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.
6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1999–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
McGirr v. Barnesongreen2 sentences2001(See In re Marriage of Barneson (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 583, 593 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ] (Barneson) [“The MacDonald test . . . requires only a clear demonstration of a change in ownership or characterization of the property at issue”].) As with the consent paragraphs in MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at page 268 , there is no dispute in this case that the grant deed, which was signed by Everett, is a writing that was “made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected.” (§ 852, subd. (a).) Thus, we need only determine whether the deed, indep 2001(See In re Marriage of Barneson (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 583, 593 [ 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 726 ] (Barneson) [“The MacDonald test . . . requires only a clear demonstration of a change in ownership or characterization of the property at issue”].) As with the consent paragraphs in MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at page 268 , there is no dispute in this case that the grant deed, which was signed by Everett, is a writing that was “made, joined in, consented to, or accepted by the spouse whose interest in the property is adversely affected.” (§ 852, subd. (a).) Thus, we need only determine whether the deed, indep | 1 | 2 |
Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Long Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'ngreen2 sentences1999(Bank of America v. Long Beach etc. Assn. (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 618, 623 [ 297 P.2d 443 ]; Hardison v. Corbett (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 310, 317 [ 130 P.2d 226 ].) We do not suggest there is evidence of such a trust in the present case, nor that we could directly consider such evidence in determining whether Bameson’s directives transmuted his property within the meaning of section 852, subdivision (a)—as stated above, the determination whether the MacDonald test has been met must be made without resort to parol evidence. (51 Cal.3d at pp. 271-272.) The point is simply that a direction by a spouse 1999(Bank of America v. Long Beach etc. Assn. (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 618, 623 [ 297 P.2d 443 ]; Hardison v. Corbett (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 310, 317 [ 130 P.2d 226 ].) We do not suggest there is evidence of such a trust in the present case, nor that we could directly consider such evidence in determining whether Bameson’s directives transmuted his property within the meaning of section 852, subdivision (a)—as stated above, the determination whether the MacDonald test has been met must be made without resort to parol evidence. (51 Cal.3d at pp. 271-272.) The point is simply that a direction by a spouse | 1 | 2 |
Hardison v. Corbettgreen2 sentences1999(Bank of America v. Long Beach etc. Assn. (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 618, 623 [ 297 P.2d 443 ]; Hardison v. Corbett (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 310, 317 [ 130 P.2d 226 ].) We do not suggest there is evidence of such a trust in the present case, nor that we could directly consider such evidence in determining whether Bameson’s directives transmuted his property within the meaning of section 852, subdivision (a)—as stated above, the determination whether the MacDonald test has been met must be made without resort to parol evidence. (51 Cal.3d at pp. 271-272.) The point is simply that a direction by a spouse 1999(Bank of America v. Long Beach etc. Assn. (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 618, 623 [ 297 P.2d 443 ]; Hardison v. Corbett (1942) 55 Cal.App.2d 310, 317 [ 130 P.2d 226 ].) We do not suggest there is evidence of such a trust in the present case, nor that we could directly consider such evidence in determining whether Bameson’s directives transmuted his property within the meaning of section 852, subdivision (a)—as stated above, the determination whether the MacDonald test has been met must be made without resort to parol evidence. (51 Cal.3d at pp. 271-272.) The point is simply that a direction by a spouse | 1 | 2 |
Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. v. City of San Diegogreen2 sentences1999(See Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 952, 958 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 735 ].) As a preliminary matter, Kaiser asserts the trial court did not rule that transmutations of property had occurred but only that the transfers of securities were valid under section 852, subdivision (a). 1999(See Cox Cable San Diego, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 952, 958 [ 233 Cal.Rptr. 735 ].) As a preliminary matter, Kaiser asserts the trial court did not rule that transmutations of property had occurred but only that the transfers of securities were valid under section 852, subdivision (a). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Marriage of Hainesred2 sentences1999(See In re Marriage of Haines, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 301 [in case of conflict, more specific presumption controls over more general one].) Where the transaction purportedly resulting in a transmutation of property falls short of the MacDonald test, the section 662 presumption should not be applied. 1999(See In re Marriage of Haines, supra, 33 Cal.App.4th at p. 301 [in case of conflict, more specific presumption controls over more general one].) Where the transaction purportedly resulting in a transmutation of property falls short of the MacDonald test, the section 662 presumption should not be applied. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Estate of MacDonald
green
2 sentences2019Rather, in clarifying that no particular locution was mandated, the Supreme Court remarked that the transfer documents would have been sufficient had they specified what interest was being conveyed―e.g., “ ‘I give to the account holder any interest I have in the funds deposited in this account.’ ” ( MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at pp. 272-273, italics added.)6 A statement like this clearly satisfies the MacDonald standard, not because “give” has special meaning, but because the conveyance of “any interest I have” unambiguously declares that “ownership of the property is being changed.” (Id. at 2018Rather, in clarifying that no particular locution was mandated, the Supreme Court remarked that the transfer documents would have been sufficient had they specified what interest was being conveyed-e.g., " 'I give to the account holder any interest I have in the funds deposited in this account.' " ( MacDonald, supra, 51 Cal.3d at pp. 272-273, 272 Cal.Rptr. 153 , 794 P.2d 911 , italics added.) 6 A statement like this clearly satisfies the MacDonald standard, not because "give" has special meaning, but because the conveyance of "any interest I have" unambiguously declares that "ownership of the | 4 | 1999–2019 |
Estate of Bibb
green
2 sentences2019Addressing the argument that the deed failed to meet the MacDonald standard, the Bibb court explained: “The deed is drafted in the statutory form required for expressing an intent to transfer an interest in real property. [Citations.] Since the MacDonald court held that the [proffered writings] would have been adequate for a valid transmutation had they said, ‘ “I give to the account holder any interest I have . . . ,” ’ and since ‘grant’ is the historically operative word for transferring interests in real property, there is no doubt that [the husband’s] use of the word ‘grant’ to convey the 2019Addressing the argument that the deed failed to meet the MacDonald standard, the Bibb court explained: “The deed is drafted in the statutory form required for expressing an intent to transfer an interest in real property. [Citations.] Since the MacDonald court held that the [proffered writings] would have been adequate for a valid transmutation had they said, ‘ “I give to the account holder any interest I have . . . ,” ’ and since ‘grant’ is the historically operative word for transferring interests in real property, there is no doubt that [the husband’s] use of the word ‘grant’ to convey the | 2 | 2018–2019 |
People v. Superior Court (Romero)
green
1 sentence2021The trial court granted MacDonald’s motion to strike the prior serious felony conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero) in part, striking the conviction for purposes of sentencing under count two only. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
People v. Wright
green
2 sentences2021(See Sañchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 463; Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1144-1145 .) We therefore reject MacDonald’s claim of instructional error. 2. 2021(See Sañchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at p. 463; Wright, supra, 45 Cal.3d at p. 1144-1145 .) We therefore reject MacDonald’s claim of instructional error. 2. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Reagh v. Kelley
green
2 sentences1999While no such indication appears on the documents themselves, a trust need not be created in a single instrument ( Reagh v. Kelley (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1090 , 89 Cal.Rptr. 425 ); here, since securities and not real property are at issue, the stocks could even have been made the subject of an oral trust. ( Bank of America v. Long Beach etc. Assn. (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 618, 623 , 297 P.2d 443 ; Hardison v. Corbett (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 310, 317 , 130 P.2d 226 .) We do not suggest there is evidence of such a trust in the present case, nor that we could directly consider such evidence in det 1999While no such indication appears on the documents themselves, a trust need not be created in a single instrument ( Reagh v. Kelley (1970) 10 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1090 , 89 Cal.Rptr. 425 ); here, since securities and not real property are at issue, the stocks could even have been made the subject of an oral trust. ( Bank of America v. Long Beach etc. Assn. (1956) 141 Cal.App.2d 618, 623 , 297 P.2d 443 ; Hardison v. Corbett (1942) 55 Cal. App.2d 310, 317 , 130 P.2d 226 .) We do not suggest there is evidence of such a trust in the present case, nor that we could directly consider such evidence in det | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.