In a recent appeals court filing, Sarah Plott Key has lodged an appeal against her sister, Elizabeth Plott Tyler, and other respondents concerning the enforcement of a "no contest" clause in a family trust. The appeal was filed by Key in the California 2nd Appellate District on May 28, 2024, targeting an order denying a petition she filed on probate court.
The trial court case revolves around a 1999 trust established by Thomas E. Plott and Elizabeth R. Plott, parents of both Key and Tyler. This trust has been subject to multiple legal battles over the years, including three prior appeals. In this instance, Key is seeking to disinherit Tyler based on a no contest clause within the original trust document. According to Key's petition, Tyler's defense of a 2007 amendment—procured through undue influence—constitutes a direct contest of the trust.
Key argues that Tyler’s judicial defense of the 2007 Amendment was without probable cause and thus triggers the no contest clause outlined in the original trust. The original trust specified that any beneficiary who contests its provisions would be disinherited and forfeit all interests under the trust. Despite this provision, the probate court initially ruled that assets distributed under a 2003 Amendment were exempt from forfeiture because it did not contain its own no contest clause.
However, upon review, it was determined that this interpretation conflicted with the intent expressed in the original trust’s no contest clause. The appellate court held that all interests given under the original trust are subject to forfeiture if contested without probable cause. Consequently, Tyler’s share of assets from both personal property and residual monetary assets specified by subsequent amendments are not exempt from forfeiture.
Justices Lui, Ashmann-Gerst, and Hoffstadt of the appellate court reversed and remanded with directions for further proceedings to determine whether Tyler lacked probable cause for her defense of the 2007 Amendment. This decision underscores that even though amendments may alter specific distributions within a trust, they do not nullify overarching provisions like no contest clauses unless explicitly stated.
Key is represented by Mary-Felicia Apanius and Marshal A. Oldman from Oldman, Sallus & Gold; Jonathan A. Wershow from Wershow & Cole also advocates on her behalf. On the other side, Eric R. Adler from Magee & Adler represents Elizabeth Plott Tyler along with Paul D. Murphy and Daniel N. Csillag from Murphy Rosen; Marc M. Stern from Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger represents other respondents William O. Gamble III and James W. Sullivan.
The trial court case is presided over by Judge Daniel Juarez in Los Angeles County Superior Court under Case ID BP131447.