In re Marriage of Starkman

Full title: CHRISTINE STARKMAN, Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER STARKMAN, Respondent.

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

Date published: Jun 15, 2005

No. B178371 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 15, 2005)

Opinion

Page 161a

130 Cal.App.4th 161a __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ In re Marriage of CHRISTINE and CHRISTOPHER STARKMAN. CHRISTINE STARKMAN, Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER STARKMAN, Respondent. B178371 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Sixth Division June 15, 2005

Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo, Super. Ct. No. FL 03-1308, Harry E. Woolpert, Judge

ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING, NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on May 18, 2005 (129 Cal.App.4th 659 [28 Cal.Rptr.3d 639]), be modified as follows:

1. The paragraph commencing at the bottom of page 7 [129 Cal.App.4th 665, advance report] with "We reject Christine's interpretation" and ending at the top of page 8 [129 Cal.App.4th 666, advance report] with "for such stepped-up basis" is modified to read as follows:

We reject Christine's interpretation of the estate planning instruments, although her position is not unreasonable. To the extent that she argues that Christopher has breached a fiduciary duty to her by disputing the characterization or asserted transmutation of the property, we believe this begs the question whether transmutation occurred pursuant to established law. Christine also asserts that Christopher's contentions would not allow a stepped-up income tax basis under federal tax law. Whether this is correct or not is beside the point. Whatever the answer to that question, our decision does not create havoc in estate planning as Christine asserts. Here we decide only the sufficiency of language to expressly transmute separate property to community property.

There is no change in the judgment.

Appellant's petition for rehearing is denied.