Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 22NWCV00538, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00538, Date: 2023-09-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00538 Hearing Date: March 14, 2024 Dept: C

VARGAS v. SAAVEDRA

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00538

HEARING: 03/14/24

Defendant/Cross-Complainant OLIVIA SAAVEDRA’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED without leave to amend.

Moving Party to give notice.

This action concerning real property was filed on June 29, 2022.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff CARLOS S. VARGAS, JR. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant OLIVIA SAAVEDRA (“Defendant”) are siblings. (Complaint ¶7.) “In or around August 11, 1992, Elvira Vargas [mother of Plaintiff and Defendant] and Plaintiff CARLOS S. VARGAS, JR. obtained title to the Subject Property as joint-tenants.” (Complaint ¶8.) “However, in or around September 24, 2019, Elvira Vargas affirmatively severed the joint tenancy between herself and Plaintiff CARLOS S. VARGAS JR. and conveyed her 50% interest in the Subject Property to herself, in her capacity as the Trustee of the Elvira S. Vargas Living Trust, dated September 24, 2019….” (Complaint ¶11.) “Thereafter, in or around January 25, 2020, Plaintiff CARLOS S. VARGAS, JR. conveyed his 50% interest in the Subject Property to himself, in his capacity as the Trustee of The Carlos Santillan Vargas and ORTENCIA Vargas Living Trust….” (Complaint ¶16.) Elvira Vargas is deceased. (Complaint ¶19.)

The Complaint asserts the following causes of action:

(1) Partition and Sale of Real Property;

(2) Accounting;

(3) Quiet Title;

(4) Cancellation of Instruments;

(5) Declaratory Relief;

(6) Financial Elder Abuse; and

(7) Unjust Enrichment

Defendant OLIVIA SAAVEDRA moves for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire Complaint on the basis that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert these causes of action.

Standing

Defendant argues that Plaintiff lacks standing to assert any claims because they have an adequate remedy in Probate Court.

Every action must, except as otherwise expressly authorized by law, be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. (CCP §367; Killian v. Millard (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1601, 1605.)

Sixth Cause of Action – Financial Elder Abuse

“After the death of the elder or dependent adult, the right to commence or maintain an [elder abuse] action shall pass to the personal representative of the decedent. If there is no personal representative, the right to commence or maintain an action shall pass to any of the following, if the requirements of Section 377.32 of the Code of Civil Procedure are met: (A) An intestate heir whose interest is affected by the action. (B) The decedent’s successor in interest… (C) An interested person, as defined in Section 48 of the Probate Code….” (emphasis added) (Cal. Wel. & Inst. Code §15657.3(d).) CCP §377.32 requires a person seeking to proceed as successor in interest to file a declaration setting forth certain facts. The Court has reviewed the case file. To date, no declaration in compliance with CCP §377.32 has been filed. As such, Plaintiff fails to adequately plead standing to assert a claim for financial elder abuse at this time.

The motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the sixth cause of action is GRANTED without leave to amend.

First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Causes of Action

“(a) The [Probate] court having jurisdiction over the trust pursuant to this part has exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings concerning the internal affairs of the trusts. (b) The superior court having jurisdiction over the trust pursuant to this part has concurrent jurisdiction of the following: (1) Actions and proceedings to determine the existence of trusts; (2) Actions and proceedings by or against creditors or debtors of trusts. (3) Other actions and proceedings involving trustees and third persons.” (Cal. Prob. Code §17000.) The Probate Court has complete and exclusive jurisdiction over property of the estate, all persons claiming interests in the decedent’s estate, and all matters involved in a complete and effective administration of the estate, which include the probate of wills. (See Cal. Prob. Code §7050; Morrison v. Kaufman (1945) 68 Cal.App.2d 280, 281.) “It is the general rule in California that the superior court sitting in probate has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the persons and share that each has in the estate of a decedent. (Howard v. Bennett (1942) 53 Cal.App.2d 546, 548.)

“Proceedings concerning the internal affairs of a trust include, but are not limited to, proceedings for any of the following purposes: (1) Determining questions of construction of a trust instrument. (2) Determining the existence of nonexistence of any immunity, power, privilege, duty, or right. (3) Determining the validity of a trust provision. (4) Ascertaining beneficiaries and determining to whom property shall pass or be delivered upon final or partial termination of the trust, to the extent the determination is not made by the trust instrument. (5) Settling the accounts and passing upon the acts of the trustee, including the exercise of discretionary powers. (6) Instructing the trust. (7) Compelling the trustee to [do certain acts.]” (emphasis added.) (Cal. Prob. Code §17200(b.) “Internal trust affairs, for example, include modification of the terms of the trust, changes in a designated successor, trustee, other deviations from trust provisions, authority over the trustee’s acts, or the administration of the trust’s financial arrangements.” (Harnedy v. Whitty (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1345 [quoting Estate of Mullins (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 924, 931.].)

Here, Plaintiff seeks to obtain title to the Subject Property, which is purportedly held in the Carlos Trust and the Elvira Trusts. Consequently, Plaintiff’s claims involve the internal affairs of the trusts, and are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court.

Moreover, as indicated above, Plaintiff has not filed a declaration under CCP §377.32 stating that Plaintiff is the Decedent’s successor in interest. (CCP §377.32(5)(A).) “[A] trustee or beneficiary of a trust may petition the court… concerning the internal affairs of the trust or to determine the existence of the trust.” (Cal. Prob. Code §17200(a).)

In Opposition, Plaintiff does not substantively address Defendant’s arguments pertaining to standing. Standing is a threshold issue that must be resolved before reaching the merits of an action. (See Blumhorst v. Jewish Family Services of Los Angeles (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 993, 1000.)

The motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as to all claims.

The Motion is GRANTED without leave to amend, without prejudice to Plaintiff from re-filing this Cross-Complaint in the Probate Department.