Judge Helen Zukin, Case 22SMCV00425 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV00425, Date: 2022-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00425 Hearing Date: November 14, 2022 Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Jason Rubin, trustee of The Day Family Survivors Trust (“Plaintiff”) brings this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Jan & Frank Day Foundation (“Defendant”) concerning a residence owned by the trust located at 22223 Carbon Mesa Road in Malibu, California. Janna Day, the daughter of the trust’s settlors, claims a right to reside at the subject property rent-free pursuant to the terms of the original Trust Agreement. The parties have filed briefing on the question of Janna Day’s right of possession, and have stipulated to resolve this issue before trial proceeds on Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer claim against Defendant.

Analysis

The following facts are undisputed: The original Trust Agreement gave Janna Day the right to occupy the subject property rent-free. Sometime in 2017, Ms. Day vacated the residence so it could be leased to generate income for the trust. The trust ultimately leased the residence to Defendant pursuant to a one-year lease running from July 2019 through June 2020.

Where the parties disagree is on the question of possession. In their respective trial briefs, Defendant claims it vacated the property in 2020 and Janna Day is the sole current occupant of the property, while Plaintiff claims Defendant continues to use and possess the property. Defendant argues the Probate Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Janna Day’s right to occupy the premises because she claims a right to possession through the trust instruments and Probate Code § 17000(a) gives the Probate Court “exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trusts.” Plaintiff argues the Probate Court has no jurisdiction over the Trust’s dispute with Defendant, who has no rights under the trust, and that subsequent amendments to the Trust Agreement have removed Ms. Day’s right to occupy the property rent-free.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that this Court has proper jurisdiction to adjudicate this unlawful detainer as between Plaintiff and Defendant. It is undisputed that Defendant is a third-party to the trust and does not claim any right or interest in the property beyond the terms of the one-year lease between it and Plaintiff. The unlawful detainer dispute between Plaintiff and Defendant thus does not concern the “internal affairs of the trust” such as to divest this Court of jurisdiction by the application of Probate Code § 17000(a).

Defendant correctly points out that “If a tenant vacates the premises and surrenders possession to the landlord prior to the complaint being filed, then no action for unlawful detainer will lie even though the premises were not surrendered during the notice period.” (Briggs v. Electronic Memories & Magnetics Corp. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 900, 906.) Possession is thus a threshold issue which remains in dispute between the parties and which must be resolved for the Court to determine whether it is appropriate for the Court to transfer this matter to the Probate Court for resolution of Ms. Day’s claim, where there is an action currently pending regarding the trust. The parties and Ms. Day have not put before the Court the evidence necessary to determine who is currently in possession of the subject property.

Code Civ. Proc. § 598 gives the Court the power to order bifurcation of the trial “on its own motion.” Based on the above, the Court finds good cause to bifurcate the trial in this matter to hear and resolve the issue of possession before the remaining issues in the case. Trial in this matter is currently set for December 5, 2022. Accordingly, at that time the Court will proceed on December 5 to try only the issue of who, if anyone, is currently in possession of the property.

Conclusion

The Court declines to rule on Janna Day’s claim for possession of the property at this time. The Court on its own motion pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. § 598 orders the question of possession bifurcated for trial, with trial to proceed only on the issue of possession on December 5.