I agree with Ms. Sharp. As clearly set out at page 100 of the trial transcript, the Court failed to find clear and convincing evidence that the asset transfer was not the product of fraud, menace, duress or undue influence under §21351(d); and therefore, the CALSTRS beneficiary designation prepared by Ms. Sharp was set aside. I did not affirmatively find that the asset transfer was, by a preponderance of the evidence, the product of fraud, menace, duress or undue influence. At page 101 of the same transcript, Mr. Shea would not commit to whether or not he would seek attorney fees, and so the issue was not argued or further discussed.
When I signed the 3/31/11 formal order submitted by Mr. Shea without approval as to form by Ms. Sharp, the subtle but critical distinction now raised by Ms. Sharp was not not brought to my attention. This is the first occasion at which the issue has been addressed at hearing. The Court does not affirmatively find that that the the CALSTRS beneficiary desig
Hearing Date
October 06, 2011
Type
Letters Of Special Administration
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
I agree with Ms. Sharp. As clearly set out at page 100 of the trial transcript, the Court failed to find clear and convincing evidence that the asset transfer was not the product of fraud, menace, duress or undue influence under §21351(d); and therefore, the CALSTRS beneficiary designation prepared by Ms. Sharp was set aside. I did not affirmatively find that the asset transfer was, by a preponderance of the evidence, the product of fraud, menace, duress or undue influence. At page 101 of the same transcript, Mr. Shea would not commit to whether or not he would seek attorney fees, and so the issue was not argued or further discussed.
When I signed the 3/31/11 formal order submitted by Mr. Shea without approval as to form by Ms. Sharp, the subtle but critical distinction now raised by Ms. Sharp was not not brought to my attention. This is the first occasion at which the issue has been addressed at hearing. The Court does not affirmatively find that that the the CALSTRS beneficiary desig