- 27 -
the taxable gain in this case.” These documents, however,
actually weigh against the estate’s position here. Critically,
they were executed after decedent had transferred the
overwhelming majority of the eConnect sales proceeds to other
accounts owned individually by her, including apparently various
accounts at Wells Fargo. A number of accounts at Wells Fargo and
Dean Witter are among the assets listed on the schedule of
property placed in the trust, as is the Simi Valley residence.
Terms of the trust, which is revocable by decedent, operate to
apply the property for decedent’s benefit during life and to
distribute the assets to Mr. Greene only upon her death.
Consequently, as of July of 2000, decedent was behaving as
if the property generated by the eConnect sales was still under
her control and hers to give away at her death, not as if half
was already owned by Mr. Greene. Such would seem to belie an
intent to gift the underlying stock upon funding of the Valdes &
Moreno account in January of 2000. The motion for summary
judgment, which seeks a ruling based on the alleged validity of
the pourover will and trust, is no more helpful to the estate and
is even less probative, a mere litigating position in another
proceeding. The admission of these materials would therefore do
little, if anything, to provide support for the stance taken by
the estate here.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011