Judge: Olga Alvarez, Case: 37-2023-00028185-PR-TR-CTL, Date: 2024-01-31 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

CENTRAL COURTHOUSE TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 30, 2024

01/31/2024  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) 37-2023-00028185-PR-TR-CTL IN THE MATTER OF THE DION DEE RICH REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED AUGUST 2, 2001 [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 11/02/2023

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 Order to Show Cause Why Trustee Should Not Recognize Unpaid Creditor, Pay Sum Due (ROA 38) is DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND On July 5, 2023, Patricia Elayne Chavez filed a Petition to Require Transfer of Property; for Finding of Financial Elder Abuse; For Compensatory and Punitive Damages; for Double Damages; for Imposition of Constructive Trust; for Treble Damages; for Attorney's Fees; and Cost (ROA 1); and a Petition for an Order Invalidating the Purported Amendments to the Dion Dee Rich Revocable Trust Dated August 2, 2001 (ROA 2).

On September 23, 2023, Michael Spilger ('Trustee') filed a Petition for Order Authorizing Trustee to: (1) Defend Trust Contest; (2) Defend Attempts to Remove Trustee; and (3) Seek Recovery of Attorney's Fees and Costs from Contestant. (ROA 26.) On November 2, 2023, J. Michael Schaefer ('Schaefer') filed the instant motion for order to show cause why Trustee should not recognize unpaid creditor, pay sum due (ROA 38).

On January 18, 2024, Trustee filed an opposition to the motion. (ROA 56.) On January 29, 2024, Schaefer filed a response to Trustee's opposition. (ROA 58.) II. DISCUSSION A. Compliance with the Rules of Court As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the motion fails to comply with CRC 3.1110 in that there is no notice of motion, 'stating in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.' (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1110(a).) The motion also fails to comply CRC 3.1113(a) and (b), in that there is no memorandum of points and authorities setting forth the 'statement of facts, a concise statement of the law, evidence and arguments Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3047397 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  IN THE MATTER OF THE DION DEE RICH REVOCABLE TRUST, DATED  37-2023-00028185-PR-TR-CTL relied on, and a discussion of the statutes, cases, and textbooks cited in support of the position advanced.' (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113(b).) Further, Schaefer's reply was due by January 24, 2024, pursuant to CCP § 1005(b). Schaefer's response filed on January 29, 2024, is untimely and fails to comply with CRC 3.1300(a) ('Unless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers must be served and filed in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 ....').

Notwithstanding the procedural deficiencies and untimeliness of the response, the Court considered all arguments in ruling on the motion.

B. Motion Schaefer brings the motion pursuant to Probate Code § 17200 and claims standing as an interested person under Probate Code § 48, identifying himself both as a beneficiary and an unpaid creditor.

Schaefer has not filed objections to the petitions filed in this case, and instead, Schaefer appears to disclaim any interest in Decedent's estate through the testamentary instruments, claiming an interest solely as a creditor. Schaefer 'seeks to substitute himself OUT of any will or Trust 1-2-3-4, as a simple Civil Claimant.' (Id. at p. 5.) Thus, to the extent Schaefer has a claim as a beneficiary under Decedent's Trust, Schaefer is not seeking relief as a beneficiary.

From the allegations in the motion, it is apparent that Schaefer is not seeking instructions under Probate Code § 17200 as a beneficiary of the Trust but seeking an order requiring Trustee to pay Schaefer $20,000 from the Trust, as an unpaid creditor under a memorandum purportedly executed by Decedent in favor of Schaefer. Schaefer states in the motion that the 'Trust specifically authorizes Decedent, at paragraph 4(0), to be 'individuals provided per separate sheet, not to exceed $25,000' as well as identifying SCHAEFER as a 'longtime friend' worth a $10,000 thank you. Which is inconsistent with $20,000 Exhibit 'Memorandum re: Relationship' on 8/20/21 wherein Decent 're-casts the $20,000 as a Civil Claim against the Estate of Rich to be treated as any other obligation of Rich, arising from dozens of social events, errands, some travels, and the Schaefers being there for Rich.' (ROA 38, Mot. at p. 6, original emphasis.) As such, Schaefer does not establish standing under Probate Code § 17200 to be paid from the Trust as a creditor. A trustee or beneficiary of a trust may petition the court concerning the internal affairs of a trust, including to determine the liability of a trust for any debts of the deceased settlor. (Prob. Code, § 17200(a), (b)(20).) 'However, nothing in this paragraph shall provide standing to bring an action concerning the internal affairs of the trust to a person whose only claim to the assets of the decedent is as a creditor.' (Prob. Code, § 17200(b)(20).) As a creditor, Schaefer lacks standing under section 17200 to bring the instant motion.

Therefore, the motion is DENIED.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3047397