Who Has the Right to Challenge a Disinheriting Trust Amendment?

When a family member is suddenly cut out of a revocable trust by a late-stage amendment, can they challenge it in probate court—even though the final text of the trust leaves them with nothing?

In Barefoot v. Jennings, the California Supreme Court answered a resounding yes, resolving confusion around trust litigation standing and protecting the true intent of settlors.   

The Big Mistake: Assuming Disinherited Beneficiaries Lack Standing

When Joan Lee Maynord passed away, her daughter Joan Mauri Barefoot discovered that a series of late-stage amendments had completely disinherited her and removed her as a successor trustee. She filed a petition in probate court to invalidate those amendments, arguing her mother had been incompetent and that her sisters had exerted undue influence and fraud.   

The lower courts threw the case out, ruling that because she was no longer a "beneficiary" under the final version of the trust, she lacked standing under California Probate Code § 17200 to challenge the document.   

The California Supreme Court reversed that decision, establishing a vital rule for trust and estate litigation.

What Barefoot v. Jennings Established

1. Standing Follows the Allegations (The "What If" Principle): When a pretrial motion or demurrer challenges a petitioner's standing, the court must treat the well-pleaded allegations as true. If a plaintiff alleges that they would be a rightful beneficiary if the fraudulent or improperly influenced amendments are struck down, they have legal standing to sue under Probate Code § 17200.   

   
   

2. Broad Probate Court Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court emphasized that the Probate Code was designed to give probate courts broad jurisdiction over practically all controversies arising between trustees and those claiming to be beneficiaries. Forcing a disinherited beneficiary out of probate court would insulate wrongdoers who manipulate vulnerable settlors.   

   
   

3. Preventing Fraud and Undue Influence: Allowing a "no standing" defense for late-stage, manipulated amendments would completely undermine public policy against fraud, undue influence, and elder abuse in estate planning.   

   
   

Procedural Mechanics: How Standing Is Tested

Under normal civil and probate procedure, handling a standing challenge involves specific rules:

• The Assumption Rule: When a defendant files a demurrer or a motion to dismiss attacking a petitioner's standing, the court cannot simply assume the challenger's claims lack merit.   

  
  

• Treating Allegations as True: The court must test the petition by temporarily treating all properly pleaded allegations (such as claims that an amendment is the product of fraud or incompetence) as true.   

  
  

• The Outcome: If those accepted allegations establish that the challenger would be a beneficiary under a prior, valid iteration of the trust, standing is confirmed, and the probate court must allow the litigation to move forward on the merits.   

  
  

Key Takeaways for Trust Litigation

• Disinherited Heirs Can Fight Back: If an individual was named as a beneficiary in a prior version of a trust and is subsequently cut out by amendments suspected of being the product of fraud, undue influence, or incompetence, they have standing to challenge those amendments in probate court.   

  
  

• Early and Expeditious Resolution: This ruling provides an orderly mechanism for trust challenges to be handled efficiently right inside the probate process, ensuring the genuine intent of the settlor is honored.