Katz v. Greeninger

California Court of Appeal Feb 28, 1950 No. Civ. 14202Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a valid, express, revocable trust was created by the deposit agreement and that the guardian of an incompetent trustee lacks the authority, absent a court order, to seize the trust corpus or terminate the trust when the funds are not required for the ward's maintenance.

Issues

Does the written deposit agreement create a valid trust?
Does the guardian of an incompetent trustee have the right to take possession of the trust fund without a court order?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The document shows every evidence of a clear and fixed intention to create a trust in accordance with the terms expressed therein.”

“The trial court found that the deposit was made “with intent to create a voluntary express revocable trust” with Frances Greeninger as the beneficiary.”

“the guardian is without power, in absence of a court order, to take possession of the trust estate, or to exercise the right of election to discontinue the trust which had been reserved to the trustee alone.”

NOURSE, P. J.

This appeal relates to questions of law alone. Evidence was taken at the trial, findings of fact were filed, but appellant did not request a reporter’s transcript and none has been filed.

On August 24,1945, Kate Maher deposited the sum of $5,000 with the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society under a written declaration of trust hereinafter set forth.

On August 6, 1946, Kate Maher was adjudged incompetent and the San Francisco Bank was appointed guardian of her estate. The following day the guardian made written demand upon the Hibernia Bank for possession of the fund on deposit, which was refused. The money on deposit was not required for the maintenance of the incompetent. On August 15, 1946, Kate Maher died. The executrix of her will commenced suit against Frances Greeninger and the Hibernia Bank to recover the fund on deposit, and following the trial the executrix died. After findings were filed and judgment entered in favor of the defendants the public administrator was appointed administrator with the will annexed and substituted as plaintiff in place of the executrix named in the will.

On the trial the defendants put in evidence the document which they assert is a trust agreement and which reads as follows:

“To the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society,

San Francisco, California—No. 675-669

Date: August 24, 1945

“I hereby agree to all the conditions of deposit governing deposits with the HibernIa Savings and Loan Society and to all amendments thereto which may hereafter become effective. I further agree, certify and declare that the moneys deposited by me in the above numbered account, and all future deposits made therein and all accruals thereto are held by me in trust for the benefit of Frances Greeninger hereinafter called the Beneficiary subject to the following conditions:

“1. During my lifetime payments shall be made on my order alone and my receipt shall be a sufficient acquittance to the Hibernia Savings and Loan Society for such payments so made.

“2. In the event of my death the amount then remaining

[247]

Katz v. Greeninger

AI Brief

NOURSE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief