Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association

19 Cal.2d 807 (1942)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Bernhard v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association

California Supreme Court
19 Cal.2d 807 (1942)

Play video

Facts

Clara Sather, an elderly woman, was in poor health. Sather authorized Charles Cook, who had taken her in and was taking care of her, to make withdrawals from her account at the Security First National Bank of Los Angeles (LA Bank). Cook later opened an account at the First National Bank of San Dimas (SD Bank) in the name of “Clara Sather by Charles O. Cook.” Subsequently, in the presence of a teller, a cashier, Cook, and Sather’s doctor, Sather signed a form authorizing the transfer of all the funds in the LA Bank from the LA Bank account to the SD Bank account. Cook later withdrew the entire balance from the SD Bank account and opened a new account in the name of himself and his wife. When Sather died, Cook became executor of her estate and administered the estate without mentioning the funds transferred to the SD Bank. Helen Bernhard and other beneficiaries of Sather’s will (plaintiffs) filed objections to the administration of the will in probate court. The probate court ruled that Sather, during her lifetime, had made a gift to Cook in the amount of the transferred money. Bernhard, after taking over as administratrix of the estate, brought suit against Bank of America National Trust & Savings Association (B of A) (defendant), the successor to the SD Bank. Bernhard sought to recover the amount of the transfer. The trial court ruled in favor of B of A because Cook’s ownership of the funds was established conclusively in the probate court, and Bernhard’s claim was precluded as res judicata. Bernhard appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Traynor, 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 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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 805,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 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