Legal Opinion
Vance v. Bizek
California Court of Appeal
Decided August 12, 2014No. B243061PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
O’DONNELL, J. *
This case turns on the trial court’s misassignment of the burden of proof. The presumption created by section 16004 of the Probate Code 1 that a trustee who commingles trust funds with her own funds violates her fiduciary duty to the trust applies only to the relationship between a trustee and trust beneficiaries. Here, the trial court applied the presumption for the benefit of a creditor of the trustee, not a beneficiary of the trust. This was error.
The beneficiary of a trust may disclaim the beneficial interest as long as she has not already accepted that interest.…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- ASP Properties Group, L.P. v. Fard, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2005
- Badouh v. HaleTexas Supreme Court · 2000
- Brown v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'nCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1938
- Leipham v. AdamsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
- Niklason v. RamseySupreme Court of Virginia · 1987
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. Sherow CA4/1California Court of Appeal · 2015
- People v. Gomez, California Court of Appeal, 4th District2015
- Estate of TarlowCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2025
- People v. Frazier CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2016
- People v. GomezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2015
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.