Judge: Daniel S. Murphy, Case: 22STCV17190, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17190    Hearing Date: November 13, 2023    Dept: 32

BACKGROUND

            On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff Elise Fahey filed this action against Defendants Terrence Budd, Matthew Budd, and Hugo Budd, asserting claims for constructive trust, interference with inheritance, and fraud. On April 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, asserting claims for interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage, fraud, and constructive trust.

            Defendants filed two demurrers against the FAC, primarily arguing that Plaintiff’s claims to recover her supposed inheritance are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Court. Plaintiff conceded that the Probate Court had exclusive jurisdiction and for that reason requested this Court to take the demurrers off calendar. The Court agreed with Defendants and sustained the demurrers with leave to amend on August 9, 2023.

            On August 31, 2023, Plaintiff filed the operative Second Amended Complaint, asserting (1) interference with contract, (2) interference with prospective economic advantage, and (3) constructive trust. The SAC alleges that Plaintiff was in a long-term relationship with Decedent Harold Budd, father of the three Defendants. (SAC ¶ 4.) Decedent allegedly agreed to give Plaintiff 25% of his royalties in exchange for Plaintiff’s care and companionship. (Id., ¶ 5.) Decedent’s royalty and intellectual property rights were allegedly not subject to distribution by will. (Id., ¶ 6.) Instead, an assignment allegedly provided that Plaintiff and Decedent’s three children would share equally in the proceeds. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges that when Decedent’s sons discovered this arrangement, they caused Decedent to alter the assignment and remove Plaintiff as an assignee through undue influence. (Id., ¶ 9.)

            On October 2, 2023, Defendants filed the instant two demurrers to the SAC, again arguing that the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed a late opposition on November 3, 2023. Defendants filed their replies on November 6, 2023.

LEGAL STANDARD

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether a pleading states a cause of action or defense. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or by proper judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Ibid.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the pleading, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action or defense. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

MEET AND CONFER

Before filing a demurrer or a motion to strike, the demurring or moving party is required to meet and confer with the party who filed the pleading demurred to or the pleading that is subject to the motion to strike for the purposes of determining whether an agreement can be reached through a filing of an amended pleading that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.41, 435.5.) The Court notes that Defendants have complied with the meet and confer requirement. (See Aikin Decl.; Juenger Decl.)

DISCUSSION

            “[A] superior court sitting in probate has ‘exclusive jurisdiction’ over certain types of actions. For example, the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to probate and interpret a will, determine entitlement to distribution, and administer and distribute a decedent's estate.” (Capra v. Capra (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1083.)

            In the prior FAC, Plaintiff had alleged that Decedent executed a first codicil to his will adding Plaintiff as a beneficiary of his estate, which entitled Plaintiff to 25% of residue. (FAC ¶ 6.) The FAC further alleged that the codicil provided that Decedent’s royalty and intellectual rights were subject to assignment rather than distribution by will. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleged that Defendants exerted undue influence over Decedent to have Plaintiff removed as a beneficiary of the royalties. (Id., ¶ 9.) In its order sustaining the demurrer to the FAC, the Court held that these allegations involved determinations in the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Court. (August 9, 2023 Order at 3:3-7.)

             In the SAC, Plaintiff reiterates the same allegations but simply omits any mention of a will or codicil. (See SAC ¶¶ 5-9.) Plaintiff now argues that the claims are based on a purported “agreement” with Decedent, separate from testamentary disposition. However, Plaintiff cannot avoid the effect of her prior pleading. Plaintiff clearly alleged in the FAC that her entitlement to royalties was based on a codicil. (FAC ¶ 6.) The allegations in the SAC, which are based on the same purported 25% interest in royalties and associated assignment, invoke the exclusive jurisdiction of the Probate Court in the same way as the allegations in the FAC. Plaintiff asserts the same interest in both complaints, and the Court has already determined (and Plaintiff has admitted) that that interest is subject to adjudication in probate. Merely removing references to the will or codicil does not change this. “A pleader may not attempt to breathe life into a complaint by omitting relevant facts which made his previous complaint defective.” (Hills Transp. Co. v. Southwest Forest Industries, Inc. (1968) 266 Cal.App.2d 702, 713.)

Furthermore, even if the claim is based on contract, that does not divest the Probate Court of jurisdiction. The claim still concerns the allocation of property in Decedent’s estate, which is subject to exclusive probate jurisdiction. (See Capra, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 1083.)

CONCLUSION

            Defendants’ demurrers are SUSTAINED without leave to amend.