Ashton v. Sentney, 10792.
| Decision Date | 05 December 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 10792.,10792. |
| Citation | 145 F.2d 719 |
| Parties | ASHTON v. SENTNEY. In re SENTNEY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Earl E. Moss and Louis Lombardi, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
Rupert B. Turnbull and Martin Goldman, both of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before WILBUR, DENMAN, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.
The trustee in bankruptcy of the Estate of Charles Ralph Sentney appeals from an order of the District Court affirming two orders of the referee, one denying the trustee's petition to vacate appellee Sentney's discharge in bankruptcy; the other denying the petition of the trustee for an order requiring appellee and the First National Bank of Santa Ana, California, trustee of a trust of which appellee was beneficiary, to turn over to the trustee in bankruptcy certain property held in trust for appellee.
It is not questioned here and was not before the referee below that the trust, which was to pay over certain moneys to the appellee on the predecease of other beneficiaries and on the death of the donor, was a spendthrift trust. Under its terms the appellee had no power to transfer his contingent future interest in the trust property to anyone. There was no assignment by appellee of his trust interest in the nature of a promise to turn it over to another as in Kelly v. Kelly, 11 Cal.2d 356, 79 P. 2d 1059, 119 A.L.R. 71. It also appears that the donor was living for more than six months after appellee's adjudication in bankruptcy, Cf. 11 U.S.C.A. § 110, sub. a though the donor died and the trust property was vested in the appellee before the motions to vacate the discharges in bankruptcy and to deliver the property to the trustee in bankruptcy.
On the argument here it was admitted that neither the trustee in bankruptcy nor the creditors have any interest in the property. Hence the order of the District Court confirming the order of the referee refusing to order the delivery of the property to the trustee in bankruptcy is affirmed.
The remaining question is whether the discharge in bankruptcy should be set aside. It is conceded by appellee that he did not list his trust interest in his schedule of assets. Schedule B-4 provides for the listing of "Property in reversion, remainder or expectancy, including property held in trust for the Debtor or subject to any power or right to dispose of or to charge."
We agree with the holding of the referee and the court below that appellee was required to list his trust interest. While it was not transferable at the moment of adjudication, within six months therefrom the deaths well could have occurred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re FP Newport Corp., 25308.
...Bankruptcy Orders 36, 47; Diamond Laundry Corp. v. California Empl. Stab. Comm., 9 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 398, 401; Ashton v. Sentney, 9 Cir., 1944, 145 F.2d 719, 720; McInnes v. Publishers Service Co., 2 Cir., 1949, 174 F.2d 647, 648; Knetzer v. Larkin, 2 Cir., 1949, 178 F.2d 532, 534. And s......
-
In re California Associated Products Co.
...Land Bank, 8 Cir., 137 F.2d 84; Rhodes v. Federal Land Bank, 8 Cir., 140 F.2d 612; Powell v. Wumkes, 9 Cir., 142 F.2d 4; Ashton v. Sentney, 9 Cir., 145 F.2d 719; Reich v. Industrial Com'r of New York, 2 Cir., 145 F.2d 759. See also Bankruptcy General Order No. 47, 11 U.S.C.A. following Sect......
-
Groves v. Prickett
...witnesses is not our function. The demeanor of the witnesses, their sincerity and candor is a matter for the Referee. Ashton v. Sentney, 145 F.2d 719 (9th Cir. 1944). Finding no reversible, or other, error, the judgment of the Referee and of the District Court must be, and is, 1 Article XII......
-
In re Montgomery
...to schedule the asset is forbidden by law. Id. at 128. See also, In re Collins, 19 B.R. 874, 878 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1982); Ashton v. Sentney, 145 F.2d 719 (9th Cir.1944) (where spendthrift trust of which bankrupt was beneficiary was long and complicated for a layman, and bankrupt acted on advis......