The effect of a disclaimer is to pass the disclaimed interest as if the disclaimant had predeceased the decedent/trustor(s). E.g., the disclaimant's share would pass to the disclaimant's issue, if any. Disclaimers are irrevocable, per Probate Code Sec. 281. (See also, Estate of Cooke (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 595, 598, discussing “Probate Code pertaining to disclaimer of testamentary and other interest ch. 11, div. 1, § 190 et seq.; hereafter ‘disclaimer statute’ and added section 13409; Stats. 1972, ch. 990, at 1805.)
By an urgency measure effective August 16, 1972, the Legislature added the new disclaimer statute (Prob. Code, Sec. 190 et seq.), repealed former section 13409, and added the new section 13409 (See 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law, Taxation, § 218, at 4185-4186; 4 Pacific L.J. 246-248.) The new section (quoted fn. 1, ante) now provides that transfers of any interest in property "and all rights and powers relating to the same" which have been duly disclaimed pursuant to the provisions of chapter 11 of division 1 of the Probate Code or in any other valid manner, "shall be subject to the inheritance tax only if, and to the same extent and in the same manner as, the same would have been subject to such tax if such interest, rights and powers had been originally created in favor of and transferred to the same persons and in the same shares in which they are effectively distributed or otherwise disposed of, after giving full effect to such disclaimers..." (Estate of Cooke, 57 Cal.App.3d at 598.)
Following enactment of the new legislation the State Controller promulgated the following inheritance and gift tax regulation (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 18, ch. 2.5, Sec. 13409(a)(2), effective May 13, 1973): "If a transferee under a will, an heir of an intestate or a transferee of an inter vivos transfer subject to inheritance tax disclaims any interest in the estate of the decedent or in the property transferred, in whole or in part, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 11 (commencing with Section 190) of Division 1 of the Probate Code, and the date of death of the decedent is prior to August 16, 1972, the tax is nevertheless computed as though no disclaimer had been filed." (Estate of Cooke, 57 Cal.App.3d at 600.)
The 1972 Probate Code section 190 et seq. was enacted to modernize procedures for disclaiming interests in decedents' estates. At the same time Revenue and Taxation Code section 13409 was revised to permit avoidance of inheritance taxes by disclaimer in conformity with federal law. (Estate of Goshen (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 97, 98, considering “whether an agreement to disclaim part of an estate as an integral part of a will contest settlement under which the disclaimant retains a benefit in the estate constitutes an acceptance within the meaning of Probate Code section 190.7 and operates to render Revenue and Taxation Code section 13409 inapplicable;” see also, Stats. 1972, ch. 990, Secs. 1-6, at 1805-1809; see 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Taxation, Sec. 218, at 4185-4186.) Probate Code section 190 et seq. was repealed in 1983 and a new disclaimer statute was enacted, Probate Code section 260 et seq. (Stats. 1983, ch. 17, §§ 1-5; see Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed., 1984 supp. to vol. 7) Wills and Probate, § 38A, pp. 214-215.) The California Inheritance Tax Law, former Revenue and Taxation Code section 13301 et seq., was repealed in 1982. (Stats. 1982, ch. 1535, Sec. 14, at 5974; see Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed., 1984 supp. to vol. 5) Taxation, Sec. 213A, at 687.)
He pointed out that a disclaimer of interest has been filed on behalf of Mr. Vistro. It does not appear in the minutes whether his clients objected to the request for a period of six months within which to close the matter.
Mar 06, 2007
Santa Barbara County, CA
. §6401) and the filed disclaimer of interest by Patricia Hiner. (Pr. C. §275) Extraordinary Fee Requests: Attorneys request extraordinary fees of $6,687.00 for 21.7 hours at $395.00/hour (See Schwartz declaration and Exhibit I).
Feb 27, 2019
Ventura County, CA
However, to rewrite the trust in order to advance large blocks of principal, in the absence of Gloria's full disclaimer of rights under the trust, to borrowers with no ability to repay, directly violates trust terms and trust purpose. Discuss. gmr
Oct 03, 2018
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
However, to rewrite the trust in order to advance large blocks of principal, in the absence of Gloria's full disclaimer of rights under the trust, to borrowers with no ability to repay, directly violates trust terms and trust purpose. Discuss. gmr
Oct 03, 2018
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
The Court overrules the objections made as to request numbers 7, 8, and 9, as well as those contained in the disclaimer preceding the responses; Diaz waived any objections to the requests for production of documents because he failed to timely respond to this set of discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The remaining responses that "Plaintiff has already complied and produced these documents at his deposition" do not comply with the Discovery Act and are insufficient.
Nov 16, 2018
Ventura County, CA
Opposing party, Robert Pedersen’s request for judicial notice of the disclaimer on the website of the Los Angeles County Assessor relating to maps is granted, in part, and denied, in part. The Court only takes judicial notice of the existence of the disclaimer but does not take judicial notice of the truth of any matters set forth in the disclaimer. Demurrers A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v.
Sep 03, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
However, to rewrite the trust in order to advance large blocks of principal, in the absence of Gloria's full disclaimer of rights under the trust, to borrowers with no ability to repay, directly violates trust terms and trust purpose. Discuss. gmr
Oct 03, 2018
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
Copy of POA attached to Disclaimer filed 10-22-19 is incomplete. 3. Order for Probate Form DE-140 BRIAN DOUGLAS PRICE NEAL C. PRICE JANICE CROSETTI-TITMUS Need: 1. Petition verified. PrC § 1021. CCP § 2015.5. CRC 7.103 2. Adoption of the petition by petitioner’s counsel. Petition is unsigned. 3. Proof of Publication. PrC § 8120 4. Proof of mailing Notice of Petition to Administer Estate and copy of petition to all heirs and beneficiaries. PrC § 8110; LR 7.151(e) 5.
Jan 16, 2020
Contra Costa County, CA
The court may only recognize a disclaimer that complies with the requirements of Probate Code section 280 et seq. 2. Counsel is reminded that in probate matters, the “title of each pleading and of each proposed order must clearly and completely identify the nature of the relief sought or granted.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 7.102.) Here, the caption did not mention a reserve, waiver of accounting, or first and final accounting. 3. The petitioner seeks a reserve of $10,000.
Apr 11, 2019
Solano County, CA
However, to rewrite the trust in order to advance large blocks of principal, in the absence of Gloria's full disclaimer of rights under the trust, to borrowers with no ability to repay, directly violates trust terms and trust purpose. Discuss. gmr
Oct 03, 2018
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
However, to rewrite the trust in order to advance large blocks of principal, in the absence of Gloria's full disclaimer of rights under the trust, to borrowers with no ability to repay, directly violates trust terms and trust purpose. Discuss. gmr
Oct 03, 2018
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
Disclaimer filed 1-24-18 indicates there was a brokerage and savings account. 5. Date Inventory and Appraisal. 6. File a Corrected Inventory and Appraisal with securities in Charles Schwab Brokerage Account appraised by Probate Referee, if needed. 7. File a verified declaration to specify whether all charges for probate referee’s services, if any, have been paid. LR 7.317 8.
Apr 24, 2018
Contra Costa County, CA
The Court overrules the objections made as to request numbers 7, 8, and 9, as well as those contained in the disclaimer preceding the responses; Diaz waived any objections to the requests for production of documents because he failed to timely respond to this set of discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The remaining responses that "Plaintiff has already complied and produced these documents at his deposition" do not comply with the Discovery Act and are insufficient.
Nov 16, 2018
Ventura County, CA
The Court overrules the objections made as to request numbers 7, 8, and 9, as well as those contained in the disclaimer preceding the responses; Diaz waived any objections to the requests for production of documents because he failed to timely respond to this set of discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The remaining responses that "Plaintiff has already complied and produced these documents at his deposition" do not comply with the Discovery Act and are insufficient.
Nov 16, 2018
Ventura County, CA
The Court overrules the objections made as to request numbers 7, 8, and 9, as well as those contained in the disclaimer preceding the responses; Diaz waived any objections to the requests for production of documents because he failed to timely respond to this set of discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The remaining responses that "Plaintiff has already complied and produced these documents at his deposition" do not comply with the Discovery Act and are insufficient.
Nov 16, 2018
Ventura County, CA
The agreement contains potentially substantively unconscionable provisions, such as a shortened statute of limitations, limitation on damages and a disclaimer of any fiduciary duty. The arbitration clause itself, however, is not unconscionable—it does not impose any excessive costs on plaintiff (e.g. requiring a three-arbitrator panel agreement or that plaintiff pay all fees), and it does not lack mutuality.
Oct 08, 2019
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Los Angeles County, CA
The Court overrules the objections made as to request numbers 7, 8, and 9, as well as those contained in the disclaimer preceding the responses; Diaz waived any objections to the requests for production of documents because he failed to timely respond to this set of discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The remaining responses that "Plaintiff has already complied and produced these documents at his deposition" do not comply with the Discovery Act and are insufficient.
Nov 16, 2018
Ventura County, CA
The assignment from Inez to her sister is not in the nature of a disclaimer; it appears to be a gift; with any associated gift tax consequences. gmr
Apr 19, 2011
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
The proposed distribution of the estate balance to surviving son Louis Lee is consistent with the laws of intestate succession as modified by woody's disclaimer. The statutory attorney fee in this case is $10,013.82 (petitioner's cross-calculation at ¶10 of the petition omits $100,000 from the 2% line). Of this sum, the court awards Mr. Barlow one-half, or $5006. (Prob.C.§ 10814 , allocated between attorney representation and self--representation.) Extraordinary attorney time was spent by Mr.
Jul 11, 2013
Ventura County, CA
The Court overrules the objections made as to request numbers 7, 8, and 9, as well as those contained in the disclaimer preceding the responses; Diaz waived any objections to the requests for production of documents because he failed to timely respond to this set of discovery. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd. (a).) The remaining responses that "Plaintiff has already complied and produced these documents at his deposition" do not comply with the Discovery Act and are insufficient.
Nov 16, 2018
Ventura County, CA
On 3/6/17, the court received a Disclaimer filed by the United States IRS. The court is also in receipt of a claim filed by Maria Fernandez, the former owner. The Court is not in receipt of any claims from other lienholders. Based on order of priority, the Clerk is ordered to disburse $57,543.14 to Maria Fernandez.
Mar 30, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
Other third parties affected by the disclaimer of interest have not been properly noticed of the subject motion. Movant is aware there have been multiple civil actions in this court prosecuted to judgment against Movant and/or Pacific Real Estate Holdings, Inc. Cases include VCU209730 (Oliver v. Kraft), VCU207364 (Mitchell Brown v. Artesia, etc.), VCU217841 Oliver v. Pacific Real Estate Holdings, Inc. (this action), and VCU213991 (Orix Financial v. Oliver).
Oct 11, 2018
Tulare County, CA
Executor shall designate the selected charity or charities to receive 30% of the preliminary distribution, with an associated disclaimer of any associated fee, commission or the compensation for the referral, plus a declaration as to why the particular charity or charities would be appropriate to the deceased testator. Executor shall provide the court with a spreadsheet of all creditor's claims and liens or encumbrances associated with the 17 currently appraised parcels of real property. gmr
Aug 09, 2018
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
However, to rewrite the trust in order to advance large blocks of principal, in the absence of Gloria's full disclaimer of rights under the trust, to borrowers with no ability to repay, directly violates trust terms and trust purpose.
Dec 20, 2018
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
Notwithstanding Lee and Associates' disclaimer and the requirement for due diligence by the buyer Acacia, there are issues of fact whether Rodeo's silence fraudulently induced Acacia to enter into the purchase agreement. Rodeo's objections to the memo are overruled as it was offered as evidence as defendant's exhibit 1.
Dec 10, 2020
Business
Intellectual Property
San Diego County, CA
« first previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 next last »
Please wait a moment while we load this page.