California Codes
Cal. Probate Code § 283 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A disclaimer is not a voidable transfer by the beneficiary under the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 3439) of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 4 of the Civil Code).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1950–2021 · leading case: United States Small Bus. Admin. v. Bensal, 853 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2017).
United States Small Bus. Admin. v. Bensal, 853 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2017). “” Cal. Prob. Code § 283 . Second, he maintained that the default judgment assigned to the SBA was not a “debt” within the meaning of the FDCPA.”
Essen v. Gilmore, 607 N.W.2d 829 (Neb. 2000). “Nebraska has not enacted comparable statutory provisions for the benefit of creditors.”
Frances Slocum Bank & Trust Co. v. Est. of Martin, 666 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). “…7 . The California legislature has enacted a statute which provides that a disclaimer is not a fraudulent transfer. Cal.Prob.Code § 283 (West 1991).”
Dyer v. Eckols, 808 S.W.2d 531 (Tex. App. 1991). “§ 3B:9-9 (West 1990); and Wash.Rev.Code Ann. § 11.”
Cassel v. Kolb, 267 B.R. 861 (N.D. Cal. 2001). “Thus, for there to be a fraudulent transfer, there must first be a transfer of property. For there to be a transfer of property, state law must declare that the disclaimant held “property” and federal law must declare that a “transfer” occurred.”
Sevier v. Bank of Am. Nat'l Trust & Sav. Ass'n, 225 P.2d 3 (Cal. Ct. App. 1950). “” (Prob. Code, § 283.) If satisfied by the evidence produced at the hearing that the person has been missing for seven years the court “must thereupon appoint some duly qualified person as administrator or executor.”
United States v. Turnipseed (W.D. Wash. 2021). “’ Cal. Prob. Code § 283 . It seems quite 2 clear that California law is inconsistent with the FDCPA and must give way to the federal 3 statute in light of the express preemption clause.”
In Re: James Christopher Patow (9th Cir. BAP 2021). “Cal. Prob. Code § 283 . California law defines “disclaimer” as “any writing which declines, refuses, renounces, or disclaims any interest that would otherwise be taken by a beneficiary.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.