- 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