 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Powell v. Powell9/29/2000
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION *
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Trinity County, Robert F. Kaster, J. (Judge of the Siskiyou Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, ยง 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed.
In this proceeding to probate the will of Myrtle Louise Powell, the trial court entered judgment providing that the decedent's share of community property shall remain in a revocable trust created by the decedent and her husband. Husband appeals claiming he revoked the trust after the decedent's death and is therefore entitled to the entire estate. He further contends that, in any event, community property was not properly transferred to the trust and he is entitled to a greater share of the family residence by virtue of his separate property contributions.
In the published portion of this opinion, we conclude the trust assets, which were community property of the trustors, were transmuted to separate property upon decedent's death. Therefore, husband's revocation of the trust resulted in one-half of the trust assets being returned to husband and the other half being disposed of according to decedent's will. We also conclude the unrecorded trust instrument was sufficient as between the trustors to convert joint tenancy property assigned to the trust into community property. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we reject husband's remaining claims.
Facts and Procedural History
Myrtle Louise Powell died on July 26, 1995. She was survived by her husband of over 30 years, William C. Powell, and her son from a previous marriage, Ronald Parker.
Both Myrtle and William owned real property prior to their marriage which was later sold and the proceeds used to purchase or improve real property occupied by the couple during the marriage. Both spouses worked during the marriage. At one point, William received a personal injury award which he used for improvements o the couple's real property. William retired in the mid-1970's; Myrtle in the early 1980's.
In 1988, Myrtle and William executed a trust (the 1988 trust) which designated Myrtle as the trustee and Ronald as a successor trustee.
The trust identified Myrtle and William as beneficiaries and provided that, upon the death of either trustor, the other would become the sole beneficiary. All income from trust assets was to be distributed to or for the benefit of the trustors or their survivor and, upon the death of both trustors, the trust estate was to be distributed to Ronald. Finally, the trust provided for revocation "at any time during the lifetime of Trustors . . . ."
On March 27, 1991, Myrtle and William executed a new trust (the 1991 trust) revoking the earlier one. The 1991 trust contains essentially the same terms as the predecessor except it permits revocation "at any time during the lifetime of either Trustor . . . ." (Italics added.) The trust assets are listed in an attached schedule A and include real property in Weaverville, California, various stocks and bank accounts and all household items and other personal property.
On the same day the trust went into effect, Myrtle executed a will leaving all of her property to the trustee of the 1991 trust "to be held, managed, and distributed in accordance with the provisions contained therein."
At the time of Myrtle's death, July 26, 1995, the 1991 trust had not been revoked by either spouse. However, William executed a notice of revocation on July 1, 1996.
On August 14, 1996, Ronald filed a petition to probate Myrtle's will. On January 17, 1997, the will was admitted to probate and Ronald was appointed exec
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|