Wills, Estates & Trusts
May 7, 2025
Packard opens the door to more trust reformation and construction litigation
Packard v. Packard confirms that petitions to reform a trust to reflect a settlor's intent aren't "contests" and aren't barred by no-contest clauses or the 120-day deadline, but follow a three-year limit under CCP § 338(d).
Scott E. Rahn
Founding Partner
RMO LLP
901 Bringham Ave
Los Angeles , CA 90049
Phone: (424) 320-9440
Email: rahns@rmolawyers.com
University of San Diego SOL; San Diego CA
Scott represents beneficiaries, professional and corporate fiduciaries in contested probate and trust estate litigation and conservatorship litigation matters and related estate administration issues.
Sean D. Muntz
Managing Partner
RMO LLP
Email: muntzs@rmolawyers.com
USC Law School; Los Angeles CA
With offices throughout California and Texas, RMO LLP is laser-focused on guiding our trustee, executor, beneficiary, heir, conservator, and guardian clients through some of the most complex and emotionally charged issues life can throw them. Visit www.RMOLawyers.com to learn more.
Issues surrounding what actions may violate a no-contest clause in California trusts have been hotly contested for decades. The recent case of Packard v. Packard, 108 Cal. App. 5th 1284 (2025) clarifies that a petition to reform a trust to correct a mistaken expression of a settlor's intent may not constitute a contest or tr...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In