## Facts

- Edward Masry and his wife, Joette Masry, created the Edward and Joette Masry Family Trust in 2004 as co-settlors and co-trustees, funded with marital property.
- The trust stated that each trustor reserved the power to revoke the trust “by written direction delivered to the other Trustor and to the Trustee” during their joint lifetimes.
- Shortly before his death, Edward signed a “Notice of Revocation of Interest in Trust and Resignation as Trustee” to remove his assets from the Family Trust and place them into the Edward L. Masry Trust benefiting his children from a prior marriage.
- Joette did not receive Edward’s written notice of revocation until after Edward died.
- Joette petitioned in probate to invalidate the revocation and to determine proper beneficiaries, arguing Edward failed to comply with the trust’s stated delivery requirement.
- The probate court upheld the revocation, concluding the trust’s revocation clause was not the exclusive method and that the revocation was valid under California Probate Code § 15401.
- Joette appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a trust’s stated method of revocation displaces the statutory method in Probate Code § 15401(a)(2) when the instrument does not explicitly make its method exclusive.
2. Whether Edward’s written revocation was effective under § 15401(a)(2) despite Joette’s receipt of the notice only after Edward’s death.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s orders.
- The court held the Family Trust did not “explicitly” make its internal revocation method exclusive; therefore, Edward could revoke by the statutory method in § 15401(a)(2).
- The court held Edward’s signed written “Notice of Revocation” satisfied § 15401(a)(2)’s requirements and validly revoked his interest even though Joette was not notified during Edward’s lifetime.

## Legal Principles

- Under California Probate Code § 15401(a), a revocable trust may be revoked either by (1) complying with a method provided in the instrument or (2) a writing (other than a will) signed by the settlor and delivered to the trustee during the settlor’s lifetime.
- The statutory method in § 15401(a)(2) is unavailable only if the trust instrument explicitly states its own revocation method is the exclusive method.
- Language authorizing revocation “by” a described procedure, without clear exclusivity terms, is permissive and does not bar revocation under § 15401(a)(2).
- For a trust with multiple settlors, each settlor may revoke as to the portion contributed by that settlor unless the instrument provides otherwise. 

## Conclusion

Because the Family Trust did not expressly make its stated revocation procedure exclusive, Edward could revoke his interest through a signed writing delivered to a trustee during his lifetime under Probate Code § 15401(a)(2), and the revocation remained effective despite Joette’s lack of pre-death notice.


Masry v. Masry, 166 Cal. App. 4th 738 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)