Legal Opinion

Tunstall v. Wells

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 31, 2006No. B188711PublishedCited by 18 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

ROTHSCHILD, J.

In this case, we hold that a testamentary trust’s no contest clause providing that one beneficiary’s contest voids other noncontesting beneficiaries’ bequests along with the contestant’s does not, in itself, violate public policy.

Elizabeth H. Wells (Elizabeth) 1 appeals from an order following the trial court’s finding that the no contest clause in a trust established by her father was void as against public policy. She contends that the provision in question does not violate public policy and is not otherwise void. Following our review of California and foreign…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Foley v. Interactive Data Corp.California Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Gantt v. Sentry InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Green v. Ralee Engineering Co.California Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Williams v. GarcettiCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  5. Burch v. GeorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. City of Santa Barbara v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Meyer v. MeyerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. Bradley v. GilbertCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  4. EGW v. First Fed. Sav. Bank of SheridanWyoming Supreme Court · 2018
  5. Blech v. Blech, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018

13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API