Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 19STCV42388, Date: 2025-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV42388    Hearing Date: March 17, 2025    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

The Court DENIES, WITHOUT PREJUDICE Marlene’s motion for an order submitting her into this action in place and stead of Vahram.

On 11/25/2019, Plaintiffs Vahram (Vahram) and Ara Sevacherian (Ara) (collectively, Plaintiffs) initiated this action. On 12/6/2019, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against Khosrov Madenjian, trustee of the Madenjian Family Trust (Defendant), seeking partition.

On 2/25/2025, Marlene Sevacherian (Marlene) moved for an order substituting her into this action in the place of Vahram Sevacherian (Vahram).

Discussion

           Marlene is trustee of the Sevacherian Family Trust and successor-in-interest to, and widow of, Plaintiff Vahram who is deceased as of 10/24/2023.

           Marlene submitted evidence that 8/20/2020, Vahram conveyed to himself and Marlene, as Trustees of the Sevacherian Family Trust, (a) an undivided 25% interest in the improved real property located at, and commonly known as, 6230 N. San Gabriel Boulevard, San Gabriel, Los Angeles County, California (the San Gabriel Property) (Ex. 4) and (b) an undivided 33.33% interest in the improved real property located at, and commonly known as, 1125 S. Greenwood Avenue, Montebello, Los Angeles County, California (the Greenwood Property) (Ex. 5).

           Marlene submitted additional evidence that upon Vahram’s death and pursuant to the terms of the Sevacherian Family Trust (Exs. 1 and 2), Marlene became the sole Trustee and sole beneficiary of the Sevacherian Family Trust.

           However, in opposition, Ara Sevacherian (Ara) submitted evidence that the disputed over Vahram’s successor is currently before the Probate Courts. More specifically, Ara, in his capacity as Successor Trustee of the VS-2007 Trust, filed a petition in the probate department of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 23STPB14158 (the LA Trust Proceeding), seeking the probate court’s instructions regarding the VS-2007 Trust and to determine, among other things, the rightful successor in interest with respect to Vahram’s share of the proceeds of the sale of the Subject Properties. (Sevacherian Declaration, ¶ 19 and Ex. D.)

Similarly, with respect to the San Gabriel Property, Ara submitted evidence that a dispute exists over whether Vahram’s interest is held in his own name as his sole and separate property pursuant to the deed he caused to be recorded on 2/18/2022, or in the Alleged 2020 Trust pursuant to the purported deed and other documents allegedly discovered and recorded by Marlene after Vahram’s death. This dispute is currently before and will be adjudicated by the probate court in the Riverside Probate Proceeding. (Rodich Declaration, ¶ 20.)

The primary focus and purpose of the probate courts is to adjudicate trust and probate issues. (See, e.g., Saks v. Damon Raike & Co. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 419, 430; Heggstad v. Heggstad (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 943, 951; Prob. Code, § 17000.) As such, the Court finds that the Probate Courts are the proper tribunals to adjudicate the successor issue.

Moreover, multiple adjudication of the same disputes in different courts is also strongly disfavored because such duplication creates the risk of inconsistent rulings. (See, e.g., Metis Development LLC v. Bohacek (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 679, 692-693; People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 770.) Here, there is an extremely high risk of conflicting rulings if this court and the Probate Courts were to adjudicate the same question of identity of Vahram’s rightful successor in interest.

Based on the foregoing, the Court denies, without prejudice Marlene’s motion for an order submitting her into this action in place and stead of Vahram.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March    , 2025

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.