Judge Elaine W. Mandel, Case Number: 24SMCV02330, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Elaine W. Mandel, Case: 24SMCV02330, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV02330 Hearing Date: October 29, 2024 Dept: P

Tentative Ruling

Aquino v. Martinez, Case no. 24SMCV02330

Hearing date October 29, 2024

Defendant Monica Martinez’s Demurrer to the FAC

Plaintiffs Rubi Aquino, Guadalupe Gomez and Domingo Gomez sue defendant Monica Martinez in her capacities as executor of Magdalena Gomez’s estate (“Magdalena”) and trustee of the 2021 Magdalena Gomez Separate Property Trust dated 10/21/2021, and in her individual capacity. Plaintiffs allege intentional interference with inheritance expectancy, wrongful claims of title, constructive trust created by wrongful act, treble damages and Probate Code §1061 accounting. Defendant demurs to all COAs, arguing failure to state a claim against defendant in her individual capacity, failure to state facts sufficient to constitute COAs and lack of standing regarding the accounting claim.

“The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the complaint as a matter of law.” Holiday Matinee, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1413, 1420. A complaint “is sufficient if it alleges ultimate rather than evidentiary facts” Doe v. City of Los Angeles (2007) 42 Cal.4th 531, 550, but plaintiff must allege essential facts “with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficient to acquaint [the] defendant with the nature, source and extent” of the plaintiff’s claim. Doheny Park Terrace Homeowners Ass’n., Inc. v. Truck Ins. Exchange (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1099.

Allegations against Defendant in her Individual Capacity

Defendant Martinez argues plaintiffs failed to allege claims against her in her individual capacity. Plaintiffs allege defendant improperly collected rents alongside Magdalena Gomez. FAC para. 26. Plaintiffs allege defendant knowingly received and accepted property that rightfully belonged to plaintiffs. FAC para. 30. Plaintiffs allege defendant has and is misappropriating rental income. Id. This is sufficient to state a claim against defendant in her individual capacity.

First COA: Intentional Interference with Expected Inheritance

Defendant argues plaintiffs fail to plead facts sufficient under Cal. Code Civ. Proc 430.10(e) to constitute a COA for intentional interference with expected inheritance. Citing Gomez v. Smith (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 1016, defendant argues plaintiffs must allege facts showing: "(a) the plaintiff had an expectancy of receiving an inheritance; (b) the defendant knew of the expectancy; (c) the defendant engaged in intentional conduct to interfere with the expectancy; (d) the interference was conducted by independently tortious means; (e) the plaintiff was damaged as a result; and (f) the defendant's conduct was directed at someone other than the plaintiff." Id.

Plaintiffs allege they had a reasonable expectation of inheriting from their father based on the familial relationship and his repeated expressions of his desire to provide for his children. FAC paras. 6, 19. Plaintiffs allege Magdalena knew of plaintiffs’ expectancy (FAC paras. 7, 20, 21) and intentionally interfered with plaintiffs’ expectancy by refusing to take decedent to an attorney to prepare estate planning documents. Id. Plaintiffs allege this conduct constituted independently tortious means via fraud, misrepresentation and undue influence (FAC paras. 7, 19-22), which caused damages via losing the expected inheritance. FAC para. 23. Plaintiffs allege Magdalena’s conduct was directed at their father and not plaintiffs. FAC paras. 7, 20.

These allegations are sufficient to survive demurrer. Whether they constitute sufficiently extreme behavior is a question of fact, which the court cannot determine on demurrer.

Second COA: Probate Code §§850-859 Claims

Defendant argues plaintiffs failed to establish improper claims or bad faith conduct as required by Estate of Ashlock (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 1066. Plaintiffs alleged Magdalena acted in bad faith by severing joint tenancies to intentionally deprive plaintiffs of the inheritance, contrary to their father’s wishes. FAC paras. 7, 19-22. Whether Magdalena acted in bad faith is a question of fact; plaintiffs’ allegations are sufficient.

Third COA: Constructive Trust

Defendant argues plaintiffs fail to establish grounds for constructive trust. "A constructive trust may only be imposed where three conditions are satisfied: (1) the existence of a res (property or some interest in property), (2) the right of a complaining party to that res, and (3) some wrongful acquisition or detention of the res by another party who is not entitled to it." Burlesci v. Petersen (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1069.

The existence of property interests is uncontroverted. Plaintiffs asserted a right to the property, which defendant allegedly wrongfully acquired and detained. FAC paras. 7, 19-22. These allegations are sufficient.

Fourth COA: Treble Damages and Attorney’s Fees under Penal Code 496(c)

Defendant argues plaintiffs have not alleged theft or criminal intent as required under Siry Investment, L.P. v. Farkhondehpour (2022) 13 Cal.5th 333 (holding that for §496(c) to apply, there must be a theft, which requires proof of criminal intent beyond mere nonperformance or actual falsity).

Plaintiffs do not allege defendant or Magdalena acted with criminal intent. Plaintiffs argue they alleged Magdalena willfully engaged in wrongful conduct (FAC paras. 7, 19-22), and the conduct constitutes theft for purposes of Penal Code §496(c). This argument is unavailing. Falsity is not theft, and absent allegations of theft and criminal intent, plaintiffs’ fourth COA for treble damages and attorney’s fees fails. Sustained with leave to amend.

Fifth COA: Accounting

Defendant argues plaintiffs are not beneficiaries of the 2021 Magdalena Gomez Separate Property Trust dated 10/21/2021, so lack standing to bring a COA for accounting under Probate Code §17200; Esslinger v. Cummins (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 517, 524. Prob. Code §17200 grants standing to trust beneficiaries to petition for an accounting. Prob. Code §24 defines a beneficiary as “a person who has any present or future interest, vested or contingent.” Id.

Plaintiffs allege they possess a direct interest in the assets of their father’s estate, which were improperly transferred to the 2021 Magdalena Gomez Separate Property Trust dated 10/21/2021. FAC paras. 7, 19-22. Plaintiffs assert an accounting is necessary to trace the improperly transferred assets. Thus, plaintiffs allege an interest in the assets now held by the 2021 Magdalena Gomez Separate Property Trust dated 10/21/2021. This is sufficient.

Defendant’s demurrers to the first, second, third and fifth COAs are OVERRULED. Defendant’s demurrer to the fourth COA is GRANTED with leave to amend.