BONNIE KIRCHER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADELAIDE KIRCHER et al, Defendants and Appellants. - Essay Prowess

BONNIE KIRCHER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADELAIDE KIRCHER et al, Defendants and Appellants.

BONNIE KIRCHER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADELAIDE KIRCHER et al, Defendants and Appellants.

Case briefing one

BONNIE KIRCHER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADELAIDE KIRCHER et al, Defendants and Appellants.

A125733

Facts:

The case is considered to be affiliated with the legal provision regarding execution and legal liability regarding in wealth. It constitutes a consolidation of cases filed and disputes for these cases filed by the defendant. Particularly, Bonnie Filed a complaint against Adelaide in her capacity as the executor of Vincent Kircher’s will. The complainant. Bonnie, alleged that Adelaide is personally liable for Vincent’s debts under section 13550 to 13552 seeking damages and the attorney fees breach regarding the terms of the modified MSA. However, Adelaide also filed a motion for Determination That Bonnie did not have any right to seek payment of the properties Held by Adelaide and Vincent Kircher in Joint Tenancy before his death.

Issue:

Whether or not Adelaide had the full liability over the wealth that was considered to have been in joint tenancy between Adelaide and Vincent pursuant sections under section 13550 to 13552 that seek liability on the basis of an MSA.

Holding:

Yes. In a circumstance where a series of legal marriage agreement after which an MSA was formed, Adelaide was in full obligation to the liability of Vincent’s debts as stipulated under sections 13550 to 13552.

Reasoning:

Upon determining that Vincent’s support obligation to Bonnie survived, the court focused on addressing the scope of Adelaide’s personal liability for Vincent’s obligations to Bonnie under the governing Statutes. The court evaluated the provisions of section 13550 and particularly in excerpts 6, 7, 8 and 9 which stipulated that upon the death of a married person, any surviving spouse has personal liability for the debts affiliated with the deceased spouse. In consideration of the fact that the cases that were relied upon by Adelaide that stand for the proposition that any surviving joint tenant is expected to take the property free of any possible encumbrances by the deceased joint tenant.

Disposition:

The judgment was made and an appeal rejected. The affirmed ruling stipulated that Adelaide shall bear the costs on appeal. 

Case briefing two

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOE RAY RASMUSSEN, Defendant and Appellant.

A125942

Facts:

The case at hand provides a link to cases where the defendant Rasmussen, alleges error in his trial and even sentencing regarding a crime that he was convicted of having committed. In that case, Rasmussen attempts to contend the that the court erred by giving instructions to the jury that resisting of an executive officer as stipulated in section 69 (count two) is considered to be a general intent of crime. In that case, the appellant seeks a review of the sealed transcript based on the trial court’s hearing focusing on the discovery of the complaints against the police officers who were in the incident that resulted in the charges. 

Issue:

 Whether Rasmussen deserves a mistrial on some counts in the case hence requiring that a review of the pretrial motion transcripts regarding the complaints. Further, it focuses on the issue of where the court is perceived to have erred in instructing the jury regarding the intent required for such crimes of resisting executive officers. Further, there is the issue of whether the sentences on misdemeanor convictions ought to be pursuant to section 654. Ultimately, there is the issue of whether Rasmussen is entitled to additional custody credits.

Holding:

Yes, Rasmussen is entitled to a review of the court hearing, a review of the trial and even entitlement to custody credits.

Reasoning:

Upon a review of the said transcript, the court did not find any error. The same case applies to the complaint affiliated with the instruction of the jury. However, the court reviewed and concluded that the sentence focusing on one misdemeanor conviction ought to stay under the section 654. Hence, Rasmussen was entitled to a retroactive application of section 4019 amendments. Similarly, the sentence that reflected another misdemeanor counts were inconsistent with the sentence that was imposed by the trial court. Hence, it deserved a re-modification.    

Disposition: The judgment was ultimately reversed particularly to the calculation of the presentence custody of credits and even the re-modification of the sentence.