In re Marriage of Valli Petition for Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

.. Supreme Court Case No. _ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RANDY VALLI • Appellant vs. FRANKIE VALLI / Respondent Court of Appeal Second Appellate District Case No.: B222435 Superior Court County of Los Angeles Case No.: BD 414038 PETITION FOR REVIEW • Peter Walzer, Esq. Christopher C. Melcher, Esq. Walzer & Melcher, LLP SBNs: 101477 and170547 21700 Oxnard Street, Suite 2080 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel: (818) 591-3700 Fax: (818) 591-3774 Garrett C. Dailey Attorney at Law SBN: 76180 2915 McCluare Street Oakland, California 94609 Tel: (510) 465-3920 Fax: (510) 465-7348 Attorneys for Respondent FRANKIE VALLI •
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Issues Presented And Explanation Of Need For Review Introduction Summary Of The Facts 1 4 7 I. II. III. IV. Life Insurance Policies Acquired During Marriage With Community Property Funds Are Community Property The Opinion Erodes The Community Property Presumption The Form ofTitle Presumption Should Not Apply in Marital Cases The Opinion Conflicts With Existing Law By Putting The Burden On Frankie To Establish Undue Influence Rather Than On Randy To Rebut It 9 13 16 21 A. B. c. The Presumption of Undue Influence Arose By Operation of Law Randy Failed To rebut The Undue Influence Presumption Fiduciary Duty Applies To All Transactions During Marriage 21 23 25 V. Conclusion Acquiring An Asset During Marriage With Community Property In One Spouse's Name Is A Transmutation Triggering Family Code §852 30 37 Certificate of Compliance Opinion 38 Attachment 1
Page 1: S 1,93990 Supreme Court Case No. _
Page 5 and 6: Cases Page Number(s) In re Marriage
Page 7 and 8: Statutes· Probate Code §143 Proba
Page 9 and 10: • ~ What showing is required to o
Page 11 and 12: community property presumption and
Page 13 and 14: The opinion also takes away the int
Page 15 and 16: • 292:5 & 293:9-12; Trial Exhibit
Page 17 and 18: • "From the leading case ofNew Yo
Page 19 and 20: • 525,530-531; Dixon Lumber Co. v
Page 21 and 22: • not community property. (Marria
Page 23 and 24: • III. THE FORM OF TITLE PRESUMPT
Page 25 and 26: • finding ofits nonexistence....'
Page 27 and 28: oker, "Randy could not have owed a
Page 29 and 30: a species of unfair advantage. (Mar
Page 31 and 32: • 2) With a full knowledge ofall
Page 33 and 34: • The answer is that fiduciary du
Page 35 and 36: • Dictionary defmes a 'transactio
Page 37 and 38: • v. ACQUIRING AN ASSET DURING MA
Page 39 and 40: • estate planning reasons, or sim
Page 41 and 42: • characterization or ownership o
Page 43 and 44: • 25 years. Despite $365,032 ofco
Page 45 and 46: • CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE I, Ga
Page 47 and 48: • Peter Walzer, Esq. (via UPS) Ch
Page 49 and 50: INTRODUCTION Respondent and appella
Page 51 and 52: •• .' • DISCUSSION The Trial
Page 53 and 54:
the marriage as his or her separate
Page 55 and 56:
• . court supports Randy'S positi
Page 57 and 58:
third party transactions. We need n
Page 59:
• trial court, and does not conte
show all

In re Marriage of Valli Petition for Review

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?