California Assembly Bill 2658- Community Property in Trust

Key Legal Issue: AB 2658 was introduced on February 20, 2026, and is currently pending in the Judiciary Committee. 

Summary: AB 2658, introduced by Assembly Member Ellis, would amend Probate Code sections 100 and 102 to expressly authorize a married person or registered domestic partner to establish a trust and fund it with that spouse’s one-half interest in community real property, community personal property, and quasi-community personal property, for the purpose of disposing of that interest at death. Critically, the bill would clarify that community property transferred to such a trust retains its character as community property unless both spouses agree otherwise in writing. The bill addresses uncertainty under existing law about whether a spouse may unilaterally fund a trust with only their one-half community property interest without inadvertently converting that property to separate property, or without obtaining the other spouse’s consent. The bill was introduced on February 20, 2026, and was substantively amended on March 19 and April 9, 2026, to add the community property in trust provisions in place of its original, unrelated subject matter (elder financial crimes reporting).

Significance: If passed, this act would amend Sections 100 and 102 of the California Probate Code. For estate planning practitioners, AB 2658 would provide welcome certainty when using community property trusts as a titling and probate-avoidance tool – particularly in blended-family and second-marriage planning where spouses wish to direct their respective one-half community interests to different beneficiaries while preserving the community property character (and the associated double step-up in income tax basis under IRC section 1014(b)(6)) of the trust assets. Practitioners should continue to monitor the bill’s progress through the Judiciary Committee.

Grimberg v. Pour, No. D085888, 2026 WL 2069768, (Cal. Ct. App. July 17, 2026)

Key Legal Issues: Whether an order authorizing a guardian ad litem or trustee to record a lis pendens against a fiduciary’s real property in a probate proceeding is directly appealable and, if not, what procedural vehicle and deadline govern a challenge to that order.

Summary: Priel Grimberg and her late husband created an irrevocable trust in 2017 whose principal assets were two San Diego residential units. After Priel – allegedly suffering from dementia – signed documents naming her niece, Libby Pour, as successor trustee, Priel’s son alleged that Pour exploited the situation by diverting more than $188,000 in trust assets, selling one unit below market value, and allowing the other to fall into foreclosure. The probate court appointed a guardian ad litem for Priel, who obtained court authorization in May 2024 to record a lis pendens against Pour’s separate Los Angeles properties as security for a potential surcharge claim. After a series of bankruptcy filings by Pour temporarily stayed the lis pendens, the probate court issued a new order in January 2025 authorizing its re-recording. Pour appealed, arguing the probate court lacked authority to authorize the lis pendens because the probate proceeding did not involve a qualifying “real property claim.” The Fourth District dismissed the appeal outright, holding that Code of Civil Procedure section 405.39 – which provides that no order under the lis pendens chapter is appealable – applies with equal force in probate proceedings. The court rejected Pour’s argument that Probate Code section 1300’s list of appealable probate orders controlled, reasoning that Probate Code section 1004 expressly subjects lis pendens matters arising in probate to the Code of Civil Procedure’s lis pendens framework, and that this more specific nonappealability rule prevails over the general probate appeal statute. The court further held that the exclusive remedy is a petition for writ of mandate filed within 20 days of notice of the order (with up to a 10-day extension), and that even treating Pour’s appeal as a writ petition, it was filed roughly 30 days too late to be timely.

Significance: Grimberg confirms that trustees, successor trustees, and third parties facing a lis pendens recorded in connection with a probate proceeding cannot appeal the order authorizing it – the exclusive remedy is a petition for writ of mandate filed and served within 20 days of written notice of the order (extendable by up to 10 days). Missing that window renders the order effectively unreviewable, even where the underlying legal basis for the lis pendens is genuinely disputed. The decision also illustrates how a lis pendens can function as a powerful pre-judgment creditor’s remedy in trust surcharge litigation, permitting a probate court to cloud title to a fiduciary’s personal real property to prevent dissipation of assets before any judgment or surcharge is entered. Estate planning and trust litigation counsel representing either a petitioning beneficiary or guardian ad litem, or a trustee facing surcharge exposure, should build this short and unforgiving deadline into their case management calendars immediately upon service of any lis pendens order arising out of a probate matter.