Harustak v. Wilkins
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
VARTABEDIAN, Acting P. J.
Frances Harustak and Richard Heinrich appeal from a trial court ruling that their petition contesting an amendment to a trast was untimely. Appellants argue their action is not time-barred because the trustee’s notice of appellants’ right to contest the trust did not comply with Probate Code section 16061.7, subdivision (g), 1 which requires a notice printed in the “reasonable equivalent” of 10-point boldface type contained in a separate paragraph. The trustee argues the notice does meet this statutory standard because, although not bolded or otherwise…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
- Keeler v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
- Ghirardo v. AntonioliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Morrison v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
- Estate of McDillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of YubaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Jenkins v. County of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Elementis Pigments, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
- Harbor Island Holdings, L.L.C. v. KimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- ZEMBSCH v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.