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 Code, Sec. 190 et seq.), repealed former section 13409, and added the new section 13409 (See 5 Witkin, Summary of Cal.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.)
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
The Court finds that Defendant has met the initial burden of demonstrating entitlement to summary adjudication on the basis that the implied warranties were the subject of a valid disclaimer. (See Fact 13.) Plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of demonstrating the existence of disputed material facts on this issue. While the Court notes that Plaintiff argues, in the alternative, that the disclaimer should be invalidated pursuant to Ca. U. Comm.
Feb 15, 2019
Stanislaus County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
The effect of a disclaimer is to treat the disclaiming person as though they predeceased the decedent, which in turn passes the disclaiming person’s share to her heirs. (Prob. Code, § 282.) While the court understands Monica Hernandez is the daughter of Doris Gray, there is no information as to whether Doris Gray has other children or issue of deceased children that are now heirs to Doris Gray’s share.
Mar 13, 2019
ALESIA JONES*
Solano County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Upon receipt of an express disclaimer of rights by Charles of all right to his 50% interest in this estate, accept waiver. Approve petition and report. Petitioner waives statutory commission. Approve $16,000 statutory attorney fee to Ms. Van Conas, plus $1704.50 cost reimbursement; becoming a lien upon the real property asset. gmr
Jan 02, 2013
Ventura County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Assuming there is no alternate beneficiary, the effect of the disclaimer is to eliminate a contractual beneficiary to the account. At that point, because that specific Bank of America account was called out in the 1990 trust agreement as part of the trust corpus, this court, pursuant to Kucker v. Kucker (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 90, determines the account to be property of the Russell J Welch Living Trust. The Bank of America account assets can be delivered to the successor trustee without liability. gmr
Dec 17, 2015
Probate
Trust
Ventura County, CA
PLAINTIFF'S FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISCLAIMER DID NOT RESULT IN PLAINTIFF'S ABANDONING CLAIMS PERTAINING TO PRIVATE ENTITIES' LIABILITY FOR ASBESTOS EXPOSURE THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED IN CALIFORNIA THEREFORE HANSEN V. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS (1996) 51 CAL.APP.4TH 753 APPLIES.
Mar 03, 2011
San Francisco County, CA
Proposed Order Note: It appears surviving spouse had no authority to amend Disclaimer Trust following the death of the deceased settlor. HARMON FAMILY TRUST STEPHEN HARMON STEVEN F. KLAMM PROBATE EXAMINER NOTES-SUBJECT TO REVISION AFTER REVIEW BY THE JUDGE Petition Approved. Proposed Order Submitted. No Appearance Required. Note: Decree will be available for pick up at the hearing or after the hearing in Dept. 14.
Jan 10, 2017
Contra Costa County, CA
The effect of a disclaimer is to treat the disclaiming person as though they predeceased the decedent, which in turn passes the disclaiming person’s share to her heirs. (Prob. Code, § 282.) While the court understands Monica Hernandez is the daughter of Doris Gray, there is no information as to whether Doris Gray has other children or issue of deceased children that are now heirs to Doris Gray’s share.
Nov 13, 2018
Solano County, CA
To the extent, a person has signed a disclaimer; the effect of the disclaimer is to treat the disclaiming person as though they predeceased the decedent, which in turn passes the disclaiming person’s share to their heirs. (Probate Code §282.). The decedent’s will specifically states in paragraph 5 that “if any beneficiary named in paragraph fourth…shall predecease me…then the share set aside for such deceased beneficiary shall pass to his or her issue…”.
Aug 29, 2019
Solano County, CA
If decedent's two daughters wish to assign all of their right, title and interest in decedent's estate to his wife (as opposed to a disclaimer), then decedent's intestate estate can avoid probate through a spousal property petition. As part of those findings, absent the aforementioned showing(s), however, a court of law cannot factually determine that the assets are community property. gmr
Jul 15, 2015
Family Law
Other Family
Ventura County, CA
The effect of a disclaimer is to treat the disclaiming person as though they predeceased the decedent, which in turn passes the disclaiming person’s share to her heirs. (Prob. Code, § 282.) While the court understands Monica Hernandez is the daughter of Doris Gray, there is no information as to whether Doris Gray has other children or issue of deceased children that are now heirs to Doris Gray’s share.
Apr 30, 2019
Solano County, CA
To the extent a person has signed a disclaimer, the effect of the disclaimer is to treat the disclaiming person as though they predeceased the decedent, which in turn passes the disclaiming person’s share to their heirs. (Probate Code §282.) The decedent’s will specifically states in paragraph 5 that “if any beneficiary named in paragraph fourth…shall predecease me…then the share set aside for such deceased beneficiary shall pass to his or her issue…”.
Nov 12, 2019
Solano County, CA
By virtue of the disclaimer, Patrick is deemed to have predeceased his mother (Prob.C.§282), which means that Patrick's children, if he has any, step up to inherit his share. If there are such children, Patrick cannot legally waive an accounting on their behalf or disclaim their inheritance(s). This issue would also affect the validity of the administrator's interim notices of proposed action. The court also questions whether the remaining accounting waivers are now stale by virtue of lapse of time.
Jun 25, 2015
Ventura County, CA
If decedent's two daughters wish to assign all of their right, title and interest in decedent's estate to his wife (as opposed to a disclaimer), then decedent's intestate estate can avoid probate through a spousal property petition. As part of those findings, absent the aforementioned showing(s), however, a court of law cannot factually determine that the assets are community property.
Jul 29, 2015
Family Law
Other Family
Ventura County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.