[and] failure to segregate funds of the separate entities ...; the treatment by an individual of the assets of the corporation as his own ...; the disregard of legal formalities and the failure to maintain arm’s length relationships among related entities ...; [and] the diversion [of assets from a corporation by or to a] stockholder or other person or entity, to the detriment of creditors, or the manipulation of assets ... between entities so as to concentrate the assets in one and the liabilities in another.” Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co., Inc., 210 Cal.App.2d 825, 26 Cal.Rptr. 806, 813-15 (1962) (citations omitted). California courts have applied the alter ego doctrine to trusts. See, e.g., Torrey Pines Bank v. Hoffman, 231 Cal.App.3d 308, 282 Cal.Rptr. 354, 359 (1991) (<HOLDING>). We first address the Debtors’ reverse
holding that a third party who receives trust property on inquiry notice that a trustee has misappropriated trust funds is also liable for breach of trust holding that the united states bears the fiduciary trust duty to make trust property productive and relying at least primarily on the common law of trusts holding shareholder liable for his corporations contractual obligations using an alter ego theory of liability holding guarantors of a family trust liable for the trusts debts under an alter ego theory holding that the code excepts from discharge debts resulting from agreements by the debtor to hold the debtors spouse harmless on joint debts to the extent those debts are in the nature of alimony maintenance or support