Bucquet v. Livingston
California Court of Appeal
57 Cal. App. 3d 914 (1976)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
George Bucquet hired David Livingston (defendant) to prepare a trust in which to pass down his estate with the goal of minimizing the amount of federal estate taxes and California inheritance taxes owed after the deaths of George and his wife, Ruby. George and Livingston intended for the trust to transfer one-half of the estate to Ruby upon George’s death, which would qualify for the marital deduction of the federal estate tax. The nonmarital half would be available to Ruby during her life and would not be subject to federal estate or California inheritance taxes upon Ruby’s death. The estate was to pass to George and Ruby’s child and the child’s family (the beneficiaries) (plaintiffs) after Ruby’s death. The trust mistakenly granted Ruby a power of appointment after George’s death. Because of the power of appointment, Ruby owed inheritance taxes on the nonmarital half of the estate. Ruby renounced the power of appointment, which resulted in a gift-tax assessment. The power of appointment also subjected the nonmarital half to both federal estate and California inheritance taxes upon Ruby’s death. The beneficiaries sued Livingston for malpractice. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in Livingston’s favor, and the beneficiaries appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Taylor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
