Fisch, Spiegler, Ginsburg & Ladner v. Appel, D016583
Decision Date | 20 November 1992 |
Docket Number | No. D016583,D016583 |
Citation | 10 Cal.App.4th 1810,13 Cal.Rptr.2d 471 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | FISCH, SPIEGLER, GINSBURG & LADNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Daniel H. APPEL, as Trustee, etc., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Fisch, Spiegler, Ginsburg & Ladner and Joseph J. Fisch and James H. Cook, San Diego, for plaintiff and appellant.
Buchbinder & Haynes and David L. Buchbinder, San Diego, and Pamela LaBruyere, Solana Beach, for defendants and respondents.
Fisch, Spiegler, Ginsburg & Ladner, a professional law corporation, (Fisch) appeals an order declaring valid the homestead exemption of Daniel and Marlene Appel (the Appels). Title to the subject property was in a revocable living trust, an estate planning device whose popularity has increased in recent years. (Drafting Cal. Revocable Living Trusts (Cont.Ed.Bar 2d ed. 1984) p. ix.) We determine the Appels qualify for the homestead exemption even though the trust held title and therefore affirm the trial court's order.
The Appels are trustees of the Appel Revocable Family Trust dated April 19, 1989 (trust). Fisch drafted the trust instrument. In 1989, in reliance on legal advice from Fisch, the Appels quitclaimed the home in which they resided to the trust.
On June 20, 1990, upon Fisch's advice, the Appels as trustees recorded a declaration of homestead on the property. On September 4, 1991, Fisch obtained a judgment against the trust and Daniel Appel. The judgment was entered the next day.
On January 3, 1992, Fisch filed an application for an order for sale of the home. As of the date of the application, the balance due on the judgment was $317,562.66. The property was encumbered by a senior lien in favor of Wells Fargo Bank in the amount of $668,023.92. The Appels were in default on payments to Wells Fargo, facing foreclosure, and in the process of selling the property. The full assessed market value of the home was $802,200.49.
In the court below, Fisch argued the trust, as owner of the property, was not entitled to a homestead exemption because it was not a natural person. The Appels argued they were entitled to a $75,000 homestead exemption inasmuch as they had filed the homestead declaration as trustees, possessed a beneficial interest in the trust, and occupied the property as their principal residence.
On February 14, 1992, the trial court ruled the Appels as trustees held a valid $75,000 homestead exemption and ordered the property sold subject to the exemption. According to the Appels, the property was sold and the net proceeds of $63,608.65 are being held in trust pending this appeal.
Fisch contends the Appels do not qualify for a homestead exemption because the owner of the property was the trust, not a natural person, and the statute specifically excludes the interest of a beneficiary of a trust from the definition of dwelling.
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 704.9101 provides in pertinent part "(a) 'Declared homestead' means the dwelling described in a homestead declaration.
The Appels say they are entitled to revoke the trust, an assertion which Fisch does not dispute. Although the trust instrument is not part of the record, in light of the Appels' uncontradicted statement it appears the Appels are trustors. This gave them a contingent reversionary interest in the subject property (see In re Moffat (C.D.Cal.1989) 107 B.R. 255, 259), an interest in real property within the meaning of section 704.910, subdivision (c). Furthermore, the Appels maintain they have life estates in the trust assets, another claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Boshernitsan v. Bach
...of the Ken Lusby v. Piedmont Lumber (N.D. Cal. 2015) 132 F.Supp.3d 1175, 1180 ; see, e.g., Fisch, Spiegler, Ginsburg & Ladner v. Appel (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1810, 1812, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 471 ( Appel ).) But these imprecise references are hardly compelling, particularly when the issue being dis......
-
Schaefers v. Blizzard Energy, Inc. (In re Schaefers)
...property is held in the individuals' revocable trust. In support of this argument, he cites to Fisch, Spiegler, Ginsburg & Ladner v. Appel , 10 Cal. App. 4th 1810, 1811, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 471 (1992). The Appel court reasoned that the individual trustees still retained an equitable interest in ......
-
Amonette v. Indymac Bank, F.S.B.
...consumer credit transactions as involving natural persons and excluded' trusts. In Fisch, Spiegler, Ginsburg & Ladner v. Appel, [10 Cal. App.4th 1810, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 471, 473 (Cal.Ct.App.1992)], the court held the settlors of a revocable living trust had a reversionary interest in the subje......
-
Weber v. Langholz, B084839
...(Drafting Cal.Revocable Living Trusts (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.1994) §§ 2.1-2.3, pp. 2-2 to 2-4; Fisch, Spiegler, Ginsburg & Ladner v. Appel (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1810, 1813, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 471.) Neither party cites any federal authority or legislative history in point, but it seems unlikely Cong......