Family Law
[05/15] In re Marriage Cases
In an action challenging California's ban on gay marriage, the state Supreme Court rules that the California Constitution must be interpreted to guarantee the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples. The laws at issue are unconstitutional to the extent each statute reserves the designation of "marriage" exclusively to opposite-sex couples and denies same-sex couples access to that designation. The purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes, the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage, is not a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause.
[05/12] In re Marriage of Holtemann
In a dispute about the legal effect of a spousal property transmutation agreement executed during marriage, judgment finding the underlying agreement effectuated a transmutation of husband's separate property into community property is affirmed where: 1) the unambiguous language in the parties' agreement evinced that the husband intended to, and did transmute his separate property; 2) nothing in the record suggested that the husband was misinformed or misled in light of the requisite express, unequivocal declarations of transmutations; and 3) his arguments for disparate treatment of his express declarations of transmutation based on his lack of separate counsel were unavailing, as he was fully advised of the consequences of failing to secure separate counsel, yet chose to proceed.
[05/09] Baran v. Beaty
In a case involving a mother who removed her minor son from Australia, denial of father's petition for return of the minor pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the International Child Abduction Remedies Act of 1988 is affirmed where: 1) based on evidence of the father's propensity for violence, the district court did not err in concluding that returning the minor to Australia would expose him to a grave risk of psychological harm; and 2) because the court was not presented with any proposed undertakings that could ameliorate the risk of harm to the child under the circumstances presented, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition for return.
More...
Tax Law
[05/15] US v. Wealth & Tax Advisory Servs., Inc.
In a tax case, an order denying the government's petition to enforce a summons issued by the IRS is reversed where: 1) a 29-page "draft opinion letter" sent by taxpayers' accountants to the taxpayers' tax lawyers, containing extensive legal authority and analysis of a complicated tax transaction, constituted a "memorandum"; and 2) thus, even though the letter was characterized as a "draft," it was nevertheless subject to disclosure pursuant to taxpayers' agreement to provide to the IRS "[a]ll opinions and memoranda that provide a legal analysis" of the transaction in question.
[05/13] S&M Brands, Inc. v. Cooper
In an action involving the Tennessee's Attorney General's enforcement of an amended escrow provision in the Master Settlement Agreement between various states and tobacco manufacturers alleging an impermissible retroactive effect in violation of due process, a summary judgment ruling is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case without prejudice on grounds of sovereign immunity where: 1) continuous application of the retroactive statute is unlikely; 2) states enjoy immunity in federal court for tax-related claims; 3) the inherent dignity of the sovereign state favors immunity; and 4) the semi-tax nature of the escrow system would better lend itself to a suit in state court.
[05/12] Kornman & Assocs. Inc. v. US
In a proceeding under the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) in which plaintiffs were alleged to have attempted to create an artificial tax loss through the short sale of Treasury Notes and the transfer of partnership interests, summary judgment for the government and dismissal with prejudice of a petition for readjustment of partnership items is affirmed where the obligation to close a short sale is a liability for purposes of I.R.C. section 752.
More...
Probate Trusts
[05/15] Miller v. Campbell
In a fees dispute brought by a law firm against the executor of an estate after the probate court refused to award a category of fees associated with services rendered for the executor's personal matters, grant of executor's motions in limine to exclude all evidence, resulting in dismissal of the case, is reversed where: 1) the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel did not apply to bar the law firm's claim of fees against the executor personally; and 2) in light of the evidence, the trial court erroneously ruled that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to support the law firm's quantum meruit claim.
[05/13] Montegani v. Johnson
In a dispute over a decedent's estate involving revocable and irrevocable trusts, an order denying plaintiff's Probate Code section 21320 application based on her lack of standing for section 21320 relief is affirmed where, as part of its duty to oversee the administration of the estate and insure orderly administration of justice, the trial court properly concluded that plaintiff was no longer a beneficiary of the trusts at issue, and thus lacked standing to seek declaratory relief under section 21320.
[05/06] Estate of Herold
An order denying petitioner's safe harbor petition, which sought a declaration that his proposed "Petition for Information" would not amount to a will contest, is reversed and remanded where the trial court erred in finding that a no contest clause of the will was incorporated by reference into a trust.
More...
Wills & Trusts
[06/30] MICHAEL J. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY (ROGERS)
The conservator of the person and the estate of a mentally disabled person who is unable to communicate her wishes does not have the power to initiate and prosecute a petition for the dissolution of her marriage.
[03/12] E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK
Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account.
[03/12] E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK
Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account. (Amended opinion)
More...
Bankruptcy Law
[05/15] In re: Resource Tech. Corp.
In a bankruptcy proceeding in which plaintiffs sought to be assigned a contract bankruptcy debtor had with a third party, bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to compel the trustee to assume the contract and then assign it is affirmed where: 1) the court did not improperly consider whether the contract between the debtor and the third party had expired in order to determine if the trustee could assume the contract without being subject to sanctions under Rule 9011; 2) orders extending the time for the trustee to assume or reject the contract were not a basis to contend that the contract had not expired; 3) third party was not estopped from asserting that the contract had expired; and 4) there was no need for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the contract had expired.
[05/14] In re: M & S Grading, Inc.,
In an appeal following a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to require a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee to show cause why he should not be found in contempt for failing to pay contributions ordered while the debtor's case was in Chapter 11, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction where: 1) the bankruptcy court's order denying a motion to show cause was not a final appealable order; and 2) the order did not qualify as a collateral order, for purposes of the collateral order doctrine.
[05/06] In re: Slatkin
Summary judgment in favor of bankruptcy trustee, avoiding under 11 U.S.C. section 548(a) and California Civil Code section 3439.04(a) certain transfers made by the debtor during his operation of a Ponzi scheme, is affirmed where: 1) the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants-investors' motion for a continuance to conduct further discovery; 2) investors' right to a jury trial was not violated by the grant of summary judgment; 3) the bankruptcy court properly determined that debtor acted with the actual intent to "hinder, delay, or defraud" his creditors; 4) a determination that debtor was not a "stockbroker" under the Bankruptcy Code was proper; and 5) prejudgment interest was properly awarded.
More...
