Legal Opinion

Harustak v. Wilkins

California Court of Appeal

Decided October 18, 2000No. F032805PublishedCited by 31 opinions

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

  1. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Keeler v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1970
  3. Ghirardo v. AntonioliCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Morrison v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  5. Estate of McDillCalifornia Supreme Court · 1975

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

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of YubaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
  2. Jenkins v. County of RiversideCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
  3. Emeryville Redevelopment Agency v. Elementis Pigments, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2002
  4. Harbor Island Holdings, L.L.C. v. KimCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
  5. ZEMBSCH v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2007

26 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