Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-05-2023

Case Style:

Fleming & Curti, PLC v. David Dixon

Case Number: 20-=2019-01113636

Judge: Randell N. Shaver

Court: Superior Court, Orange County, California

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Santa Ana Probate Law Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Santa Ana Probate Law Lawyer Directory

Description: Santa Ana, California probate law lawyers represented the parties in a dispute of property owned by a trust.

After Keith Alan Dixon died intestate, the public administrator sold Dixon's residence, unaware that Dixon had previously executed a grant deed transferring the real property to the Dixon Charitable Remainder Unitrust (the Trust). Respondent Fleming & Curti, PLC, the trustee, filed a Probate Code section 850 petition (the petition) requesting an order finding that Dixon had transferred the property to the Trust before his death and ordering the public administrator to transfer the proceeds from the sale of the property to the trustee. David Dixon, a relative of Dixon, objected.[1]

Following a trial, the probate court granted the petition. On appeal, appellant contends Code of Civil Procedure section 366.3 (section 366.3) bars the Probate section 850 petition. As discussed below, we conclude section 366.3 does not apply in this case. Appellant further argues that under Probate Code sections 15401 and 15402 (sections 15401 and 15402), the grant deed did not validly transfer the real property to the Trust because Dixon failed to comply with the mandatory procedures for making additional contributions set forth in the Trust. As discussed below, sections 15401 and 15402 do not apply in this case. In any event, the transfer was valid.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case