Case of the Month Jackson v. Meyer

A married couple created a revocable family trust holding their community property and gave each spouse the right to revoke the trust by delivering written notice to the other trustee. Years later, the wife filed for divorce. While the dissolution case was pending, she signed and notarized a notice revoking her interest in the community trust, mailed it to her husband, and created a separate trust for her share. The husband received the notice and immediately objected through counsel, but he did not ask the family court or probate court to decide whether the revocation was valid.

The complication was that California’s automatic temporary restraining orders apply once a divorce case begins. Those orders generally prevent either spouse from transferring property without consent or a court order, but they allow a spouse to revoke a revocable trust if the change is filed with the court and served on the other spouse before it takes effect. The wife served the revocation as required by the trust, and the husband had actual notice, but she did not file it in the divorce case. She also did not remove any assets from the community trust during the pending dissolution.

Five years later, the wife died before the divorce was completed, causing the dissolution case and its temporary restraining orders to end. The husband then asked the probate court to declare the revocation invalid because it had never been filed. The probate court refused, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The appellate court concluded that the wife had substantially complied with the law because the central purpose of the filing and service requirement was to make sure the other spouse knew about the estate planning change and could protect against concealment or dissipation of marital property. The husband unquestionably received notice, suffered no loss of his own one half interest, and had years to raise the issue while the divorce case was active.

The court was also unwilling to disregard the wife’s expressed estate planning wishes over a technical filing defect. The trust itself permitted revocation by written delivery, and California law allowed her to revoke her interest in the community property. Invalidating the revocation after her death would have elevated form over substance and given the husband a benefit that the wife had clearly attempted to remove. The court therefore upheld the revocation even though the statutory filing step had not been completed.

The case is not permission to ignore filing requirements. The safer course is always to comply fully with both the trust document and the family law rules, particularly because estate planning during divorce can affect real property, beneficiary rights, and control of valuable assets. The practical lesson is that actual notice and prompt action matter. A spouse who believes a trust revocation or property change violates a restraining order should raise the issue while the dissolution case is pending, not wait until death changes the parties, the available remedies, and the court’s ability to protect the original estate plan.