Adam represented one of the prevailing respondents. The Court of Appeal was called upon to interpret and apply language in a trust instrument which directed the trustee to distribute certain real property to a beneficiary’s subtrust. That directive was merely a mechanism for funding that beneficiary’s residual gift, assuming the trustor still owned the property as of the trustor’s death. The reference to a specific source of funding—that certain property—did not make it a specific gift.
See Blech v. Blech (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 989 (via Google Scholar).
View Official Court Opinion PDF