In its opinion, the court found that \u201cSamuel D. Blowitz died testate in 1971. Pursuant to the terms of a testamentary trust, he left the remainder of the trust estate in equal shares to his grandchildren.\u201d<\/p>\n
The will was submitted to probate, and \u201cAn Order Settling First and Final Account and Report of Executor filed January 2, 1974, recounts that the trust provides: \u2018Each grandchild living at the time of decedent’s death shall hold undivided equal interests in the trust estate<\/strong>.\u00a0 When a grandchild attains age twenty-five (25), the Co-trustees shall distribute to such grandchild the entire principal of such grandchild’s interest in the trust.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n That sentence triggered the litigation.\u00a0 The Order did not name the grandchildren, but merely referred to \u201ceach grandchild living at the time of the decedent\u2019s death.\u201d<\/p>\n Now comes the fact that should have triggered a duty of inquiry.\u00a0 \u201cIn 1989, Quick learned J. Michael Blowitz was his natural father. Mr. Quick thereafter met J. Michael Blowitz, attended a Clippers game with him and built a close relationship over the next few years.\u201d<\/p>\n Quick\u2019s father was a trustee of the trust.\u00a0 If Quick wanted to sue someone, it should have been his father.\u00a0 He did not do so, instead waiting years before suing the successor trustee.\u00a0 In his complaint, \u201cQuick alleged Pearson [the successor trustee] knew Quick was Samuel D. Blowitz’s grandchild and therefore a member of the class of remaindermen identified in the trust.\u201d<\/p>\n The lawsuit further alleged that \u201cPearson willfully and unlawfully refused to give Quick notice he was a beneficiary of the trust and willfully failed to distribute Quick’s share of the trust remainder to Quick.\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"Barbados\"](\"http:\/\/www.krbecheklaw.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/08\/Barbados.jpg\" "\\"Fresno")
<\/a><\/p>\n