Judge Donald F. Gaffney, Case Billingsley v. Kingan 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Donald F. Gaffney, Case: Billingsley v. Kingan, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling

TENTATIVE RULING:

Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Defendants Reiko Kingan and Charles Kingan demur to the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by Plaintiff Karen Billingsley. For the following reasons, the demurrer is SUSTAINED, and the case is transferred to the probate division with a hearing date set for August 16, 2023, in Department CM08 at 9:00 a.m.

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations. (Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.) Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer. (Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.) Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice. (Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 n.7.)

Defendants contend that the Probate Department of the Superior Court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because this action concerns the internal affairs of a trust.

The Probate Code provides that “[t]he superior court having jurisdiction over the trust ... has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trusts.” (Probate Code, § 17000(a).) Once probate jurisdiction has attached to a decedent’s estate, that department has jurisdiction to decide all claims affecting estate administration, even if such controversies would otherwise be outside its jurisdiction if asserted independently. (See Probate Code, § 17000(b)(3) [court with exclusive jurisdiction over a trust under this section also has concurrent jurisdiction over “[o]ther actions and proceedings involving trustees and third persons”].) When supervising proceedings governed by the Probate Code, the probate department acts a court of general jurisdiction exercising exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings involving internal trust affairs and concurrent jurisdiction over related claims as otherwise provided by law for a superior court. (See Estate of Baglione (1966) 65 Cal.2d 192, 196–197; Estate of Kraus (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 103, 114.)

Probate Code section 17000 states: “(a) The superior court having jurisdiction over the trust pursuant to this part, [Judicial Proceedings Concerning Trusts,] has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trusts. [¶] (b) The superior court having jurisdiction over the trust pursuant to this part had concurrent jurisdiction of the following: [¶] (1) Actions and proceedings to determine the existence of trusts. [¶] (2) Actions and proceedings by or against creditors or debtors of trusts. [¶] (3) Other actions and proceedings involving trustees and third persons.” Section 17200(a) provides, in part, that proceedings concerning the internal affairs of a trust include: determining the existence or nonexistence of any immunity, power, privilege, duty, or right; ascertaining beneficiaries and determining to whom property shall pass or be delivered upon final or partial termination of the trust, to the extent the determination is not made by the trust instrument; settling the accounts and passing upon the acts of the trustee, including the exercise of discretionary powers; and compelling redress of a breach of the trust by any available remedy. (Prob. Code, § 17200(b).)

Plaintiff’s mother, Midori Hughes (“Decedent”), died on October 22, 2018. (FAC ¶ 6.) Prior to her death, Decedent created the Midori Hughes Trust. (FAC ¶ 7, Ex. A.) The FAC alleges the Trust names Plaintiff as a beneficiary and grants Plaintiff a one-third interest in the Trust assets, including interests in the real property commonly known as 2018 Rainbow Ct., Vista, CA 92083 (the “Subject Property”). (FAC ¶ 8.) The FAC further alleges Defendant Reiko Kingan, as an individual or as trustee of the Trust assets, misappropriated Trust assets with Defendant Charles Kingan. (FAC ¶ 9.)

The first cause of action for conversion alleges Plaintiff, as a beneficiary of the Trust, is entitled to a one-third possessory interest or value in all of the Trust’s assets and that Defendants wrongfully converted the net proceeds from the sale of the Subject Property. (FAC ¶¶ 12-14.) The second cause of action for statutory civil liability for theft alleges Plaintiff is entitled to a one-third possessory interest or value in all of the Trust’s assets, including the Subject Property and that Defendants kept the full net proceeds from the sale of the Subject Property with no intent of disbursing to Plaintiff her one-third share. (FAC ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff’s causes of action for conversion and statutory civil liability for theft are based on Plaintiff’s right to proceeds from the sale of the Subject Property as a beneficiary of the Trust. Plaintiff’s claims involve the settling of accounts and seek redress for Defendant Reiko Kingan’s alleged breach of the Trust. The probate division has exclusive jurisdiction over these causes of action because they concern the internal affairs of the “Trust Agreement for The Midori Hughes Trust”. The demurrer is sustained. The matter shall be transferred to the probate division, as requested. (Prob. Code §§ 17000(a), 17000(b), and 15657.3(d).) A hearing date is set for August 16, 2023, in Department CM08 at 9:00 a.m.

Defendants’ requests for judicial notice are not material to the disposition of the demurrer.

Defendants to give notice.