Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV01481, Date: 2024-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01481    Hearing Date: March 18, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: March 18, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendant Mark E. Leafstedt

Responding Party: Plaintiff Paul Anthony Varma

T/R:     DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER IS SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

            DEFENDANT TO NOTICE.

If the parties wish to submit on the tentative, please email the courtroom at¿SMCdept54@lacourt.org¿with notice to opposing counsel (or self-represented party) before 8:30 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition, and reply.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from the interest of Plaintiff Paul Anthony Varma in various real and personal property owned by his mother, Decedent Brenda Leafstedt, who passed away on November 20, 2023. On January 19, 2024, Plaintiff sued Defendant Mark E. Leafstedt, alleging a single cause of action for quiet title. The complaint alleges that a Petition for Probate was filed in the Probate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court on January 18, 2024 in LASC Case No. 24STPB00610. A dispute has arisen involving Decedent’s will particularly as it pertains to real properties identified in Decedent’s will.

On February 15, 2024, Defendant filed a demurrer to the first cause of action in the complaint for quiet title.

ANALYSIS

“A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law.”  (Durell v. Sharp Healthcare (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 1350, 1358.) “[T]he court gives the complaint a reasonable interpretation, and treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded.”  (Ibid.) A demurrer accepts as true all well pleaded facts and those facts of which the court can take judicial notice but not deductions, contentions, or conclusions of law or fact. (Fox v. JAMDAT Mobile, Inc. (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1078.) Although courts construe pleadings liberally, sufficient facts must be alleged to support the allegations pled to survive a demurrer. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians' Serv. (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) In ruling on a demurrer, “[t]he complaint must be construed liberally by drawing reasonable inferences from the facts pleaded.” (Rodas v. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 517.)

A. Plaintiff’s Purported Lack of Standing and the Lack of Jurisdiction

            Defendant contends that this matter belongs before the Probate Court and Plaintiff lacks standing in this action. Plaintiff contends that the pleadings do not support the assertion that the Probate Division has exclusive jurisdiction of the claims asserted in the complaint.

            “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.) “[T]he next of kin of a decedent [has] no standing to in a court of law or equity to maintain an action for the recovery of property alleged to belong to the estate of their decedent.” (Hall v. Alexander (1937) 18 Cal.App.2d 660, 663.) “[A]n heir or devisee may, prior to distribution to him of real property of decedent, maintain an action to quiet his title thereto against anyone except the administrator or executor.” (Mears v. Jeffry (1947) 80 Cal.App.2d 610, 618.)

            Plaintiff does not dispute that there is a pending probate action between the parties. The instant action arises from a dispute concerning properties identified in Decedent’s will. This action seeks quiet title of ownership interests in the properties, a matter not before the probate court.

B. Sufficiency of the First Cause of Action for Quiet Title

A quiet title action must plead: (1) a description of the property that is the subject of the action, (2) title of the plaintiff as to which a determination is sought and the basis of the title, (3) the adverse claims to title against which a determination is sought, (4) date as of which the determination is sought, and (5) a prayer for determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 761.020.)

            Defendant demurs first cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has failed to allege sufficient facts to support a quiet title cause of action. The Court agrees. Plaintiff has failed to set forth the legal description of the real property that is subject to this action, allege the title of Plaintiff as to which a determination is sought, allege the adverse claims to which a determination is sought, allege the date as of which a determination is sought, and include a prayer for determination of the title of Plaintiff against adverse claims.

Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action for quiet title is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.