Family Law
[07/01] In re Cheyanne F.
Order terminating the parental rights of a mother pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26 is affirmed over claims that the juvenile court erroneously omitted information required for notification forms under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
[06/30] Mardardo F. v. Superior Court (Yolo County Dep't of Employment and Social Serv.)
For purpose of Welfare and Institution Code section 361.5(b)(4), the phrase "the parent or guardian of the child" refers merely to the parent's or the guardian's current status in the current dependency proceeding, and the phrase "the death of another child" in the section means the death of any other child. In this case, the juvenile court properly applied the statute in denying reunification service to a 28 year old father who murdered a 13-year old girl when he was 15.
[06/26] In re S.B.
An order terminating the parental rights to a child under Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 366.26 is reversed and remanded where: 1) the terminated parent had a continuing beneficial relationship with the child within the meaning of the statutory exception to termination of parental rights; and 2) the juvenile court did not comply with the notice provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
More...
Tax Law
[07/03] City of Jefferson City v. Cingular Wireless LLC
A declaratory judgment finding a wireless service provider of telecommunication services subject to local business taxes is affirmed where: 1) city's request for declaratory judgment on the issue of tax liability was properly before the district court and 2) a cell phone is a telephone and cell phone services are telephonic services for purposes of the city's tax ordinance.
[07/02] Deckers Corp. v. US
In a suit contesting the proper classification of three styles of sports sandals under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States, a decision holding that the merchandise was properly classified under subheading 6404.19.35 is affirmed where the sandals at issue have open toes and open heels, and lack the features of the named exemplars of 6406.11.80, and thus the imported goods are not classifiable under that subheading notwithstanding their claimed status as athletic footwear.
[07/02] Nick's Cigarette City, Inc. v. US
In a suit seeking a refund of federal corporate income taxes for certain years, dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not properly file a refund claim with the IRS so as to satisfy the requirements of Treasury Regulation 301.6042-2(b)(1); 2) the IRS did not consider the claims on the merits and the letter sent to the plaintiffs made it clear that the denial was based on procedural grounds; 3) although the denial letter failed to adequately explain the reasons for denial, that did not excuse plaintiff's failure to file a properly detailed refund claim; and 4) the government did not waive its right to insist on the specificity requirements.
More...
Probate Trusts
[06/26] Murphy v. Murphy
A probate court judgment finding plaintiff entitled to a constructive trust over one-half interest of decedent's real and personal property existing on the date of his death is reversed on collateral estoppel grounds where: 1) prior to the decedent's death, a probate court previously issued an order on behalf of decedent, authorizing the decedent's conservator to execute a living trust and pour-over will to implement an estate plan which effectively disinherited plaintiff; and 2) a careful balance of all the relevant factors supported that principles of collateral estoppel should serve to bar plaintiff's subsequent causes of action.
[06/25] Safai v. Safai
In a case involving a dispute over whether a minor's actions triggered the "no contest clause" contained in a trust instrument, the court of appeals finds that the minor's act of signing the "minor's consent" portion of an ex parte application for appointment of guardian ad litem did not equate to "voluntarily" participating in a trust contest, an act which a minor is legally incapable of pursuing by their own volition.
[06/24] IN Funeral Directors Ins. Trust v. Benefit Actuaries, Inc.
In a suit alleging violation of fiduciary duties under ERISA and breaches of common law duties to plaintiff by providing it with bad advice and failing to recommend measures that would stave off insolvency, judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not provide evidence that defendants promised to administer the Trust in accordance with certain state law or that defendants knew the Trust would rely on it to follow the Michigan statute; 2) plaintiff failed to show that defendant assumed a duty to provide actuarial advice; 3) defendant did not breach a duty by failing to advise trustees about the risk of raising the specific stop loss deductible and about the Trust's poor financial situation; and 4) defendant did not breach a duty by failing to recommend that the Trust maintain adequate reserves.
More...
Wills & Trusts
[06/30] MICHAEL J. v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE COUNTY (ROGERS)
The conservator of the person and the estate of a mentally disabled person who is unable to communicate her wishes does not have the power to initiate and prosecute a petition for the dissolution of her marriage.
[03/12] E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK
Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account.
[03/12] E. ARMATA, INC. v. KOREA COMMERCIAL BANK OF NEW YORK
Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), a bank is not liable to the beneficiaries of a PACA trust for receipt of funds in breach of the trust where, having extended revolving overdraft privileges to a produce dealer covered by PACA, the bank routinely applied deposited PACA funds to reduce the negative balance in the produce dealer's overdrawn account. (Amended opinion)
More...
Bankruptcy Law
[07/01] Donell v. Kowell
In a suit arising to recover gains made by defendant, an innocent investor, from a Ponzi scheme, a judgment requiring him to disgorge his profits as fraudulent transfers under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act is affirmed where the circuit court: 1) adopted the largely uniform analysis used for applying the UFTA to allow recovery from investors in a Ponzi scheme, and describes a two-step process for determining the existence and amount of liability; 2) found there was no error in the district court's application of such analysis; 3) rejected arguments that courts should not be allowed to require innocent investors to disgorge net profits; and 4) declined to permit good faith investors to claim offsets for taxes or other expenses paid in connection with receipt and management of income from a Ponzi scheme.
[06/26] Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Shapiro
In bankruptcy proceedings, judgment rejecting a bankruptcy court's decision that the earmarking doctrine did not apply to a new mortgage as a preferential transfer and that the estate was diminished by the perfection of the new mortgage is reversed where: 1) the trustee established the elements of an avoidable preference set forth in section 547; 2) plaintiff was not a "new creditor" which precluded it from invoking the earmarking doctrine since it refinanced its own loan with debtor; and 3) the lapsed perfection of the original mortgage and plaintiff's late perfection of the new mortgage diminished debtor's estate.
[06/25] AG Capital Funding Partners v. State Street Bank and Trust Co.
In an action alleging breach of contract, violation of federal Trust Indenture Act, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence based on defendant's alleged failure to deliver debt transaction registration statements required to secure a debt, the court of appeals finds that: 1) plaintiffs' contract and Trust Indenture Act claims were barred by a release previously executed by plaintiffs as part of a bankruptcy settlement and that no fiduciary duties existed; however; 2) because negligence claims were not barred by the release and there were issues of fact as to whether defendant owed and violated a duty of care, plaintiffs' cause of action for negligence is reinstated.
More...
