2024-s271483

Summary

Under Probate Code §§ 15401-15402, a revocable trust may be modified using any method of revocation—including the statutory method of a signed writing delivered to the trustee—unless the trust instrument specifies a method of modification and explicitly makes it exclusive, or otherwise expressly precludes the use of revocation procedures for modification. The California Supreme Court resolved a split of authority, holding that merely specifying a modification method without an exclusivity clause does not bar use of the statutory revocation method. The court disapproved *King v. Lynch*, *Balistreri v. Balistreri*, *Diaz v. Zuniga*, *Pena v. Dey*, *Conservatorship of Irvine*, and the Court of Appeal's opinion in this case to the extent they conflicted. The 2018 trust amendment was valid under this standard even though it was not notarized, as the trust did not make the notarization requirement exclusive.

Holdings

1. Under section 15402, a trust may be modified via the section 15401 procedures for revocation, including the statutory method, unless the trust instrument provides a method of modification and explicitly makes it exclusive, or otherwise expressly precludes the use of revocation procedures for modification.
2. The court's interpretation applies retroactively because judicial construction of a statute is an authoritative statement of what the statute meant before as well as after the decision, and no exception applies.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the statutory method for modification under Probate Code section 15402 is available when the trust instrument specifies a method of modification but does not explicitly make it exclusive.

Disposition

affirmed