- 15 -
(1) The beneficiary, or someone acting on behalf
of the beneficiary, makes a voluntary assignment,
conveyance, encumbrance, pledge, or transfer of the
interest or part thereof, or contracts to do so;
provided, however, that a beneficiary will not have
accepted an interest if the beneficiary makes a
gratuitous conveyance or transfer of the beneficiary’s
entire interest in property to the person or persons
who would have received the property had the
beneficiary made an otherwise qualified disclaimer
pursuant to this part.
* * * * * * *
(3) The beneficiary, or someone acting on behalf
of the beneficiary, accepts the interest or part
thereof or benefit thereunder.
Thus, California law, like Federal law, incorporates a rule
denying the effectiveness of a disclaimer in situations
evidencing a prior acceptance of benefits.
The foregoing statute was recently interpreted by the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which appeal in the instant
case would normally lie, in Cassell v. Kolb (In re Kolb), 326
F.3d 1030 (9th Cir. 2003). There, in the context of a bankruptcy
proceeding, the Court of Appeals considered whether certain acts
by a debtor constituted acceptance of a contingent interest in
trust assets and thereby prevented the debtor from later
disclaiming the property. Id. at 1033-1034. The appellate court
focused on construction of the “broad ‘catch-all’ language” in
Cal. Prob. Code section 285(b)(3). Id. at 1037. After first
noting the dearth of California caselaw on the statute, the Court
of Appeals engaged in an extensive analysis of the language and
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011