Judge: Olga Alvarez, Case: 37-2022-00043361-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2023-11-29 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 28, 2023

11/29/2023  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) 37-2022-00043361-PR-TR-CTL IN THE MATTER OF BRETT AND KATHY WRIGHT FAMILY TRUST DATED 4-23-2002 CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 08/10/2023

Pursuant to Superior Court of San Diego County, Local Rules, rule 4.23.7, the Court's tentative ruling is as follows: The Motion to Bifurcate Proceeding and for Related Protective Order filed by Valerie J. Van Wieren (ROA 34) is DENIED.

The Request for Judicial Notice (ROA 37) is GRANTED pursuant to EC § 452(d).

I. Background The petition involves the Brett and Kathy Wright Family Trust dated April 23, 2002. Petitioner Valerie J.

Van Wieren (Petitioner) was married to Brett Wright from July 27, 2017, through June 23, 2023, when Brett passed away.

On October 27, 2022, Petitioner filed a Petition to Determine Entitlement to Share of Decedent's Estate as an omitted spouse. (ROA 1.) On January 17, 2023, W. Michael Wright, Trustee/Respondent, filed objections to the petition. (ROA 12.) On May 25, 2023, Trustee filed a Motion to Compel Further Responses to Demand for Inspection, Set One, Nos. 1-16, and for $6,379.50 in sanctions pursuant to CCP §§ 2023.010 et seq. and 2031.310 (ROA 24), which the Court granted in part and denied in part, ordering Petitioner to respond to Trustee's discovery requests. (ROA 52.) On August 10, 2023, Petitioner filed a Notice of Motion and Motion to Bifurcate Proceeding and for Related Protective Order Limiting Discovery Pending Determination of Liability Issue. (ROA 34.) On November 14, 2023, Trustee filed an opposition. (ROA 87.) On November 20, 2023, Petitioner filed a reply. (ROA 88.) II. Discussion Petitioner moves pursuant to Probate Code § 1000 and CCP §§ 1048(b) and 598 to bifurcate and hold a trial on the issue of whether Petitioner is an omitted spouse under Probate Code § 21610 first, preceding Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3011105 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF BRETT AND KATHY WRIGHT FAMILY TRUST  37-2022-00043361-PR-TR-CTL any discovery and trial on the issue of the amount, if any, of the decedent's estate to which Petitioner is entitled pursuant to Probate Code §§ 21610 and 21612.

Petitioner initially moved pursuant to CCP §§ 2025.420, 2030.090, 2031.060, and 2033.080 for a related protective order limiting discovery to those issues relevant to determining the threshold issue of whether Petitioner is an omitted spouse. However, in the reply, Petitioner concedes the request is moot given the Court's prior ruling ordering discovery and withdraws the request. (ROA 88, Reply at p. 3.) Thus, the sole issue before the Court is whether trial in this case should be bifurcated. As discussed, the Court finds bifurcation is not warranted under the circumstances.

Petitioner argues that separate trials of the issue of whether Petitioner is an omitted spouse (the 'liability' phase), and the amount of the estate (the 'damages' phase) will promote the economy and efficiency, and it is convenient to the parties and the Court.

Petitioner argues that the issue of whether she is an omitted spouse under Probate Code § 21610 should be bifurcated and separately tried, before any discovery and trial on the issue of the amount of the decedent's estate, if any, to which Valerie is entitled pursuant to Probate Code sections 21610 and 21612. Petitioner contends that these issues are distinct, and discovery may proceed in separate stages.

Petitioner argues that 'the purpose [of the motion] is to suggest the Court can and under the circumstances should handle the litigation more proactively, in a manner that is convenient both to the parties and the Court, avoids potential prejudice to and harassment of Valerie by preserving and protecting her important privacy and other rights, at least until it becomes necessary and appropriate to address the same in the discovery process, and is conducive to the expedition and economy of the proceeding. In short, the Court should order separate discovery and trial of the issues of 'liability' (i.e., whether or not Valerie is an omitted spouse) and 'damages' (i.e., the amount of the decedent's estate to which Valerie is entitled, if any, based on a prior determination that she is an omitted spouse).' (ROA 35, Memo. Ps & As, at p. 3.) Petitioner also argues throughout the motion that discovery on the 'damages' issues is premature and infringes on Petitioner's rights, and enables, if not invites, discovery abuse.

In opposition, Trustee argues that the issues are not distinct. Trustee argues that the discovery propounded by Trustee was intended to obtain evidence necessary to support all his allegations, including his contention that under Probate Code § 21611, Petitioner is not to receive a share of the decedent's estate. Trustee further argues that the discovery requests are not divided into discreet categories and notes that the Court previously found the discovery was relevant on various issues in this case, including on the issue of whether Petitioner is an omitted spouse.

A. Analysis '[I]n furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy,' a court 'may order a separate trial of any cause of action or of any separate issue or of any number of causes of action or issues ...' (CCP § 1048(b).) Except as provided in Probate Coe § 21611, 'if a decedent fails to provide in a testamentary instrument for the decedent's surviving spouse who married the decedent after the execution of all of the decedent's testamentary instruments, the omitted spouse shall receive a share in the decedent's estate,' as specified. (Prob. Code, § 21610.) Probate Code § 21611 provides that an omitted spouse under Probate Code § 21610 will not receive a share of the decedent's estate if: Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3011105 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF BRETT AND KATHY WRIGHT FAMILY TRUST  37-2022-00043361-PR-TR-CTL (a) The decedent's failure to provide for the spouse in the decedent's testamentary instruments was intentional and that intention appears from the testamentary instruments.

(b) The decedent provided for the spouse by transfer outside of the estate passing by the decedent's testamentary instruments and the intention that the transfer be in lieu of a provision in said instruments is shown by statements of the decedent or from the amount of the transfer or by other evidence.

(c) The spouse made a valid agreement waiving the right to share in the decedent's estate.

(Prob. Code, § 21611.) Here, the issue of whether Petitioner is an omitted spouse is intertwined with the issue of whether any transfers to Petitioner were made outside the testamentary instrument, and the amount of such transfers. (Prob. Code, § 21611, subd. (b).) In other words, the same evidence necessary to establish that Petitioner is not an omitted spouse will also establish the amount, if any, of decedent's estate to which Petitioner would be entitled. As such, it is unclear to the Court why all issues could not be adjudicated at a single trial. That a trial should progress in stages or phases is only logical, and not a basis to bifurcate the trial simply based on the nature of the issues, particularly where the evidence cannot be isolated to a single issue. Thus, the Court is not persuaded that bifurcation will promote judicial economy or expedition.

Further, given Petitioner's withdrawal of the request for a protective order and the Court's prior ruling ordering responses to the discovery at issue in this motion, the argument that discovery is premature is unavailing.

Therefore, the motion to bifurcate is DENIED.

Counsel for Petitioner 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

3011105