Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 23CHCV03653, Date: 2024-03-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CHCV03653    Hearing Date: March 19, 2024    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 3/19/24

Case #23CHCV03653

DEMURRER TO THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Demurrer filed on 1/10/24.

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Tanya L’Heureux, Administrator of the Estate of Scott S. Emling

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Charles Yazbeck

NOTICE: ok

Demurrer is to the entire complaint:

            1.  Specific Performance

            2.  Breach of Contract

RULING: The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. 

SUMMARY OF FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This action arises out Decedent Scott S. Emling’s (Decedent who died on 12/20/21) alleged promise to leave his entire estate to Plaintiff Charles Yazbeck (Plaintiff) in exchange for Plaintiff taking care of Decedent.

On 2/22/22, Defendant Tanya L’Heureux, Administrator of the Estate of Scott S. Emling (Defendant), Decedent’s niece, filed a Petition to Administer the estate of Decedent.  On 4/8/22, Defendant became the administrator of Decedent’s estate.  (RJN, Ex.A, B).

In July 2022, Plaintiff filed a competing petition and recorded a lis pendens on the estate real property preventing Defendant from administering the estate.  (RJN, Ex.C, D).  On 10/24/23, Defendant filed a Will Contest to challenge the validity of the alleged will.  (RJN, Ex.E).  On 11/29/23, the Honorable Ruben Garcia granted Defendant’s Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs.  (RJN, Ex.F). 

On 12/1/23, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant for Specific Performance and Breach of Contract.   On 12/2/23, Plaintiff recorded another lis pendens in relation to this action.  (RJN, Ex.G).  After meet and confer efforts failed to resolve the issues Defendant had with the complaint, on 1/10/24, Defendant filed and served the instant demurrer to the entire complaint.  The Court notes that although the hearing was reserved as a demurrer with motion to strike, a motion to strike has not been filed.  On 2/5/24, Plaintiff filed (served on 2/3/24) an opposition to the demurrer. 

ANALYSIS

Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) is granted. 

A demurrer may be based on the grounds, among others, that there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action and the pleading fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.  CCP 430.10(c), (e). 

The complaint concedes that in compliance with his alleged promise to leave his estate to Plaintiff, Decedent allegedly executed a Will wherein he left his entire estate, including all personal and real property to Plaintiff.  (See Complaint ¶¶7-9 and Ex.A thereto).  The complaint also concedes that the alleged Will is the contract which forms the basis of Plaintiff’s claims.  (Complaint ¶¶9, 25, 31, 37, 40 and Ex.A thereto).  Additionally, Plaintiff concedes that Defendant has been appointed administrator of Decedent’s estate and claims that Defendant has failed to honor the will.  (Complaint ¶¶4, 21, 26). 

The judicially noticed facts further establish that the validity of the same Will/contract at issue in this action are the subject of the earlier filed probate action between the same parties.  (RJN, Ex.A-G). 

The instant case is distinguishable from Estate of Mullins (1988) 206 CA3d 924 relied on by Plaintiff in the opposition.  There, the petitioner was not a beneficiary of the decedent’s trust and was claiming a right pursuant to an alleged oral agreement between her deceased uncle and his wife whereby the wife, who survived the husband/uncle, agreed to leave half of the couple’s estate to her husband’s niece’s and nephews upon the wife’s death.  Here, Plaintiff is the sole beneficiary of Decedent’s purported will, the validity of which is the subject of the probate action to which both Plaintiff and Defendant are parties. 

As such, this action is subject to demurrer on the ground that there is another action pending between the same parties on the same cause of action.  CCP 430.10(c).  Based on the foregoing, no amendment can cure the defects in the pleading. 

CONCLUSION

The demurrer is sustained without leave to amend. 

Defendant’s request for sanctions is denied.  Even if the Court determined that Plaintiff’s counsel did not adequately respond to Defendant’s meet and confer efforts, such failure would not provide a basis for sustaining the demurrer.  CCP 430.41(a)(4).  As such, the Court finds that such conduct would not warrant the imposition of sanctions.  Further, it does not appear that further meet and confer efforts would have resolved the dispute as Plaintiff was not willing to dismiss the instant action which is what Defendant was requesting.