Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

The Expansion of Estate of Heggstad (at least for non-real property assets)

By Stewart R. Albertson on February 3, 2011
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Here’s a situation we see often: Sally dutifully creates a California Trust, and at the same time signs a “general property assignment” to the Trust, which states in effect, “I, Sally, hereby assign, transfer and convey to myself as trustee of my trust, all my right, title and interest in all property owned by me, both real and personal and wherever located.” (Notice Sally did not particularly identify any of the assets she assigned to her trust).

Several years later Sally dies. Tom is the successor trustee of Sally’s trust. Tom finds out that Sally failed to formally transfer title to several stocks worth $200,000 to her trust before her death.

The question arises—is the “general property assignment” sufficient to confirm the stocks are owned by Sally’s Trust? Or do the stocks need to be probated? Until recently the answer was usually “no”, the general assignment is not enough to confirm the stocks are owned by Sally’s trust, requiring Tom to file an expensive and time-consuming “Petition for Probate” to have Sally’s stocks “poured over” into her Trust.

But now, as of January 26, 2011, it is likely that Sally’s “general property assignment” is sufficient to confirm the stocks are indeed owned by Sally’s Trust—alleviating the need of filing an expensive and time-consuming “Petition for Probate”.

Justice Kenneth R. Yegan, writing for the California Court of Appeal, confirmed—that in a case like Sallys—a “general property assignment” is effective to transfer ones stock to his or her trust, even though the “general property assignment” does not particularly identify the stock. (Presumably, the general assignment would work for all non-real property assets, i.e., bank accounts, brokerage accounts, retirement accounts, life insurance, etc.)  

This is good news for the family members of those who forget, or by some other kind of oversight, fail to properly fund non-real property assets into their trust before they die. Now, under California law, all non-real property assets in excess of $100,000 in value may likely be confirmed to be trust assets by way of a general property assignment (e.g., “I …, hereby assign all of my property to my trust”). 

Unfortunately, as Justice Yegan points out, real property (houses, etc.) cannot be confirmed as trust assets by way of a “general assignment”, because real property must be either formally transferred to a trust by way of a deed, or particularly identified in an attached schedule to a trust. In cases where real property is not sufficiently identified as a trust asset, a petition for probate will most likely be required.  

Usually the best course of action is to have the “deed” to ones real property titled in the name of the trust. Or, at a minimum, have a schedule attached to the trust that particularly identifies the real property (i.e., “That certain real property commonly known as 3750 Santa Fe Ave., Riverside, CA 92507”).

Photo of Stewart R. Albertson Stewart R. Albertson
Read more about Stewart R. AlbertsonEmailStewart's Twitter Profile
  • Posted in:
    Trusts, Estates and Elder
  • Blog:
    California Trust, Estate & Probate Litigation
  • Organization:
    Albertson & Davidson, LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo