Appellant executrix sought review of a decision from the Court of Appeal (California), which reversed a decision finding that decedent had waived her community property interest in her individual retirement accounts.
Once decedent learned she was terminally ill, she and respondent, her husband, divided their community property into separate estates. Decedent and respondent also placed community property in individual retirement accounts (IRA) opened in respondent's name, and decedent signed the consent portion of the adoption agreement. After decedent's death, Best corporate attorney appellant executrix filed an action to determine ownership of the IRA funds. The trial court found that decedent waived her community property interest and transmuted her community property funds to respondent's separate property when she signed the adoption agreement. Appellant sought review. The appellate court reversed and held that the adoption agreement did not satisfy Cal. Civ. Code § 5110.730 (a). The court affirmed the appellate court and found that the record did not present substantial evidence that decedent intended a transmutation. It further found that the adoption agreement was not an express declaration for the purposes of Cal. Civ. Code § 5110.730(a) because it did not contain language which expressly stated that a change in the characterization or ownership of the property was being made.
The court affirmed the appellate court decision in favor of respondent, decedent's husband, finding that decedent's consent form for individual retirement accounts did not satisfy statutory requirements for an express writing to transmute community property into separate property.
Defendant realty company sought review of an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County (California), which was based on a jury verdict that found defendant intentionally concealed a material fact with the intent to defraud and intentionally inflicted emotional distress, and that assessed punitive damages. Plaintiff homeowners cross-appealed asserting that the damages awarded were insufficient.
Plaintiff homeowners bought a home using defendant realty company. Later, it was discovered that the house had dry rot and was infested with termites. It was also discovered that defendant knew of the defects and took measures to conceal them. Plaintiffs brought suit and were awarded damages and punitive damages under jury findings that defendant concealed a material fact with the intent to defraud and intentionally inflicted emotional distress. Defendant sought review and plaintiffs cross-appealed. On review, the court affirmed. The court found that the fraud allegations, although belated, were properly brought and tried. The court reviewed the pretrial conference order and found it sufficiently broad in framing the issues to allow the admission of evidence relating to plaintiffs' claims. Furthermore, plaintiffs' introduction of a pest report was relevant and admissible. The court found plaintiffs' failure to amend the complaint to be non-fatal. There were no reversible issues. As to the cross-appeal, the court found that plaintiffs waived any right to assert error regarding the verdict because a new trial motion was a prerequisite for review of the damages determination.
The judgment was affirmed against defendant realty company because the fraud allegations, and evidence to support them, were properly brought and tried to the jury and there were no reversible issues regarding the trial or jury instructions. Also, plaintiff homeowners waived any right to assert error regarding the damages awarded because a motion for new trial was a prerequisite for appellate review and plaintiffs did not ask for a new trial.
