In re Tung Trust, dated October 24, 2011, 121 Cal.App.5^th 1 (2026)

Key Legal Issue: Whether a standard survivorship provision in a revocable trust stating that a beneficiary who fails to survive the settlor by 30 days is deemed to have predeceased the settlor constitutes a sufficient “contrary intention” under Probate Code section 21110 to override California’s antilapse statute and prevent the deceased beneficiary’s descendants from taking by substitution.

Summary: In In re Tung Trust, the California Court of Appeal addressed whether boilerplate survivorship language in a trust defeated the protections afforded by California’s antilapse statute. The settlor’s son, a named beneficiary, predeceased her but was survived by three children. The trust provided that any person who failed to survive the settlor by 30 days would be deemed to have predeceased the settlor. The successor trustee argued this language demonstrated the settlor’s intent that the gift lapse entirely, preventing the son’s children from inheriting.

The Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed the probate court’s order granting summary adjudication. The court held that merely deeming a beneficiary to have predeceased the settlor does not clearly express an intent to disinherit that beneficiary’s descendants. Because the trust did not expressly state that the gift was conditioned upon survival or otherwise provide that the beneficiary’s descendants would not inherit, the antilapse statute applied. As a result, the deceased beneficiary’s children inherited their father’s share by substitution pursuant to Probate Code section 21110.

Significance: Tung Trust reinforces California’s strong policy favoring application of the antilapse statute absent a clear expression of contrary intent. The decision makes clear that commonly used survivorship clauses alone are insufficient to defeat Probate Code section 21110. Estate planners who intend gifts to lapse if a beneficiary predeceases the settlor should include explicit language stating that survival is a condition of the gift and clearly identify the intended disposition if the beneficiary fails to survive. Conversely, trust litigators now have additional authority to argue that standard survivorship provisions do not, by themselves, disinherit a deceased beneficiary’s descendants. The decision also serves as an important reminder that courts will construe testamentary instruments to avoid intestacy or the failure of a transfer whenever reasonably possible and will require unmistakable language before finding that a settlor intended to override the protections of the antilapse statute.

Halperin v. Halperin, 118 Cal.App.5^th 193 (2026)

Key Legal Issues: Whether California recognizes a cause of action for intentional interference with expected inheritance (IIEI) where the plaintiff alleges that a third party prevented the decedent from amending her trust, and whether such a claim may proceed when the Probate Code provides an adequate remedy. The case also addresses the circumstances under which California courts will recognize an exception to the general rule declining to recognize the tort of intentional interference with expected inheritance.

Summary: In Halperin v. Halperin, the plaintiff alleged that her brothers intentionally prevented their mother from executing a proposed amendment to her revocable trust that would have increased the plaintiff’s inheritance. Rather than pursuing relief in probate, the plaintiff filed a civil action asserting claims for intentional interference with expected inheritance and related tort theories. The trial court sustained the defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend, and the Court of Appeal affirmed.

The Court of Appeal held that California does not recognize an independent cause of action for intentional interference with expected inheritance where the plaintiff has an adequate remedy under the Probate Code. The court explained that California has consistently declined to adopt the tort except in the narrow circumstance where probate remedies are unavailable or inadequate. Because the plaintiff could have sought relief through a trust contest or other probate proceedings challenging the validity or administration of the trust, the court concluded that permitting an independent tort action would undermine the Probate Code’s comprehensive statutory scheme governing inheritance disputes. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claims were properly dismissed.

Significance: Halperin reinforces California’s longstanding preference for resolving inheritance disputes within the probate system rather than through independent civil tort actions. The decision confirms that litigants generally may not circumvent the Probate Code by asserting claims for intentional interference with expected inheritance when statutory probate remedies are available. For trust and estate litigators, the case serves as an important reminder to carefully evaluate whether a client’s grievance should be pursued through a trust contest, petition to determine the validity of a trust amendment, or other probate proceeding before filing a civil action. The decision also provides additional authority for challenging complaints that attempt to repackage probate disputes as tort claims and emphasizes the Legislature’s intent that the Probate Code remain the primary vehicle for adjudicating disputes involving testamentary intent and the disposition of a decedent’s estate.