When a family member dies and leaves a trust that distributes assets in a way that feels wrong — cutting out a child who expected to inherit, dramatically favoring one sibling over another, or giving everything to a caregiver who appeared in the last months of life — the question that follows is often: Can we challenge this?

The answer in California is yes — under the right circumstances and within strict deadlines. A trust contest is a formal legal proceeding in which an interested person challenges the validity of a trust (or an amendment to a trust) in the Superior Court. It is real litigation, not a complaint to a court clerk.

This article explains the legal grounds for contesting a California trust, who can bring a challenge, what the deadlines are, and what the process actually looks like.

Grounds for Contesting a Trust in California

California law recognizes several distinct grounds on which a trust or trust amendment can be challenged. The most common are:

1. Lack of Testamentary Capacity

To create or amend a trust, the settlor must have had the mental capacity to understand the nature of the act. Under California Probate Code section 6100.5 (which courts apply by analogy to trusts), a person lacks testamentary capacity if at the time of execution they did not understand:

• The nature and extent of their property
• Who their "natural objects of bounty" are (spouse, children, close relatives)
• The nature of the testamentary act (that they are making or changing an estate plan)
• How these elements relate to one another to form a coherent plan

Dementia, Alzheimer's disease, traumatic brain injury, or severe psychiatric conditions can form the factual basis for a capacity challenge — but the legal standard looks at capacity at the specific moment of execution, not at the person's general condition over time. Someone with early-stage dementia may have had capacity on a good day; someone with advanced dementia may not. Medical records, physician testimony, and witnesses who observed the settlor near the time of execution are critical evidence.

2. Undue Influence

Undue influence occurs when someone in a position of power over the settlor uses that power to substitute their will for the settlor's own. California courts recognize that the elderly, the ill, and those isolated from family are particularly vulnerable.

The California Supreme Court's framework in Bernard v. Foley (2006) and subsequent decisions identifies a set of "hallmarks" that courts use to evaluate undue influence claims, including:

• The vulnerability of the settlor (age, physical or cognitive decline, emotional dependence)
• The influencer's apparent authority over the settlor
• Actions or tactics used to exert control (isolation, controlling access, creating financial dependency)
• The inequity of the resulting trust terms

In California, a presumption of undue influence arises when (1) the person who allegedly exerted undue influence had a confidential relationship with the settlor, (2) they were active in procuring or drafting the instrument, and (3) they received a disproportionate benefit under it. Once the presumption arises, the burden shifts to the beneficiary who received the benefit to prove that the transaction was not the product of undue influence. Verify current burden-shifting rules and applicable case law with counsel.

3. Fraud

Fraud in the context of a trust contest typically means that the settlor was deceived about what they were signing, or about material facts that affected their estate planning decisions. This might involve being told that a document said something other than what it actually said, or being provided with false information about a beneficiary's circumstances that induced the settlor to exclude them.

4. Forgery or Defective Execution

A trust that was not actually signed by the person it claims to represent, or that was not executed in compliance with California's formal requirements, may be void on its face. Similarly, an amendment that was signed under a forged signature or by someone other than the settlor may be challenged.

5. Mistake

A trust or amendment that fails to reflect the settlor's actual intent due to a drafting mistake may be subject to a reformation petition, even if the trust itself was validly executed. Reformation is distinct from a contest — it does not void the trust but corrects it to conform to the settlor's true intent. Evidence requirements for reformation are demanding; consult counsel.

Who Can Contest a California Trust?

Standing to contest a trust is limited to "interested persons" — a category defined under the Probate Code to include beneficiaries of the current trust, beneficiaries of a prior version of the trust (who would inherit more under the earlier version), and heirs at law who would inherit if the trust were invalidated and the estate passed by intestacy.

A person who is neither a beneficiary nor an heir at law generally lacks standing to contest a trust — no matter how troubling they find the outcome.

Deadlines: The 120-Day Rule

This is where many potential trust contests fail: the statute of limitations is short, and it begins running from the date notice is properly served — not from when you discover the problem.

Under California Probate Code section 16061.7, a trustee of an irrevocable trust (which typically means, after the settlor's death) must serve notice on all beneficiaries and heirs within 60 days of the trust becoming irrevocable. That notice triggers a 120-day window — from the date of service — within which any contest must be filed.

Once the 120-day period expires without a contest being filed, the right to challenge the trust on most grounds is permanently barred. There is no extension for not knowing about the notice, not understanding it, or waiting to "see how things develop."

No-Contest Clauses: Do They Apply?

Many California trusts include a "no-contest clause" — a provision that disinherits a beneficiary who brings an unsuccessful challenge. In California, no-contest clauses are enforceable, but only as to direct contests brought without probable cause.

California Probate Code section 21311 provides that a no-contest clause is enforceable against a direct contest only if it is brought without probable cause. If you have a reasonable, good-faith basis for your challenge — even if you ultimately do not prevail — the no-contest clause should not apply. But this is a fact-specific analysis that requires careful legal assessment before filing.

Some claims — such as challenging specific acts of the trustee (mismanagement, self-dealing) rather than the validity of the trust itself — are not typically treated as "contests" subject to no-contest clauses at all. An attorney can advise on whether the particular action being considered would trigger the clause in a given trust.

What a Trust Contest Actually Involves

A trust contest is litigated in the probate department of the Superior Court. After the initial petition is filed, the parties engage in discovery — depositions of witnesses, document subpoenas to medical providers and financial institutions, and requests for production of communications between the settlor, the influencer, and the attorney who drafted the trust.

Most trust contests settle before trial. The facts that drive settlements vary — a strong undue influence case with clear medical documentation of cognitive decline and a caregiver who drafted the amendment tends to resolve; a weak capacity case with little evidence of impairment does not.

Trust contest litigation is expensive. Cases with significant facts on both sides can involve years of discovery and pre-trial motion practice. Prospective contestants should understand the likely timeline and costs before committing to litigation.

Legal Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Consult a licensed California attorney for advice specific to your situation. McLellan Law Group, LLP · 20665 4th Street, Ste. 202, Saratoga, CA 95070 · (408) 963-7533