Cal. Codes » Probate Code
California Codes

Cal. Probate Code § 21102 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)The intention of the transferor as expressed in the instrument controls the legal effect of the dispositions made in the instrument.

(b)The rules of construction in this part apply where the intention of the transferor is not indicated by the instrument.

(c)Nothing in this section limits the use of extrinsic evidence, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, to determine the intention of the transferor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Radin v. Jewish Nat'l Fund, 352 P.3d 863 (Cal. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Radin v. Jewish Nat'l Fund, 352 P.3d 863 (Cal. 2015). · cites it 2× “) As enacted in 1994, Probate Code section 21102 provided: “(a) The intention of the transferor as expressed in the instrument controls the legal effect of the dispositions made in the instrument.”
Blech v. Blech, 236 Cal. Rptr. 3d 430 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). · cites it 2× “" ( Prob. Code, § 21102, subd. (a).) Had Arthur intended the gift of the Ranch to be a specific gift, he had the mechanism to so designate it.”
Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank, 926 P.2d 969 (Cal. 1996). · cites it 2× “(Prob. Code, § 21102, former § 101.) To discern the testator's intent, a court looks to the words of the will and the circumstances in which it was made.”
Shaw Fam. Archives Ltd. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). “”); Cal. Probate Code § 21102 (a)(“The intention of the transferor as expressed in the instrument controls the legal effect of the dispositions *318 made in the instrument.”
Guidotti v. Lockyer, 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6334 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “) *1407 Probate Code section 21102, subdivision (a), provides: “The intention of the transferor as expressed in the instrument controls the legal effect of the dispositions made in the instrument.”
Cockren v. Brown CA5 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “(i) Applicable Law A single set of statutory rules set forth in Probate Code sections 21101 through 21140, governs the interpretation and construction of the whole range of estate planning instruments, including wills and trusts.”
Blech v. Blech (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” 33 Probate Code section 21102, subdivision (c) provides: “Nothing in this section limits the use of extrinsic evidence, to the extent otherwise authorized by law, to determine the intention of the transferor.”
In re: Lisa Gay Mellem (9th Cir. BAP 2021). · cites it 2× “Cal. Prob. Code § 21102 . The Probate Court was persuaded of Carl’s position and did not regard Lisa’s bankruptcy discharge as an impediment to its ruling.”
In Re Elijah & Mary Stiny Trusts (E.D. Ark. 2024). · cites it 2× “CAL. PROB. CODE § 21102. That’s because her siblings are Della Moore’s children and John Moore is Della Moore’s grandson, which makes them Della Moore’s “issue” under California law.”
Lucas v. Lilienthal CA1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “) Probate Code section 21102, subdivision (a)—another section relied on by Lucas, another section ignored in Peter’s reply—mandates that “the intention of the transferor as expressed in the instrument controls the legal effect of the dispositions made in the instrument.”
Corman v. Corman CA2/7 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016). “Based on these findings, the language of the MG Trust, Probate Code section 21102, subdivision (c) (which allows the court to use extrinsic evidence to determine the intention of a transferor), and Estate of Russell (1968) 69 Cal.”
Diller v. Richardson CA1/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022). “2d 200, 208-209 ; accord, Prob. Code, § 21102, subds. (a), (c) [“[t]he intention of the transferor as expressed in the instrument controls the legal effect of the dispositions made in the instrument;” but “[n]othing in this section limits the use of extrinsic evidence, to the…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
— Cal. Probate Code § 21102(a) — 2 cases
In Re Elijah & Mary Stiny Trusts (E.D. Ark. 2024). “CAL. PROB. CODE § 21102. That’s because her siblings are Della Moore’s children and John Moore is Della Moore’s grandson, which makes them Della Moore’s “issue” under California law.”
In Re Elijah & Mary Stiny Trusts (E.D. Ark. 2024).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.