Estate of MacDonald

51 Cal. 3d 262, 794 P.2d 911, 272 Cal. Rptr. 153 (1990)

From our private database of 47,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Estate of MacDonald

California Supreme Court
51 Cal. 3d 262, 794 P.2d 911, 272 Cal. Rptr. 153 (1990)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Margery MacDonald and Robert MacDonald (defendant) married in 1973. Both Margery and Robert had children from prior marriages. Margery worked as a bookkeeper for Robert’s business and was fully acquainted with all of Robert’s assets. In 1984, Margery was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and she worked with Robert to divide their community property so that Margery could clearly allocate her property interests to her children in her will. After the initial property division, Robert’s pension plan, which he had accumulated during his 35 working years, terminated, and Robert received a lump-sum disbursement of approximately $266,000. Robert placed the disbursement into three separate IRA accounts, all of which were titled in Robert’s sole name and all of which named Robert’s children as the sole beneficiaries. Margery signed the spousal-consent portion of each IRA account agreement (spousal-consent forms) consenting to the beneficiary designations. Margery died in 1985. Margery’s estate (plaintiff), represented by Judith Bolton as executrix, filed a petition to establish the estate’s interest in the IRA accounts. It was undisputed that the pension funds were community property at the time of the lump-sum disbursement. Robert challenged, arguing that Margery’s signature on the spousal-consent forms transmuted the community-property pension funds into Robert’s separate property. The trial court agreed and held that the pension funds had been transmuted into Robert’s separate property. The estate appealed, and the appellate court reversed, holding that Margery’s signature on the spousal-consent forms did not constitute the required express declaration of intent necessary to transmute the community-property pension funds into Robert’s separate property. Robert appealed to the California Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Panelli, J.)

Dissent (Arabian, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 899,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,000 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership