In Zwirn v. Schweizer (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1153, the appellant contended, based on an oral contract he had with decedents Sam and Freida, that he was entitled to receive 50 percent of all of the couple's assets. After Sam died, Freida changed her estate plan to leave the majority of the assets to her blood relatives and a 25 percent share of a trust for appellant and Frieda's grandnephew. (Id. at p. 1157.) The appellant filed a safe harbor petition based on the oral contract entitling him to 50 percent of the estate. Zwirn held that the proposed claim was not a creditor's claim and so it violated the no contest clauses. The court explained, "if Sam and Frieda had contracted with appellant to fix their roof or buy them clothes, a claim for the money owing would probably be appropriate as a 'creditor's claim' and not in contravention of the no contest clauses.The issue in the case at bench is more complex, involving a claim that goes directly to the testator's plan of distribution, not merely the amount of money given to a creditor or the reduced amount given to other beneficiaries because of the creditor's claim." (Id. at p. 1158.)