Vance v. Bizek
177 Cal. Rptr. 3d 167
Cal. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bizek, creditor of Gordon, sought to reach Gordon's beneficial interest in WPB Trust after Gordon was dispossessed as cotrustee; Gordon filed a disclaimer aiming to pass interest to Vance; trial court held disclaimer void due to alleged acceptance via commingling funds; issue centered on burden of proof and applicability of Probate Code section 16004; court noted Bizek is not a beneficiary, so 16004 presumption does not apply; proper burden rests with the party seeking relief under Evidence Code §500; disclaimer timely within nine months of the last settlor's death; on appeal, court reversed, held Gordon could have accepted a contingent interest, and that the evidence did not prove acceptance; case remanded for new judgment.
- The WPB Trust was created with cotrustees Gordon and Larsen; Sally Gordon was both trustee and beneficiary of WPB and sole beneficiary of the Pearl Burt Trust during Pearl's life; Pearl Burt died in 2010, Wallace Burt shortly after; Gordon executed a disclaimer on April 6, 2011; Bizek obtained a judgment against Gordon in a separate matter and sought to attach Gordon's WPB Trust interest.
- Trial evidence showed transfers between WPB and Pearl Burt Trusts and a $5,000 withdrawal to Gordon, but the trial court relied on those as proof of acceptance; the appellate court will reassess the evidence under correct burden and applicable statutes.
- Court applied standard of review for mixed questions of law and fact, evaluating evidence for substantial support.
- Court ultimately held that Bizek failed to prove Gordon accepted her interest; reversed and remanded with instructions to grant Vance's petition and deny Bizek's petition, and vacated the enforcement order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 16004 applies to a trustee’s dealings with a creditor rather than a beneficiary | Vance argues 16004 presumption applies to any trustee-beneficiary transaction and forecloses self-dealing | Bizek argues the presumption burdens Gordon to prove lack of acceptance | 16004 does not apply to creditor; burden remains with Bizek to show acceptance |
| Whether Gordon could accept a contingent interest before settlors’ deaths | Gordon may accept contingent interests during lifetime under §275 | Meilink precluded acceptance of contingent interests | Meilink superseded; Gordon could accept contingent interest under current Probate Code |
| Whether Gordon's disclaimer was timely | Disclaimer filed within nine months after the last settlor's death by §279(e) is timely | Timeliness contested | Disclaimer timely under §279, within nine months after last death |
| Whether Gordon accepted the WPB Trust interest before disclaimer | Evidence shows possible acceptance through transactions | Evidence fails to prove actual acceptance | Burden on Bizek; evidence insufficient to prove acceptance |
| Whether Bizek proved Gordon’s use of WPB funds constituted acceptance | If funds traced to Gordon, constitutes acceptance | Tracing insufficient without presumption; Gordon not proven to have used WPB funds | No proof of acceptance; findings reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Meilink v. Gianelli, 100 Cal.App.2d 615 (Cal.App.1st Dist. 1929) (rejects acceptance before vesting; constrained by pre-Code dicta (Meilink) but superseded by §275/§285)
- In re Kolb, 326 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2003) (addresses contingent interests and acceptance under federal analogue; supports view that acceptance may occur via certain actions)
- In re Estate of Sagal, 89 Cal.App.3d 1003 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 1979) (acceptance may arise from actions portending tangible results to beneficiary)
- Conservatorship of Hume, 140 Cal.App.4th 1385 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2006) (burden of proof rests on objector seeking relief; status quo favors conservator; guides disclaimer analysis)
- ASP Properties Grp. v. Fard, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 1257 (Cal.App.4th Dist. 2005) (supports considering evidence in light favorable to prevailing party)