A legal battle over the inheritance of a significant agricultural property has reached the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District. Kathleen and Bruce Smith filed a complaint on July 10, 2020, seeking to confirm the validity of a 2016 amendment to Ernest Myers' trust that would grant them full ownership of the ranch. Emma Myers, Ernest's widow and trustee, contested this amendment.
Kathleen and Bruce Smith's petition aimed to secure their claim to Ernest Myers' remaining 54.2 percent interest in a ranch they already partially owned. The Smiths argued that an amendment made by Ernest in 2016 granted them this additional interest upon his death. However, without this amendment, Emma Myers was designated as the beneficiary of Ernest’s share according to the original trust established in 2000. Emma contended that the Smiths’ petition was invalid due to being filed beyond the one-year statute of limitations set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 366.3.
The trial court ruled in favor of the Smiths, determining that section 366.3 did not apply because their petition concerned "the internal affairs of a trust," rather than an external promise or agreement for distribution from an estate or trust. Following a bench trial on February 6, 2023, the court validated the amendment and ordered Emma Myers to transfer her interest in the ranch to Kathleen and Bruce Smith.
Emma Myers appealed this decision on March 14, 2023, arguing that the trial court misinterpreted section 366.3 and wrongly denied her motion for summary adjudication. She claimed that any action regarding distribution from a trust must be commenced within one year after the decedent's death as per section 366.3. However, upon review, the appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment, emphasizing that section 366.3 applies only to claims based on promises or agreements with a decedent regarding distribution from an estate or trust—not to actions validating existing trust instruments.
In her appeal briefings, Emma cited various cases she believed supported her interpretation of section 366.3 but failed to persuade the appellate judges who found those cases either irrelevant or supportive of their own interpretation—that section 366.3 pertains strictly to promises or agreements external to testamentary documents.
The plaintiffs sought confirmation of their rights under what they deemed a valid amendment and removal of Emma as trustee due to alleged undue influence over Ernest when executing said amendment. They requested judgment affirming their entitlement to full ownership and possession of the ranch.
The attorneys representing Kathleen and Bruce Smith were James P. McKenna and Chance M. Hansen from Peters, Habib, McKenna, Juhl-Rhodes & Cardoza law firm while Mark Johnson represented Emma Myers.
Judge Donald Cole Byrd presided over the case at Glenn County Superior Court (Case No: C098169). The appellate decision was delivered by Acting Presiding Justice Hull with Justices Renner and Feinberg concurring.