## Facts

- Earl Guidotti executed a will creating a testamentary trust for his wife, Darlene Guidotti, providing lifetime net income and permitting principal invasion for her health, maintenance, and support.
- Darlene was also granted a rent-free right to live in the family residence during her lifetime, subject to forfeiture if she left or was absent for more than 60 continuous days without intent to return.
- The trust remainder was directed to charitable organizations qualifying under Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3), and Darlene held a testamentary power of appointment to select the charitable recipients.
- The trust contained a condition that, if Darlene remarried or “live[d] with a man as though they were husband and wife,” all income payments would stop and the trustee’s authority to invade principal for her support would cease.
- Earl died in 1999; during probate, Darlene filed a written disclaimer of any interest in the trust principal, leaving her with an income-only interest for life.
- Darlene later petitioned to reform the will to obtain federal estate-tax marital and charitable deductions, arguing the remarriage/cohabitation condition was an invalid restraint on marriage under California Civil Code § 710.
- Extrinsic evidence from the drafting attorney indicated the condition was included to prevent Darlene from remarrying or cohabiting; the probate court instead characterized the clause as support “until a new husband could provide support” and denied reformation.

## Issues

1. Whether a testamentary trust condition terminating a surviving spouse’s income and support rights upon remarriage or cohabitation is void as a general restraint on marriage under California Civil Code § 710.
2. Whether, after invalidating the condition, the will and trust could be reformed to effectuate the testator’s estate-tax objectives, including eligibility for federal marital and charitable deductions.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the probate court’s order denying reformation.
- The court held the remarriage/cohabitation condition was void as a restraint on marriage under Civil Code § 710.
- The court concluded extrinsic evidence and the instrument’s language showed the testator’s intent was to discourage remarriage, not merely to provide transitional support until remarriage.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, permitting reformation without the invalid condition to advance the estate’s intended tax treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Conditions imposing general restraints on marriage, other than limited restraints directed at a particular person or class, are void under California Civil Code § 710.
- Will and trust construction turns primarily on the testator’s intent, as determined from the instrument’s language and, where appropriate, extrinsic evidence.
- A provision that terminates a spouse’s beneficial interest upon remarriage or cohabitation operates as a restraint on marriage when its purpose and effect are to deter forming a marital-type relationship.
- When a trust condition is void as contrary to statute or public policy, the condition may be treated as ineffective while preserving the remainder of the estate plan to the extent consistent with the testator’s broader purposes, including tax objectives.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated a testamentary trust provision cutting off a widow’s income and support upon remarriage or cohabitation as a void general restraint on marriage under Civil Code § 710, reversed the denial of reformation, and allowed proceedings to implement the trust without the unlawful condition in a manner consistent with the testator’s charitable plan and intended estate-tax deductions.


Estate of Guidotti, 90 Cal. App. 4th 1403 (Ct. App. 2001)