Judge: Olga Alvarez, Case: 37-2022-00001884-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2023-08-09 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 08, 2023

08/09/2023  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 Demurrer / Motion to Strike (Probate) 37-2022-00001884-PR-TR-CTL IN RE: THE CASTULO WONG REVOCABLE TRUST DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Strike, 04/28/2023

Pursuant to San Diego Superior Court Rules 4.23.7, the court's tentative ruling is as follows: Wai Chun Seto's Motion to Strike (ROA 65) is granted with leave to amend.

Castulo Wong ('Decedent') executed the Castulo Wong Revocable Trust on September 12, 2016 ('Trust'). Decedent's mother, Wai Chun Seto ('Respondent'), is the trustee of the Trust.

On February 27, 2023, Decedent's wife, Griselda Molina Rubio ('Petitioner'), filed a Petition for Court Order to: (1) Recover Estate Assets Under Probate Code §850(a)(3)(A) and Request for Statutory Damages Under § 859 (2) Request to Set Aside Transfers of Community Property Made Without Spousal Consent. (ROA 54.) The petition alleges that Decedent transferred community property without Petitioner's consent and the prayers for relief in the petition include the following: ii. Directing Wai Chun Seto and Respondent Does 1-50 to immediately return all community property assets to the Decedent's Estate so that the community property share of Petitioner may be determined and transferred to her; [...] v. That all transfers of community property by the Decedent to all Respondents made without the knowledge, consent or authorization of Petitioner as alleged above are to be set aside, Respondents to be deemed constructive trustees of such community property assets, and Respondents to be required to return all such community property, all assets acquired with such community property, and all profits and rents thereon; On April 28, 2023, Respondent filed a motion to strike the prayers for relief quoted above.[1] (ROA 65.) Respondent argues that if Petitioner is successful, she would only be entitled to half of the community property that Decedent allegedly transferred improperly; therefore, these prayers should be stricken because they seek the return of all community property that was transferred.

Petitioner has filed a response and partial opposition to the motion. (ROA 75.) Petitioner states that she does not intend to seek more than half of the community property that was transferred, and she requests leave to amend prayers (ii) and (v) accordingly.

In his reply, Respondent states that he does not oppose Petitioner's request for leave to amend. (ROA Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2970298 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN RE: THE CASTULO WONG REVOCABLE TRUST DATED  37-2022-00001884-PR-TR-CTL 83.) As can be seen from the above, Petitioner concedes that she would only be entitled to half of the community property at issue, Respondent does not oppose Petitioner's request for leave to amend, and there is effectively no longer any dispute in this matter. The motion is therefore granted with leave to amend.[2] An amended petition shall be filed and served within 10 days of the date of this hearing.

The minutes constitute the order of the court, and no formal order is required.

Counsel for Respondent is directed to serve notice of this ruling in accordance with the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure § 1019.5(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/n [1] Respondent initially sought to strike prayer (iii), but she withdrew that request in her reply.

[2] The court acknowledges that the defect with prayers (ii) and (v) was not adequately discussed in the meet and confer communications submitted to the court. Those communications focused on a demurrer based on standing, and Petitioner's interest in community property was not raised until a final email sent the day before the motion was filed. (ROA 67, Exhibit 1.) Nonetheless, a finding that the meet and confer process was insufficient is not a ground to deny the motion. (CCP § 435.5(a)(4).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2970298