Judge: John B. Scherling, Case: 37-2022-00051386-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2023-10-20 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 19, 2023

10/20/2023  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

Having heard oral argument and considered the supplemental papers filed by the parties, the Court now confirms and modifies the tentantive ruling as follows: Zsuzsanna Szatmari's Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens (ROA 21) is DENIED.

Zsuzsanna Szatmari's evidentiary objections to the declarations filed in support of the opposition to the motion to dismiss (ROA 57) are OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION I. Background The case concerns the Laszlo Stipkovits Trust dated March 12, 2019 as amended ('Trust'). 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 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 ('Petition'). (ROA 1, supplemented by ROA 12, 30.) The Petition challenges the validity of the 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 his assets and 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 Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3013412 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE LASZLO STIPKOVITS TRUST, DATED  37-2022-00051386-PR-TR-CTL 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.

On August 25, 2023, the Court took the matter under submission and allowed the parties to file supplemental briefs according to the set deadlines. (ROA 42, 46.) On September 18, 2023, Respondent filed a supplemental reply brief in support of the motion (ROA 47), along with Respondent's supporting declaration (ROA 48), the supporting declaration of attorney Krisztina Csepiga (ROA 49), and request for judicial notice (ROA 50).

On October 6, 2023, Petitioner filed an opposition to Respondent's supplemental brief (ROA 51) and objections to the request for judicial notice (ROA 54). Petitioner also filed the supporting declaration of counsel (ROA 52) and of attorney Csongor Visontain (ROA 53).

On October 13, 2023, Respondent filed a final reply brief (ROA 56), evidentiary objections to Petitioner's supplemental declarations in opposition to the motion (ROA 57), a second request for judicial notice (ROA 58), and the supplemental declaration of attorney Krisztina Csepiga (ROA 59).

II. Request for Judicial Notice 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).

Respondent requests judicial notice of Hungarian laws and records from a civil action filed in the Northern Division of the Superior Court of San Diego, in case no. 37-2019-00025523-CU-FR-NC. (ROA 50, 58.) The requests are granted pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) and (f). Notice is taken to the extent permitted. (Sosinsky v. Grant (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1548, 1564-1565 [the truth of matters asserted in court records and official acts are not subject to judicial notice.'].) Veronika Stipkovits' objection to the Request for Judicial Notice at ROA 50 (ROA 54) is OVERRULED.

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.) A. Suitability Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3013412 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE LASZLO STIPKOVITS TRUST, DATED  37-2022-00051386-PR-TR-CTL 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, therefore, initially failed to carry her burden in showing that Hungary is a suitable alternate forum.

In the supplemental brief and supporting declaration, however, Respondent states she 'has agreed to acknowledge and submit to the jurisdiction of the Hungarian courts and to waive any applicable statute of limitations that Hungary may have concerning this dispute. See Supplemental Declaration of Zsuzsanna Szatmari, ¶ 2.' (ROA 47, Supp. Reply at p. 4.) Thus, Respondent's waiver of the statute of limitations shifts the burden of production on Petitioner to show that Hungary is an unsuitable forum for the present litigation despite Respondent's submission and waiver. The burden of persuasion remains with Respondent.

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.'].) In her supplemental papers, Petitioner filed correspondence received from the Notary in Hungary dated September 21, 2023, responding to counsel's inquiries regarding any pending Probate matters in Hungary involving Decedent's estate. (ROA 52, Szabo Decl., Exh. 1.) The Notary confirmed there was no Probate proceeding involving Decedent pending in Hungary. The letter from the Notary states that the representative of Decedent's widow 'has not provided any information despite repeated requests.' (Id.; see also ROA 53, Visontain Decl.) Attorney Visontain also confirmed that no civil cases are pending in Hungary involving Decedent's estate, Will, or Trust. (Id., at ¶ 5.) He states that the '[c]urrent records indicate that the legal owner of the properties listed on the Amendment to the Trust is Veronika Stipkovits, not the trust. There are no clouds recorded on the titles of the properties.' (Id., at ¶ 8.) 'Therefore, as of today, the Trust has no minimal contact with Hungary. It was formed in California based on California laws, it is not a party in any pending Hungarian action, nor is the Trust the legal owner of any Hungarian property.' (Id., emphasis added.) Attorney Visontain further explains that based on Hungarian case law, because the Trust is governed by California law, the Trust cannot be registered and operated in Hungary as all legal entities, including trusts, must operate under Hungarian laws. (Id., at ¶ 9.) To relocate the Trust to Hungary, it must be amended to operate under Hungarian laws and register as a Hungarian trust following certain rules and regulations. (Id.) There is no evidence the Trust took affirmative steps to comply with Hungarian laws to register the Trust, and thus, the Trust remains a California trust. (Id.) Petitioner argues that as a result, Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3013412 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE LASZLO STIPKOVITS TRUST, DATED  37-2022-00051386-PR-TR-CTL Hungarian Courts will reject jurisdiction over the Trust and return the matter to California for resolution.

Attorney Csepiga states that the real property found in Hungary is 'the subject of the ongoing civil case P.21589/2022 in Hungary, and an ongoing criminal case 6.B.982/2022 in Hungary, to recover Laszlo's assets that were transferred by Veronika Stipkovits and her mother without the knowledge and consent of Laszlo Stipkovits in 2013, during his divorce proceeding.' (ROA 59, Csepiga Decl., at ¶ 8.) However, Respondent did not provide any documents evidencing the existence of these cases in Hungary, and to the extent these cases involve the real property alleged to belong to Decedent's estate, and not the Trust, it is unclear how a Hungarian court would be a suitable alternate forum to litigate the issues raised in the Petition at ROA 1 concerning the Trust. Attorney Csepiga does not elaborate on the civil action and the claims therein involved such that this Court is able to assess the suitability of that forum with respect to the Petition at hand. Thus, the fact that a civil or criminal case is pending in Hungary is not determinative on the issue when this fact is considered with respect to the issues raised in the instant Petition.

Respondent also relies on the record of a civil case filed in the Northern Division of the Superior Court of San Diego, in Stipkovits v. Szathmary, case no. 2019-25523, wherein the Court granted defendant Respondent's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens. While this Court takes judicial notice of the order granting the motion, the ruling of that trial court has no precedential value in this Probate proceeding, where the claims are distinguishable and concern a California Trust.

Attorney Visontain, who also represented Petitioner in a civil action filed in Hungary that has since been dismissed, avers that the Hungarian Court's order to produce the medical records of Decedent located in the United States went ignored by the relevant agency in the United States, and the Hungarian Courts lack authority to enforce the discovery order in the United States. (ROA 53, Visontain Decl., at ¶ 11.) It thus appears that the courts in Hungary likely would not have access to Decedent's medical records in this action.

Respondent argues that according to attorney Csepiga, Hungary is a suitable alternate forum for Petitioner to file her current Petition. 'In fact, because the assets in dispute include real properties located in Hungary and there is a current probate proceeding determining the succession of Laszlo's estate, the more convenient and appropriate forum to try Veronika's Petition is in Hungary. Veronika is able to contest the Trust and power of attorney and bring a claim for financial elder abuse in Hungary, either in a separate civil action that would suspend the Hungarian probate proceeding, or testify at the probate proceeding held by the Notary.' (ROA 47, Supp. Reply at p. 4.) Attorney Csepiga states that 'foreign judgments that relate to real-estate of the deceased person located in Hungary regardless of the real-estate is in a Trust or Will, it cannot be enforced in Hungary.' (Sic.) (ROA 49, Csepiga Decl., at ¶ 17.) In her second declaration in support of the supplemental reply, attorney Csepiga states that the cases cited by attorney Visontain are not on point and that Decedent's death certificate, which is a prerequisite to Probate proceedings, was just issued on October 11, 2023, and the delay in the Probate proceedings was not Respondent's fault. (ROA 59, Csepiga Decl., at ¶¶ 6-8.) Attorney Csepiga further states that Veronika is merely the registered owner of the real property in Hungary, and Decedent remains the legal owner. (Id.) The Petition at ROA 1 is a petition to invalidate the Trust based on allegations that it was procured through fraud, forgery, and elder abuse. Specifically at issue with the Petition is the validity of the Durable Power of Attorney executed in August 2013, which was drafted and executed in California.

Schedule A to the Trust (as amended) does not list any properties located in Hungary, but only a right, title, or interest in property subject to litigation in Hungary in which Decedent is named a party. (See ROA 22, Szatmari Decl., Exh. C, Schedule A.) The Trust owns no real property located in Hungary involved in this Probate matter. Further, based on the declarations of attorneys Visontain and Csepiga, there is no dispute the Notary in Hungary cannot adjudicate Petitioner's civil claims through the Probate proceeding and a separate civil case must be filed.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3013412 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE LASZLO STIPKOVITS TRUST, DATED  37-2022-00051386-PR-TR-CTL Decedent had been a resident of California at the time of his death, thus, any evidence or witnesses relating to the claims of elder abuse and lack of capacity raised in the Petition are presumably all found in California. Indeed, Respondent argues there were medical records from the United States that could not be obtained by the Hungarian court. Respondent does not argue or show otherwise. Petitioner submitted a list of potential witnesses in California. (ROA 27, Oppo., at pp. 7-9.) On the other hand, Respondent presented no evidence that non-party witnesses or evidence on the issues raised in the Petition are likely to exist in Hungary.

Further, the Trust was established in California and presumably administered in California, despite Respondent's unsubstantiated claim that she is currently residing in Hungary. Petitioner presented as evidence the declaration of attorney Csongor Visontain who states that at this stage, only a case has been opened in Hungary based on an informal reporting of Decedent's death by Respondent, but the Notary is unable to proceed further because Respondent has not provided the inventory of the estate as requested by the Notary. (ROA 53, Visontain Decl., at ¶ 6.) Respondent explains that Decedent's death certificate, which is necessary for the Probate matter, was just issued on October 11, 2023, and she has not been able to proceed without the death certificate. (ROA 59, Csepiga Decl., at ¶ 8.) As such, the evidence is clear that although an administrative Probate case is filed in Hungary, no Probate case is currently pending.

In short, Petitioner has produced competent and persuasive evidence showing that despite Respondent's submission to Hungarian jurisdiction and waiver of the statute of limitations defense, the action cannot reasonably proceed in Hungary. There is no evidence of Trust assets located in Hungary, and no evidence of any Probate cases presently pending in Hungary. Further, there is no evidence the Trust is registered under Hungarian laws, and it is therefore unclear and uncertain that the Hungarian courts would have jurisdiction over the Trust. Respondent's argument that Hungarian courts have jurisdiction over real property located in Hungary is unavailing since the California Trust is not located in Hungary, and it does not hold real property located in Hungary. On the other hand, there is evidence that California is a suitable forum for litigating disputes related to the Trust and Trust documents for the reasons discussed. 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), on this record the Court's only option is to find that Respondent has failed to carry her burden of persuasion that – even if Petitioner could file an action in Hungary – Hungary will provide a remedy and is a suitable alternate forum.

Based on the foregoing, Respondent's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is DENIED.

Counsel for Petitioner is directed to serve notice of ruling in accordance with the provisions of CCP § 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3013412