- 9 -
person as trustee.” Cal. Prob. Code sec. 15200(c) (West 1991).
Our findings in this case are based in part on the testimony
of petitioners. Here, we found petitioners to be honest,
sincere, and credible witnesses.
In the instant case, Phyllis designated Julie as the
successor owner of the annuity contract. Phyllis had a very
close relationship with Julie, which evidently reassured Phyllis
that, by naming Julie as the successor owner, Julie would ensure
that the annuity proceeds were distributed for the benefit of the
children consistent with Phyllis’s intent. At the time that
Julie learned about Phyllis’s intent, Julie clearly understood
that the funds were for the benefit of the children. Indeed,
upon Phyllis’s death, Julie immediately cashed the check from
Anchor and distributed the proceeds equally to the children. On
the basis of the record before us, we conclude that Phyllis
designated Julie as the successor owner pursuant to an oral trust
wherein Julie would distribute the annuity proceeds for the
benefit of the children.
Respondent contends, however, that Phyllis’s oral statement
to Julie is not sufficient evidence of the creation of a trust.
We disagree. The California Law Revision Commission Comment to
California Probate Code section 15207(b) states that for purposes
of this section:
[the] delivery of personal property to another person
accompanied by an oral declaration by the transferor that
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011