Ammerman v. Callender (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 1058
Overview - HOLDINGS: -The language of a trust, interpreted as a whole to give effect to the trustor's intent as provided in Prob. Code, §§ 21102, subd. (a), 21120, 21121, did not support use of a changing fraction method because residuary assets were divided into one-third subtrusts on the trustor's death and there was no language suggesting that when taxes were charged or non-pro rata distributions were made, the fractional shares of the beneficiaries were to change; -Applying California law pursuant to a trust provision and Prob. Code, § 21103, the distribution method in Prob. Code, §§ 16340, subd. (d), 16341, subd. (a), was inapplicable because the assets were not held in a single pool and because Prob. Code, § 16335, subd. (a), authorized trust provisions containing other methods; -A specific provision addressing estate taxes on particular property controlled over a general provision.
Estate of Guidotti (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1403
Overview - A clause in a husband's testamentary trust gave petitioner wife the net income for life, but only if she did not remarry or live with a man as though married. On review, the court of appeal concluded that the clause was void as a restraint on marriage. Cal. Civ. Code § 710 provided that conditions imposing restraints upon marriage were void. Here, the evidence surrounding the execution of the trust showed that the husband intended to restrain petitioner's relationships or remarriage in violation of § 710.