A recent appellate opinion addressed the following issue: "when a party in a pending marital dissolution serves a notice of trust revocation as required by the trust and the other party receives actual notice of it, does the failure to file the revocation in court render it void?"
"Gary W. Jackson and Linda T. Jackson[1] were married in 1971. In 2002 they created a revocable family trust (the trust), including a community trust for their community property. It named Gary and Linda as the trustees. The trust authorized Gary and Linda to revoke it by delivering a written revocation to the other trustee or by withdrawing their interest in the community property. The trust did not require that they file the revocation in court."
"Linda filed for dissolution of marriage in April 2019 and served the petition and summons on Gary."
"Shortly after petitioning for dissolution of marriage, in May 2019, Linda executed and notarized a notice of revocation of her interest in the community trust."
"Linda served Gary with the revocation by mail as required by the trust. Gary acknowledged he received service of Linda's revocation. The revocation was not filed with the court, as required by section 2040, subdivision (b)(2)."
"Gary did not challenge the revocation in family court. Nor did he file his petition to challenge the revocation's validity in probate court at that time."
"Linda died in 2024. The marital dissolution case was dismissed without having terminated the marriage. Gary then filed a petition to declare the notice of revocation invalid and to confirm that he was the sole trustee. (Prob. Code, § 17200, subds. (a), (b)(1) & (3).)"
"The court noted that Gary did not contend the revocation violated the terms of the trust. It found that Gary's property interests in the trust were not affected by the notice of revocation, and he was not prejudiced by the revocation. It also found that Linda 'substantially complied' with the requirements of the ATRO by serving Gary and that he received actual notice of the revocation."
On appeal, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision. "It would make no sense to invalidate Linda's revocation when she complied with the trust and Gary received actual notice of it."
Jackson v. Meyer ____ Cal.App.5th ____ (2026)
