Can You Challenge a California Trust If You’re Not in It?

Introduction

Disinheriting someone from an estate plan is awkward—but in California, it’s not the end of the story. Just because someone is cut out of a trust doesn’t mean they have no legal recourse. In fact, they may have more rights than they realize.

In this article, we explore the case of Hamlin v. Jendayi, a California appellate decision that clarified who has standing to contest a trust—and why trustees must still give notice to certain people even if those people are explicitly disinherited.

The Case: Hamlin v. Jendayi

The story begins with Dr. Head, a retired college professor with no children. She lived alone, was increasingly isolated, and had two sisters who were her natural heirs. Then, shortly before her death in 2013, she signed a new trust leaving everything to a former student named Ms. Jendayi. The trust was signed under questionable conditions—Dr. Head was seriously ill, isolated, and died two weeks later.

The sisters—now disinherited—never received notice of the trust. They only found out about it through a public records search. When they tried to challenge it, the new trustee claimed they didn’t even have standing to file a petition. Why? Because they weren’t beneficiaries.

Legal Foundations: Probate Code §§16061.7 and 17200

Here’s where California law is very clear.

Probate Code §16061.7 requires that when a trust becomes irrevocable upon the settlor’s death, the trustee must give notice not only to current beneficiaries—but also to the settlor’s heirs at law. That includes natural heirs who are not named in the trust.

Meanwhile, Probate Code §17200 gives certain people legal standing to file a petition in probate court to determine the validity of the trust. And this includes those who would inherit under intestacy laws if the trust were found invalid. In other words: disinherited heirs may still have the right to challenge a trust if they believe there was undue influence, fraud, lack of capacity, or forgery involved.

How the Court Ruled

In Hamlin, the appellate court sided with the disinherited sisters. It held that they had standing to contest the trust under Probate Code §17200, because they were Dr. Head’s heirs under California’s intestacy laws. More importantly, the court ruled that the trust was invalid—finding evidence of both undue influence and forgery.

The takeaway? Just because someone is disinherited doesn’t mean they lose all rights. And just because a trustee believes notice isn’t required doesn’t mean they’re right.

Key Lessons for Trustees

If you’re a trustee and a trust becomes irrevocable upon the settlor’s death, your duty is to provide notice to all beneficiaries and all natural heirs. Even if the decedent hadn’t spoken to them in decades. Even if the relationship was strained. Even if the trust says nothing goes to them. Notice is required. And failure to give notice can open the door to legal challenges, court sanctions, or even personal liability.

Advice for Disinherited Heirs

If you’ve been disinherited, don’t assume you’re out of luck. If the trust was signed under questionable circumstances, or if you weren’t given notice when you should have been, you may have grounds to challenge it. But the window to act is limited—120 days from receiving notice, or 60 days from the time a copy of the trust is provided. In cases where no notice was given, that window may remain open.

Final Thoughts

Hamlin v. Jendayi is a reminder that the law provides safeguards against secretive or suspicious estate planning changes. It reinforces the principle that transparency, notice, and procedure matter.

If you’re concerned about a trust you weren’t included in—or if you’re a trustee navigating a high-stakes administration—talk to an attorney. The best time to clarify your rights is before the court gets involved.