Legal Opinion
Cook v. Cook
California Court of Appeal
Decided September 29, 2009No. B205793PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J.
In an amendment to their testamentary trust, testators stated that a beneficiary’s debt owed them should be offset against that beneficiary’s distribution. Here we conclude the beneficiary’s assertion that the debt is unenforceable violates the trust’s no-contest provision.
Trust beneficiary Daniel W. Cook appeals an order determining that his pleading regarding the distribution of his deceased parents’ trust violates the no-contest provision of the trust. We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 23, 1997, Donald and Nancy Cook settled a revocable trust (Trust) and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Burch v. GeorgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
- Estate of MillerCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1963
- In Re the Estate of TompkinsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1901
- Estate of KailaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2001
- Barnett v. SchaefferCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Cairns v. CairnsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Doolittle v. Exchange BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Doolittle v. Exchange BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
- Papais v. Papais CA3California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Sandford v. SandfordCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2026