- 10 -
It is not possible to tell from the face of the consent
paragraphs, or even from the face of the * * *
[documents] as a whole, whether decedent was aware that
the legal effect of her signature might be to alter the
character or ownership of her interest in the pension
funds * * * [Id.]
Thus, there was no "express declaration" as required by
California Civil Code section 5110.730(a).
The California Supreme Court was aware that its interpre-
tation of California Civil Code section 5110.730(a) would
preclude the finding of a transmutation in a case where extrinsic
evidence of an intent to transmute existed. The court stated
that "it * * * [was] such reliance on extrinsic evidence for the
proof of transmutations which the [California] Legislature
intended to eliminate in enacting the writing requirement of
section 5110.730(a)." Id. at 919. The court's construction of
California Civil Code section 5110.730(a) was explained as
follows:
Our conclusion honors each of the principles of
statutory construction we have discussed. First, it
interprets "express declaration," so as to give
significance to all the words of section 5110.730(a).
Second, it effects the intent of the Legislature to
create a writing requirement which enables courts to
validate transmutations without resort to extrinsic
evidence and, thus, without encouraging perjury and the
proliferation of litigation. Third, it is consistent
with our interpretation of the similar requirement in
section 683. [Id. at 918; fn. ref. omitted.6]
6 In this allusion to California Civil Code sec. 683, the
California Supreme Court is referring to California Trust Co. v.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011