Wednesday, July 15, 2026
Page 3
C.A.: Failure to File Trust Revocation Notice in Family Court Not Fatal to Enforcement
Opinion Rejects Form Over Function Reading of Statute Requiring Filing to Avoid Bar on Property Transfers During Divorce Action Where Husband Acknowledges Receipt
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Div. Six of this district’s Court of Appeal held yesterday that a judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to invalidate a wife’s notice of trust revocation served on her husband during divorce proceedings based on her failure to file it in court, declining to demand strict adherence to a filing requirement in a Family Code section providing for an exception to the general prohibition on transacting on property while dissolution is pending.
Family Code §2040 provides that a party petitioning for divorce shall include in the summons a temporary restraining order that generally prevents “both parties from transferring, encumbering, hypothecating, concealing, or in any way disposing of, any property…without the written consent of the other party or an order of the court.”
Subdivision (b)(2) of that section creates an exception for the “[r]evocation of…a revocable trust, pursuant to the instrument, provided that notice of the change is filed and served on the other party before the change takes effect.”
Justice Hernaldo J. Baltodano wrote yesterday’s decision, joined in by Acting Presiding Justice Kenneth Yegan as well as Justice Tari L. Cody. Noting that the Legislature was concerned with minimizing “mischief” between divorcing spouses in adding the notice and filing requirements, he declared:
“Because [the husband] admits he received notice shortly after the revocation was signed, [the wife] complied with the objectives of section 2040, subdivision (b)(2). To conclude otherwise would elevate form over substance.”
Challenge to Notice
Challenging the validity of the notice was Gary Jackson, whose former spouse, Linda Jackson, filed a petition for marital dissolution in April 2019, after approximately 48 years of marriage, including with the summons an automatic temporary restraining order (“ATRO”) required by Family Code §2040.
Shortly after the petition was filed, Linda Jackson executed and notarized a notice of immediate revocation of her interest in a revocable family trust, created by the couple in 2002, that included provisions governing their community property. The document said her portion was “deemed transferred” to a trust bearing her name alone. She served her husband with the notice by mail as required by the terms of the family trust and did not withdraw any assets. Gary Jackson’s attorney called her counsel to contest the validity of the revocation because it had not been filed in court.
After Linda Jackson died in 2024, before the divorce was finalized, the dissolution case was dismissed. Gary Jackson then petitioned to have the notice of revocation declared invalid under Probate Code §17200, drawing an objection from the couple’s daughter, Julie Meyer, who served as trustee of her mom’s separate trust.
Ventura Superior Court Judge Roger L. Lund denied the petition on Sept. 11, 2024, saying that Linda Jackson had “substantially complied” with §2040. He reasoned that, if he invalidated the notice, “Linda’s testamentary wishes would be disregarded and [Gary] would reap the benefits of a windfall.”
Wide Discretion
Noting that “[t]he Probate Court has ‘wide discretion’ to make orders regarding a Probate Code section 17200 petition,” Baltodano wrote:
“Linda’s trust revocation was served on Gary consistent with the trust. Gary does not contend otherwise and concedes that he received actual notice of the revocation. He nevertheless contends reversal is required because the revocation was not filed with the court. We are not persuaded.”
He commented that “[i]t would make no sense to invalidate Linda’s revocation when she complied with the trust and Gary received actual notice of it,” remarking:
“The probate court’s ruling here reconciled two policies. On one hand, the filing and service requirements of section 2040, subdivision (b)(2) serve to ‘protect marital property from dissipation or concealment.’…
“The court’s order also served the policy to enforce Linda’s intent.”
Baltodano added:
“The court’s denial of Gary’s Probate Code section 17200 petition was not an abuse of discretion. And because Gary received actual notice of the trust revocation, no prejudice has been shown.”
The case is Jackson v. Meyer, 2026 S.O.S. 2049.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company