The California Supreme Court’s ruling in Haggerty v. Thornton, 15 Cal.5th 729 (2024), resolved a split among California courts about how revocable trusts can be amended. The decision underscores the importance of clear and precise language in estate planning documents.

 

Jeane M. Bertsch created a revocable trust in 2015, allowing amendments through an “acknowledged instrument in writing,” which typically means a signed and notarized document. In 2016, she amended the trust to include her niece, Brianna Haggerty, as a beneficiary. This amendment was signed and notarized, complying with the trust’s stated procedure.

 

However, in 2018, Bertsch executed another amendment, removing Haggerty and naming new beneficiaries. This amendment was signed but not notarized, meaning it did not follow the trust’s specified procedure. After Bertsch’s death, Haggerty contested the validity of the 2018 amendment, citing its failure to meet the trust’s requirements. Haggerty’s position was supported by earlier decisions, such as Diaz v. Zuniga, 91 Cal. App.5th 916 (2023), which held that amendments must comply strictly with a trust’s terms. However, other courts had ruled that unless a trust explicitly precludes alternative amendment methods, a trustor may rely on California statutory rules for amendments, which do not require notarization.

 

The California Supreme Court sided with the new beneficiaries, finding the 2018 amendment valid. It explained that under Probate Code §15402, a trust can be amended using statutory methods unless the trust explicitly states otherwise. Bertsch’s trust did not make its procedure exclusive or prohibit alternative amendment methods, so the unnotarized 2018 amendment was upheld.