Judge: John B. Scherling, Case: 37-2022-00051386-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2023-08-25 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 24, 2023

08/25/2023  02:00:00 PM  502 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:John B Scherling

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Probate  Trust Proceedings Motion Hearing (Probate) 37-2022-00051386-PR-TR-CTL IN THE MATTER OF THE LASZLO STIPKOVITS TRUST, DATED MARCH 12, 2019 CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Dismiss, 06/09/2023

Zsuzsanna Szatmari's Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens (ROA 21) is denied without prejudice.

I. Background: Laszlo Stipkovits ('Decedent') died on June 29, 2022. He was survived by his wife, Zsuzsanna Szatmari ('Respondent'), and his daughter, Veronika Stipkovits ('Petitioner').

On December 12, 23, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition to Invalidate Trust Based on Forgery; Lack of Due Execution; Lack of Capacity; Fraud; and Damages for Elder Abuse. (ROA 1, supplemented by ROA 12, 30.) The petition challenges the validity of the Laszlo Stipkovits Trust dated March 12, 2019 ('Trust') on various grounds, including that it was improperly executed by Respondent under an invalid power of attorney, Decedent lacked capacity, and the Trust is based on fraud and undue influence from Respondent. The petition also alleges that Respondent committed financial elder abuse against Decedent by stripping him of all of his assets and by executing the Trust.

On June 9, 2023, Respondent filed the current motion to dismiss, or alternatively stay, the petition based on forum non conveniens. (ROA 21, reply at ROA 34.) She claims that Hungary is a suitable alternate forum because both parties are currently residing in Hungary, there is a Hungarian probate proceeding where the Hungarian court has accepted and recognized the Trust as well as Decedent's will, the witnesses to Decedent's will and intent to disinherit Petitioner are in Hungary, and all Trust property is located in Hungary and subject to ongoing Hungarian lawsuits. Respondent also argues that there are no private or public interests that justify retaining jurisdiction in California.

Petitioner opposes the motion. (ROA 27.) She argues that California is the proper jurisdiction because the Trust was created here, the Trust is administered here, Respondent resides here, and Respondent lacks the ability to move administration of the Trust outside of the United States. Petitioner also claims that Hungary is not a suitable alternate forum because she would not be able to conduct discovery in Hungary, probate in Hungary is an administrative procedure conducted by a notary instead of a court, the notary in Hungary cannot adjudicate Petitioner's contest of the Trust and elder abuse claims, and numerous witnesses live in California and the Hungarian notary lacks subpoena power over those witnesses.

II. Request for Judicial Notice: Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2984736 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE LASZLO STIPKOVITS TRUST, DATED  37-2022-00051386-PR-TR-CTL Petitioner requests judicial notice of matters filed in this case and a related conservatorship case. (ROA 29, 31.) This unopposed request is granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d).

III. Analysis: 'Forum non conveniens is an equitable doctrine invoking the discretionary power of a court to decline to exercise the jurisdiction it has over a transitory cause of action when it believes that the action may be more appropriately and justly tried elsewhere.' (Stangvik v. Shiley Inc. (1991) 54 Cal.3d 744, 751.) 'In determining whether to grant a motion based on forum non conveniens, a court must first determine whether the alternate forum is a 'suitable' place for trial. If it is, the next step is to consider the private interests of the litigants and the interests of the public in retaining the action for trial in California.' (Ibid.) 'It is well settled under California law that the moving parties satisfy their burden on the threshold suitability issue by stipulating to submit to the jurisdiction of the alternative forum and to waive any applicable statute of limitations.' (Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1177, 1190.) 'It is apparent that when the defendants meet this burden, a burden of production falls on the plaintiffs if they wish to show the alternative forum is nonetheless unsuitable because the action cannot actually be brought there despite the defendants' stipulations.' (Id. at 1191.) 'If the plaintiffs produce competent and persuasive evidence showing that despite the defendants' stipulations the action cannot be brought in the alternative forum, it is then the defendants' burden to respond with countervailing evidence as they have the ultimate burden of persuasion.' (Ibid.) The memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion states that Respondent 'has agreed to acknowledge and submit to the jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts (while reserving all rights, remedies, and defenses that she may have).' (ROA 21, 6:27- 7:1.) Similarly, Respondent's declaration, which is the only evidence in support of the motion, states 'I agree to acknowledge and submit to the jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts, while reserving all rights, remedies, and defenses that I may have.

(ROA 22, ¶ 11.) Glaringly absent from Respondent's argument and declaration is an agreement to waive any applicable statute of limitations. Indeed, Respondent reserves all defenses that she may have, which would include a defense based on the statute of limitations. Respondent has therefore failed to carry her burden in showing that Hungary is a suitable alternate forum, and the motion is denied on this ground.

Even if the court were to assume that the failure to waive the statute of limitations was a mistake, Respondent has still not carried her ultimate burden of persuasion. In support of her opposition, Petitioner submits a declaration from her attorney, Gabor Szabo. (ROA 28.) Mr. Szabo states that he 'is familiar with the Hungarian probate proceedings and also consulted with Dr. Maria Rozsa, a licensed attorney in good standing, about the Hungarian probate proceedings.' (ROA 28, ¶ 3.) Mr. Szabo also states that in a Hungarian probate proceeding, a notary public determines the order of succession 'in accordance with the rules on non-contentious court proceedings,' and that the Hungarian probate proceeding cannot adjudicate her claims of financial elder abuse, invalidity of the Trust, and invalidity of the power of attorney. (ROA 28, ¶¶ 4-11.) While Mr. Szabo's declaration lacks citation to any legal authority, Respondent has not objected to it, she has not presented any evidence to rebut it, and she does not argue that Mr. Szabo's assessment is incorrect. Instead, in her reply, Respondent merely makes vague and unsupported arguments that Hungary is the appropriate forum. (See, e.g., ROA 43, 3:1-2 ['Because there is already a current probate proceeding determining the rightful heirs of Laszlo's estate, Hungary (a member of the Hague Convention) is a readily available alternative forum to try this case']; ROA 43, 5:17-18 ['Moreover, Hungary is a member of the Hague Convention and has a judicial system readily available and accessible to deliver justice'].) Although it is rare to find that an alternate forum provides no remedy (see, e.g., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. AmerisourceBergen Corporation (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 1, 15), without any rebuttal of Mr. Szabo's declaration and no contrary explanation of Hungarian law, the court's only option is to find that Respondent has failed to carry her burden of persuasion on this issue, and the motion is denied on this ground as well.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2984736 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE LASZLO STIPKOVITS TRUST, DATED  37-2022-00051386-PR-TR-CTL In addition to Respondent's failure to waive the statute of limitations, neither party sufficiently addressed the adequacy of Hungary as an alternate forum. The court will therefore deny the motion without prejudice.

The minutes constitute the order of the court, and no formal order is required.

Counsel for Petitioner is directed to a serve notice of ruling in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2984736