In Estate of Rossi (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1325, the decedent executed a pour-over will and revocable trust on November 21, 2003, that made specific gifts to his wife and left the balance to his children by a previous marriage. The trust and will each contained a no contest clause and both clauses referred to the will and the trust. The decedent executed an amendment to the trust before his death in November 2004 that did not include a no contest clause. The trial court granted a beneficiary's application pursuant to section 21320 and determined that the probate petitions challenging the amendment that the beneficiary planned to file would not violate the no contest clauses in decedent's will and trust. (Rossi, supra, at pp. 1328-1330.) The Court of Appeal affirmed, stating that since the instruments were executed after January 1, 2001, they were subject to the specificity requirements of section 21305, subdivision (a). (Rossi, supra, at pp. 1337-1338.) The amendment was a separate instrument, and because it did not contain a no contest clause, it could be challenged without violating the no contest clauses in the will and trust. (Id. at p. 1340.) In Rossi, the trust authorized the trustor to amend his trust, but the second amendment by the trustor was not subject to the original trust's no contest clause because it was a separate instrument that did not contain a no contest clause. The appellant argued that the original trust and the second amendment formed an "integrated" document. The court rejected that argument, noting that it would render superfluous the provisions of section 21305 as to the dates of the documents to which it applies. (Estate of Rossi, supra, 138 Cal.App.4th at p. 1337.)