Sachs v. Sachs - Case Brief

4 Mins read

Sachs v. Sachs

Case Number: B292747

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2020-01-07

Case Brief – Sachs v. Sachs

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-04
Case Number: B292747
Disposition: The judgment (order granting petition for instructions) is affirmed; Benita Sachs shall recover her costs on appeal.

Holding

The court held that a decedent’s handwritten “Permanent Record” of lifetime distributions satisfies the writing requirement of Probate Code §21135(a)(2), and that the transferee’s email acknowledgments satisfy §21135(a)(3), thereby permitting the trustee to treat those lifetime gifts as advancements against the beneficiaries’ at‑death shares.

Benita Sachs, as successor trustee of her father David L. Sachs’s trust, sought a court order directing that the sizable lifetime distributions made to her brother Avram M. Sachs be deducted from his ultimate share of the trust estate. The trial court granted the petition, finding that Avram had received $451,027 more than Benita during David’s lifetime and that those excess amounts should be treated as advancements under Probate Code §21135. Avram appealed, arguing that the “Permanent Record” kept by David—handwritten entries noting each child’s distributions—was not a valid writing, and that his email statements did not constitute the required written acknowledgment of the advances.

The appellate court affirmed. It first addressed the writing requirement of §21135(a)(2), which calls for a contemporaneous written declaration by the transferor that a lifetime gift is to be deducted from the at‑death transfer. The court noted that California law does not demand a formal instrument or the decedent’s signature; a handwritten note that is contemporaneous and reflects the donor’s intent suffices (Estate of Nielsen, 169 Cal.App.2d at 303). The “Permanent Record,” composed entirely in David’s own hand and maintained over many years, met this standard. The court rejected the reliance on Estate of Vanderhurst, emphasizing that Vanderhurst involved construction of a will, not the statutory writing requirement for advancements.

Next, the court considered §21135(a)(3), which requires the transferee’s written acknowledgment that the gift is an advancement. Avram’s email exchanges with Benita, in which he repeatedly confirmed that each distribution “goes on my record,” were deemed sufficient. The appellate panel held that the statute does not require contemporaneity between the acknowledgment and the specific gift; any written acknowledgment that the distribution is an advancement satisfies the provision. The court further rejected Avram’s argument that parole evidence is barred, citing Probate Code §§21101 and 21102(c), which expressly permit extrinsic evidence to determine a transferor’s intent.

The appellate court also addressed procedural objections. It found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s authentication of the “Permanent Record” under Evidence Code §1410, and it affirmed the trial court’s reliance on parole evidence to interpret the writing, consistent with Estate of Karkeet (56 Cal.2d at 283). The court declined to consider arguments raised for the first time in Avram’s reply brief, applying the waiver principles articulated in In re Marriage of Hinman and Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp.

In affirming the trial court, the appellate court reinforced the practical utility of informal written records in probate practice, provided they clearly reflect the decedent’s intent to treat lifetime gifts as advancements. The decision also clarifies that email acknowledgments, even when informal, can satisfy the statutory acknowledgment requirement.

Impact and Unresolved Issues
The ruling clarifies that probate practitioners may rely on a decedent’s handwritten ledgers and electronic communications to satisfy §21135’s writing and acknowledgment mandates, reducing the need for formal instruments. However, the decision leaves open the question of how courts will treat incomplete or ambiguous records, and whether similar standards apply when the transferee disputes the existence of a record altogether. Future litigants may test the boundaries of “contemporaneity” and the sufficiency of informal acknowledgments, potentially prompting legislative refinement of §21135.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code §21135(a)(2) – Writing requirement for advancements
  • Probate Code §21135(a)(3) – Transferee acknowledgment requirement
  • Probate Code §§21101, 21102(c) – Admission of extrinsic/parole evidence
  • Evidence Code §1410 – Authentication of writings
  • Estate of Nielsen (1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 297, 303
  • Estate of Vanderhurst (1915) 171 Cal. 553
  • Estate of Karkeet (1961) 56 Cal.2d 277, 283
  • Estate of Rawnsley (1949) 94 Cal.App.2d 384
  • Estate of Lackey (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 247
  • GHK Associates v. Mayer Group, Inc. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 856, 872
  • McIntyre v. Doe & Roe (1954) 125 Cal.App.2d 285, 287
  • In re Marriage of Hinman (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 988, 1002
  • Scott v. CIBA Vision Corp. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 307, 322