Laycock

Laycock v. Hammer

Good Law
141 Cal. App. 4th 25·2006 Cal. App. LEXIS 1038·2006 Daily Journal DAR 8913·44 Cal. Rptr. 3d 921·2006 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6142
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 6, 2006D046422California2,540 words

Opinion

Opinion

Benke, J.

The decedent in this case, Spearl Ellison, purchased a substantial life insurance policy 13 years before his death and assigned all of his interest in the policy, including the right to any benefits, to an irrevocable life insurance trust he had established. When Ellison died the life insurance company paid $767,263.70 in death benefits to the trustee of the trust, Ellison’s grandaughter, respondent Lynda Laycock.

Shortly before Ellison’s death, appellants Leonard H. Hammer, Jr., Hammer Realty Group, Inc., and KanTex Hospitality, Inc. (collectively Hammer), had obtained a $4.65 million judgment against Ellison. Hammer asserted the proceeds of the life insurance policy were subject to its judgment. By way of a probate petition Laycock sought a declaration the proceeds of the life insurance policy were exempt from Hammer’s claim. Laycock moved for summary judgment on her petition and the trial court granted the motion.

On appeal we affirm. By its terms the trust was irrevocable. Thus, under well-established precedent, once Ellison transferred the policy to the trust, he no longer had any ownership interest in the policy and it was not subject to the claims of his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.