fiduciary standard in California

2014In such cases the person deprived is entitled to be put in substantially the position in which he would have been had there not been the deprivation, and this may result in granting to him an amount equal to the highest value reached by the subject matter within a reasonable time after the tortious conduct.” (Hutt v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (D.Mass. 1990) 737 F.Supp. 128, 134 ; see Roxas v. Marcos (1998) 89 Hawai‘i 91, 152 [ 969 P.2d 1209, 1270 ] [amount of damages for conversion of gold “is the highest value of the gold between—and including—the date of conversion and a reasonable time the

2014In such cases the person deprived is entitled to be put in substantially the position in which he would have been had there not been the deprivation, and this may result in granting to him an amount equal to the highest value reached by the subject matter within a reasonable time after the tortious conduct.’ ” (Hutt v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (D.Mass. 1990) 737 F.Supp. 128, 134 ; see Roxas v. Marcos (1998) 89 Hawaii 91, 152 [ 969 P.2d 1209, 1270 ] [amount of damages for conversion of gold “is the highest value of the gold between—and including—the date of conversion and a reasonable time th

2005This confidential relationship imposes a duty of the highest good faith and fair dealing on each spouse, and neither shall take any unfair advantage of the other.” Section 721, subdivision (b) requires inter-spousal transactions to be “pleasing to the fiduciary standard.” (Haines, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 293 .) If one spouse secures an advantage from the *629 transaction, a statutory presumption arises under section 721 that the advantaged spouse exercised undue influence and the transaction will be set aside.

2002This confidential relationship imposes a duty of the highest good faith and fair dealing on each spouse, and neither shall take any unfair advantage of the other.” Section 721, subdivision (b), thus requires spousal transactions to be “pleasing to the fiduciary standard.” (In re Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 277, 293 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 673 ].) A rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises when one spouse obtains an advantage over another in a community property transaction.

2024This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.” 11 other” (Haines, at p. 293, citing § 721, subd. (b)); and that in such circumstances, “the competence of spouses to engage in transactions with each other is subject to the circumstances being pleasing to the fiduciary standard” (Haines, at p. 293; accord, Estate of Cover (1922) 188 Cal. 133 , 143–144 (Cover) [“It is the rule in this state that transactions between husband and wife shall be subjected to the general rule which controls the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other, . . . which, whe

2024This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof.” 11 other” (Haines, at p. 293, citing § 721, subd. (b)); and that in such circumstances, “the competence of spouses to engage in transactions with each other is subject to the circumstances being pleasing to the fiduciary standard” (Haines, at p. 293; accord, Estate of Cover (1922) 188 Cal. 133 , 143–144 (Cover) [“It is the rule in this state that transactions between husband and wife shall be subjected to the general rule which controls the actions of persons occupying confidential relations with each other, . . . which, whe

2014Centerline Holding Co. v. Schnitzer (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 591 F.Supp.2d 630, 634-635 [applying Delaware law].) Numerous other jurisdictions have likewise held that “[i]f a minority shareholder exercises actual domination and control over the corporation’s business affairs, then the minority shareholder is deemed to be a controlling shareholder, and held to a fiduciary standard.” (Kearney v. Jandernoa (W.D.

2014Mich. 1997) 979 F.Supp. 576, 579 ; see also In re N & D Properties, Inc. (11th Cir. 1986) 799 F.2d 726 , 731 [“A fiduciary, under general corporate theory, includes an officer, director, agent, majority shareholder or a minority shareholder exercising actual control over the corporation”]; Maggiore v. Bradford (6th Cir. 1962) 310 F.2d 519, 521 [“it is well settled that dominant or controlling shareholders who exercise control over a corporation are fiduciaries”]; Riebe v. National Loan Investors, L.P.

2014Mich. 1997) 979 F.Supp. 576, 579 ; see also In re N & D Properties, Inc. (11th Cir. 1986) 799 F.2d 726 , 731 [“A fiduciary, under general corporate theory, includes an officer, director, agent, majority shareholder or a minority shareholder exercising actual control over the corporation”]; Maggiore v. Bradford (6th Cir. 1962) 310 F.2d 519, 521 [“it is well settled that dominant or controlling shareholders who exercise control over a corporation are fiduciaries”]; Riebe v. National Loan Investors, L.P.

2005(Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 221 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 783 , 673 P.2d 660 ].) In McDermott v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (E.D.Cal. 1990) 746 F.Supp. 1016 , the court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that a telegram company’s failure to timely deliver a money order resulted in breach of a fiduciary duty because the nature of the relationship between the customer and the telegram *1399 company was “in the nature of an arms-length transaction in which plaintiff bargained for defendant’s promise to transmit a certain sum of money to her son.”

2005(Committee on Children’s Television, Inc. v. General Foods Corp. (1983) 35 Cal.3d 197, 221 [ 197 Cal.Rptr. 783 , 673 P.2d 660 ].) In McDermott v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (E.D.Cal. 1990) 746 F.Supp. 1016 , the court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that a telegram company’s failure to timely deliver a money order resulted in breach of a fiduciary duty because the nature of the relationship between the customer and the telegram *1399 company was “in the nature of an arms-length transaction in which plaintiff bargained for defendant’s promise to transmit a certain sum of money to her son.”

2002(Id. at p. 1439; see also Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law, supra, ¶ 8:627, p. 8-156 .13.) The Murrays sold their Garden Grove house late in 1991, but Genevieve did not attach the proceeds until early in the following year. 17 Essentially, Bearl argues that clear and convincing evidence, in the context of this case, is “evidence which is so clear as to leave no substantial doubt, and sufficiently strong to demand unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind.” * See footnote, ante, page 581.

2002(In re Marriage of Reuling (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1437-1438 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ].) In Reuling, the court held the higher fiduciary standard does not apply to conduct that occurred before 1992.

2002(In re Marriage of Reuling (1994) 23 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1437-1438 [ 28 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ].) In Reuling, the court held the higher fiduciary standard does not apply to conduct that occurred before 1992.

1995(Locke Paddon v. Locke Paddon (1924) 194 Cal. 73, 80 [ 227 P. 715 ]; see also Recommendation Relating to Marital Property Presumptions and Transmutations (Sept. 1983) 17 Cal. Law Revision Com.

1990Jones Construction Co., 846 F.2d 1213 , 1217 (9th Cir.) (Jones), aff d, 488 U.S. 881 , 109 S.Ct. 210 , 102 L.Ed.2d 202 (1988), quoting Scott v. Gulf Oil Corp., 754 F.2d 1499, 1501 (9th Cir. 1985).) The statute ‘sets forth reporting and disclosure obligations for plans, imposes a fiduciary standard of care for plan administrators, and establishes schedules for the vesting and accrual of pension benefits.’ (Massachusetts v. Morash, 490 U.S. 107 , 109 S.Ct. 1668, 1671-72 , 104 L.Ed.2d 98 (1989) (Morash).) “ERISA governs ‘employee benefit plans,’ which are statutorily defined as plans that are eit