Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 19STCV22166, Date: 2024-12-18 Tentative Ruling

DEPARTMENT 56 JUDGE HOLLY J. FUJIE, LAW AND MOTION RULINGS. The court makes every effort to post tentative rulings by 5.00 pm of the court day before the hearing. The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)], and are also available in the courtroom on the day of the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(b)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) call Dept 56 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (213/633-0656) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call. Court reporters are not provided, and parties who want a record of motions and other proceedings must hire a privately retained certified court reporter.

PLAINTIFF AND CROSS-DEFENDANT[1]: Regan Yewata (“Yewata” or “Plaintiff”)

DEFENDANTS AND CROSS-COMPLAINANTS: Defendants Neza Wta Ma (“Ma”) and Mya Hnin Yi (“Yi”) (sometimes collectively, “Defendants”)

This Court held a bench trial on this matter on July 24-26, 2024. By stipulation, the direct testimony of the following witnesses was presented by declaration: Plaintiff; Khin Than Da; Godakalana Gunara Tanas aka Bhante Chao Chu (“Bhante”); Khin Ohmar; Yasa Zawtika; Yi; Mynit Mynit Lwin; and Albert Ho (“Ho”). The Court ruled on objections to the declarations and cross-examination of the following witnesses was presented at trial: Plaintiff; Yi; Ho; and Bhante. Exhibits were entered as set forth in the record and briefs were submitted. The matter was taken under submission and the following is the Statement of Decision on this matter.

On December 1, 2021, Plaintiffs Yewata and AMBF filed the operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) against Defendants Ma and Yi, and “All Persons Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiffs’ Title thereto; and DOES 1 through 50.” The FAC asserts the following causes of action: (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Constructive Fraud; (4) Constructive Trust; and (5) Quiet Title. On February 24, 2020, Defendants Ma and Yi filed a Cross-Complaint (the “XC”) against Plaintiffs, alleging causes of action for: (1) Partition and (2) Fraud.

All of the claims in the FAC and in the XC arise from the same set of facts. The undisputed relevant facts are as follows: 1) Plaintiff is a Buddhist monk with Buddhist temples in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma) and at 15623 Longworth Avenue, Norwalk, California 90650 (the “Property”); 2) Na is a Buddhist monk with a Buddhist temple in Myanmar; 3) Yi is a part-time Buddhist nun with a business that operates in Myanmar and Thailand; 4) Plaintiff and Defendants met in Myanmar; 5) In 2016, Yi made at least two donations to Plaintiff in an amount totaling 60 million Myanmar kyat to Plaintiff for religious purposes; 6) on September 27, 2016, Yewata executed a grant deed (the “Grant Deed”), transferring title in the Property to Ma and Yi, together with himself, as joint tenants; 9) the Grant Deed recites that it is a “bona fide gift”; 7) a “water dripping ceremony” was held on September 30, 2016 at the Property, at which an empty box was displayed, labeled “$200,800 [Burmese equivalent] 9/30/16”; 8) water dripping ceremonies are used in certain Buddhist traditions to commemorate donations; 10) in June of 2019, Yewata requested that Ma and Yi reconvey their interest in the Property to him; and 11) Yi and Ma refused to reconvey the Property to Yewata.

1. Plaintiff Yewata – The Court finds him credible on some issues and not credible in others. Specifically, the Court notes that while he has taken the position throughout this litigation that Yi did not give him an additional sum in September, 2016 for a total donation of the equivalent of $200,800, and that evidence that no such additional sum was given was that no plaque or other physical evidence of the donation was created, it was shown at trial that donations that are not for the specific purpose of creating a physical place are not commemorated with a plaque. The Court does not find credible that Plaintiff did not receive the additional donation in September 2016. The Court also does not find credible Plaintiff’s testimony regarding the execution of the Grant Deed or about the existence of a mortgage lien on the Property, as it is not supported by the exhibits entered into evidence. The Court also does not find Plaintiff credible in his testimony regarding Yi’s allegedly having made enforceable promises to raise additional money for Plaintiff.

2. Defendant Yi – The Court finds Defendant Yi credible as to the amount and timing of her donations; however, the Court does not find her credible insofar as she contends that false representations were made as to the use of the money donated.

4. Bhante Chao Chu – The Court found this witness to be credible; however, his expertise was of minimal use to the Court because it is in Chinese Buddhist practices and not those of Plaintiff Yewata’s branch of Myanmar Buddhism. For example, he did not know what a “water dripping ceremony” is or the significance or lack of significance of a plaque or other physical evidence of a donation.

1. Defendant Yi did make a third donation to Plaintiff in Myanmar kyat, and the total US Dollar equivalent value of her gifts to Plaintiff was approximately $200,800.

2. Defendant Yi did not make this donation either to purchase an interest for herself and Ma in the Property or for any other consideration to be received from Plaintiff – it was a religious donation only.

4. Defendants did not agree to fundraise for Plaintiff or otherwise perform any work for him.

5. Defendants did not expressly agree to reconvey the Property back to Plaintiff upon his request.

6. Plaintiff did not make any misrepresentations to Defendants to cause Defendant Yi to make any donations to him.

7. Defendants did not make any misrepresentations to Plaintiff to cause him to execute the Grant Deed in their favor jointly with Plaintiff.

8. Although Plaintiff may have mistakenly believed that as a religious follower, Defendants would understand that the Property was only being given to them until such time as he requested it to be reconveyed, that was not Defendants’ understanding at any time and Defendants are not bound by that mistaken belief.

9. The Property is owned equally by Plaintiff and the two Defendants, and none of the parties wish to continue owning the Property jointly.

10. The Property is a house and there is no reasonable way to divide it among the three owners short of sale.

The elements of a cause of action for fraud are: 1) an actionable misrepresentation of fact; 2) knowledge of falsity; 3) intent to defraud; 4) justifiable reliance on that misrepresentation; and 5) proximately caused damages. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4^th 631, 638.)

The only alleged misrepresentation allegedly made by Defendants to Plaintiff before the execution of the Grant Deed was that “Defendants promised to join Plaintiff to raise funds for AMBF and carry[] out missionary work in the U.S. with Plaintiff.” (FAC, para. 18.) Setting aside the issue of whether such a vague “promise” would be enforceable[2], Plaintiff continues by alleging that Defendants “only donated another $2,290.00.” (Complaint, para. 21.) Therefore, according to the FAC, Defendants fulfilled any alleged obligation to did raise funds, namely another $2,290. There is no allegation that Plaintiff signed the Grant Deed in reliance upon any promise to fundraise. Moreover, the Court finds that any such reliance would not have been justifiable.

Based upon the evidence at trial, the Court finds that there was: 1) no actionable misrepresentation of fact, either false or otherwise; 2) no intent on Defendants’ part to defraud; 3) no justifiable reliance by Plaintiff; and 4) no proximately-caused damages.

The Court finds in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on the First Cause of Action for fraud.

The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are: 1) the existence of a fiduciary duty; 2) breach of that duty; and 3) proximately-caused damages arising from said breach. (Stanley v. Richmond (1995) 35 Cal.App.4^th 1070, 1086.)

Initially, the Court finds that there was no fiduciary relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants. No legal grounds for the creation of a fiduciary relationship has been established in this case. Also, the Court finds that Defendants did not commit to being “fundraising agents” for Plaintiff. As such, there is no valid breach of fiduciary duty claim against Defendants.

The Court finds in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

The elements of a cause of action for constructive fraud are: 1) a fiduciary relationship; 2) nondisclosure; 3) intent to deceive; and 4) reliance; and 5) resulting injury. (Tindell v. Murphy 22 Cal.App.5^th 1239, 1249-50.)

Because the Court has not found a fiduciary duty between Plaintiff and Defendants, the claim for Constructive Fraud must also fail. For that reason, the Court finds in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on the Third Cause of Action for Constructive Fraud.

The elements of a cause of action for constructive fraud are: 1) a wrongful act; 2) specific, identifiable property; 3) plaintiff’s right to the property; and 4) defendant has title thereto. (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 76.)

The Court finds that there was no wrongful act upon which to base a Constructive Trust. The Court specifically finds that Defendants made their donations to Plaintiff for charitable purposes and not for the purpose of obtaining title to the Property. The Court further finds that no consideration was paid for the placement of Defendants’ names on title and that Plaintiff took that action voluntarily. While the Court finds that Plaintiff may have believed that Defendants would reconvey the Property upon request, there was no representation made by Defendants that they would do so and no right to that reconveyance that should have been expected by Plaintiff.

The Court finds that Plaintiff and Defendants have equal rights to the Property and that it is not being held by Defendants in constructive trust for Plaintiff.

The elements of a cause of action for quiet title are: 1) a description of the property; 2) the plaintiff’s title and the basis on which it is asserted; 3) the adverse claims against which the determination is sought; 4) the date as of which the determination is sought and why; and 5) a prayer for determination of the plaintiff’s title against the adverse claims. Also, if the basis for the claim is fraud, the factual basis for that fraud. (Code of Civil Procedure, Section 761.020.)

The Court finds that the title of the Property is validly held by Plaintiff and Defendants, in equal parts. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff’s claim that he is entitled to Quiet Title as against Defendants must fail.

The elements of a claim for partition are: 1) description of the property; 2) all interests the claimant has to the property, all interests of record in the property; the estate to which partition is sought are identified; and 4) if seeking sale of the property, facts justifying such relief. (CCP section 872.230.)

All elements of this claim have been satisfied by the evidence admitted at trial. The Property is properly identified as 15623 Longworth Avenue, Norwalk CA 90650; all interests in and to the Property have been identified, as Plaintiff and Defendants own the Property in equal parts; and the Court finds that no other relief is possible, as the parties’ interests in the Property cannot be divided.

The Court therefore finds in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff on the cause of action in the XC for Partition and orders that the Property be sold and the proceeds divided equally between Plaintiff and each of the two Defendants, according to the procedures set forth in CCP section 872.210, et seq.

The Court finds that under the standards discussed above, no actionable misrepresentation was made by Plaintiff to Defendants.

The parties had until December 2, 2024 to file and serve any proposed corrections to this Proposed Statement of Decision, together with a plan for the partition of the Property. Only Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Tentative Statement of Decision, which proposed only that an accounting be made of the amounts owing on the Property, including mortgage payments and taxes owed. No plan for partition was included in the Objections. Therefore, at the hearing set for December 18, 2024 at 9 a.m., the Court will consider the plan for partition of the Property.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] American Myanmar Buddhist Federation, Inc. (“AMBH”) dismissed its claims against Defendants and Defendants dismissed their claims against AMBH at the time of trial.

[2] First, the promise to raise money for a religious organization is of questionable enforceability; second, there is no specification as to how much money Plaintiff contends that Defendants were required to raise; and third, the pleading does not specify whether the finds were to be raised from third parties or from Defendants themselves.