Judge: Richard S. Whitney, Case: 37-2019-00058554-CU-BT-CTL, Date: 2023-11-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - November 21, 2023

11/22/2023  10:30:00 AM  C-68 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Richard S. Whitney

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Business Tort Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2019-00058554-CU-BT-CTL BANKSTON VS GENERATION NEXT FRANCHISE BRANDS INC [EFILE] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

TENTATIVE RULING: DEFENDANT DONNA AUCOIN AS TRUSTEE OF THE ANGEMNIC QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS is GRANTED with leave to amend.

Defendant Donna Aucoin, Trustee of The Angemnic Qualified Personal Residence Trust dated April 17, 2018 (the 'QPRT'), ('Defendant') asserts this Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims because the claims became the property of the bankruptcy estate and were administered in bankruptcies that resulted in discharge. Further, Defendant asserts the QPRT was terminated by operation of law after the sale proceeds from the residence were completed more than two years ago.

Plaintiffs BRUCE BANKSTON; ROBO VENDING INC.; and NATHAN BANKSTON ('Plaintiffs') assert the arguments are irrelevant because Defendant was not a party to the bankruptcies and Defendant, as a trustee, can be personally liable for her conduct. Plaintiff does not deny that the bankruptcy estate included the assets of the QPRT and that the claims against the QPRT were discharged in the bankruptcies of Nick Yates and Angela Aucoin. Further, Plaintiff does not deny that the QPRT has been terminated by operation of law.

Defendant was sued and has appeared as the trustee for QPRT, not as an individual. Defendant does not deny that under Probate Code sections 18001-18002 Defendant can be personally liable based on her position as trustee. 'A trustee is personally liable for obligations arising from ownership or control of trust property only if the trustee is personally at fault.' (Prob. Code, § 18001.) 'A trustee is personally liable for torts committed in the course of administration of the trust only if the trustee is personally at fault.' (Prob. Code, § 18002.) The Court finds that Defendant has demonstrated that the claims as to the QPRT are barred, but Plaintiff requests leave to amend to name Defendant individually. Defendant asserts the complaint may not be amended to name Defendant in her personal capacity because the statutes of limitations have run. '[I]t is an abuse of discretion to deny leave to amend where the opposing party was not misled or prejudiced by the amendment.' (Kittredge Sports Co. v. Superior Court (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1045, 1048.) 'Leave to amend is properly denied when the facts are undisputed and as a substantive matter no liability exists under the plaintiff's new theory.' (Huff v. Wilkins (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 732, 746.) The Court believes the statute of limitations issue would not necessarily bar any claim against Defendant in her individual capacity given the relation-back doctrine. 'Under the relation-back doctrine, an amendment relates back to the original complaint if the amendment: (1) rests on the same general set of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020025  63 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  BANKSTON VS GENERATION NEXT FRANCHISE BRANDS INC [EFILE]  37-2019-00058554-CU-BT-CTL facts; (2) involves the same injury; and (3) refers to the same instrumentality.' (Pointe San Diego Residential Community, L.P. v. Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch, LLP (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 265, 276.) '[T]he critical inquiry is whether the defendant had adequate notice of the claim based on the original pleading.' (Id. at 277.) An amendment to name Defendant in her individual capacity would rest on the same set of facts, involve the same injury, and refer to the same instrumentalities. Most importantly, Defendant has had adequate notice of the claim based on the original pleading. The Court finds Defendant has not demonstrated that granting leave to amend would be inappropriate.

The motion is granted. Plaintiff is granted ten (10) days leave to amend. Defendant's requests for judicial notice are granted. Plaintiff's request for judicial notice is denied.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020025  63