Bean v. Bean (1919) · DecisionDepot

Bean v. Bean

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Feb 18, 1919 No. Civ. No. 2545.Published

Before: Kerrigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the evidence sufficiently supported the existence of a trust and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover trust funds, including corporate securities and diverted monies, that the defendant had improperly retained.

Issues

Whether the findings of the trial court support the existence of the alleged trust.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover trust funds traced into the possession of the defendant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“As the trial court found upon sufficient evidence that a trust existed, the discussion of this question becomes unimportant.”

“Plaintiff having proved, and the court having found, the existence of the trust, plaintiff was entitled to this judgment, he having traced these amounts as being part of the trust funds to which he was entitled.”

Synopsis

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

[786]

KERRIGAN, J.

This is a suit in equity to enjoin the defendant from disposing of certain shares of stock and to compel him to turn over the same, together with certain sums of money claimed to be due plaintiff: under the terms of a certain trust created by one James Bean for the benefit of his children with their approval and consent. Judgment went for plaintiff. No adverse ruling against appellant either in the settlement of the pleadings or in the admission or rejection of evidence appears from the record. The principal point relied upon for a reversal is that the findings fail to support the existence of the alleged trust. The caser comes up for review upon the judgment-roll and bill of exceptions.

The facts necessary for an understanding of the ease may be stated as follows: James Bean, being nearly ninety years of age and sick and infirm, was desirous of dividing certain lands owned by him among his three sons. These lands were situated in different counties of this state and were all subject to mortgage. Bean was also the owner of a certain note secured by a deed of trust, upon which there was due the sum of fifteen thousand dollars. To carry out his plan for the division of his estate he proceeded to convey to each son the particular piece of property he desired him to have. He then transferred to his eldest son, James Edwin Bean,' the note owned by him. The transfer was made in trust for various purposes, but particularly to pay off the encumbrances on the various parcels of land conveyed by him to his sons, so that, as far as possible, each son might have his property clear of indebtedness. The father retained the income from all of the property for his support as long as he lived.

The terms of the trust in relation to the property provided for the following payments:

(1) The income to the father during his life.

(2) To the Bank of San Jose an indebtedness due from the trustor in the sum of six thousand five hundred dollars.

(3) A mortgage of two thousand dollars upon property situated in Alameda County conveyed to the appellant.

(4) An indebtedness of one thousand two hundred dollars due to James Edwin Bean.

Bean v. Bean

AI Brief

Synopsis

KERRIGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief