## Facts

- Milburn Warren Wilson and Ruth Wilson were married and acquired property characterized as community property.
- Using community funds, Milburn opened multiple Totten trust bank accounts naming his children as beneficiaries and additional trust accounts naming Ruth.
- At Milburn’s death, the children’s Totten trust accounts held approximately $131,500, and Ruth’s accounts held approximately $38,500.
- Ruth asserted she did not learn of the children’s Totten trust accounts until after Milburn’s death, when she found the bank books.
- Milburn died intestate in June 1983, leaving Ruth and nine children.
- Ruth filed a community property petition seeking distribution of community property, including the Totten trust account funds.
- Objectors (a son and the mother of two of Milburn’s minor children) opposed, arguing Milburn could effectively transfer one-half of the entire community estate “as a whole,” so Ruth should receive none of the disputed Totten trust funds.
- The probate court awarded Ruth all community real and personal property listed, all undisputed trust accounts, and 50% of three disputed Totten trust accounts; the remaining 50% of those three accounts was allocated to the named child beneficiaries.

## Issues

1. Whether a spouse’s creation of a Totten trust with community funds allows transfer of more than the decedent’s one-half community interest to the named beneficiary at death.
2. Whether the decedent’s power to dispose of “one-half of the community” is measured by the aggregate community estate or must respect the surviving spouse’s vested one-half interest in each specific community asset.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s order.
- The court held that only the decedent’s one-half community interest in community funds placed in a Totten trust passes to the named beneficiary at death.
- The surviving spouse retains her one-half community interest in those account funds, even if she thereby receives more than one-half of the total community property when all assets are considered.

## Legal Principles

- Each spouse has a present, vested, one-half interest in community property that cannot be defeated by the unilateral act of the other spouse.
- A Totten trust funded with community property does not change the community character of the deposited funds.
- A spouse cannot, without the other spouse’s consent, dispose of more than his or her one-half interest in community property through a Totten trust or similar arrangement.
- The surviving spouse’s interest must be recognized in the specific community asset transferred, not offset by comparing distributions across the aggregate community estate.

## Conclusion

The court upheld distribution of Totten trust accounts funded with community property by limiting the beneficiaries’ receipt to the decedent’s one-half share and awarding the surviving spouse her vested one-half share in the accounts, rejecting an aggregate-estate method that would have eliminated the survivor’s interest in particular community assets.


Estate of Wilson, 183 Cal. App. 3d 67 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986)