Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Good case! My recollection from the last time I looked at California's disclaimer statute in the Probate Code was it is similar to that of Arizona's. Debtor's can disclaim some or all of inheritance and the law presumes they are dead for purposes of the disclaimed asset. In those rare instances when our clients' have an inherritance right we can take disclaimers into account along with the exemption planning. Of course dislaimanants have no say where the asset goes, that is determined by the terms of the governing will/trust/ira/life insurance policy etc. or by intestate succession.
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF
THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY
LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION,
DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY
US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS
MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Fri Feb 6 17:19 , 'Patrick Green' sent:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

-Civil Procedure-
Disclaimer by Arizona debtor relinquishing claim to trust property did not
qualify as a "transfer...of an interest of the debtor in property" that was
avoidable as an actual or constructively fraudulent transfer under 11 U.S.C.
Sec. 548(a)(1) because Arizona's relation-back rule provides that
disclaimant neither transfers nor possesses an interest in disclaimed
property; "right to channel" property to third party via disclaimer is not
an "interest...in property." Federal interest exception did not override
normal rule of state law deference where application of generic interests
identified by trustee to do so would interfere with goals of avoiding
uncertainty, forum shopping, and windfall recoveries.
In re Costas - filed February 6, 2009
Cite as 0616520
Full text
http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?0209%2F0616520
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green, Esq.
Fitzgerald & Green
Attorneys at Law
1010 E. Union Street
Suite 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
-Civil Procedure-
Disclaimer by Arizona debtor relinquishing claim to trust property did not
qualify as a "transfer...of an interest of the debtor in property"
that was avoidable as an actual or constructively fraudulent transfer under 11
U.S.C. Sec. 548(a)(1) because Arizona’s relation-back rule provides that
disclaimant neither transfers nor possesses an interest in disclaimed property;
"right to channel" property to third party via disclaimer is not an
"interest...in property." Federal interest exception did not override
normal rule of state law deference where application of generic interests
identified by trustee to do so would interfere with goals of avoiding
uncertainty, forum shopping, and windfall recoveries.
In re Costas - filed February 6, 2009
Cite as 0616520
Full text
The post was migrated from Yahoo.