New California trust case: Meiri v. Shamtoubi – trust beneficiary triggered the no contest clause and lost her inheritance when she filed her contest petition more than 120 days after the section 16061.7 notice

In Meiri v. Shamtoubi the beneficiary was treated as having predeceased the trustor (i.e., lost her inheritance) where the beneficiary triggered the no contest clause by filing a petition that was a direct contest of the trust, and it was held that her contest was brought without probable cause because she filed her contest more than 120 days after the section 16061.7 notice. Meiri v. Shamtoubi, California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, July 25, 2022, Case No. B310619.

The holding in Meiri probably appears straightforward or perhaps even obvious, but that isn’t necessarily correct.

The contest petition alleged undue influence and fraud both of which constitute direct contests of the trust pursuant to Cal. Probate Code section 21310. Appellant made various arguments that the allegations in the petition were not a direct contest of the trust. The Court held that whether or not a petition constitutes a direct contest is determined by the allegations that are asserted and not by what the petition is called or when the petition is filed.  

The decision also contains a discussion about how “probable cause” or “without probable cause” are to be evaluated and determined under Cal. Probate Code section 21311. The Court held that filing the contest petition more than 120 days after services of the section 16061.7 notice (in violation of the statutory 120-day filing deadline) constituted filing the contest petition without probable cause because the contest petition was filed after the statutory deadline.

Contestant argued that whether or not there was probable cause must be determined by the substance of the matter rather than procedural impediments, and that the statute specifically references the opportunity for further investigation and discovery. The Court held that any legally sufficient bar to relief – whether procedural (e.g., a statute of limitations defect) or substantive – is sufficient to satisfy the section 21311(b) “without probable cause” criteria.

I do have some concern or caution that the Court’s apparently straightforward view or approach under the facts in Meiri might be different under different facts. For example, a few years ago I had a case in which the contest of the trust also was filed more than 120 days after service of the section 16061.7 notice but we successfully argued that the 16061.7 notice was invalid because the trustee failed to disclose all of the terms of trust – in our case the trustee did provide a copy of the trust, there were also other terms of the trust that the trustee did not provide which needed to be provided so that the beneficiary had sufficient information to determine whether or not to contest the trust.   

Thanks for reading. Please pass this along to other people who would be interested.

* * * * * * *

Best to you,

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive CPA)

  • Business litigation and disputes – business, breach of contract/commercial, co-owners, shareholders, investors, founders, workplace and employment, environmental, D&O, governance, boards and committees.
  • Trust, estate and probate court litigation and disputes – trust, estate, probate, elder and dependent abuse, conservatorship, POA, real property, mental health and care, mental capacity, undue influence, conflicts of interest, and contentious administrations.
  • Governance, boards, audit and governance committees, investigations, auditing, ESG, etc.
  • Mediator and facilitating dispute resolution:
    • Trust, estate, probate, conservatorship, elder and dependent abuse, etc.
    • Business, breach of contract/commercial, owner, shareholder, investor, trade secret, etc.
    • D&O, board, audit and governance committee, accountant and CPA related.
    • Other: workplace and employment, environmental.

Remember, every case and situation is different. It is important to obtain and evaluate all of the evidence that is available, and to apply that evidence to the applicable standards and laws. You do need to consult with an attorney and other professionals about your particular situation. This post is not a solicitation for legal or other services inside of or outside of California, and, of course, this post only is a summary of information that changes from time to time, and does not apply to any particular situation or to your specific situation. So . . . you cannot rely on this post for your situation or as legal or other professional advice or representation.

Also note – sometimes I include links to or comments about materials from other organizations or people – if I do so, it is because I believe that the materials are worthwhile reading or viewing; however, that doesn’t mean that I don’t or might not have a different view about some or even all of the subject matter or materials, or that I necessarily agree with, or agree with everything about or relating to, that organization or person, or those materials or the subject matter.

Thank you for reading this post. I ask that you also pass it along to other people who would be interested as it is through collaboration that great things and success occur more quickly. And please also subscribe to this blog and my other blog (see below), and connect with me on LinkedIn and Twitter.

My two blogs are: – business, D&O, audit committee, governance, compliance, etc. – previously at

Trust, estate, conservatorship, elder and elder abuse, etc. litigation and contentious administrations

David Tate, Esq. (and inactive California CPA) – practicing only as an attorney in California.