In a recent and closely reasoned opinion, the 5th District Court of Appeal from Fresno held that a claim of fraud could go to trial, even if the alleged fraud was controverted by the language of the written agreement between the parties. There are points in the opinion for discussion, but let’s start with the …
Author Archives: admin
Ahcom v. Smeding – Ninth Circuit Analyzes Alter Ego Liability as Procedural, Not Substantive
In Ahcom, Ltd. v. Smeding, 2010 DJDAR 16125 (9th Cir. Oct. 21, 2010), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal considered when alter ego liability could be imposed on corporate shareholders. Applying California law in a bankruptcy context, the court provided contours to alter ego liability. The issue in Ahcom was whether “a creditor of a …
Debtor’s Fraudulent Transfer of Property Set Aside Years After Trust Was Formed
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, …
Continue reading “Debtor’s Fraudulent Transfer of Property Set Aside Years After Trust Was Formed”
Starr vs Starr – Court Upholds Finding of Undue Influence in Real Estate Matter (Part 2)
This is the second part of an analysis of Starr v Starr (Sept. 30, 2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277. The court held that a house acquired during marriage in the name of the husband only was actually community property, even though the wife signed a quitclaim deed in favor of the husband. Explained the court, “Evidence …
Starr v. Starr – Sterling Analysis of Effect of Confidential Relationship (Part 1)
In Starr v Starr (Sept. 30, 2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 277, the court was confronted with division of assets at the time of divorce. In an excellently-reasoned opinion by a divorce attorney, the court found in favor of the wife, and held that she was entitled to a 50% interest in the family residence, even though …
Vuki vs. Superior Court – No Private Right to Enforce Three-Month Negotiation Period in Civil Code Section 2923.52
The California legislature has been tinkering with the foreclosure rules since the mortgage crisis started in 2007. One of the laws enacted was Civil Code section 2923.52. This section says that a lender must add three months to the normal 90-day waiting period for recoding a notice of sale (i.e., double the waiting time for …
Thomas Schoenbaum on the Causes of Global Financial Crisis – Part 2
Professor Thomas Schoenbaum from George Washington University has written a paper discussing the worldwide financial crisis. His paper entitled “Saving the Global Financial System: International Financial Reforms and United States Financial Reform, Will They Do the Job?”, identifies 12 factors as triggering the financial crisis. The second six are as follows (the first six are …
Continue reading “Thomas Schoenbaum on the Causes of Global Financial Crisis – Part 2”
Thomas Schoenbaum on the Causes of Global Financial Crisis – Part 1
Professor Thomas Schoenbaum from George Washington University has written a paper discussing the worldwide financial crisis. His paper entitled “Saving the Global Financial System: International Financial Reforms and United States Financial Reform, Will They Do the Job?”, identifies 12 factors as triggering the financial crisis. The first six are as follows (the second six are …
Continue reading “Thomas Schoenbaum on the Causes of Global Financial Crisis – Part 1”
Citizens Business Bank v. Carrano – A Strange Conception
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 …
Continue reading “Citizens Business Bank v. Carrano – A Strange Conception”
Lickter v. Lickter – No Standing to Sue for Elder Abuse After Distribution Made to Trust Beneficiary
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 …