Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-19-2013, 9:48 PM
AlexDD AlexDD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default CA: GUN TRUST ATTORNEYS ISSUE WARNING ON GUN TRANSFERS

GUN TRUST ATTORNEYS ISSUE WARNING ON GUN TRANSFERS

http://www.lawnews.tv/index.php/88-p...-gun-transfers

Excuse the all caps. Copy and paste from my iPhone.

"WARNING: THERE IS SOME RISK THAT TRANSFER OF FIREARM(S) INTO A JOINT REVOCABLE TRUST, WHETHER A COMMON LIVING TRUST FOR ESTATE PLANNING OR A SPECIALLY DRAFTED GUN TRUST, MAY BE A CRIME PUNISHABLE AS A MISDEMEANOR, OR POSSIBLY EVEN FELONY."

"In addition to me (Dave Duringer), several other attorneys (Ty Supancik, George Lee, and Blaine Burch) were present at the second meeting of our gun trust study group on May 17, 2013, and essentially concur in this recommendation (though they may possibly differ on some details in this memo, which has not been reviewed by the group). In addition, several other attorneys present at our first meeting on April 19, 2013 (Larry Brock and Jason Davis) provided valuable input though it is not known at this time whether they concur with the recommendation or analysis."


This article makes my head hurt.

Though if your single it would seem you need you need to have your firearms in a separate trust from the general planning trust, if you marry.

I hope some one is warning all the trust attorneys. Most trusts include all your positions with a pour over will for the remainder.

CA legislature trying to make you a criminal at every turn.

Last edited by AlexDD; 05-19-2013 at 9:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-20-2013, 6:34 AM
Loco45's Avatar
Loco45 Loco45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Fairfield, CA
Posts: 441
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

F*** this law, smh... These days I almost rather be an outlaw, these laws don't apply to them anyway.. When I go, my kids will inherit anything I want them to inherit and if my family guns have to be registered, well let's just say that there won't be a record of em being passed down... I really am tired of all these commie laws we have in CA
__________________
NAGR & NRA member, soldier in the CSM, political/street rapper, family man, avid shooter of airguns and firearms and contestant of the 2013 season of the TV Show American Airgunner.
My Airgun collection: Colt Defender, Colt Special Combat, Crosman 357, Crosman Phantom, Hatsan Striker 1000s (in .22 Cal), Umarex Legends Parabellum Pistole P.08, Umarex XBG, Umarex Steel Force, Umarex Steel Storm.
Firearm collection: What firearms??? Don't know what you're talking about
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-20-2013, 7:51 AM
fr33domfightr fr33domfightr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 660
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Property is property, it shouldn't matter if its firearms or not!!

Thanks for the heads up Dave.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-20-2013, 9:17 AM
Carnivore's Avatar
Carnivore Carnivore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Ventura County, Ca
Posts: 1,807
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

This is California and the general public wants to get rid of hunting, fishing, firearms, contact sports, meat, petrol chemicals, salt, Tabaco and any self reliance as it poses a threat to the state controlling everything... basically they want every one to be wrapped in bubble wrap, smoke pot, and think happy loving thoughts all day.
__________________
Quote:
Tom’s right, and the right of any other citizen, to arm himself should not be subject to approval by a civil servant who will not be present to protect them.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-20-2013, 9:26 AM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivore View Post
Tabaco
Quote:
pot
Ah yes. More hypocrisy.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-20-2013, 2:11 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

This analysis is plausible, but neglects the operation of law. Firearms are personal property, and while they, like cars, have both legal and registered owners, ownership can and still does pass when they are put into a trust. It is possible for an individual (who is both the legal AND registered owner) to transfer the legal ownership of his personal property into a trust, while the registered ownership remains unchanged.

Otherwise, imagine this. To analogize to cars. They too, like guns require some registration (ie. DMV paperwork right?) However, if you default on the loan, the car WILL be repossessed, and thus the Legal ownership WILL change (back to the bank - right?) You can't argue - hey wait, they can't change the legal ownership b/c there was no change in the registered ownership - right? So why would guns be any different.

If you die - your personal property WILL be transferred (by operation of law) to your next of kin right? Even though the registered ownership hasn't. Otherwise, how could guns ever move from generation to generation. Once you die, there is no chance to get to an FFL and change the registered ownership - that is done AFTER death and thus AFTER the legal ownership has already changed. So to say that it is ILLEGAL to put guns into a trust is a real stretch and ignores common sense AND the operation of law.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-20-2013, 4:04 PM
Grendl's Avatar
Grendl Grendl is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Los Angeles/Ventura Counties
Posts: 1,059
iTrader: 23 / 100%
Default

I was one of the attorneys in attendance at that meeting.

We concluded it is NOT illegal to put firearms in a trust, but it is probably illegal to put them into a trust with two trustees. The government currently does not allow for or recognize community property ownership of firearms. The form one completes to report an inter-spousal handgun transfer, BOF 4544A, does not provide an avenue for the transferring spouse to maintain any interest in the transferred gun.

The result is probably that each spouse should disclaim their interest in the other spouse's firearms using a properly drafted property agreement, and then place their separate property firearms into their firearm trust wherein they are the sole trustee.
__________________
NOTHING HAS CHANGED. YOU STILL NEED A GUN TRUST.

TLCGunTrust@gmail.com
Nothing I post here constitutes legal advice, nor can it establish an attorney/client relationship.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-20-2013, 5:42 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 378
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendl View Post
I was one of the attorneys in attendance at that meeting.

We concluded it is NOT illegal to put firearms in a trust, but it is probably illegal to put them into a trust with two trustees. The government currently does not allow for or recognize community property ownership of firearms. The form one completes to report an inter-spousal handgun transfer, BOF 4544A, does not provide an avenue for the transferring spouse to maintain any interest in the transferred gun.

The result is probably that each spouse should disclaim their interest in the other spouse's firearms using a properly drafted property agreement, and then place their separate property firearms into their firearm trust wherein they are the sole trustee.
Agreed, Grendl, except i'm a little concerned that disclaiming interest in community firearms may be a transfer requiring filing of the op law form. Unless the clients are ok with that, I'm inclined to recommend keeping the community (or possibly community) guns out of trust. Plenty to talk about at the next meeting!
__________________
Estate Planning for Gun Owners
Free public webinar schedule here:
http://lawnews.tv/webinar/
Free member training here:
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-20-2013, 5:42 PM
AlexDD AlexDD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendl View Post
I was one of the attorneys in attendance at that meeting.

We concluded it is NOT illegal to put firearms in a trust, but it is probably illegal to put them into a trust with two trustees. The government currently does not allow for or recognize community property ownership of firearms. The form one completes to report an inter-spousal handgun transfer, BOF 4544A, does not provide an avenue for the transferring spouse to maintain any interest in the transferred gun.

The result is probably that each spouse should disclaim their interest in the other spouse's firearms using a properly drafted property agreement, and then place their separate property firearms into their firearm trust wherein they are the sole trustee.
Thanks. That's what I gleaned from the article that joint trusts would be a no go.

If you marry, and already have a trust then technically it would not change to a joint trust but I would want to confer with a lawyer on the effects of marriage on an existing trust in general.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-20-2013, 7:47 PM
RandyD's Avatar
RandyD RandyD is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: La Jolla, California
Posts: 4,675
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

You may want to factor California Family Code Section 760 into your analysis. It states: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state is community property.” However, the California Family Code provides exceptions including but not limited to the following: property received by gift, bequest, devise, or descent; rents, issues, and profits of separate property; and property acquired in exchange for separate property.

I have been a family law attorney for 20 years and I am unaware of any exception either statutory or case law where a firearm is an exception to section 760.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-20-2013, 8:24 PM
leitung's Avatar
leitung leitung is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Port Orchard, WA
Posts: 2,916
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curtisfong View Post
Ah yes. More hypocrisy.
You expect anything else from the libtards?

Legalize pot and ban cigarettes, yep that's exactly how they think.
__________________
Former "Subject" of the People's Republic of California in "exile" in Washington State.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-20-2013, 8:26 PM
curtisfong's Avatar
curtisfong curtisfong is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 4,776
iTrader: 9 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leitung View Post
You expect anything else from the libtards?

Legalize pot and ban cigarettes, yep that's exactly how they think.
A lot of hypocrisy to go around there. The person I was quoting felt the other should be banned, and the other not.

You'd think there would be one party that wasn't full of hypocrites.
__________________
The Rifle on the Wall

"“[S]cientific proof” of both gun-rights and gun-control theories “is very hard to get”; therefore, requiring “some substantial scientific proof to show that a [firearm] law will indeed substantially reduce crime and injury” is tantamount to applying strict scrutiny to, and almost certainly will lead to invalidation of, the law." - Kamela Harris

Lawyers and their Stockholm Syndrome
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-20-2013, 11:10 PM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDD View Post
Thanks. That's what I gleaned from the article that joint trusts would be a no go.

If you marry, and already have a trust then technically it would not change to a joint trust but I would want to confer with a lawyer on the effects of marriage on an existing trust in general.
Why would marriage have any effect on a trust executed by a grantor before marriage? The assets of the trust would be outside the marriage. The law already says that any assets of a person before a marriage are considered separate property under the community property statutes.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-20-2013, 11:12 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyD View Post
You may want to factor California Family Code Section 760 into your analysis. It states: “Except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during the marriage while domiciled in this state is community property.” However, the California Family Code provides exceptions including but not limited to the following: property received by gift, bequest, devise, or descent; rents, issues, and profits of separate property; and property acquired in exchange for separate property.

I have been a family law attorney for 20 years and I am unaware of any exception either statutory or case law where a firearm is an exception to section 760.
This.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-21-2013, 6:05 AM
RandyD's Avatar
RandyD RandyD is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: La Jolla, California
Posts: 4,675
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdd View Post
Why would marriage have any effect on a trust executed by a grantor before marriage? The assets of the trust would be outside the marriage. The law already says that any assets of a person before a marriage are considered separate property under the community property statutes.
A marriage would not have any title or ownership effect on items put in a trust prior to marriage, unless there was a subsequent transmutation of the property.

My post was a response to this statement, "The government currently does not allow for or recognize community property ownership of firearms."

To me it is abundantly clear that the California government is infringing upon our Second Amendment rights, and they are seeking every means to further infringe upon our rights.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-21-2013, 6:38 AM
qdx450 qdx450 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: way south
Posts: 236
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I have come to realize that a lot of people here in calguns voted for these democrats so now we're paying for it.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-21-2013, 7:46 AM
Best sale's Avatar
Best sale Best sale is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Alamurder county, Krackerfornia
Posts: 1,141
iTrader: 27 / 97%
Default

Not even sure again if california issue is a matter of democrats / republicans or independent...... To me is getting more like a state where the majority can't see beyond their paycheck and wannabe ideas. They stand for nothing but falls for everything. I will bet my last cent that majority of folks you see at the range don't even care or knowledgable enough to figure things out. It's so cool & gravy to impress the ladies and their peers with a trip to the range but not on their list to join the struggle to preserve the right.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-21-2013, 8:51 AM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 378
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyD View Post
A marriage would not have any title or ownership effect on items put in a trust prior to marriage, unless there was a subsequent transmutation of the property.

My post was a response to this statement, "The government currently does not allow for or recognize community property ownership of firearms."

To me it is abundantly clear that the California government is infringing upon our Second Amendment rights, and they are seeking every means to further infringe upon our rights.
RandyD, i think you are probably right--the firearm is community if bought with community funds. On the other hand, California allows an individual to be reported as the recipient, so that may be a debatable issue.

The question here is whether the subsequent transfer into trust (from husband and wife, to husband and wife as trustees) must go through an FFL, or whether an exception applies. There is an exception, but to be effective in avoiding misdemeanor or felony, that exception requires filing of an op law form showing the recipients (both husband and wife) and that form does not exist.
__________________
Estate Planning for Gun Owners
Free public webinar schedule here:
http://lawnews.tv/webinar/
Free member training here:
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-21-2013, 9:24 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendl View Post
I was one of the attorneys in attendance at that meeting.

We concluded it is NOT illegal to put firearms in a trust, but it is probably illegal to put them into a trust with two trustees. The government currently does not allow for or recognize community property ownership of firearms. The form one completes to report an inter-spousal handgun transfer, BOF 4544A, does not provide an avenue for the transferring spouse to maintain any interest in the transferred gun.

The result is probably that each spouse should disclaim their interest in the other spouse's firearms using a properly drafted property agreement, and then place their separate property firearms into their firearm trust wherein they are the sole trustee.
Grendel - first PM me to discuss. I also do these NFA trust and am also on the Galguns legislation and litigation teams.

For these purposes however, your analysis fails to acknowledge the distinction between LEGAL ownership and REGISTERED ownership. Your example of community property is most apt Even though the 4544a doesn't allow for more than one REGISTERED owner - you had better believe that STATE community property law recognizes a spouses LEGAL ownership interest in that huge firearms collection worth tens of thousand of dollars (right?)
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-21-2013, 9:28 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,835
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guntrust View Post
RandyD, i think you are probably right--the firearm is community if bought with community funds. On the other hand, California allows an individual to be reported as the recipient, so that may be a debatable issue.

The question here is whether the subsequent transfer into trust (from husband and wife, to husband and wife as trustees) must go through an FFL, or whether an exception applies. There is an exception, but to be effective in avoiding misdemeanor or felony, that exception requires filing of an op law form showing the recipients (both husband and wife) and that form does not exist.
GUNTRUST - like Grendel - you have to take into account the fact that guns, like cars, have both LEGAL and REGISTERED ownership. While you must use an FFL to legally change REGISTERED owners, operation of law WILL act to change LEGAL ownership. Thereafter the law requires the FFL transfer of the REGISTERED ownership. If I die, my estate WILL get legal ownership of the guns (right?) No laws broken there. It is only thereafter that the FFL must be utilized to change the REGISTERED ownership. This question is very complicated and at the end of the day, hypothetical as I am unaware of any case law mentioning any of the things we are talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-21-2013, 9:54 AM
speedrrracer speedrrracer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,408
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Read this entire thread. Came away totally confused.

Read the entire thread again. I am now more confused than I was previously.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:05 AM
RandyD's Avatar
RandyD RandyD is online now
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: La Jolla, California
Posts: 4,675
iTrader: 39 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Read this entire thread. Came away totally confused.

Read the entire thread again. I am now more confused than I was previously.
We're attorneys. We are educated, trained and paid to write confusing text, so we can be paid again to explain what we wrote.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:24 AM
nick nick is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,053
iTrader: 135 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyD View Post
We're attorneys. We are educated, trained and paid to write confusing text, so we can be paid again to explain what we wrote.
The scary part is that you aren't kidding
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


WTB: Saiga .223 bolt; HK G3 bolt; Chinese AK pistol grips; milled AK cut receiver pieces and stubs.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-21-2013, 12:14 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 378
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
GUNTRUST - like Grendel - you have to take into account the fact that guns, like cars, have both LEGAL and REGISTERED ownership. While you must use an FFL to legally change REGISTERED owners, operation of law WILL act to change LEGAL ownership. Thereafter the law requires the FFL transfer of the REGISTERED ownership. If I die, my estate WILL get legal ownership of the guns (right?) No laws broken there. It is only thereafter that the FFL must be utilized to change the REGISTERED ownership. This question is very complicated and at the end of the day, hypothetical as I am unaware of any case law mentioning any of the things we are talking about.
CAL.BAR we are really not disagreeing that legal ownership trumps registered ownership and we are not discussing incapacity or succession (yet) - our group was going to discuss these things and then Jason dropped the 27545 bombshell on us - something none of us had really considered. So at this point we are just issuing a warning about the initial transfer based on Jason's revelation and where that led us.

Please reread my memo, and look at 27920 carefully. Again, we're not talking about registered ownership trumping legal ownership--27920 lays out specific requirements which must be strictly followed in order to exempt a non-FFL transfer from 27545 so that it is not a misdemeanor or felony. One of those requirements is the filing of a form which does not exist.
__________________
Estate Planning for Gun Owners
Free public webinar schedule here:
http://lawnews.tv/webinar/
Free member training here:
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-21-2013, 1:34 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default Not legal advice, but just my thoughts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by guntrust View Post
The question here is whether the subsequent transfer into trust (from husband and wife, to husband and wife as trustees) must go through an FFL, or whether an exception applies.
I'm not so sure that is the issue at all. I think the issue is instead whether s27545 applies to this type of "transfer" at all.

First, I don't think the trust is a "party" for the purposes of s27545 or a "person" for the purposes of s28050/s27920.

Quote:
It has long been established under California law that [a trust] is merely a relationship by which one person or entity holds property for the benefit of some other person or entity/ Presta v. Tepper, 102 Cal. Rptr. 3d 12, 15 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 2009).
Further, if the current owners are the husband and wife (which must be the case if they are community property per California Family Code s760) then there is no transfer if the trustees are still the husband and wife (and of course they are the only "persons" who could actually be receiving the title). So for community property a "transfer" probably is not occurring for the purposes of s27545 if the only trustees are the husband and wife.

Now for separate property it's a bit more interesting. The trustees are the actual "transferees" here, but it is a very limited transfer. There is no transfer of possession, and there is no transfer of equitable title (or "registration"). Really, it's just a transfer of legal title to the property along with equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit beneficiary of the trust. The transfer is also is from one of the two trustees to both of them. This is certainly less than the normal "complete" transfer contemplated by s27545. And, if we assume s27545 contemplates this type of "transfer" then it actually isn't possible to comply with it (since neither the trust nor both trustees could comply with s28050) so s27545 actually makes illegal this type of trust. I don't think that could reasonably be considered the intent of the legislature here. Instead, I think "transfer" in s27545 only applies to equitable or possessory "transfers", but not trusts. There are parallels in other areas of the law (tax for example).

Also of note:
Quote:
California–Nevada Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. St. Luke's United Methodist Church (2004) 121 Cal.App.4th 754, 767, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 442: “A trust is ‘a fiduciary relationship with respect to property, subjecting the person by whom the title to the property is held to equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit of another person, which arises as a result of a manifestation of an intention to create it.’ (Rest.2d Trusts, § 2, p. 6.) ‘A trust is created by a manifestation of intention of the settlor to create a trust, trust property, a lawful trust purpose, and an identifiable beneficiary.’ (Chang v. Redding Bank of Commerce (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 673, 684[, 35 Cal.Rptr.2d 64].)” Probate Code section 15200 provides several different methods of creating such a trust, including “(a) A declaration by the owner of property that the owner holds the property as trustee. [¶] (b) A transfer of property by the owner during the owner's lifetime to another person as trustee. [¶] (c) A transfer of property by the owner, by will or by other instrument taking effect upon the death of the owner, to another person as trustee.”34 Most importantly for our purposes, “an ordinary express trust is not an entity separate from its trustees.... ” (Powers v. Ashton (1975) 45 Cal.App.3d 783, 787, 119 Cal.Rptr. 729, italics added.) “In contrast to a corporation which is a ‘ “... distinct legal entity separate from its stockholder and from its officers” [citation]’ (Merco Constr. Engineers, Inc. v. Municipal Court [ (1978) ] 21 Cal.3d [724,] 729[, 147 Cal.Rptr. 631, 581 P.2d 636] ) and deemed a person within many legal constructs (Code Civ. Proc., § 17), a ‘... trust is not a person but rather “a fiduciary relationship with respect to property.” [Citations.] Indeed, “ ‘ “an ordinary express trust is not an entity separate from its trustees” ’ ‘[citation].’ (Moeller v. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124, 1132, fn. 3[, 69 Cal.Rptr.2d 317, 947 P.2d 279], italics added; Pillsbury v. Karmgard (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 743, 753[, 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 491]; see also Evid.Code, § 951.)” (Ziegler v. Nickel (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 545, 548, 75 Cal.Rptr.2d 312.)5 It is for this reason that a trust itself can neither sue nor be sued in its own name. Instead, the real party in interest in litigation involving a trust is always the trustee. (Powers v. Ashton, supra, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 787, 119 Cal.Rptr. 729; Code Civ. Proc., § 369.)
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-21-2013, 1:58 PM
solidrock648's Avatar
solidrock648 solidrock648 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Jamestown
Posts: 93
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Layman's terms?
__________________
He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."
-Luke 22:36
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
-Galatians 2:20
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-21-2013, 2:08 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidrock648 View Post
Layman's terms?
There is some (possibly significant) legal risk in transferring your firearms into a trust. You should consult a lawyer with significant trust and firearms experience before doing so.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-21-2013, 2:18 PM
solidrock648's Avatar
solidrock648 solidrock648 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Jamestown
Posts: 93
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
There is some (possibly significant) legal risk in transferring your firearms into a trust. You should consult a lawyer with significant trust and firearms experience before doing so.
Thank you. I got the gist of it; basically, they're using all available avenues to turn us into criminals. Thanks for your hard work on these legal issues, gentlemen.
__________________
He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."
-Luke 22:36
I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
-Galatians 2:20
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-21-2013, 2:30 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by solidrock648 View Post
Thank you. I got the gist of it; basically, they're using all available avenues to turn us into criminals. Thanks for your hard work on these legal issues, gentlemen.
I'd say this particular issue is more of an unintended consequence, but I doubt anyone in Sacramento is losing any sleep over it.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-21-2013, 3:12 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 378
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I'm not so sure that is the issue at all. I think the issue is instead whether s27545 applies to this type of "transfer" at all.

First, I don't think the trust is a "party" for the purposes of s27545 or a "person" for the purposes of s28050/s27920.



Further, if the current owners are the husband and wife (which must be the case if they are community property per California Family Code s760) then there is no transfer if the trustees are still the husband and wife (and of course they are the only "persons" who could actually be receiving the title). So for community property a "transfer" probably is not occurring for the purposes of s27545 if the only trustees are the husband and wife.

Now for separate property it's a bit more interesting. The trustees are the actual "transferees" here, but it is a very limited transfer. There is no transfer of possession, and there is no transfer of equitable title (or "registration"). Really, it's just a transfer of legal title to the property along with equitable duties to deal with the property for the benefit beneficiary of the trust. The transfer is also is from one of the two trustees to both of them. This is certainly less than the normal "complete" transfer contemplated by s27545. And, if we assume s27545 contemplates this type of "transfer" then it actually isn't possible to comply with it (since neither the trust nor both trustees could comply with s28050) so s27545 actually makes illegal this type of trust. I don't think that could reasonably be considered the intent of the legislature here. Instead, I think "transfer" in s27545 only applies to equitable or possessory "transfers", but not trusts. There are parallels in other areas of the law (tax for example).

Also of note:
TINCON, my memo largely agrees with you. The memo never treats a trust as party or person, and it agrees that "transfer" from H/W to H/W as trustees, where all guns are community property, probably should not be deemed a transfer. Problem is that quite often, at least some of the guns are separate--so you need separate gun trusts for those.

I don't follow what you wrote on separate property, as the new second trustee shares both title and possession with the original owner. That's a transfer.
__________________
Estate Planning for Gun Owners
Free public webinar schedule here:
http://lawnews.tv/webinar/
Free member training here:
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-21-2013, 3:29 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guntrust View Post
I don't follow what you wrote on separate property, as the new second trustee shares both title and possession with the original owner. That's a transfer.
I assumed there was no transfer of possession with the establishment of the trust. Seems to me that if husband and wife are living together transfer of possession has either already happened (in which case it seems like there might be a problem notwithstanding the trust issue) or it has not (in which case I see no reason why the creation of a trust in itself would cause such physical transfer). Thus the only transfer was of title, which arguably is not a transfer per the meaning of s27545. Further, it seems arguable that as s28050 only allows for one person to "possess" the firearm legally, it can only mean actual (not constructive) possession. It seems like the original owner of the separate property firearm could solely maintain actual possession of the firearm notwithstanding the trust, so that the second trustee would only have title, and there would be no transfer of possession.

Again though, this is just my defense minded analysis, I'm sure there are ways for a trust attorney to avoid the risk and ambiguity created by the statute.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.

Last edited by Tincon; 05-21-2013 at 3:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-21-2013, 4:54 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 378
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
I assumed there was no transfer of possession with the establishment of the trust. Seems to me that if husband and wife are living together transfer of possession has either already happened (in which case it seems like there might be a problem notwithstanding the trust issue) or it has not (in which case I see no reason why the creation of a trust in itself would cause such physical transfer). Thus the only transfer was of title, which arguably is not a transfer per the meaning of s27545. Further, it seems arguable that as s28050 only allows for one person to "possess" the firearm legally, it can only mean actual (not constructive) possession. It seems like the original owner of the separate property firearm could solely maintain actual possession of the firearm notwithstanding the trust, so that the second trustee would only have title, and there would be no transfer of possession.

Again though, this is just my defense minded analysis, I'm sure there are ways for a trust attorney to avoid the risk and ambiguity created by the statute.
I agree with you that these code sections don't seem very friendly to joint ownership! But re: possession i think you are confusing actual possession v. right to possession. Trustee owns and must have a right to possession in order to function as trustee. Under the code, and owner can (infrequently) lend a firearm for less than 30 days, but the actual possession is limited.
__________________
Estate Planning for Gun Owners
Free public webinar schedule here:
http://lawnews.tv/webinar/
Free member training here:
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-21-2013, 5:19 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guntrust View Post
I agree with you that these code sections don't seem very friendly to joint ownership! But re: possession i think you are confusing actual possession v. right to possession. Trustee owns and must have a right to possession in order to function as trustee. Under the code, and owner can (infrequently) lend a firearm for less than 30 days, but the actual possession is limited.
Well I think the question is what sort of possession triggers the § 27545, and when does that possession occur. The PC seems to only deal with exemptions where there is an actual transfer of possession.

For example, a married couple can transmute separate property of either spouse to community property (Cal. Fam. Code Ann. § 850) which would fall under subdivision (g) of Section 16990 and therefore be exempt from § 27545 as per § 27920 as long as the person receiving the firearm does the following : "(1) Within 30 days of taking possession, forward by prepaid mail or deliver in person to the department, a report of information concerning the individual taking possession of the firearm, how title or possession was obtained and from whom, and a description of the firearm in question. (2) Prior to taking title or possession of the firearm, the person shall obtain a handgun safety certificate, if the firearm is a handgun."

Similarly, when a husband or wife dies intestate leaving property that passes to the surviving spouse under Section 6401, or dies testate and by his or her will devises all or a part of his or her property to the surviving spouse, the property passes to the survivor and though §§ 16990/27920 no § 27545 transfer is required (not even the reporting stuff). But again this deals with a physical transfer of actual possession.

If the trustee that owned the separate property firearm dies, then by operation of law the firearm becomes the actual property of the other trustee. Until then though, I would argue that the "right to possession" the second trustee is granted through the trust is not a transfer for the purposes of § 27545. I'm also not sure how likely it is that there would be an criminal charge for such a transaction.

Still, like I said, better to avoid the issue if possible (and I think there are a number of ways that could be done, depending on what rights the separate owner wanted to give up).
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-21-2013, 6:47 PM
AlexDD AlexDD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
There is some (possibly significant) legal risk in transferring your firearms into a trust. You should consult a lawyer with significant trust and firearms experience before doing so.
I am assuming you mean for a joint trust, not for where you are unmarried and the sole owner of the trust.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-21-2013, 7:10 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Don't you mean sole trustee?
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-21-2013, 7:20 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Don't you mean sole trustee?
What about husband and wife in CA????? Isn't that really sole trustee in this state? Just asking...
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-21-2013, 7:30 PM
wildhawker's Avatar
wildhawker wildhawker is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: California
Posts: 14,407
iTrader: 84 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by taperxz View Post
What about husband and wife in CA????? Isn't that really sole trustee in this state? Just asking...
My inquiry was to AlexDD. Sorry that wasn't clear.

-Brandon
__________________
Brandon Combs

I do not read private messages, and my inbox is usually full. If you need to reach me, please email me instead.

My comments are not the official position or a statement of any organization unless stated otherwise. My comments are not legal advice; if you want or need legal advice, hire a lawyer.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-21-2013, 7:33 PM
taperxz taperxz is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lake County
Posts: 14,891
iTrader: 15 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
My inquiry was to AlexDD. Sorry that wasn't clear.

-Brandon
Your intent is perfectly clear.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-21-2013, 7:35 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexDD View Post
I am assuming you mean for a joint trust, not for where you are unmarried and the sole owner of the trust.
I do mean a trust with a trustee other than the registered and actual owner of the firearm. This may or may not be a joint trust.

I'm no trust expert but it seems to me like a trust like you are describing would extinguish itself or not be created at all (if the purported settlor retained title and the right of control over property deposited and the only "owner" (trustee?) was the purported settlor himself).
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-21-2013, 7:41 PM
AlexDD AlexDD is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 868
iTrader: 10 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildhawker View Post
Don't you mean sole trustee?
Yes. As an unmarried person, the purpose of the trust was to put one's assets, upon death, to a child in trust until a certain age.

Also, if you are divorced, with just a will, your assets would go to your child for your X-wife to administer, as I understood it from a trust attorney which can be a situation to avoid.

The executor of the trust, usually a family member or trusted person, would administer the trust upon death until the child is of a certain age.

Last edited by AlexDD; 05-21-2013 at 7:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:24 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.