Judge Olga Alvarez, Case 37-2019-00023447-PR-TR-CTL 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Olga Alvarez, Case: 37-2019-00023447-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - October 03, 2023

10/04/2023 10:30:00 AM 503 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Olga Alvarez

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Probate Trust Proceedings Motion Hearing (Probate) 37-2019-00023447-PR-TR-CTL THE RUTH F HAYES TRUST DATED MARCH 28, 1996 [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for New Trial, 08/11/2023

Pursuant to Superior Court of San Diego County, Local Rules, rule 4.23.7, the court's tentative ruling is as follows: The Motion for New Trial filed by Fran Hayes Meyers is DENIED.

I. Background This case concerns a dispute among the children of Decedent, Ruth Hayes, over the right to control the disposition of Decedent's body, and thus, which subdivision of Health and Safety Code ('HS') § 7100 applied under the circumstances. Moving party, Fran Hayes Meyers ('Fran'), and the opposing parties, Brenda Hayes Christmas ('Brenda') and Cindy Stearns ('Cindy'), are Decedent's daughters.

On July 10, 2023, Fran filed an Ex Parte Application for a Court Order Confirming Fran Hayes Meyers' Right to Control the Disposition of the Remains of Decedent Ruth F. Hayes ('Petition'). (ROA 222.) On July 31, 2023, Brenda and Cindy each filed oppositions to the Petition. (ROA 233.) On August 1, 2023, having heard oral arguments and considered all the evidence presented, the Court denied the Petition with prejudice. (ROA 243, Minute Order dated Aug. 1, 2023.) Fran moves the Court to vacate or modify the order entered on August 1, 2023, grant her a new or further trial on all issues regarding the Petition based on: '1. Newly discovered evidence, material for Applicant, which Applicant could not, with reasonable diligence, have discovered and produced at the hearing; 2. Insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision; 3. The decision is against law; and 4.

Error in law occurring at the hearing and accepted to by Applicant.' (ROA 255, Notice of Intent to Move for New Trial, which the Court deems the Notice of Motion.) Fran argues the Court's decision is against law and premised on insufficient evidence. Fran contends her substantive rights were materially affected insofar as the Court expressly declined to rule on the validity of Decedent's AHCD dated April 23, 2004 ('2004 AHCD'), which designates Fran as Decedent's attorney-in-fact for health care decisions. The decision to not reach the merits of the validity of the 2004 AHCD was, in turn, premised on the mistaken conclusion that the 2004 AHCD does not grant Fran the right to control the disposition of Decedent's remains. Although the Notice of Motion refers to newly discovered evidence and error in law, there is no discussion in the motion on these issues.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020421 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: THE RUTH F HAYES TRUST DATED MARCH 28, 1996 [IMAGED] 37-2019-00023447-PR-TR-CTL Brenda and Cindy oppose the motion on substantively similar grounds. Brenda argues she presented as evidence a copy of the 2013 AHCD, which appoints Brenda as Decedent's agent, and this directive alone constitutes sufficient evidence. Further, Probate Code § 4698 expressly provides that when a later executed directive conflicts with an earlier directive, the later directive revokes the earlier directive to the extent of the conflict, and there is no revival mechanism to revive the 2004 AHCD.

Similarly, Cindy argues that although the Court may not have specifically ruled on the validity of the 2004 AHCD, it is certainly inferred from the evidence presented, and the Court's ultimate order was based on Decedent's history of revoking and then executing new AHCDs that left Decedent without any healthcare agent as of 2019. Cindy argues Fran was not Decedent's agent at the time of Decedent's death, and thus, HS § 7100(a)(3) dictates that the majority of her children have the authority to make the decision.

Alternatively, Cindy argues the Court should modify the judgment because there is sufficient evidence the 2004 AHCD was revoked in 2007, and thus, invalid.

II. Discussion A party may move for a new trial based on 'causes, materially affecting the substantial rights of such party,' including newly discovered evidence, insufficiency of the evidence to justify the decision, or when the court's decision is against law. (CCP § 657.) 'A new trial shall not be granted upon the ground of insufficiency of the evidence to justify the verdict or other decision, ... unless after weighing the evidence the court is convinced from the entire record, including reasonable inferences therefrom, that the court or jury clearly should have reached a different verdict or decision.' (Id.) Unless other directions have been provided by the decedent pursuant to HS § 7100.1, '[t]he right to control the disposition of the remains of a deceased person, the location and conditions of interment, and arrangements for funeral goods and services to be provided ... vests in, and the duty of disposition and the liability for the reasonable cost of disposition of the remains devolves upon,' the agent under a power of attorney for health care who has the right and duty of disposition under the Probate Code, the competent surviving spouse, or the majority of the surviving competent adult children, in that order.

(Health & Saf. Code, § 7100(a)(1), (3).) Here, the Court was presented with evidence of three AHCDs executed by Decedent, two of which were revoked: the 2004 AHCD naming Fran as Decedent's agent, the 2007 AHCD naming Cindy as Decedent's agent, and the 2013 AHCD naming Brenda as Decedent's agent. (ROA 265, Gross Decl., Exh. 1, Transcript of Hearing on Aug. 1, 2023; ROA 239, Stein Decl., Exh. 2-6).) There was no dispute the 2007 and 2013 AHCDs were revoked by Decedent in 2019. (ROA 265, Gross Decl., Exh. 1, at pp.

9-10.) During oral argument, Fran's counsel confirmed that the 2004 AHCD did not provide any instructions regarding Decedent's burial or funeral arrangements. (Id., at p. 10.) At the hearing, attorney Bond, the court appointed Guardian Ad Litem stated, '[a]nd, again, not taking a position but just reporting to the Court at that time, I concluded based on Probate Code Section 4698, that there was not a healthcare power in effect for Mrs. Hayes.' (Id., at p. 22.) The Court's order of August 1, 2023, states in pertinent part that '1. Health and Safety Code 7100 determines how the funeral/burial arrangements shall be made.' (ROA 243, Minute Order dated Aug. 1, 2023.) The Court explained that it would not be making a determination regarding the viability of the 2004 healthcare directive, but it was clear that no healthcare directive reflected Decedent's wishes regarding the burial or funeral arrangements. Consequently, the Court found the matter fell squarely under HS § 7100 and denied Fran's ex parte request giving her sole power to control the disposition of Decedent's remains. (ROA 239, Gross Decl., Exh. 1, at p. 28.) As noted above, the Court found the 2004 AHCD did not contain instructions pursuant to HS § 7100.1 regarding Decedent's burial or funeral arrangements, and thus, HS § 7100 applied. (See Prob. Code, § 7100.1(a) ['Unless there is a statement to the contrary that is signed and dated by the decedent, the directions may not be altered, changed, or otherwise amended in any material way, except as may be Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020421 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: THE RUTH F HAYES TRUST DATED MARCH 28, 1996 [IMAGED] 37-2019-00023447-PR-TR-CTL required by law, and shall be faithfully carried out upon his or her death, provided both of the following requirements are met: (1) the directions set forth clearly and completely the final wishes of the decedent in sufficient detail so as to preclude any material ambiguity with regard to the instructions; and, (2) arrangements for payment through trusts, insurance, commitments by others, or any other effective and binding means, have been made, so as to preclude the payment of any funds by the survivor or survivors of the deceased that might otherwise retain the right to control the disposition.' Emphasis added.].) The Court did not decide, or need to decide, the validity of the 2004 AHCD because the language of the 2004 AHCD did not provide Fran with the right and duty of disposition over Decedent's remains. Indeed, there is no language in the 2004 directive regarding post-death matters. It simply covers decisions with respect to Decedent's health care. Thus, on its face the 2004 AHCD does not contain disposition instructions, removing Fran from consideration as a possible agent under HS § 7100(a)(1). (See ROA 239, Stein Decl., Exh. 2.) The validity of the three AHCDs is beyond the scope of this motion. However, given the arguments by the parties, the Court notes that Fran did not provide any writings or other evidence establishing clearly and completely Decedent's final wishes in sufficient detail, or any evidence that Fran was appointed as Decedent's agent within the meaning of HS § 7100. Moreover, Fran's motion omits discussion of the 2007 and 2013 AHCDs and their effect on the 2004 AHCD, notwithstanding their revocation in 2019, and provides no legal authority to support the proposition that the 2004 AHCD remains valid despite Probate Code § 4698 and no apparent revival mechanism to revive the 2004 AHCD. (See Prob. Code, § 4698 ['An advance health care directive that conflicts with an earlier advance directive revokes the earlier advance directive to the extent of the conflict.'].) Based on the entire record and evidence presented, the Court is not convinced it should have reached a different result. There was insufficient evidence to support granting Fran's Petition under HS § 7100(a)(1).

Therefore, the motion for new trial is DENIED.

Attorney for Brenda is directed to serve notice of ruling in accordance with the provisions of CCP § 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020421