Estate of Claeyssens

5 Citing cases

  1. Hart v. Judicial Council of California

    No. B216326 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 1, 2010)

    GILBERT, P.J. Estate of Claeyssens (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 465 determined that a statutory probate filing fee based on the value of the estate is an unconstitutional estate tax. Plaintiff brought this class action against the Judicial Council of California (Council) and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to recover the fees paid under the unconstitutional scheme.

  2. People v. Solis

    46 Cal.App.5th 762 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 212 times
    Explaining the reach of SB 1437

    In determining whether the Legislature has amended a voter initiative, we have a duty to guard the people's initiative power and to liberally construe it whenever it is challenged to ensure a voter initiative is not improperly annulled. ( Estate of Claeyssens (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 465, 470-471, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 304.) Doubts should be resolved in favor of the initiative power.

  3. Shook v. Taggart (In re Estate of Taggart)

    E067387 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 4, 2018)

    But the imposition of [a fee] based on the appraised value of an estate . . . violates Proposition 6 and the California Constitution, article II, section 10, subdivision (c)." (Estate of Claeyssens (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 465, 473.) III.

  4. Hayes v. Hayes

    No. B259258 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2015)

    Although the provision does not specifically state the value is to be as determined for Nebraska inheritance tax purposes, the court's decision to derive the purchase price from the Nebraska court's order was reasonable, as Charlotte was from Nebraska, the property is located in Nebraska and California has no inheritance tax. (See Estate of Claeyssens (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 465, 468.) Our de novo review, achieved by placing ourselves in the position of the trustors and avoiding an interpretation that renders any phrase surplusage, leads us to conclude that the trial court properly interpreted the language of the 1998 purchase provision when it granted William the right to buy Parcel No. 1 for $145,581.33.

  5. Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara

    234 Cal.App.4th 925 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   1 Legal Analyses

    We conclude that the 1% surcharge is an illegal tax masquerading as a franchise fee. (See In re Estate of Claeyssens (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 465, 467, 74 Cal.Rptr.3d 304.) Our decision in Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Assn. v. Board of Supervisors (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 940, 257 Cal.Rptr. 615 (SBC Taxpayers ), to the extent it is relevant in the context of Proposition 218, is distinguishable.