Catch v. Phillips
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ELIA, J.
In this case, we consider whether an exercise of a power of
appointment was valid even though it was not exercised by will or codicil as required by the terms of the trust. (Prob. Code, §§ 630, 631.) The trial court determined that the exercise was invalid and granted respondent Jack Catch’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Allan Phillips appeals. For reasons we will explain, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural Background
J. D. Mayer and Esther Catch Mayer established the 1983 Mayer Trust. After J. D. Mayer died in 1992, the trust estate was divided into three separate trusts,…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Van Arsdale v. HollingerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
- Lewis v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
- Brian W. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1978
- Estate of WoodCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1973
- Estate of McNeillSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Crook v. ContrerasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2002
- Giammarrusco v. SimonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
- Estate of O'Connor v. O'Connor, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018
- Estate of O'ConnorCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
- Estate of StockirdCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2018
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.