Reformation, Intent, and the Boundaries of a Trust Contest: Packard v. Packard

By David B. Shea, Esq. Certified Specialist in Estate Planning, Trust & Probate Law

When family, inheritance, and handwritten changes intersect, disputes often arise over how far a court will go to honor a settlor’s true intent. In Packard v. Packard (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1284, the California Court of Appeal clarified when a petition to reform a trust crosses the line into a contest under California’s Probate Code.

[Read More]

When family, inheritance, and handwritten changes intersect, disputes often arise over how far a court may go in enforcing a settlor’s true intent. In Packard v. Packard (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1284, the California Court of Appeal confronted that question directly. The court was asked to decide whether a son’s effort to reform his father’s trust and correct what he claimed was a mistake in expressing that intent was a legitimate attempt to carry out his father’s wishes or an untimely trust contest barred by the Probate Code’s 120-day limitations period.

The case arose from a dispute between two brothers, Scott and Gregory Packard, over handwritten changes their father, Newton Roy Packard, made to his revocable trust. What began as a disagreement over a few words that altered the distribution of the estate became a test of whether California law permits reformation to correct a mistake in expressing a settlor’s intent or whether such efforts cross the line into a contest under the Probate Code.

Two Brothers and a Handwritten Amendment

Newton Packard established the Newton Roy Packard Trust in 2010, providing for an equal distribution of his estate between his two sons. The trust contained a standard no-contest clause and allowed Newton to amend it by a signed writing delivered to the trustee. Greg was named first successor trustee, with Scott as alternate.

Two years later, he executed a notarized First Amendment giving Greg the family residence and granting Scott “a sum equal to the value of [the] residence” based on an independent appraisal. The balance of the trust would then be divided equally, maintaining the parity Newton intended.

In 2014, however, Newton handwrote the words “one-half” before “the value of [the] residence,” initialed and dated the amendment. The insertion altered the clause to read that Scott would receive “a sum equal to one-half the value of trustor’s residence.” Newton died in 2020, leaving Greg as trustee and both sons as beneficiaries.

Following his death, the brothers jointly obtained an appraisal valuing the residence at $970,000. As trustee, Greg provided notice under Probate Code section 16061.7, advising Scott of the 120-day deadline to file any action to contest the trust. For a time, the brothers appeared to proceed amicably—Scott even suggested to Greg’s counsel that “one-half of the appraisal” be distributed to him in cash. But as discussions continued, Scott came to believe the handwritten amendment did not reflect his father’s intent to treat both sons equally.

The Petition: Contest or Correction?

In 2022, two years after Newton’s death, Scott filed a petition for construction and reformation of the First Amendment. He alleged that Newton mistakenly believed the “one-half” insertion would equalize the distribution between his sons when it instead reduced Scott’s share. Relying on California’s equitable power to reform instruments to reflect a settlor’s true intent, Scott sought to correct what he described as a mistake in expression, not to invalidate any provision of the trust.

Greg moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that despite its framing, the petition was a trust contest barred by the 120-day limitations period in section 16061.8. The probate court agreed, finding that the handwritten change was unambiguous and that Scott’s request would have the “practical effect” of invalidating Newton’s amendment. It dismissed the action as a time-barred contest, and Scott appealed.

Greg moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that despite its framing, the petition was a trust contest barred by the 120-day statute of limitations under section 16061.8. The probate court agreed, finding the handwritten change unambiguous and concluding that Scott’s request would have the “practical effect” of invalidating Newton’s amendment. It dismissed the petition as a time-barred contest. Scott appealed.

Reformation or Contest? Defining the Legal Line

On appeal, the court faced two related questions: whether Scott’s petition qualified as a contest under Probate Code section 16061.8, and whether a court may reform a trust for mistake when its language appears unambiguous.

Although section 16061.8 does not define “contest,” the court noted that related statutes distinguish between challenges that seek to invalidate an instrument—such as those based on lack of capacity, fraud, or undue influence—and actions that seek to interpret or reform a trust to carry out the settlor’s intent. The court emphasized that the inquiry turns on the substance and practical effect of the petition, not its label.

The court reaffirmed that petitions to ascertain and enforce a settlor’s intent do not violate no-contest clauses, even if they alter how a provision operates. Such actions advance, rather than frustrate, the settlor’s purpose, the court explained, citing Donkin v. Donkin (2013) 58 Cal.4th 412 and Giammarrusco v. Simon (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1586.

The panel also relied on Estate of Duke (2015) 61 Cal.4th 871, which allows reformation when clear and convincing evidence shows both a mistake in expressing intent and what the testator actually intended. Extending Estate of Duke to trusts, the Packard court held that extrinsic evidence may be admitted to correct an error in expressing a settlor’s intent, even when the written terms appear clear on their face.

A Reformation, Not a Contest: The Court Draws the Line

Applying these principles, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment for Greg. It concluded that Scott’s filing was not a contest under section 16061.8 but a proper request for reformation. The petition did not challenge Newton’s capacity, execution, or the validity of the amendment; it sought only to align the trust’s terms with Newton’s intent to treat both sons equally.

The court emphasized that even an unsuccessful reformation claim remains just that—it does not transform into a contest simply because it fails on the evidence. To hold otherwise, the court reasoned, would blur the line between a claim’s merits and its classification and undermine the equitable purpose of reformation. Because such actions are governed by the three-year statute of limitations for mistake under Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d), rather than the Probate Code’s shorter contest period, the probate court’s dismissal was error.

The case was remanded, giving Scott the opportunity to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Newton intended an equal division of assets. The appellate court expressly declined to reach the factual merits of that issue.

Why the Decision Matters

 Packard draws an important boundary in California trust litigation: the line between challenging a trust’s validity and correcting a mistaken expression of intent. The decision confirms that petitions for reformation—based on mistake rather than invalidity—do not trigger the 120-day limitations period governing contests under Probate Code sections 16061.7 and 16061.8.

By extending Estate of Duke to the trust context, the court reinforced the equitable principle that probate law exists to carry out a settlor’s intent, even when doing so requires extrinsic evidence to reform language that appears unambiguous. The opinion further emphasizes that no-contest clauses must be narrowly construed—they are not meant to penalize beneficiaries who seek only to clarify or implement the settlor’s wishes.

For estate planners, Packard highlights the risks clients face when making informal or handwritten amendments without legal guidance. For litigators, it offers a clear framework for distinguishing between a prohibited contest and a permissible correction. And for probate courts, it reaffirms the equitable power to reform trusts—not to rewrite them, but to ensure that the instrument accurately reflects the settlor’s true intent.

Back to News