DOCSLIB.ORG

Recent California Case Law Developments

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recent California Case Law Developments Recent California Case Law Developments Selected Cases of Interest to Trust and Estate Attorneys Filed Between September 1, 2010 and July 31, 2011 By Robert E. Temmerman, Jr., Esq. San Jose, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS Allocation of Receipts From Entities To Principal or Income Under the UPIA MANSON v. SHEPHERD (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 1244, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 [Filed September 3, 2010] ..................................................1 Neighbor Who Merely Prepared Meals for Decedent and Drove Him to Doctor Appointment Held Not to Be a Prohibited Transferee Under Probate Code § 21350 ESTATE OF AUSTIN (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 512, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 481 [Filed September 15, 2010].................................................3 Beneficiary May Exercise “Five-Or-Five” Power After the End of the Year to Which It Applies ESTATE OF CAIRNS (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 937, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 735 [Filed September 15, 2010].................................................6 Grand Theft Committed by Attorney in Fact After Principal’s Death PEOPLE v. FENDERSON (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 625, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 17 [Filed September 17, 2010] .................................................8 Beneficiaries Awarded More Than $65 Million in Damages Not Required to Trace to Obtain Disgorgement of Profits Made by Trustee Through Breach of Trust UZYEL v. KADISHA (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 866, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 244 [Filed September 22, 2010]................................................1 0 Merger Doctrine Does Not Apply Where Trust Expressly Provides for a Contingent Beneficiary in the Event of Trustee/Sole Beneficiary’s Death WEINBERGER v. MORRIS (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 1016, 115 Cal. Rptr. 3d 860 [Filed September 24, 2010]................................................1 3 Disposition of Totten Trust Savings Account on Settlor’s Death Is Controlled by Disposition Provided in Subsequently Executed Living Trust, Not by Totten Trust Account Beneficiary Designation ARAIZA v. YOUNKIN (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 1120, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 315 [Filed September 29, 2010]................................................1 4 i Settlement Agreement Is Enforced Under CCP § 664.6 Where Attorney Who Allegedly Unduly Influenced Client to Sign Agreement Is Not a Party to the Agreement CHAN v. LUND (2010) 188 Cal. App. 4th 1159, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 122 [Filed September 29, 2010] ................................................1 8 Distributions to Law Firm Partner Are Community Property MARRIAGE OF SIVYER-FOLEY & FOLEY (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 521, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 162 [Filed October 21, 2010].......................................1 9 Trial Court Erred in Dismissing Marital Dissolution Proceeding Maintained by Conservatee Through Her Conservator MARRIAGE OF STRACZYNSKI (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 531, 116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 938 [Filed October 22, 2010]..................................................2 1 Requirements for Standing to Bring an Elder Abuse Action on Behalf of a Decedent LICKTER v. LICKTER (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 712, 118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 123 [Filed October 27, 2010]..................................................2 3 Surviving Spouse Is Liable for Debts of Deceased Spouse to the Extent of the Value of Joint Tenancy Property Owned by the Spouses at the Time of Deceased Spouse’s Death KIRCHER v. KIRCHER (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 1105, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 254 [Filed November 4, 2010].................................................2 5 No Extrinsic Evidence Admissible Where Term “Issue” Clearly Defined in Instrument CITIZENS BANK v. CARRANO (2010) 189 Cal. App. 4th 1200, 117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 [Filed November 5, 2010].................................................2 8 Tax Attorney’s Contingency Fee Contracts for Transactional Matters Voidable Because Contracts Did Not State that Contingency Fees Are Not Set by Law and Are Negotiable ARNALL v. SUPERIOR COURT (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 360, 118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 379 [Filed November 22, 2010]................................................3 0 ii Fired Attorney Cannot Recover From Previous Co-Counsel on Contingency Fee Quantum Meruit Claim OLSEN v. HARBISON (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 325, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 460 [Filed December 1, 2010]. ................................................3 2 Court-Appointed Counsel for Conservatee Owes No Duty to Potential Beneficiary of Substituted Judgment Estate Plan HALL v. KALFAYAN (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 927, 118 Cal. Rptr. 3d 629 [Filed December 8, 2010]. ................................................3 3 Safe Harbor Petition Filed Under Former No Contest Clause Statute FAZZI v. KLEIN (2010) 190 Cal. App. 4th 1280, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 224 [Filed December 14, 2010] ................................................3 5 Alter Ego Doctrine Does Not Apply to Trusts But Does Apply to Trustees GREENSPAN v. LADT LLC (2010) 191 Cal. App. 4th 486, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 118 [Filed December 30, 2010]. ...............................................3 7 Seven-Day Waiting Period Between Date Party Is Presented With Prenup and Date Party Signs Prenup Does Not Apply to a Party Who Has Been Represented by Counsel From the Outset MARRIAGE OF CADWELL-FASO & FASO (2011) 191 Cal. App. 4th 945, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 813 [Filed January 11, 2011] . ......................................3 8 Attorney-Client Communications Covered by the Mediation Confidentiality Statutes Are Not Admissible in a Legal Malpractice Action CASSEL v. SUPERIOR COURT (2011) 51 Cal. 4th 113, 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 437 [Filed January 13, 2011]. .................................................4 0 Appraiser’s Files Not Fully Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege or the Work-Product Doctrine UNITED STATES v. RICHEY (2011) 632 F.3d 559 (9th Cir.) [Filed January 21, 2011] ..................................................4 3 iii Probate Court Erroneously Denies Heggstad Petition to Confirm That General Assignment Transferred Shares of Stock to Trust KUCKER v. KUCKER (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 90, 120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 688 [Filed January 26, 2011]. .................................................4 4 House Titled Solely in Husband’s Name Is Held to be Community Property When Husband Fails to Rebut the Presumption of Undue Influence That Arose When Wife Quitclaimed House to Husband MARRIAGE OF FOSSUM (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 336, 121 Cal. Rptr. 3d 195 [Filed January 28, 2011] ..................................................4 6 CPA’s Failure to Identify Time Period for Which Extension of Time to Pay Is Requested Results in Penalties Assessed Against Estate BACCEI v. UNITED STATES (2011) 632 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir.) [Filed February 16, 2011] .................................................4 8 Will That Lacked Two Witnesses Held Valid Because Proponent of Will Established by Clear and Convincing Evidence That Testator Intended the Document to Constitute His Will ESTATE OF STOKER (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 236, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 529 [Filed March 3, 2011]. ...................................................5 0 Dismissal of Wrongful Death Action on Procedural Grounds Does Not Impact Claim That Alleged Murderer is Prohibited From Collecting Decedent’s Life Insurance Policy Proceeds STATE FARM LIFE INS. CO. v. CAI, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24750 (N.D. Cal.) [Filed March 11, 2011]. ..................................................5 3 Interim Attorney Fees Awarded to Executor/Beneficiary for Defending Against Alleged Pretermitted Heir in Will Contest ESTATE OF BARTSCH (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 885, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 13 [Filed March 22, 2011] ...................................................5 4 Res Judicata Applies to All Issues in a Court-Approved Settlement Agreement ESTATE OF REDFIELD (2011) 193 Cal. App. 4th 1526, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 402 [Filed April 5, 2011]. ....................................................5 6 iv Marvin Claim Brought After Decedent’s Death Is Subject to One-Year Statute of Limitations, Unless the Doctrine of Equitable Estoppel Applies MCMACKIN v. EHRHEART (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 128, 122 Cal. Rptr. 3d 902 [Filed April 8, 2011]. ....................................................5 8 Putative Spouse Status Under CCP § 377.60 Is Not Determined by an Objective Standard, but Rather a Subjective Standard Based on the Good Faith Belief That the Marriage Was Valid CEJA v. RUDOLPH & SLETTEN, INC. (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 584, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 98 [Filed April 19, 2011]..................................................6 0 Attorney Husband is Obligated to Pay Ex-Wife Her Community Interest in an Account Receivable Due From His Client (and Girlfriend) Despite the Fact that He Forgive Girlfriend’s Debt MARRIAGE OF GREENBERG (2011) 194 Cal. App. 4th 1095, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 238 [Filed April 28, 2011]. ...................................................6 2 Probate Court Must Refer Guardianship Case to CPS Where Unfit Parent Allegations Would Warrant Dependency Proceedings GUARDIANSHIP OF CHRISTIAN G. (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 581, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 642 [Filed May 12, 2011] . ...............................................6 3 Life Insurance Policy Purchased by Husband With Community Property Funds Is Wife’s Separate Property Because Husband Put the Policy in Wife’s Name MARRIAGE OF VALLI (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 776, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 726 [Filed May 18, 2011].....................................................6 5 Attorney's Conflict of Interest Results in Denial of Quantum Meruit Recovery FAIR v. BAKHTIARI (2011) 195 Cal. App. 4th 1135, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 765 [Filed May 24, 2011] . ...................................................6 6 Family Code § 1612(c), Pertaining to Enforceable Spousal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline 1
    Spring 2014 Melanie Leslie – Trusts and Estates – Attack Outline Order of Operations (Will) • Problems with the will itself o Facts showing improper execution (signature, witnesses, statements, affidavits, etc.), other will challenges (Question call here is whether will should be admitted to probate) . Look out for disinherited people who have standing under the intestacy statute!! . Consider mechanisms to avoid will challenges (no contest, etc.) o Will challenges (AFTER you deal with problems in execution) . Capacity/undue influence/fraud o Attempts to reference external/unexecuted documents . Incorporation by reference . Facts of independent significance • Spot: Property/devise identified by a generic name – “all real property,” “all my stocks,” etc. • Problems with specific devises in the will o Ademption (no longer in estate) . Spot: Words of survivorship . Identity theory vs. UPC o Abatement (estate has insufficient assets) . Residuary general specific . Spot: Language opting out of the common law rule o Lapse . First! Is the devisee protected by the anti-lapse statute!?! . Opted out? Spot: Words of survivorship, etc. UPC vs. CL . If devise lapses (or doesn’t), careful about who it goes to • If saved, only one state goes to people in will of devisee, all others go to descendants • Careful if it is a class gift! Does not go to residuary unless whole class lapses • Other issues o Revocation – Express or implied? o Taxes – CL is pro rata, look for opt out, especially for big ticket things o Executor – Careful! Look out for undue
    [Show full text]
  • Estate Planning Guide
    Last Will & Testament Estate Planning Guide Protect your loved ones, make your wishes known, and award your assets as you desire. Contains the information you need to plan your estate responsibly and affordably. Includes: Estate Planning Guide Contents developed by licensed attorneys. Know how to do more yourself and save. Since 1998, SmartLegalForms has helped millions of individuals resolve their legal problems by providing easy-to- use legal forms. THIRD EDITION……………………………………. MARCH 2017 Author Richard S. Granat, Esq. Editor Kathleen O’Neill Form Design Aaron Varner, Esq. Technology Gregor Weeks, Esq. SmartLegalForms is an imprint of SmartLegalForms®, Inc. SmartLegalForms is a trademark of SmartLegalForms®, Inc. Estate Planning Guide / by SmartLegalForms, Inc. – 3rd Ed. Copyright © 2017 by SmartLegalForms, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PRINTED IN THE U.S.A. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without prior written permission. Please note this self-help guide book is not a substitute for personalized legal advice from a lawyer who practices in the jurisdiction where you live. We do not provide legal advice. You can purchase legal advice on-line from an attorney for a fixed fee at: http://www.directlaw.us. 2 | Page Table of Contents Welcome! ............................................................................................................................. 4 When a Will Is Not Enough...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uniform Trust Code Final Act with Comments
    UNIFORM TRUST CODE (Last Revised or Amended in 2010) Drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-NINTH YEAR ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA JULY 28 – AUGUST 4, 2000 WITH PREFATORY NOTE AND COMMENTS Copyright © 2000, 2010 By NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS April 10, 2020 1 ABOUT NCCUSL The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL), now in its 114th year, provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of state statutory law. Conference members must be lawyers, qualified to practice law. They are practicing lawyers, judges, legislators and legislative staff and law professors, who have been appointed by state governments as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands to research, draft and promote enactment of uniform state laws in areas of state law where uniformity is desirable and practical. $ NCCUSL strengthens the federal system by providing rules and procedures that are consistent from state to state but that also reflect the diverse experience of the states. $ NCCUSL statutes are representative of state experience, because the organization is made up of representatives from each state, appointed by state government. $ NCCUSL keeps state law up-to-date by addressing important and timely legal issues. $ NCCUSL’s efforts reduce the need for individuals and businesses to deal with different laws as they move and do business in different states.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint, Totten Trust, and P.O.D. Bank Accounts: Virginia Law Compared to the Uniform Probate Code J
    University of Richmond Law Review Volume 8 | Issue 1 Article 4 1973 Joint, Totten Trust, And P.O.D. Bank Accounts: Virginia Law Compared to the Uniform Probate Code J. Rodney Johnson University of Richmond Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Banking and Finance Law Commons Recommended Citation J. R. Johnson, Joint, Totten Trust, And P.O.D. Bank Accounts: Virginia Law Compared to the Uniform Probate Code, 8 U. Rich. L. Rev. 41 (1973). Available at: http://scholarship.richmond.edu/lawreview/vol8/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Richmond Law Review by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JOINT, TOTTEN TRUST, AND P.O.D. BANK ACCOUNTS: VIRGINIA LAW COMPARED TO THE UNIFORM PROBATE CODE.t J. Rodney Johnson* Litigation involving the survivorship rights of parties to joint ac- counts has been before the Supreme Court of Virginia on ten occa- sions since 1955.' These ten cases, plus one older one,2 constitute all of Virginia's case law on this subject. Instead of attempting a chron- ological analysis of the development of this case law, it is proposed to state such rules as now exist and compare them with the results that would be obtained under the new Uniform Probate Code.3 In addition, attention will be focused on the statutes that deal with the rights of parties and financial institutions in deposit accounts to see how they compare with their counterparts under the UPC.
    [Show full text]
  • Totten Trust Account Application and Agreement (Payable on Death)
    Totten Trust Account Application and Agreement (Payable on Death) Trust Title: Depositor/Member Name(s) Account Number: _________________________ In Trust For _____________________ Beneficiary Name Use this space to list the names of any additional beneficiaries. You may list up to 4 beneficiaries on a single Totten Trust Account. _____________________________ DEPOSITOR INFORMATION Name: (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address: (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ______________________ Date of Birth Phone Number 1: _________________ Phone Number 2: Membership Eligibility Name of Your Attorney Do you have a Will? Yes / No If Yes, who has possession of your will? JOINT DEPOSITOR INFORMATION Name (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ______________________ Date of Birth Phone Number 1: _________________ Phone Number 2: Name of Your Attorney Do you have a Will? Yes / No If Yes, who has possession of your will? BENEFICIARY INFORMATION Name (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ___________________ Date of Birth Home Phone # __________________________ Business Phone # BENEFICIARY INFORMATION Name (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ___________________ Date of Birth Home Phone # __________________________ Business Phone # BENEFICIARY INFORMATION Name (LAST) (FIRST) (M) Address (STREET) (CITY) (STATE) (ZIP CODE) Social Security Number ___________________ Date of Birth Home Phone # __________________________
    [Show full text]
  • Wills--Inclusion of Totten Trust in Testamentary Disposition Deemed Confirmation (Matter of Phipps, 125 N.Y.S.2D 606 (Surr
    St. John's Law Review Volume 28 Number 2 Volume 28, May 1954, Number 2 Article 18 Wills--Inclusion of Totten Trust in Testamentary Disposition Deemed Confirmation (Matter of Phipps, 125 N.Y.S.2d 606 (Surr. Ct. 1953)) St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1954 ] 1 RECENT DECISIONS upon the entry of the escaped convict into the decedent's truck, a re- covery would have been allowed under a recognized exception to Mitchell v. Rochester Railway, that is, immediate physical injury.2 6 On the other hand, had the injury occurred at any subsequent time within the unaccounted-for forty-five minute period, recovery would have been denied. But whether liability was imposed because the in- jury was immediate or whether a new exception has been added to the Mitchell rule does not clearly appear. It is submitted that the Court should limit the immunity of the state when liability arises from a breach of the aforementioned con- cept of duties owed to the general citizenry, for which no liability is imposed, by allowing recovery where a foreseeable harm to a par- ticular individual or group of individuals is involved. One of the primary reasons for requiring immediate physical in- jury to permit recovery for psychic injury was to discourage litiga- tion of unfounded claims where there existed a lack of evidence show- ing a causal relationship between the act complained of and the injury itself.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of the Uniform Probate Code in Nonadopting States
    The Influence of the Uniform Probate Code in Nonadopting States Roger W. Andersen* I. INTRODUCTION Since its emergence in 1969, the Uniform Probate Code' (UPC) has attracted considerable attention. Scholars have offered extensive commentary,2 and legislatures in fourteen states have adopted it.3 For a variety of reasons, however, thirty- seven other jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia) have not adopted the statute. This Article examines how the UPC has influenced the law and its practice in those places. A survey" of statutes and cases suggests that the UPC is a viable * Professor of Law, University of Toledo. B.A., Knox College, 1970; J.D., University of Iowa, 1973; LL.M., University of Illinois, 1978. The author expresses his thanks to Professor J. Rodney Johnson of the University of Richmond for his comments on the status of Virginia law; his commentary prompted this inquiry. Thanks are also due to Kathleen F. Bornhorst and to Jay Withrow who, as law students at the University of Toledo and the University of Richmond, respectively, provided able research assistance. 1. UNIv. PROB. CODE, 8 U.L.A. 1 (1983). 2. See, e.g., Emery, The Utah Uniform Probate Code-Protectionof the Surviving Spouse-The Elective Share, 1976 UTAH L. REV. 771; Ingram & Rudolph-Boevers, The Uniform Probate Code and the Federal Estate Tax Marital Deduction, 1976 UTAH L. REV. 819; Johnson, Joint, Totten Trust, and P.O.D. Bank Accounts: Virginia Law Com- pared to the Uniform Probate Code, 8 U. RICH. L. REV. 41 (1973); Kurtz, The Aug- mented Estate Concept Under the Uniform Probate Code: In Search of an Equitable Elective Share, 62 IOWA L.
    [Show full text]
  • Probate Law (Disclaimers)
    #L-625 10/25/82 Memorandum 82-110 Subject: Study L-625 - Probate Law (Disclaimers) At the September meeting the Commission approved the Recommendation Relating to Disclaimer of Testamentary and Other Interests for printing, subject to several decisions made at the meeting. A copy of this recom­ mendation is attached to this memorandum. We have also renumbered the sections in the recommendation for consistency with the Commission's decision regarding organization of the Probate Code. As this statute is now numbered, it will not be necessary to renumber it to accommodate the recommendation on wills and intestate succession. The Commission also decided at the September meeting to continue this subject on the agenda for the November meeting so that additional comments might be considered. We have received a letter from Mr. Kenneth M. Klug which is attached as Exhibit 1. This letter contains further discussion of a point he raised in an earlier letter that was attached to Memorandum 82-94, considered at the September meeting. Mr. Klug suggests that further consideration be given to disclaimers of joint tenancies •. His concern is that a disclaimer permitted under California law would not qualify under federal law. He favors the Commission's proposal, but argues that the "California statute should make it clear that an acceptance of the creation of a joint tenancy is not an accep tance of the survivorship righ t." Mr. Klug is concerned with the position taken by the IRS in private letter rulings that found an acceptance by the joint tenant at the time the joint tenancy was created or by actions during the life of the tenancy.
    [Show full text]
  • Totten Trust: the Poor Man's Will, 42 N.C
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 42 | Number 1 Article 25 12-1-1963 Totten Trust: The oP or Man's Will Thomas W. Christopher Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Thomas W. Christopher, Totten Trust: The Poor Man's Will, 42 N.C. L. Rev. 214 (1963). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol42/iss1/25 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS Totten Trust: The Poor Man's Will X deposits his money in a savings account in a bank or savings and loan association in his own name as trustee for Y. The account reads: "X as trustee for Y." He intends to reserve a power to with- draw any amount he wishes at any time, and also a power to revoke the trust altogether. Y may or may not be aware of the deposit. X retains the passbook. What X is trying to do is to keep complete power over the deposit during his lifetime, with whatever remains at his death to go to Y if Y is then alive. This is known as a "Totten" or tentative trust, the name Totten coming from the style of one of the early cases to recognize such an arrangement as valid.' The Totten trust has now been recognized by court decision or statute in a number of states, including California, Delaware, Dis- trict of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachu- setts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Wash- ington.2 The Restatement of Trusts also recognizes it.' A mere handful of modern decisions reject it.4 'Matter of Totten, 179 N.Y.
    [Show full text]
  • Totten Trust - Initial Illinois Recognition
    DePaul Law Review Volume 15 Issue 1 Fall-Winter 1965 Article 23 Trusts - Totten Trust - Initial Illinois Recognition James Sheridan Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation James Sheridan, Trusts - Totten Trust - Initial Illinois Recognition, 15 DePaul L. Rev. 240 (1965) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol15/iss1/23 This Case Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DE PAUL LAW REVIEW plaintiff predicate liability on the theory of breach of warranty in order to impose strict liability on the manufacturer. Thus, the assault upon the citadel continues, and one can anticipate that other jurisditcions will follow the precedent set out by Greenman and Suvada. Strict tort liability is a revolutionary concept and surely is "the law of the immediate future."3 9 Robert Breakstone 39 Putnam v. Erie City Manufacturing Co., supra note 29. TRUSTS-TOTTEN TRUST-INITIAL ILLINOIS RECOGNITION For a number of years, the decedent, Antonio Petralia, was the sole owner of a savings account in his own name at the First National Bank of Chicago. On November 8, 1948, he closed this account and transferred all funds therein to an account in his own name as Trustee for his daugh- ter, Dominica DiMaggio. 1 From the time the account was opened to the date of his death, Antonio Petralia had, and exercised, the power to make deposits and withdrawals from the account.
    [Show full text]
  • Gains Respectability: Using the Minnesota Multi-Party Accounts Act
    William Mitchell Law Review Volume 1 | Issue 1 Article 2 1974 The "Poor Man's Will" Gains Respectability: Using the Minnesota Multi-Party Accounts Act Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation (1974) "The "Poor Man's Will" Gains Respectability: Using the Minnesota Multi-Party Accounts Act," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol1/iss1/2 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law et al.: The "Poor Man's Will" Gains Respectability: Using the Minnesota M THE "POOR MAN'S WILL" GAINS RESPECTABILITY: USING THE MINNESOTA MULTI-PARTY ACCOUNTS ACT I. INTRODUCTION A joint tenancy bank account or a Totten trust is commonly called the poor man's will, and consistent with the connotations of that sobriquet, has long been accorded a second-class status in American law.' Though these and other similar kinds of multi-party bank accounts are familiar will substitutes, the survivor's ability to claim the proceeds of the account after the death of the depositor has been grounded more in judicial grace than legal right. In many jurisdictions, it has been impossible to predict with any degree of cer- tainty whom the courts would consider the beneficial owner of funds on deposit in the account, rendering its use as an instrument of financial 2 planning risky if not impossible.
    [Show full text]
  • Trusts - Totten Trusts - Montgomery V
    Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 5 Article 18 Issue 2 Summer 1974 1974 Trusts - Totten Trusts - Montgomery v. Michaels, Surviving Spouse Can Reach a Totten Account to the Extent Necessary to Meet the Statutory Share Carlton Kevin McCrindle Follow this and additional works at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons Recommended Citation Carlton K. McCrindle, Trusts - Totten Trusts - Montgomery v. Michaels, Surviving Spouse Can Reach a Totten Account to the Extent Necessary to Meet the Statutory Share, 5 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 688 (1974). Available at: http://lawecommons.luc.edu/luclj/vol5/iss2/18 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRUSTS-TOTTEN TRUSTS-Montgomery v. Michaels, Surviving Spouse Can Reach a Totten Account to the Extent Necessary To Meet the Statutory Share Mrs. Bernice Dillon Montgomery had established eight savings ac- counts in two Chicago area banks' during her lifetime. The terms of the signature cards used by the banks differed, but they essentially provided that the accounts were in the name of Mrs. Montgomery as trustee for Andrice Fleming Michaels and Robert Dillon Fleming, her two children by a prior marriage.' Mrs. Montgomery died intestate on June 27, 1970, survived by her husband, Dr. Earl Montgomery, and her two children. Dr. Montgomery was appointed administrator
    [Show full text]