## Facts

- In 2001, Lucia Howery opened a Bank of America savings account and designated her stepdaughter, Lori Younkin, as the account’s pay-on-death beneficiary; Howery retained sole withdrawal authority.
- In 2005, Howery executed a revocable living trust drafted by attorney Ronald A. Araiza.
- The trust’s funding language stated Howery transferred to the trust property described in a schedule that included “savings accounts.”
- The trust’s distribution terms directed that, at Howery’s death, specified Bank of America accounts (including the savings account) would be distributed to Gabriella Reeves; Younkin was to receive a vehicle.
- Howery died in 2009, and Araiza, as successor trustee, sought a probate order confirming the savings account was trust property and distributable to Reeves.
- Younkin objected, arguing the account’s original POD designation controlled and that the trust transfer to Reeves was invalid under Probate Code § 21350 because the trust was drafted by Araiza, Reeves’s son.
- The probate court confirmed the savings account as trust property and ordered distribution to Reeves; Younkin appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the trust and its specific disposition of the Bank of America savings account constituted clear and convincing evidence of a “different intent” under Probate Code § 5302 sufficient to override the earlier POD beneficiary designation naming Younkin.
2. Whether Probate Code § 5302’s limitation on changing account dispositions “by will” prevented a change accomplished through a revocable living trust.
3. Whether Younkin preserved for appeal her contention that the disposition to Reeves was invalid under Probate Code § 21350.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s order.
- The trust provisions were clear and convincing evidence under Probate Code § 5302 that Howery intended Reeves, not Younkin, to receive the savings account at death.
- Section 5302’s “by will” limitation did not apply because the change was effected through a revocable inter vivos trust rather than a will.
- Younkin forfeited her Probate Code § 21350 argument by failing to timely and adequately present it and obtain a ruling in the trial court and by inadequately developing it on appeal.

## Legal Principles

- Under Probate Code § 5302, account documents control beneficial rights at death unless clear and convincing evidence shows the decedent intended a different disposition.
- A revocable living trust that (1) identifies categories of property transferred to the trust and (2) specifically directs distribution of a particular account may supply clear and convincing evidence of a different intent overriding a prior POD designation.
- Probate Code § 5302’s restriction on changing account dispositions “by will” does not bar a change implemented through a revocable inter vivos trust.
- Appellate review is limited to issues properly preserved; failure to raise, support, and secure a ruling on a statutory invalidity claim in the trial court may result in forfeiture on appeal.

## Conclusion

The court held that the trust’s funding and specific distribution provisions provided clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended to replace an earlier POD beneficiary designation and have the savings account pass under the trust to Reeves; it also refused to consider a Probate Code § 21350 challenge because it was forfeited.


Araiza v. Younkin, 188 Cal. App. 4th 1120 (Ct. App. 2010)