Judge: Audra Mori, Case: 19STCV37436, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV37436    Hearing Date: February 1, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Plaintiff, Ashley Lynn Faire (“Plaintiff”), a disabled adult by and through her father and guardian ad litem, John Leon Faire (“Petitioner”), filed this action against Defendant, Aaron Matthew Kearney for damages arising out of an automobile v. pedestrian accident.   

On March 27, 2020, the Court granted Petitioner’s petition for compromise of a pending action involving a person with a disability.  (Min. Order, March 27, 2020.)  On August 17, 2020, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a Receipt and Acknowledgement of Order for the Deposit of Money into a Blocked Account representing $55,693.52 was deposited into a depository for Plaintiff. 

Thereafter, Petitioner has filed multiple ex parte petitions for withdrawal of funds from blocked account.  Each petition has been denied, in part, for failing to comply with California Rules of Court (“CRC”), Rule 7.954(a).  Most recently, in denying a petition, the Court ordered Petitioner to file a noticed motion that complies with the CRC, and Petitioner was referred to the December 20, 2021 minute order denying a previous petition.  The December 20, 2021 order provides in pertinent part:

First, as the court noted in its November 18, 2021 Minute Order, Petitioner is not a party in this action and cannot file documents in pro per. Plaintiff’s attorney of record in this action is Moussa A Helo[1]

Second, the instant petition provides the reasons for the disbursement of funds include that Petitioner  would like to transfer $30,000 from the block account into a new trust account. No documents evidencing a trust for Plaintiff are attached to the petition. Thus, Petitioner fails to establish that the proceeds Petitioner wishes to have disbursed are for the direct benefit of Plaintiff.

(Min. Order, Dec. 20, 2021.) 

            On December 13, 2022, Petitioner filed the instant motion for an order for withdrawal of funds from blocked account.[2]  Petitioner provides he is seeking to withdraw $56,310.32, which Petitioner provides is the balance of Plaintiff’s blocked account.  Petitioner provides the motion is being made on the grounds that Plaintiff’s prior counsel that set up the blocked account did not provide a mechanism for with withdrawing funds, so the entire account has been unavailable for use by Plaintiff.[3]  No further evidence is submitted with the motion.  However, Petitioner filed a declaration and memorandum on December 8, 2022, that also concern a request to withdraw funds, which will be considered here.  Petitioner in his declaration provides that he initially opened an account under the name, “John Leon Faire Living Trust with Special Needs Provisions for Ashley Lynn Faire,” into which the funds were to be deposited.  (Faire Decl. ¶ 3, filed Dec. 8, 2022.)  However, Petitioner states that he is now taking the recommendation of setting up a special needs trust for Plaintiff, and that all of the funds “will go into a special needs account to give [Petitioner] the flexibility of withdrawing appropriate amounts” for Plaintiff.  (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6.)   

            Although Petitioner states he wishes to transfer Plaintiff’s settlement funds into a special needs trust, Petitioner does not submit any documents showing that a special needs trust for Plaintiff exists.  It is thus unclear whether such a trust exists for Plaintiff and into which Petitioner can deposit the funds. To the extent that Petitioner is requesting that a special needs trust be created for Plaintiff, Petitioner must comply with all rules and regulations concerning the creation of a special needs trust.  (See e.g., Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 4.115(c).)[4] 

            While it may be frustrating to Petitioner that Petitioner must comply with Court rules in order to obtain the funds, the rules are there to protect persons with disabilities and see that the money withdrawn will be used appropriately.  Therefore, because the Court cannot allow Petitioner to withdraw the entirety of the funds from Plaintiff’s blocked account at this time, the petition is denied without prejudice to refiling with supporting documentation.

Plaintiff’s counsel is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 1^st day of February 2023