HOLDINGS: [1]-A trust beneficiary who disclaimed her interest under Prob. Code, §§ 275, 285, subd. (b)(3), was not prohibited from accepting her contingent beneficial interest while the settlors were alive; [2]-The disclaimer was timely filed under Prob. Code, § 279, within nine months of the death of the last surviving settlor; [3]-A judgment creditor of the beneficiary could not invoke the presumption of breach of fiduciary duties in Prob. Code, § 16004, subd. (c), regarding transfers made by the beneficiary as a trustee because the creditor was not a beneficiary; [4]-Thus, under Evid. Code, § 500, the creditor had the burden of proof; [5]-Because cash was fungible, the creditor failed to prove that the beneficiary had accepted her beneficial interest in the trust by transferring funds to other trusts and later transferring funds from the other trusts to her personal accounts. Parties’ civil litigation attorney appeal.
Outcome
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Overview
HOLDINGS: [1]-In a class action suit in which plaintiff alleged that defendant falsely advertised its smartphone to be “twice as fast” as its predecessor, the cellular network carrier for the smartphone was not a necessary party under Code Civ. Proc., § 389; [2]-A disposition of the action in the cellular network carrier’s absence would not impede or impair its ability to protect its interest; [3]-There was no substantial risk of multiple or inconsistent obligations; [4]-The trial court’s ruling that the cellular network carrier was a necessary party constituted an abuse of discretion; [5]-The trial court thereby erred in sustaining defendant’s demurrer and dismissing the action.
Outcome
The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded with directions.
