In re Marriage of Valli Petition for Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

• IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RANDy VALLI Appellant • vs. FRANKIE VALLI Respondent ----------------_/ PETITION FOR REVIEW After a Unanimous Published Decision By The Second Appellate District, Division Five l ISSUES PRESENTED AND EXPLANATION OF NEED FOR REVIEW ~ Does the record title presumption apply to property acquired by spouses during marriage with community funds in the absence of any independent evidence that they intended that said property be characterized as the titled-spouse's separate property? ~ Does Fam. Code §852's requirement of a writing to change character apply to property acquired during marriage? ~ If the asset was acquired from a third party, is the spouse who benefitted from the transaction subject to the interspousal fiduciary duty? 1 In re Marriage ofValli (2011) 195 Cal.AppAth 776 ["the Opinion"], attached hereto.
• ~ What showing is required to overcome the presumption of undue influence when one spouse benefits from a transaction during marriage? The Los Angeles County Superior Court determined that a $3.75 million lif~ • insurance policy with a cash value of$365,032 was community property because it was acquired during marriage and the premiums were paid with community property. Randy (the wife)appealed, arguing that the policy was her separate property because she had been named the policy's owner. During marriage, Randy suggested to Frankie (the husband) that they obtain the policy when he was in the hospital suffering from a heart condition. Neither party presented evidence other than thefact that Randy was named the owner of the policy that Frankie intended to make a gift ofeither the policy itselfor its cash value, which accumulated rapidly during marriage. The only evidence presented about the acq:uisition ofthe policy was that Frankie agreed with Randy's suggestion to obtain life insurance because he had no plans on separating from Randy and wanted to take care ofher and their children ifhe were to die. The Court ofAppeal reversed the Superior Court on a straight presuinptionof-title rationale. It held: 2
Page 1 and 2: S 1,93990 Supreme Court Case No. _
Page 3 and 4: TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Issue
Page 5 and 6: Cases Page Number(s) In re Marriage
Page 7: Statutes· Probate Code §143 Proba
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?