lifetime, Settlor created the [Name] Trust by instrument dated [__/__/____] (the "Original Trust"), declaring Settlor as initial trustee and reserving the power to amend or revoke. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit A.

4.3 The Original Trust was amended by the following instruments:

4.4 The Contested Instrument challenged in this Petition is: [describe specifically — e.g., the Third Amendment dated [date] / the Complete Restatement dated [date] / the entire Trust as originally executed]. A true and correct copy is attached as Exhibit B.

4.5 The Contested Instrument differs from the immediately preceding version of the Trust in the following material respects: [describe — e.g., reduces Petitioner's share from 50% to 0%; names [Influencer] as primary beneficiary; appoints [Influencer] as successor trustee; transfers principal residence outright to [Influencer]].

4.6 On the death of Settlor on [__/__/____], the Trust became irrevocable under its own terms and operation of law.

5. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS — TIMELINESS

5.1 California — Cal. Prob. Code §§ 16061.7 & 16061.8.

5.1.1 On [__/__/____], Respondent Trustee served a notification by trustee purporting to comply with Cal. Prob. Code § 16061.7 (the "16061.7 Notice"). A copy is attached as Exhibit C.

5.1.2 A copy of the terms of the Trust was [☐ included with the 16061.7 Notice] [☐ delivered to Petitioner on __/__/____].

5.1.3 The 120-day period under Cal. Prob. Code § 16061.8 expires on [__/__/____] (120 days after service) or, if later, [__/__/____] (60 days after delivery of trust terms during the 120-day period). This Petition is filed on or before that later date and is timely.

5.1.4 In the alternative, the 16061.7 Notice fails to comply with the statute because [e.g., it omits the bolded statutory warning; it omits the trustee's address; it omits the date of the trust; it was not served on all heirs]; accordingly, the 120-day period has not commenced.

5.2 UTC § 604 jurisdictions. Settlor died on [__/__/____]. The trustee [☐ has not / ☐ has on __/__/____] sent Petitioner the trust instrument and required notice. This Petition is filed within the earlier of (a) 120 days from such notice or (b) one year from the date of death, and is therefore timely.

5.3 Florida — Fla. Stat. § 736.0207. Settlor died on [__/__/____]. The trustee [☐ did not serve / ☐ served on __/__/____] a notice containing the recitals required by § 736.0207(2). This Petition is filed within four (4) years of Settlor's death and within six (6) months of any compliant notice, and is therefore timely.

5.4 Texas — Tex. Property Code & Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code. This Petition is filed within the controlling residual period and is timely. Petitioner alleges the cause of action accrued on [__/__/____] at the earliest.

5.5 Other Jurisdiction: [Cite statute, trigger date, and calculation: ______________________________________].

6. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

6.1 At all relevant times before the period of incapacity / undue influence alleged below, Settlor maintained a stable estate plan under the Original Trust (and any earlier amendments), under which Petitioner was a primary beneficiary entitled to [describe interest].

6.2 Beginning in approximately [MONTH/YEAR], Settlor's physical and/or cognitive condition began to decline. Specifically: [describe diagnoses, hospitalizations, medications, cognitive symptoms].

6.3 Beginning in approximately [MONTH/YEAR], [NAME OF ALLEGED INFLUENCER] ("Influencer") became increasingly involved in Settlor's daily affairs, finances, medical care, and household, as [describe role — caregiver, new romantic partner, agent under POA, adult child, neighbor, etc.].

6.4 During the period from [__/__/____] to [__/__/____], Influencer engaged in the following pattern of conduct: [isolation; controlling access to Settlor; controlling communications; relocating Settlor; firing prior caregivers / advisors; selecting new estate-planning counsel; transporting Settlor to and attending estate-planning meetings; obtaining new powers of attorney; making large lifetime transfers].

6.5 On or about [__/__/____], the Contested Instrument was executed under the circumstances described in the grounds below.

7. GROUND ONE — LACK OF CAPACITY AT EXECUTION

7.1 Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph.

7.2 To create or amend a revocable trust, the settlor must possess the mental capacity required by applicable law. Under Uniform Trust Code § 601, the capacity required is the same as that required to make a will. Under California law, the standard is governed by Cal. Prob. Code §§ 810–812 and, for simple donative trusts, by § 6100.5 (Andersen v. Hunt, 196 Cal.App.4th 722 (2011)). The settlor must understand:

(a) The nature of the act of creating or amending the trust;

(b) The nature and extent of the property to be placed in or affected by the trust;

(c) The natural objects of the settlor's bounty; and

(d) The plan by which the property is to be disposed of under the instrument.

7.3 On [__/__/____], the date of execution of the Contested Instrument, Settlor lacked the required capacity. Specifically:

7.3.1 Settlor had been diagnosed with [diagnosis] by [PHYSICIAN] on [__/__/____] (Exhibit E — medical records).

7.3.2 Settlor's cognitive function at the time of execution is further evidenced by [MMSE/MoCA scores, observed symptoms, medication side effects, hospitalization records, witness accounts].

7.3.3 Settlor was operating under impairments in alertness, orientation, information processing, modulation of mood, and/or appreciation of decisional consequences, within the meaning of Cal. Prob. Code § 811, evidenced by [describe].

7.4 By reason of the foregoing, the Contested Instrument is invalid for lack of capacity at execution.

8. GROUND TWO — UNDUE INFLUENCE

8.1 Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph.

8.2 A trust or trust amendment procured by undue influence is void under Uniform Trust Code § 406, Fla. Stat. § 736.0406, Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 12, and the common law of every jurisdiction recognized by this Court. Undue influence is excessive persuasion that overcomes the settlor's free will and results in inequity. A presumption of undue influence arises when the contestant shows:

(a) A confidential or fiduciary relationship between the alleged influencer and the settlor;

(b) Active participation by the alleged influencer in procuring the instrument; and

(c) An undue benefit to the alleged influencer.

8.3 Confidential relationship. Influencer stood in a confidential relationship with Settlor as [caregiver / agent under POA / new spouse / drafting attorney / financial advisor / fiduciary], evidenced by [describe].

8.4 Active participation / procurement. Influencer actively procured the Contested Instrument by, among other acts: [selecting and retaining the drafting attorney; communicating Settlor's "instructions" to the drafter; transporting Settlor to execution; being present during execution; paying fees; holding the original after execution].

8.5 Undue benefit. The Contested Instrument confers on Influencer a benefit that is unjustified and dramatically out of line with Settlor's prior estate plan and stated intentions, in that [describe — e.g., Influencer's share increased from 0% to 75%].

8.6 The four statutory factors of undue influence under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.70 are met:

(a) Settlor's vulnerability — age, illness, cognitive impairment, isolation, dependence;

(b) Influencer's apparent authority — status as fiduciary, family member, caregiver, or professional;

(c) Actions and tactics — controlling access, isolating, controlling medical care and finances, orchestrating changes to estate documents, use of urgency; and

(d) Equity of the result — dramatic departure from prior estate plan, inadequate consideration, secrecy.

8.7 In California, a statutory presumption of fraud or undue influence arises under Cal. Prob. Code § 21380 because Influencer is [a drafter / a transcriber in a fiduciary relationship / a care custodian of a dependent adult / spouse, cohabitant, employee of any of the foregoing].

8.8 By reason of the foregoing, the Contested Instrument is void as the product of undue influence.

9. GROUND THREE — FRAUD

9.1 Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph.

9.2 The Contested Instrument was procured by fraud:

9.2.1 Fraud in the execution: Settlor was deceived as to the nature or contents of the document signed — [describe — e.g., pages substituted; Settlor told the document was a healthcare directive or POA].

9.2.2 Fraud in the inducement: Settlor was induced to execute the Contested Instrument by false statements of material fact knowingly made by [NAME] with intent to deceive, including: [describe false statements — e.g., that Petitioner had stolen from Settlor; that the Original Trust was invalid; that a beneficiary had predeceased].

9.3 But for the fraud, Settlor would not have executed the Contested Instrument.

10. GROUND FOUR — DURESS / MENACE

10.1 Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph.

10.2 The Contested Instrument was procured by duress or menace, in that [describe — threats to withdraw care, threats of confinement or relocation, threats against family members, physical intimidation], which overcame Settlor's free agency. Such an instrument is void under UTC § 406 and Fla. Stat. § 736.0406.

11. GROUND FIVE — IMPROPER EXECUTION / FAILURE OF FORMALITIES

11.1 Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph.

11.2 The Contested Instrument fails to satisfy the formalities required by [Cal. Prob. Code § 15200 et seq. / Tex. Property Code § 112.001 et seq. / Fla. Stat. § 736.0403 (testamentary aspects must satisfy will formalities) / UTC § 401] in one or more of the following respects:

☐ The signature is not Settlor's, or is a forgery;

☐ The instrument was not signed by Settlor and the trustee (where required);

☐ The amendment was not executed in the manner required by the trust instrument itself (Cal. Prob. Code § 15402; see Haggerty v. Thornton, 15 Cal.5th 729 (2024) for amendment-method jurisprudence);

☐ Required witnessing or notarization formalities were not satisfied;

☐ Material pages were substituted after execution; or

☐ Other: [________________________________].

12. GROUND SIX — MISTAKE / LACK OF INTENT TO CREATE TRUST

12.1 Petitioner re-alleges and incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph.

12.2 Settlor did not intend the Contested Instrument to take effect as a binding trust amendment, or executed it under a mistake of fact material to the dispositive plan, specifically: [describe — e.g., Settlor believed the document was a draft; Settlor believed Petitioner had predeceased; Settlor believed a particular asset was no longer in the trust].

13. RESTORATION OF PRIOR TRUST INSTRUMENT

13.1 Upon invalidation of the Contested Instrument, the most recent prior valid version of the [Name] Trust shall be restored as the operative trust instrument. The prior valid instrument is the [Original Trust dated [__/__/____] / [Second Amendment] dated [__/__/____]], attached as Exhibit F.

13.2 Under the restored instrument, Petitioner is entitled to [describe restored beneficial interest].

13.3 Petitioner requests that this Court enter a declaratory judgment identifying the restored instrument as the operative trust and directing the trustee to administer the Trust in accordance with that instrument.

14. NO-CONTEST CLAUSE ANALYSIS

14.1 The Contested Instrument [☐ does] [☐ does not] contain a no-contest (in terrorem) clause. The clause, if present, provides: [quote verbatim].

14.2 California — Cal. Prob. Code §§ 21310–21311. The clause is enforceable, if at all, only against a "direct contest" brought without probable cause. Probable cause exists if a reasonable person, knowing the facts available to Petitioner at the time of filing, would believe there is a reasonable likelihood the requested relief will be granted after further investigation or discovery. In addition, under Cal. Prob. Code § 21310(e), a no-contest clause in an earlier instrument does not apply to a later amendment unless the earlier clause expressly so provides; and a later amendment that does not itself contain a no-contest clause is not subject to enforcement of an earlier clause.

14.3 Florida — Fla. Stat. § 736.1108. Penalty clauses in trusts are unenforceable as a matter of Florida law.

14.4 Texas — Tex. Property Code § 112.038. A forfeiture clause is unenforceable where the contest is brought (i) in good faith and (ii) with just cause.

14.5 UTC States. Many UTC jurisdictions (e.g., § 1014) likewise refuse to enforce penalty clauses where probable cause exists.

14.6 Petitioner brings this Petition in good faith, with just cause, and with probable cause within the meaning of the applicable statute, based on the documentary and testimonial evidence enumerated in this Petition. Petitioner therefore is not subject to forfeiture under any applicable no-contest clause.

15. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that this Court enter an Order:

A. Declaring the Contested Instrument (the [name and date]) invalid and void ab initio;

B. Setting aside any and all amendments, restatements, and beneficiary designations executed during the period of incapacity and/or undue influence identified herein;

C. Restoring the [Original Trust / specified prior amendment] dated [__/__/____] as the operative trust instrument;

D. Removing Respondent Trustee and appointing a neutral successor trustee, with surcharge for breaches of fiduciary duty;

E. Compelling an accounting of all receipts and disbursements from the date of Settlor's death (and, if appropriate, from the date the period of undue influence began);

F. Imposing a constructive trust over any property transferred to Influencer or to any beneficiary added by the Contested Instrument;

G. Voiding lifetime transfers procured during the period of undue influence and ordering restitution;

H. Awarding Petitioner attorneys' fees and costs to the extent permitted by applicable law (including, where available, Cal. Prob. Code §§ 17211, 21380(d), or analogous statutes);

I. Declaring that this Petition does not trigger any no-contest clause under the applicable statute; and

J. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

16. VERIFICATION

I, [PETITIONER'S FULL LEGAL NAME], declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of [STATE] that I have read the foregoing Petition; that I am the Petitioner in this proceeding; and that the factual allegations contained herein are true and correct of my own knowledge, except as to those matters stated on information and belief, which I believe to be true.

Executed on [__/__/____] at [CITY, STATE].

[________________________________]
[PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE]

[PETITIONER'S PRINTED NAME]

17. SIGNATURE AND SERVICE BLOCKS

Respectfully submitted,

[________________________________]
[ATTORNEY'S SIGNATURE]

[ATTORNEY'S PRINTED NAME], [BAR NO.]
[LAW FIRM]
[STREET ADDRESS]
[CITY, STATE ZIP]
Telephone: [(___) ___-____]
Email: [________________________________]

Attorney for Petitioner

Dated: [__/__/____]

18. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____], a true and correct copy of the foregoing PETITION TO CONTEST VALIDITY OF TRUST was served on the following persons by the method indicated:

[________________________________]
[SIGNATURE OF DECLARANT]

19. SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Uniform Trust Code §§ 201, 406, 601, 604, 1014.
• California Probate Code §§ 810–812, 6100.5, 15200, 15402, 15642, 16060, 16061.7, 16061.8, 17200, 17211, 21310, 21311, 21380.
• California Welfare & Institutions Code § 15610.70.
• Texas Property Code §§ 112.001 et seq., 112.038, 115.001.
• Florida Statutes §§ 736.0201, 736.0207, 736.0403, 736.0406, 736.1108.
• Restatement (Third) of Trusts §§ 11, 12.
• Restatement (Third) of Property: Wills and Donative Transfers § 8.3 (undue influence).
• Andersen v. Hunt, 196 Cal.App.4th 722 (2011) (capacity standard for simple trusts).
• Bridgeman v. Allen, 219 Cal.App.4th 288 (2013) (mailing complete on deposit; no transit extension).
• Straley v. Gamble, 217 Cal.App.4th 533 (2013) ("bring an action" = filing, not service).
• Estate of Meiri (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (untimely contest forfeits under no-contest clause).
• Haggerty v. Thornton, 15 Cal.5th 729 (2024) (trust amendment methods).
• In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971) (burden-shifting on undue influence).