Judge: Maurice A. Leiter, Case: 24STCV02715, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV02715    Hearing Date: May 8, 2024    Dept: 54

Hearing Date: May 8, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint

Moving Party: Defendants Ronald Appel and Manzana Property Management

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jeanette Polk

T/R:     DEFENDANTS’ DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

DEFENDANTS TO FILE AND SERVE ANSWERS TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

DEFENDANTS 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 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

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

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff Jeanette Polk sued Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) quiet title and (2) financial elder abuse. Plaintiff alleges Defendants engaged in a scheme targeting elderly people to transfer title to their homes to Defendants. Plaintiff alleges Defendants wrongfully induced her to transfer title to her home to Defendant The Kristine Taylor Philanthropies on or about June 5, 2018.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action stated in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

Defendants Appel and Manzana Property management demur to the complaint on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege facts against them. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Appel is married to Defendant Taylor and that Appel is an attorney who specializes in foreclosure and credit assistance. Plaintiff alleges moving Defendants participated in the scheme to induce Plaintiff to transfer her home, collected rents, and misrepresented that the property taxes were being paid. Plaintiff also alleges that Appel and Taylor are the alter egos of Manzana. This is sufficient to state claims against moving Defendants.

The demurrer is OVERRULED.

Hearing Date: May 8, 2024

Department 54, Judge Maurice Leiter

Demurrer to Complaint and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant Frederick E. Howard

Responding Party: Plaintiff Jeanette Polk

T/R:     DEFENDANT HOWARD’S DEMURRER IS OVERRULED.

THE MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED.

DEFENDANT TO FILE AND SERVE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF NOTICE OF RULING.

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 8:00 am on the day of the hearing.

The Court considers the moving papers, opposition and reply.

BACKGROUND

On February 1, 2024, Plaintiff Jeanette Polk sued Defendants, asserting causes of action for (1) quiet title and (2) financial elder abuse. Plaintiff alleges Defendants engaged in a scheme targeting elderly people to transfer title to their homes to Defendants. Plaintiff alleges Defendants wrongfully induced her to transfer title to her home to Defendant The Kristine Taylor Philanthropies on or about June 5, 2018.

ANALYSIS

A demurrer to a complaint may be taken to the whole complaint or to any of the causes of action stated in it.  (CCP § 430.50(a).)  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff's ability to prove those allegations.  (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal. App. 4th 726, 732.)  The court must treat as true the complaint's material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.  (Id. at 732-33.)  The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated.  (Id. at 733.)

A. First Cause of Action for Quiet Title

Defendant Howard demurs to the first cause of action on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege that Howard claims a title in the subject property. Plaintiff alleges she was fraudulently induced into signing over title to her house, and that she “is informed and believes and, on that basis, alleges that Defendants claim an interest adverse to Plaintiff’s title in the House.” (Compl. ¶¶ 17-24, 31.) This is sufficient to allege a cause of action for quiet title.

The demurrer to the first cause of action is OVERRULED.

B. Second Cause of Action for Financial Elder Abuse

Financial elder abuse occurs when a person takes the property of an elder for a wrongful use or with intent to defraud or by undue influence. (See Welf. & Inst. Code § 15610.30(a).) A person is deemed to have taken the property when he or she has deprived an elder of any property right. (See id. § 15610.30(c).) “A person . . . shall be deemed to have taken . . . property for a wrongful use if . . . the person  . . . takes  . . . the property and the person . . . knew or should have known that this conduct is likely to be harmful to the elder . . . .” (Id. § 15610.30(b).)

Defendant Howard demurs to the second cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiff has not alleged that Defendant took or retained or assisted anyone to take or retain Plaintiff’s property, and that the claim is barred by the four-year statute of limitations. Plaintiff alleges Defendant introduced Plaintiff to Defendant The Kristine Taylor Philanthropies and participated in the scheme to retain Plaintiff’s property. This is sufficient to state a claim for financial elder abuse. The complaint also states that Plaintiff did not learn of Defendants’ wrongdoing until late 2023 when she discovered that Defendants were not paying the property taxes as they had previously represented.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.

C. Motion to Strike

Any party, within the time allowed to response to a pleading, may serve and file a notice of motion to strike the whole or any part" of that pleading. (CCP § 435(b)(1).) “The Court may, upon a motion made pursuant to Section 435, or at any time in its discretion, and upon terms it deems proper: (a) Strike out any irrelevant, false or improper matter asserted in any pleading; (b) Strike out all or any part of any pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the Court." (CCP § 436.)

Defendant moves to strike the prayer for punitive damages on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to allege malice, oppression, or fraud. As Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a claim for financial elder abuse, Plaintiff has stated facts showing entitlement to punitive damages.

The motion to strike is DENIED.