Legal Opinion

Estate of Lindstrom v. Hopkins

California Court of Appeal

Decided April 24, 1987No. D004069PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

TODD,

We hold here that a will cannot modify or revoke an inter vivos trust absent specific conformance with the amendment/revocation provisions of the trust.

This appeal arises out of a consolidated court trial concerning an inter vivos trust established by Esther A. Lindstrom and Mrs. Lindstrom’s estate. Owen Wayne Hopkins, Martha Hopkins, Deanna Mikulas, Edith Kendall and Stagecoach Health Club, Inc. (hereafter referred to as Appellants-Trust) appeal the trust proceeding and Owen Wayne Hopkins and Martha Hopkins (hereafter referred to as Appellants-Estate) appeal the estate proceeding.

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Parsons v. Bristol Development Co.California Supreme Court · 1965
  2. Estate of RussellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  3. National Shawmut Bank v. JoyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1944
  4. Estate of HiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1909
  5. Dickerson's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1887

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. Burch v. GeorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Scharlin v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1992
  3. WDT-WINCHESTER v. NilssonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1994
  4. Gardenhire v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2005
  5. Masry v. MasryCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008

9 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