Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 California opinions name it 2 courts 1923–2013 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Becker v. Public Employees' Retirement Systemgreen2 sentences1999(In re Marriage of Daniels, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1089-1092.) The court went on to indicate, in dicta pertinent here, that even if federal law prevented treatment of the disability benefits as community property, “we would conclude . . . that husband would receive his separate property monthly payment [of disability benefits] from the federal government as a resulting trustee of wife’s share.” (Id. at p. 1092.) In support of this conclusion, the court cited In re Marriage of Mastro-paolo (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 953 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 26 ], which in turn relied on the reasoning of In re Marri 1999(In re Marriage of Daniels, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1089-1092.) The court went on to indicate, in dicta pertinent here, that even if federal law prevented treatment of the disability benefits as community property, “we would conclude . . . that husband would receive his separate property monthly payment [of disability benefits] from the federal government as a resulting trustee of wife’s share.” (Id. at p. 1092.) In support of this conclusion, the court cited In re Marriage of Mastro-paolo (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 953 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 26 ], which in turn relied on the reasoning of In re Marri | 1 | 3 |
Trower v. Younggreen2 sentences1966(Trower v. Young, 40 Cal.App.2d 539, 547-548 [ 105 P.2d 160 ].) It is true that the pretrial conference order made mention of respondent’s contention, among others, that there was real property in Colorado conveyed to the deceased in trust for plaintiff; in view thereof, the trial court properly permitted proof that had for its purpose the establishment of the theory on which respondent relied. 1966(Trower v. Young, 40 Cal.App.2d 539, 547-548 [ 105 P.2d 160 ].) It is true that the pretrial conference order made mention of respondent’s contention, among others, that there was real property in Colorado conveyed to the deceased in trust for plaintiff; in view thereof, the trial court properly permitted proof that had for its purpose the establishment of the theory on which respondent relied. | 1 | 1 |
Back v. Farnsworthgreen2 sentences1966It is of interest, furthermore, that the original complaint was for monies advanced and makes reference to creditor’s claims which were rejected by the executor; but in an action to establish a resulting trust no claim need be filed (Back v. Farnsworth, 25 Cal.App.2d 212, 220 [ 77 P.2d 295 ]), and the same is true of a suit to enforce a constructive trust. 1966It is of interest, furthermore, that the original complaint was for monies advanced and makes reference to creditor’s claims which were rejected by the executor; but in an action to establish a resulting trust no claim need be filed (Back v. Farnsworth, 25 Cal.App.2d 212, 220 [ 77 P.2d 295 ]), and the same is true of a suit to enforce a constructive trust. | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Kellygreen2 sentences1944(See Hardenbergh v. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356, 377 ; Roberts v. Ware, 40 Cal. 634 ; Taylor v. Kelly, 103 Cal. 178, 184 [ 37 P. 216 ]; cf. Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) Where the statute of frauds did not constitute a bar the courts have given effect to the promise. 1944(See Hardenbergh v. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356, 377 ; Roberts v. Ware, 40 Cal. 634 ; Taylor v. Kelly, 103 Cal. 178, 184 [ 37 P. 216 ]; cf. Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) Where the statute of frauds did not constitute a bar the courts have given effect to the promise. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Starita v. Yool
green
2 sentences2013On October 20, 2011, the first day of trial, the trial court ruled that under Estate of Yool (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 867 , David’s resulting trust claim did not assert an oral promise or agreement and therefore fell outside section 366.3 and was under section 343’s four-year statute of limitations. 2013It also ruled that under Estate of Yool (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 867 , the resulting trust claim did not assert an oral promise or agreement and thus was subject to the four-year statute of limitations in section 343. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Fleet National Bank v. Valente (In Re Valente)
green
2 sentences2009(Valente, supra, at pp. 262-263 .) Valente gave legal effect to the inferred intent of the debtor (as transferor) and his son (as transferee) by declaring under a “resulting trust” analysis that the debtor retained his equitable interest in the property, thus the creditor’s prior execution lien was deemed to have attached to the debtor’s equitable interest. 2009As support for the legal viability of its position, Fidelity relies on Valente, supra, 360 F.3d 256 , a federal court of appeals decision that carefully analyzed the doctrine of resulting trust under Rhode Island common law and held that a creditor may pursue a resulting trust theory (in the manner suggested by Fidelity) as a form of common law equitable relief that would supplement the state’s UFTA. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In Re Marriage of Mastropaolo
green
2 sentences1999(In re Marriage of Daniels, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1089-1092.) The court went on to indicate, in dicta pertinent here, that even if federal law prevented treatment of the disability benefits as community property, “we would conclude . . . that husband would receive his separate property monthly payment [of disability benefits] from the federal government as a resulting trustee of wife’s share.” (Id. at p. 1092.) In support of this conclusion, the court cited In re Marriage of Mastro-paolo (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 953 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 26 ], which in turn relied on the reasoning of In re Marri 1999(In re Marriage of Daniels, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1089-1092.) The court went on to indicate, in dicta pertinent here, that even if federal law prevented treatment of the disability benefits as community property, “we would conclude . . . that husband would receive his separate property monthly payment [of disability benefits] from the federal government as a resulting trustee of wife’s share.” (Id. at p. 1092.) In support of this conclusion, the court cited In re Marriage of Mastro-paolo (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 953 [ 213 Cal.Rptr. 26 ], which in turn relied on the reasoning of In re Marri | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hardenbergh v. Bacon
neutral
2 sentences1944(See Hardenbergh v. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356, 377 ; Roberts v. Ware, 40 Cal. 634 ; Taylor v. Kelly, 103 Cal. 178, 184 [ 37 P. 216 ]; cf. Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) Where the statute of frauds did not constitute a bar the courts have given effect to the promise. 1944(See Hardenbergh v. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356, 377 ; Roberts v. Ware, 40 Cal. 634 ; Taylor v. Kelly, 103 Cal. 178, 184 [ 37 P. 216 ]; cf. Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) Where the statute of frauds did not constitute a bar the courts have given effect to the promise. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Roberts v. Ware
neutral
2 sentences1944(See Hardenbergh v. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356, 377 ; Roberts v. Ware, 40 Cal. 634 ; Taylor v. Kelly, 103 Cal. 178, 184 [ 37 P. 216 ]; cf. Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) Where the statute of frauds did not constitute a bar the courts have given effect to the promise. 1944(See Hardenbergh v. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356, 377 ; Roberts v. Ware, 40 Cal. 634 ; Taylor v. Kelly, 103 Cal. 178, 184 [ 37 P. 216 ]; cf. Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) Where the statute of frauds did not constitute a bar the courts have given effect to the promise. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Stromerson v. Averill
green
2 sentences1944(See Hardenbergh v. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356, 377 ; Roberts v. Ware, 40 Cal. 634 ; Taylor v. Kelly, 103 Cal. 178, 184 [ 37 P. 216 ]; cf. Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) Where the statute of frauds did not constitute a bar the courts have given effect to the promise. 1944(See Hardenbergh v. Bacon, 33 Cal. 356, 377 ; Roberts v. Ware, 40 Cal. 634 ; Taylor v. Kelly, 103 Cal. 178, 184 [ 37 P. 216 ]; cf. Stromerson v. Averill, 22 Cal.2d 808 [ 141 P.2d 732 ].) Where the statute of frauds did not constitute a bar the courts have given effect to the promise. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Green v. Drummond
green
1 sentence1923It is, therefore, contended by his administratrix that he having furnished this consideration, the plaintiff must be deemed to have held the contract as trustee for him, and that when he traded said property for the Reedley garage he had the right to take title thereto in his *55 own name, and that he was the owner thereof at the time of his death. [1] Passing the proposition as contended for by plaintiff that the doctrine of a resulting trust does not apply to an executory contract of sale (Green v. Drummond, 31 Md. 71 [ 1 Am. | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.