Fresno Lawyer – Randolf Krbechek

The courts are increasingly faced with the cases involving the interpretation and enforcement of estate planning trusts.  In Diaz v. Bukey (May 10, 2011) 2011 DJDAR 6650, the court concisely framed the dispute:

“The beneficiary of a trust petitions to remove her sister as trustee of their parents’ trust.  The trustee responds by seeking to compel arbitration of their dispute as provided by the trust documents.

“Though the sisters are beneficiaries of the trust, neither was party to any agreement that such disputes would be resolved by arbitration.

“Here we hold that the beneficiary of a trust who did not agree to arbitrate disputes arising under the trust may not be compelled to do so.”

It seems that the trust was a standardized form.  It included the following provision:

“Any dispute arising in connection with this Trust, including disputes between Trustee and any beneficiary or among Co–Trustees, shall be settled by the negotiation, mediation and arbitration provisions of that certain LawForms Integrity Agreement (Uniform Agreement Establishing Procedures for Settling Disputes ) entered into by the parties prior to, concurrently with or subsequent to the execution of this Trust.   In the event that the parties have not entered into a LawForms Integrity Agreement (Uniform Agreement Establishing Procedures for Settling Disputes ), then disputes in connection with this Trust shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association.”

(Of course, someone needs to produce the “integrity agreement.”)

On appeal, “Bukey contends that Diaz is a third party beneficiary of the Trust and she is equitably estopped from denying her obligation to arbitrate.”  Further, “Bukey relies on a trio of cases in which appellate courts have characterized a trust as a contract between a trustor and trustee.”

Explained the court of appeal, “We do not find these cases persuasive for several reasons.  First, they are factually inapposite.  The controversy here involves a dispute between the trustee and a beneficiary over the internal affairs of the Trust.”

Also,  “In Saks v. Damon Raike & Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 419, the court rejected the argument that a trust was a third party beneficiary contract. The court said: ‘The rules governing the respective rights of action of trustees and beneficiaries of express trusts are not the same as those generally applicable to promisees and third party beneficiaries’ . . .

“The general right of a third party beneficiary to sue on a contract made expressly for his or her benefit has no application where a trust has been created in favor of that party, and the contract in question is between the trustee and an agent of the trustee.”

The court concluded that the arbitration provision was not enforceable because the trust was a relationship, not a contract (which is the correct result).  “As a matter of law, the trusts at issue here were not contracts.”

“A beneficiary of a trust receives a beneficial interest in trust property while the beneficiary of a contract gains a personal claim against the promissor. Moreover, a fiduciary relationship exists between a trustee and a trust beneficiary while no such relationship generally exists between parties to a contract.”

“The legal distinctions between a trust and a contract are at the heart of why the beneficiaries cannot be required to arbitrate their claims against the defendants. Arbitration rests on an exchange of promises.  Parties to a contract may decide to exchange promises to substitute an arbitral for a judicial forum. Their agreement to do so may end up binding (or benefitting) nonsignatories.

“In contrast, a trust does not rest on an exchange of promises.  A trust merely requires a trustor to transfer a beneficial interest in property to a trustee who, under the trust instrument, relevant statutes and common law, holds that interest for the beneficiary.”

So, we have the correct result for the correct reasons.

Diaz v. Bukey (May 10, 2011) 2011 DJDAR 6650, 2011 WL 1759798

In McMackin v. Ehrheart (April 8, 2011) 2011 DJDAR 5122, the court of appeal held that a Marvin-based palimony claim under California law could be asserted against an estate more than three years after the decedent’s death.  We remark on the extent to which the law is willing to allow a person to make a claim to real property when that claim is not evidenced by a writing, and, even when title was held 100% in the decedent’s name, as in McMackin.

Before reviewing the decision, let’s cut to the chase.  Hugh McCrackin lived with Patricia McGinness for 17 years, from 1987 until 2004.  He helped her in her declining health.  Patricia told people that she wanted Hugh to live in her house for the rest of her life.  The couple never married.

Let’s accept all of the foregoing as true.  On the other hand, Patricia did not make a will manifesting her intentions.  Nor did she undertake the simple expediency of executing a deed with a life estate in favor of Hugh.  Now, after Patricia’s death, Hugh petitions the court to enforce Patricia’s oral intentions.

These facts do not strike this writer as commanding judicial intervention.  The ability to execute a will or a deed with a life estate is known to all.  The notion that courts should be quick to enforce oral agreements in derogation of the statute of frauds is discomforting, and bears greater scrutiny.

To return to the case.  “Plaintiff Hugh J. McMackin lived with Patricia Lyn McGinness in her home from approximately 1987 until [Patricia] died intestate on October 1, 2004. [Hugh] was never on title to the home but continued to occupy it after [Patricia]’s death.

“Defendants Kimberly Frost and Kellian Ehrheart are [Patricia]’s daughters and are the heirs of [Patricia]’s estate. On February 25, 2008, more than three years after [Patricia]’s death, [her daughter] opened a probate . . .

“On November 23, 2009, Ehrheart served [Hugh] with a 60-day notice to quit. On January 13, 2010, [Hugh] filed a complaint, the gravamen of which was that [Patricia] promised him a life estate in the home upon her death in consideration for 17 years of his ‘love, affection, care and companionship.’”

That’s the stage for this action.  “On January 21, 2010, [Hugh] filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order and for an order to show cause why an injunction should not issue to enjoin [the daughters] from evicting him from the home.”

The injunction was entered in favor of Hugh, and was affirmed on appeal.  According to Hugh, Patricia “agreed that he could live in the home for the rest of his life after her death and that she made this promise in consideration of the love, affection, care and companionship we shared over those 17 years.”  The housekeeper “declared that on approximately twenty (20) different occasions [Patricia] told her that she wanted [Hugh] to live in the home for the rest of his life.”

This is a classic case of an promise that lies outside the statute of frauds, and would normally be unenforceable.  Even more, California Probate Code section 366.3 provides that an action to enforce a claim arising from an agreement with a decedent for distribution from an estate must be filed within one year after the decedent’s death.  This statute applies to “a promise to transfer property upon death [that] could be performed only after death, by the decedent’s personal representative, by conveying property that otherwise belonged to the estate.”

The court of appeal noted that “The limitations period provided in this section for commencement of an action shall not be tolled or extended for any reason except as provided in Sections 12, 12a, and 12b of this code, and [certain provisions] of the Probate Code [not applicable to this action].”

Hugh would appear to be out of luck.  However, the court of appeal rescued Hugh by allowing him to apply the doctrine of “equitable estoppel.”  “The court held that there is a distinction between the doctrine of equitable estoppel, on the one hand, and the tolling or extension of the statute of limitations, on the other hand.”

In other words, “there is a distinction between tolling and equitable estoppel. Tolling concerns the suspension of the statute of limitations. The doctrine of equitable estoppel applies only after the limitations period has run to preclude a party from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense to an untimely action where the party’s conduct has induced another into forbearing to file suit.”

The court of appeal ruled that “depending on the circumstances of each case, the doctrine of equitable estoppel may preclude a party from asserting section 366.3 as a defense to an untimely action where the party’s wrongdoing has induced another to forbear filing suit.”

Unfortunately, the opinion does not address whether there was any factual basis for Hugh’s assertion of equitable estoppel against the daughters.  We do not know that the daughters did after the death of their mother that stopped the statute of limitations from running.

Stated the court, “We are not asked, nor do we decide, whether this implied ruling was supported by substantial evidence because [the daughters] made it clear at oral argument on appeal that they challenge the application of equitable estoppel as a matter of law, not whether the evidence supported its application for the purposes of the issuance of a preliminary injunction.“

That’s the easy way out.  The court does not tell us what the daughters said or did that gave Hugh the right claim they were estopped (i.e., prevented by their conduct) from asserting the one-year statute of limitations as a defense.  For the time being, Hugh has deftly stepped over both the statute of frauds and the statute of limitations.

McMackin v. Ehrheart (April 8, 2011) 2011 DJDAR 5122

The decision in Bonfigli v. Strachan (Feb. 24, 2011) 2011 DJDAR 2893 is a reminder not to press for advantage when using a power of attorney.  The defendant was a developer who used a power of attorney to reconfigure two parcels so that he got to keep the land, but did not have to pay the seller.  Needless to say, the court of appeal was not amused.

As part of its analysis, the court considered the rules applicable to a “power coupled with an interest,” and based its decision on a Supreme Court case from 1823.  Let’s take a history lesson.

Plaintiff owned two parcels on Sebastopol Road in Santa Rosa.  The defendant developer needed “needed the [plaintiffs’] parcel in order to develop the overall project, and specifically, the ‘Village Square’ portion of the development.”  Defendant took an option to purchase the properties.  In a critical fact, “The option expired on July 1, 2001, without being exercised.”

Here’s where it gets interesting.  “In May 2001, respondents filed a lot line adjustment application with the City of Santa Rosa.”  Acting under a power of attorney, the developer executed the lot line adjustment on behalf of plaintiffs.  According to the court, “the reason given for the lot line adjustment was to ‘reconfigure lot line as desired by property owners.’”

However, the reality was that “the requested adjustment decreased the size of the Bonfiglis’ front parcel by approximately 60 percent,” with the acreage being transferred to a different parcel owned by the developer.  Which is to say, the defendant took land from plaintiffs “to create a buildable parcel [but] respondents did not pay the Bonfiglis for the transfer nor did they ever purchase the front parcel.”

Then, to rub salt in the wound, the developer encumbered the property with a $22.6 million loan.  “The Bonfiglis’ parcel, among others, was used as collateral for the loan, with respondents signing as attorneys-in-fact for the Bonfiglis . . . even though the option had expired.”  This was followed, not surprisingly, by a bankruptcy filing by the entity that was being used to make the development.

It seems astonishing that this case made it to a jury, and more astonishing that plaintiffs did not prevail (however, reversed on appeal).  The critical issues on appeal involved a power of attorney signed by plaintiffs in 2000.

Here the court used its wayback machine, stating that “California decisional law has consistently followed the definition of a power coupled with an interest set out by Chief Justice Marshall in Hunt v. Rousmanier (1823) 21 U.S. 174, 203: ‘A power coupled with an interest,” is a power which accompanies, or is connected with, an interest.  The power and the interest are united in the same person.’”

This isn’t a traditional power of attorney.  Its sui generis.  “The purpose of a power coupled with an interest is to protect the agent’s interest in the subject and its value, this kind of power of attorney is not an ‘agency’ as that term is commonly understood.  Rather, the creator of the power relinquishes irrevocably any authority to direct the attorney-in-fact who is permitted, under such an arrangement, to act solely in his own interests. “

This special kind of power of attorney does not create fiduciary obligations by the power holder in favor of his principal.  Citing the Restatement Third of Agency, section 3.12, the court explained that a “power given as security does not create a relationship of agency . . . The holder is not subject to the creator’s control and the holder does not owe fiduciary duties to the creator.”

However, “If the creator grants the power to protect an ownership interest of the holder, the power terminates when the holder no longer has the ownership interest.” For this reason, the developer was held liable for wrongful acts after its option had expired.  “The powers granted to [the developer gave] them the power to use the land to develop the project.  The interest being protected is the right to purchase the property at a specified price; and the value of that interest was secured by respondents’ ability to control the property for development purposes.”

Even more, the developer (Alan Strachan, who was represented by family member Gordon Strachan) was held personally liable for the injuries to plaintiffs because he directed his business entity to execute the lot line adjustment.

Explained that court, “Respondents [ ] cannot escape potential liability by using their business entity as a shield . . . Directors or officers are liable to third persons who are injured by their own tortious conduct regardless of whether they acted on behalf of the corporation and regardless of whether the corporation is also liable.”

Added the court, “This liability does not depend on the same grounds as ‘piercing the corporate veil,’ on account of inadequate capitalization for instance, but rather on the officer or director’s personal participation or specific authorization of the tortious act.”

In the end, justice was served.

Bonfigli v. Strachan (Feb. 24, 2011) 2011 DJDAR 2893

The recent decision in Kucker v. Kucker focused on a narrow issue.  Is a general assignment of assets valid for transfer of stock into an estate planning trust?  The court answered in the affirmative, but not before confronting the statute of frauds.  And not before stating an important distinction regarding real property.

The facts were as follows. “On June 29, 2009, at the age of 84 years, [Mona Berkowitz]  signed a declaration creating a revocable inter vivos trust.  On the same date, [Mrs. Berkowitz] signed a general property assignment stating, “I . . . hereby assign, transfer and convey to Mona S. Berkowitz, Trustee of the [the Trust], all of my right, title and interest in all property owned by me, both real and personal and wherever located.”

Mrs. Berkowitz “died in November 2009. In February 2010, appellants filed a petition to confirm that 3,017 shares of stock in Medco Health Solutions, Inc., (Medco) were an asset of the Trust.”

Here is where the dispute arose.  “Medco was not mentioned in the assignment of stock signed by the Trustor on October 29, 2009.  Appellants declared that the Medco shares were not held in the Trust’s brokerage account at the time of the Trustor’s death.”

The beneficiaries of the estate planning trust sought a declaration that the Medco stock was an asset of the trust.  The trial court held that “Probate Code section 15207 must be read in conjunction with Civil Code section 1624(a)(7).  In those instances where the settler intends to transfer assets in excess of $100,000, a writing specifically describing the property is required. Accordingly, the petition confirming assets in the trust is denied.”

This ruling was reversed on appeal.  The appellate court first dealt with the statute of frauds issue, holding that, “Civil Code section 1624, subdivision (a)(7), cannot be construed as applying to the transfer of shares of stock to a Trust.  The plain meaning of the words of the statute manifests a legislative intent to limit the statute’s application to agreements to loan money or extend credit made by persons in the business of loaning money or extending credit.”

Then the court turned to the effect of the assignment.  As to land, a general assignment is not effective.  “The General Assignment was ineffective to transfer the Trustor’s real property to the Trust.  To satisfy the statute of frauds, the General Assignment was required to describe the real property so that it could be identified.”

According to the court, this restriction does not apply to shares of stock.  “The issue here concerns the Trustor’s transfer of shares of stock, not real property. The statute of frauds does not apply to such a transfer. (Civ. Code, § 1624.)  There is no California authority invalidating a transfer of shares of stock to a trust because a general assignment of personal property did not identify the shares.  Nor should there be.”

Held the court, “it was unnecessary for the General Assignment to identify the Medco stock.  The practice guide says that such a general assignment of personal property is a commonly used estate planning tool.”

So, the general assignment saves the day for the transfer of stock into an estate planning trust.

Kucker v. Kucker (Jan. 26, 2011) 2011 DJDAR 1477

In a recent bankruptcy case, the Ninth Circuit held that a transfer to a trust could be set aside years after the transfer was made.  In In re Schwarzkopf (9th Cir Nov. 23, 2010) ___ F.3d ___, the court held that, because the transfer was a fraud on creditors at the time it was made, the taint of fraud was not erased by the passage of time.

Accordingly, when the debtors filed a bankruptcy petition more than a decade after the trust was formed, the trustee could set aside the transfer and recover the property for benefit of other creditors.

This result is somewhat surprising, considering that California law provides a seven-year statute of limitations to challenge a fraudulent transfer.  The court held that the statute of limitations did not start to run until years later, when the named trustee disputed that the trust assets were part of the bankruptcy estate.

The underlying facts were as follows.  “The Debtors created both the Apartment Trust and the Grove Trust on June 15, 1992. They named their minor child, Sydnee Michaels [as] beneficiary and appointed Juan Briones [as] trustee.  Simultaneously with the creation of the Apartment Trust, Michaels transferred all the stock of Kokee Woods Apartments, Inc. to the Apartment Trust.”

The trial court found that the 1992 conveyance was fraudulent.  Specifically, “the bankruptcy court found that . . . the Debtors were insolvent and that [the Debtors] devised the transfer to avoid his creditors’ ability to recover the asset.  Therefore, it concluded, the transfer was made for the fraudulent purpose of avoiding the Debtors’ creditors.”

Now, as it turned out, the debtors subsequently became solvent – “After the transfer, Michaels successfully appealed the verdict.”  But that did not cure the taint that existed at the time of the original transfer to trust.

This action was commenced in bankruptcy court.  “In October 2003, the Debtors filed bankruptcy petitions seeking to discharge approximately $5.4 million in debt.  Goodrich, as trustee for the consolidated bankruptcy estates, filed an adversary complaint seeking to recover approximately $4 million in assets from the Apartment Trust and the Grove Trust.“

Held the Ninth Circuit, “We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the Apartment Trust is invalid, and we further hold that Goodrich’s claim to invalidate it is not time-barred.  Because we hold that the Apartment Trust is invalid and may therefore be disregarded, we need not address whether it is Michaels’s alter ego.”

Explained the court, “It is well-settled that a trust created for the purpose of defrauding creditors or other persons is illegal and may be disregarded.  Properly designating a minor child as a beneficiary does not validate a trust that was created with an improper purpose.”

“Here, the bankruptcy court found that Michaels transferred the Kokee Woods stock simultaneously with the creation of the Apartment Trust and that the transfer ‘was made for the fraudulent purpose of avoiding the Debtors’ creditors.’  Those findings are sufficient to establish that Michaels’s purpose in creating the trust was to defraud creditors.  The Apartment Trust is therefore an invalid trust.”

As an invalid trust, the passage of time did not wash away any sins at the inception of the trust.  “Even to the extent it alleges fraudulent transfer, Goodrich’s claim is not time-barred by the seven-year statute of limitations set forth in California Civil Code § 3439.09(c).  If an express trust fails – if, for instance, it was formed for a fraudulent purpose – the trustee holds legal title to the property on a resulting trust for the trustor and his or her heirs.“

What the court is saying, implicitly, is that a fraudulent conveyance in trust is an illegal transfer, and will never become valid, notwithstanding the passage of time.

“Because the Apartment Trust is invalid, Briones is a voluntary trustee on a resulting trust for Michaels and his heirs. The statute of limitations did not begin to run until Briones repudiated the trust, that is, until he answered Goodrich’s complaint and denied that the Apartment Trust’s assets are property of the bankruptcy estate. We therefore conclude that Goodrich’s claim is not time-barred, and we affirm the district court’s judgment that the Apartment Trust is invalid.”

In re Schwarzkopf (9th Cir Nov. 23, 2010) ___ F.3d ___

In the recent decision in Citizens Business Bank v. Carrano (Nov. 05, 2010), the court sensibly applied the rules for construing a will to the interpretation of an estate planning trust.  This is an appropriate result, considering that the trust was intended to serve as a substitute for will.  However, the law authorizing such a result is not as clear as it should be, at least under the statute.

The facts make for an entertaining read.  According to the court, “Charles and Serena Papaz created the Papaz Family Trust on August 2, 1966.  Charles and Serena ha[d] one child, Christopher.  Christopher fathered three children out of wedlock.”

The lawsuit concerned one of the grandchildren, Jonathan.  The matter of Jonathan’s conception was unusual, to say the least.  The court found that, “Christopher (the son) met Jonathan’s mother, Kathy Carrano, when he was shot in the leg in 1984.”

“Kathy was Christopher’s physical therapist while he was in the hospital and she continued to care for him during his recovery at his parents’ home.  One night, Christopher gave Kathy a drug and had sex with her without her knowledge.  Jonathan was conceived that night.”

Only in California, you might say.  But wait, the story gets better.  “Kathy was married to another man at the time. Jonathan was born in August 1985.  Kathy and her husband raised Jonathan as their child.  A few years after he was born, Kathy learned that Jonathan was Christopher’s son and not her husband’s.  Jonathan was never formally adopted by Kathy’s husband.”

“Christopher, however, appeared to be aware that Jonathan was his son from the beginning.  He bragged to his friend, Vahe Tatoian, when Kathy was pregnant that, “I know this is my kid.’”

Christopher led a troubled life.  “In December 2006, Christopher became paralyzed from his neck down and could no longer speak.  In January 2007, Kathy told both Jonathan and Charles [the grandfather] that Christopher was Jonathan’s biological father.  Jonathan introduced himself to Charles, saying, ‘I am Jonathan, your grandson, Christopher’s son.’  Charles ‘reached over and grabbed [Jonathan’s] hand and said, ‘I know.’”

After Christopher’s death, an issue arose as to who was entitled to inherit under the trust.  The trust provided for distributions to Christopher’s “then-living issue.”  The matter wound up in court when “Citizens Business Bank, as trustee to the Papaz Family Trust, filed a petition for an order ascertaining beneficiaries and determining entitlement to distribution.”

Held the court, “The ultimate question in this case is whether the Papaz Family Trust’s definition of ‘issue’ includes Jonathan.  Jonathan argues that the term ‘issue’ in the trust instrument is unambiguous.  We agree.”

First, the court applied basic contract law, stating that “whether an ambiguity exists in a writing is an issue of law subject to independent review on appeal.”  Then the court reached out and connected trust law with the law of wills, as follows:

“Our Supreme Court’s opinion in Estate of Russell (1968) 69 Cal.2d 200, 205-206, lays the foundation for our interpretation of a trust instrument: ‘The paramount rule in the construction of wills, to which all other rules must yield, is that a will is to be construed according to the intention of the testator as expressed therein, and this intention must be given effect as far as possible.’”

Now, I agree with this analysis, specifically, that estate planning trusts should be construed by rules similar to those applicable to the law of wills.  The Carrano court makes an explicit link between the two bodies of law, a link that is not always followed, either in case law or in statute.

The court continued.  “The rule is well established that where the meaning of the will, on its face, taking the words in the ordinary sense, is entirely clear, and where no latent ambiguity is made to appear by extrinsic evidence, there can be no evidence of extrinsic circumstances to show that the testatrix intended or desired to do something not expressed in the will.”

The court found that the word “issue” had a statutory definition which included all three of Christopher’s children, regardless of the unusual circumstances by which Jonathan was conceived.  Stated the court, “typically, latent ambiguities arise where two persons or things answer the description of a bequest, or where there is a mistaken description and one or more persons match a portion of the bequest . .  However, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to change a testator’s intent.”

Having found no ambiguity in the word “issue,” the court ruled in favor of Jonathan, concluding that, “Just as in Estate of Russell, we are not at liberty to rewrite the Papaz Family Trust to attach restrictions to the term ‘issue’ that Serena and Charles did not expressly include.”

The court reached the right decision for the right reasons, but I am not positive that the line connecting law of wills to the law of trusts is quite as straight as the court would have us believe.

Citizens Business Bank v. Carrano (Nov. 05, 2010) — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 4371042

The recent decision in Lickter v. Lickter (Oct. 27, 2010) — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 4231300 highlights of three important points.  First, a trust beneficiary does not have standing to pursue a claim on behalf of the trust after the beneficiary has received his or her distribution pursuant to the trust.  This may seem like a common-sense answer, but it took a published appellate decision to affirm the point.

Second, draftspersons should be careful in how they handle pour over provisions in wills.  It is common to couple an estate planning trust with a pour over will.  By such standard estate planning documentation, the pour over will transfers any assets into the trust that were not already titled in the name of the trust at the time of the trustor’s death.

Yet, this can lead to an awkward circumstance if the asset consists of a claim for personal injury to the trustor, such as wrongful death or elder abuse.  Depending on how the pour over will was drafted, such claim may pass to the trust, to be prosecuted in the name of the trustee for benefit of the trust and its beneficiaries.  Draftspersons may wish to consider modifying their pour over wills to provide that such claims for personal injury are the property of one or more named persons, rather than property of the trust.

Third, this case emphasizes the importance of making pecuniary bequests to persons whom the trustor wants to preclude from attacking the trust.  If the trustor makes a gift of $0.00 a potential beneficiary, then the beneficiary has no reason not to attack the trust.  If the beneficiary loses, he still gets nothing; if he wins, then he gets something under the trust.

In this case, the beneficiaries who wanted to launch a challenge received specific bequests, which requests were distributed to them by the trustee.  By such distribution, the trustee prevented an attack on the trust.

Here’s how the court addressed the matter.  “The underlying facts are largely irrelevant. For our purposes, it is sufficient to say that Lois died in August 2007 at the age of 91, leaving property in a trust, of which Robert became the trustee. The terms of the trust provided that upon Lois’s death, $10,000 each would be distributed to plaintiffs and the entire residue of the trust would then be distributed to Robert.  If Robert predeceased Lois, the residue was to be distributed to Maggie and Kate.  If Maggie and Kate also predeceased Lois, the residue was to be distributed to their children or, if none, to Lois’s living children by right of representation.”

“Plaintiffs Joshua and Jezra Lickter sued their father (Robert Lickter), their half-sisters (Maggie and Kate Lickter), and their half-sisters’ mother (Mary McClain) for elder abuse and other related causes of action that had belonged to their grandmother (Robert’s mother), Lois Lickter, when she died.  Plaintiffs claimed they had standing to commence and maintain the action under Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.3(d).”

Explained the court, “The primary issue in this case is who is entitled to commence and/or maintain an elder abuse action after the elder who was allegedly abused has died . . . As we will explain, just because plaintiffs were beneficiaries of Lois’s trust did not make them ‘interested persons’ for purposes of pursuing this elder abuse action under subdivision (d) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.3 . . . Plaintiffs were former beneficiaries of Lois’s trust, as they already had been paid the amounts they were owed under the trust. Thus, plaintiffs had no such interest in this elder abuse action.”

Bravo for a pithy and direct analysis.  “Because Robert was Lois’s only surviving child, and because neither Maggie nor Kate had children, the residue of Lois’s trust would be distributed to plaintiffs under the terms of the trust if Robert, Maggie, and Kate all were deemed to have died before Lois.”

Here is the heart of the issue.  “It has long been clear under California probate law that a person who can claim the title of ‘heir’ is not necessarily an ‘interested person’ for purposes of instituting or participating in a particular proceeding in a probate case.  The question, rather, is whether the person – whether an heir, devisee, beneficiary, or other person – has an interest of some sort that may be impaired, defeated, or benefited by the proceeding at issue.”

Now shines the beauty of the specific bequests to the beneficiaries who wanted to institute the action.  “Here, when the trial court granted summary judgment, plaintiffs had no right in or claim to Lois’s trust estate by virtue of their status as former beneficiaries of Lois’s trust because all of the interest they had in Lois’s trust had been satisfied when they were each paid the $10,000 Lois left each of them.”

“Thus, they were no longer beneficiaries of the trust, let alone beneficiaries with ‘a property right in or claim against the trust estate which could be affected by the’ elder abuse action. For this reason, the trial court did not err in concluding that they did not have standing as ‘interested persons’ under subdivision (d)(1)(C) of Welfare and Institutions Code section 15657.3 in their role as beneficiaries of Lois’s trust.”

To drive the point home, the court further held that, “In other words, contrary to plaintiffs’ assertions, it is not true that Robert’s payment of the $10,000 each plaintiff was owed from the trust terminated their standing to pursue this action as beneficiaries of Lois’s trust. The fact is that plaintiffs’ status as beneficiaries of Lois’s trust never gave them standing to pursue this action because the beneficial interest they had in the trust estate was not one that could have been ‘affected by’ this action.”

Hat’s off to a clear, concise, and absolutely accurate decision.

Lickter v. Lickter (Oct. 27, 2010) — Cal.Rptr.3d —-, 2010 WL 4231300

Some estate plans make use of a “five-or-five” provision to help reduce the estate tax.  In the recent decision in Estate of Cairns (Sept. 15, 2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 937, the court had to interpret such a five-or-five provision many years after the death of the testator.

As the court explained, “Margaret Cairns executed a will in 1975, and died in 1977.”  The will established a testamentary trust.  The court continued.  “The five-or-five provision of the will [ ] specified: ‘The Trustee shall also pay to my son during his lifetime, from the principal of the trust, such amounts as he may from time to time request in writing, not exceeding in any calendar year, non-cumulatively, the greater of the following amounts: Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or Five Per Cent (5%) of the value of the principal of the trust, determined as of the end of the calendar year.’”

The trust was administered for many years after the death of Mrs. Cairns.  Eventually, demands were made for trust distribution in periods after the right to receive the funds arose. The court held that such requests were not time-barred.  Explained the court,

“As we read the provision, the beneficiary may make multiple demands from ‘time to time’ for distribution of Trust assets for a calendar year as long as the total amount demanded is no greater than $5,000 or 5 percent of the value of the principal of the trust.  The directive that the request must be non-cumulative refers to the total amount of the permissible distributions in a calendar year, not the date by which the demand must be exercised.  Finally, the total maximum distribution available to the beneficiary in any given calendar year is not ascertained or determined until the ‘end of the calendar year.’”

The court continued.  “Thus, if the 5 percent distribution is elected, the beneficiary will not even know the amount of the permissible demand until after the calendar year has concluded and an accounting is completed. The beneficiary may often not have adequate information to make a prudent decision as to which five-or-five election – five percent or $5,000 – is appropriate during the calendar year.”

The trustee disputed such interpretation under applicable tax law. The court swept aside these objections, stating “We reject Kenneth’s contention that the trial court’s interpretation of the instrument also is not in accord with applicable provisions of federal tax law.  We deal in the present case with an issue of interpretation of a trust document, which implicates state rather than federal tax law.  Further, Kenneth’s suggestion that under these tax rules, the beneficiary’s right to the disbursement lapses if the power is not exercised, is in keeping with our determination of the meaning of the five-or-five provision.”

This analysis seems incomplete. True, the court was obligated to review the written trust agreement. The court also was obligated to consider the circumstances under which the trust agreement was drafted. The circumstances included the tax rules applicable at the time that the will was drafted. The interpretation should have taken these circumstances into consideration.

The court made the following findings. “We therefore interpret the five-or-five provision to mean: during his lifetime [the beneficiary] is not required to make a single demand for distribution of principal during each calendar year in which the maximum total amount of the distribution is calculated.”

OK, that makes sense.

“He may make multiple written demands for distribution of principal from time to time within a single year, as long as the total amount requested for any single calendar year does not exceed the annual 5 percent or $5,000 maximum.”

Agreed. That’s what the document states.

“The proscription against non-cumulative requests prohibits him from making demands for less than the maximum amount for one calendar year, then seeking to add the amount not requested for that year to the distribution the next year.”

Agreed again. The distributions were to be noncumulative.

“The total maximum distribution amount available to him, whether it is 5 percent or $5,000, is calculated as of the end of each calendar year.”

Again, that’s the document states.

“And, he must make his demands for distribution before the end of the next calendar year after the determination of the value of the principal of the Trust to avoid the ban against non-cumulative distributions ‘in any calendar year.’”

This prevents the beneficiary from requesting distributions many years after the fact.  In conclusion, “We have found that the Trust does not require [the beneficiary] to exercise his right to a principal distribution in a given calendar year to receive the distribution related to that same year. Thus, he was not required to make his demands for the year 2007 in the year 2007. The ban on cumulative distributions required him to demand principal distributions not in excess of the five-or-five maximum for the year 2007 by no later than the end of 2008.”

In the end, a sensible interpretation.

Estate of Cairns (Sept. 15, 2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 937

Here’s a recent case in which the result cannot be what the decedent intended.  As a starting point, let’s discuss the law of wills.

When a distribution is made by will (or by intestate succession), the gift is effected at the time of death.  Absent a disclaimer, the recipient and his or her heirs are entitled to the property.  If the recipient dies before the transfer is completed from the estate, his heirs take the property when the transfer is subsequently finished.

Most of us would have expected the same result with an estate planning trust.  If a gift to a child made by a trust takes effect at the death of the parent, we would expect that the gift became “permanent” if the child survived the parent, even if the final distribution was delayed.

Alas, things are never as settled or certain with a trust agreement.  In Weinberger v. Morris (Sept. 24, 2010) 2010 WL 3720812, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,073, the child survived the parent, but died before final distribution from the trust.  The court held that the property passed to a different family member (not the child’s heirs) based on a slanted reading of the trust agreement.  Here is the court’s analysis.

“During her lifetime, Mrs. Weinberger had two children, Sheila and Robert . . . On October 12, 1996, Mrs. Weinberger executed a declaration of trust [ ].  On the same date, Mrs. Weinberger executed a quitclaim deed transferring her Atoll Avenue property to the Trust.”

Stop here.  This meant that Mrs. Weinberger wanted the Atoll Avenue property to be distributed in accordance with the trust agreement.  What did the trust say?

“The Trust provided that after Mrs. Weinberger’s death . . . all trust assets, save the personal effects which Mrs. Weinberger requested distributed in separate written instructions, were to go to Sheila.”

“Article 5.2 of the Trust instrument provided that, if Sheila died prior to receiving final distribution, the undistributed principal and income was to go to Davis.  Article 5.2 further provided that, if all of the named beneficiaries died prior to final distribution of the Trust estate, its remainder was to go to the heirs of the trustees.”

Most of us would conclude that daughter Sheila received the property if she survived her mother, which she did.  “Mrs. Weinberger died in May 1997.  On December 22, 1997, Sheila recorded an Affidavit Death of Trustee/Trustor.”

Sheila almost certainly believed the Affidavit of Death was sufficient to complete the distribution.  Here is the critical fact that caused the distribution to bypass Sheila.  “After recording the affidavit of Mrs. Weinberger’s death as trustee/trustor of the Trust, Sheila never executed, delivered or recorded – in her role as successor trustee of the Trust – any documents to transfer the Atoll Avenue property out of the Trust and to herself as the beneficiary of 100 percent of the Trust estate.”

So what, you ask?  Why do Sheila’s heirs lose out on the inheritance?  “Sheila died in September 2002 . . .  In November 2005, Davis recorded an Affidavit – Death of Trustee disclosing that Sheila had died.  At the same time, Davis, as Successor Trustee, executed a quitclaim deed transferring the Atoll Avenue property out of the Trust, and to himself. Davis recorded the quitclaim deed in December 2005.”

“Robert contend[ed that] Davis never acquired any right, title or interest in the assets held by the Trust.  More specifically, Robert argue[d] that the assets owned by the Trust irrevocably vested in Sheila on the death of Sue Weinberger.  Robert contend[ed] that he [was] entitled – as Sheila’s sole heir – to the assets which were once held by the Trust [because the] Trust did not exist after the death of Sue Weinberger and certainly not after Sheila Weinberger’s recording of her Affidavit Death of Trustor/Trustee on December 22, 1997.”

On appeal, the court rejected this argument.  Explained the court, “Robert’s argument implicates the ‘merger doctrine,’ which may be summarized as follows:  When the sole trustee of a trust and the sole beneficiary of the trust become one-and-the-same person, the duties of the person, in his or her role as trustee, and the interests of the person, in his or her role as beneficiary, ‘merge,’ meaning that the trust terminates as a matter of law, and the trust’s assets irrevocably vest in the beneficiary.”

Wow.  That’s an old theory from real property law, and not the best analogy.  The better analogy comes the law of wills.  To no avail for Robert, as the court held that, “The language employed by Mrs. Weinberger in her trust instrument provided that, upon her death, the trustee would pay certain expenses and distribute her personal effects in accord with her written directions, and distribute the remainder to Sheila.  If Mrs. Weinberger’s trust instrument ended there, then Robert’s argument might prevail, but it did not. Mrs. Weinberger’s trust instrument further provided in Article 5.2.A: ‘If Sheila should die prior to receiving final distribution, the undistributed principal and income of such beneficiary’s share shall be held, administered and distributed for the benefit of Lee Davis.’”

“We see no language in Mrs. Weinberger’s trust instrument indicating that it imposed upon a trustee an affirmative duty to make a prompt distribution of the Trust’s assets to Sheila upon Mrs. Weinberger’s death.  At the same time, the Trust included express language governing the contingency of Sheila’s death prior to a distribution of trust assets to her.”

“The primary cases cited by Robert [ ] involved a will, meaning any interpretation of the instrument had to be rendered in light of the public policy favoring the ‘prompt’ distribution of an estate.  Depending upon its terms, a trust may serve significantly different purposes than a will.”

Correct.  Now, to hold against Robert, the court has to state that this was a property management trust, not an asset distribution (aka estate planning) trust.  Which it cannot do, but it could bend the language to serve its own purposes.  “Taylor involved an instrument which included no language regarding the time limits for distribution of estate assets . . .  The language found in Mrs. Weinberger’s trust instrument gives no such indication that she intended a prompt distribution of her trust’s assets.”

Oh, the mischief that comes from these non-probate distributions.  Time to change your trust agreements.

Weinberger v. Morris (Sept. 24, 2010) 2010 WL 3720812, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,073

Conventional wisdom is that a safe deposit box is a safe place to store valuable belongings.  And that’s true, as long as the owner keeps track of the contents of the safe deposit box.

Yet, I have handled a case in which a bank denied, in writing, the existence of a safe deposit box in the decedent’s name.  A few months later, when presented with the key to the safe deposit box, the bank “found” the box and we recovered thousands of dollars in U.S. government bonds.

The plaintiff in Gabriel v. Wells Fargo Bank (Aug. 30, 2010) 2010 DJDAR 14579 did not fare as well.  In Gabriel v. Wells Fargo Bank, the decedent held a safe deposit box.  The widow learned of the safe deposit box 16 years after her husband’s death.  In the box was a non-negotiable certificate of deposit in the face amount of $976,691.60, payable to the widow.

But because the widow could not prove a negative (specifically, because she could not prove that Wells Fargo Bank had not already paid out on the certificate of deposit), she lost at the trial court and on appeal.

That’s a bitter pill, and a strange decision.  Here are the facts and the holding.
“On June 22, 1988, Hideo purchased a certificate of deposit from Wells Fargo in the amount of $976,691.60, payable to his wife Kuniko.  Interest from the certificate was to be placed in a savings account held in Kuniko’s name.  Hideo apparently placed a receipt from the bank for the certificate of deposit account in a safe deposit box at the bank which was also in Kuniko’s name.”

Sounds like great facts.  “Hideo died in November 1991 . . . In April 2002, Wells Fargo opened the safe deposit box because the rental fee had not been paid and the box was presumed abandoned.  It found the certificate of deposit and in June 2006 sent it to the California Controller’s Office as unclaimed property.”

Still going strong.  “In August 2007, Kuniko received a letter from the controller’s office informing her that it was holding the contents of a safe deposit box from Wells Fargo. The controller sent her the contents of the box, which included the receipt for the certificate of deposit. This was the first time that she learned of the existence of the certificate of deposit or of the savings account . . . Kuniko sued Wells Fargo, claiming that it failed to pay her the money in the accounts.”

What more do you need?  A lot, according to the court.  “The court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, finding that despite the absence of definitive records, Wells Fargo had presented sufficient evidence of its normal business practices to establish that no funds remained in either account.”

Are you wondering what went wrong?  You should be.   Here’s how Wells Fargo got away scot-free.  “Wells Fargo has no records indicating that any funds from the CD account or the savings account were ever transferred to the State Controller’s Office as unclaimed property.  If any unclaimed funds remained in either of these accounts, those funds would have been escheated to the State Controller’s Office and Wells Fargo would have records of that fact.”

OK, so the bank did not pay out the funds to the state as unclaimed property.  What happened to the million dollars, which was payable to the widow?  “Wells Fargo [determined] that neither account was open, and that no records existed which would show when those accounts had been closed or how much money had been in the account when they were open.”

Watch the train wreck unfold before your eyes.   “Wells Fargo’s evidence establishes that the absence of specific Wells Fargo records infers that the certificate of deposit was withdrawn.   Since there is no evidence that plaintiff Yamamoto’s late husband did not withdraw the funds, and no evidence that the terms of the certificate of deposit account did not permit him to withdraw the funds, plaintiff Yamamoto is unable to meet her burden of producing evidence on an essential element of her claim.”

Really?  The widow loses?  Said the court, “At trial Kuniko would have the burden of proving nonpayment.”  Well. The widow said she never received the money.  Isn’t that enough?

No way, said the court.  “Wells Fargo submitted the declaration of the operations manager of the bank’s unclaimed property department who is responsible for monitoring dormant accounts and reporting escheated property to the State Controller’s Office.  Her declaration states that ‘it is Wells Fargo’s policy and practice to maintain account records for seven years after the account has been closed.’”

No tickee, no laundry.  Or, because the bank has no records, the widow loses.  “Wells Fargo’s evidence that no money remained in the accounts shifted to Kuniko the burden of presenting evidence sufficient to create a triable issue as to nonpayment, and her possession of the receipt and her testimony were insufficient to do so.  The trial court therefore properly granted summary judgment in favor of Wells Fargo.”

The moral of this story – make sure that your family knows how to find your valuable possessions.  Also, bankers have a powerful lobby, and the laws favor them to an unreasonable degree.

Gabriel v. Wells Fargo Bank (Aug. 30, 2010) 2010 DJDAR 14579