Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kohler v. Kintz

California Court of Appeal

Decided September 18, 1978No. Civ. No. 16839Published

1Dissent

STANIFORTH, J., Dissenting.

The majority opinion, in my view, errs in several respects. The taproot of this errancy is the oft-repeated conclusion that a Totten trust was not created because trustor-trustee Collins “made no deposit” in Central Federal Savings and Loan Association. This conclusion is contrary to the conceded facts, contrary to decisional law of this state and universally recognized scholarly writings.

The resultant opinion violates a most fundamental rule of construction of written documents. It, without sound basis in authority or reason, refuses to enforce the crystal clear…

2Cases cited27 opinions

  1. In Re the Accounting of TottenNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
  2. Lefrooth v. PrenticeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1927
  3. Winchester v. HowardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1902
  4. City of Lincoln v. First National BankNebraska Supreme Court · 1945
  5. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n v. CranstonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1967

22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API