Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 23STCV28882, Date: 2024-06-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28882    Hearing Date: June 17, 2024    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 Plaintiff Title Remediation Corporation, as trustee of The New Century Financial Distressed Portfolio Trust(s)          

RESPONDING PARTY:       Unopposed

Motion for Order Substituting Successor Beneficiary in Interest for Deceased Trustee Defendant and for Leave to File Amended Complaint

The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this motion.  No opposition papers were filed.

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

The court grants plaintiff Title Remediation Corporation, trustee of The New Century Financial Distressed Portfolio Trust(s)’s request for judicial notice.  (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (d), (c).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff Title Remediation Corporation, as trustee of The New Century Financial Distressed Portfolio Trust(s) (“Plaintiff”) moves the court for an order (1) substituting Roy Hopkins (“Hopkins”) as the defendant in this action as the successor in interest for defendant Deborah Soileau, trustee of the Hopkins Soileau Family Trust dated July 28, 1999 (“Soileau”), and (2) granting leave to file a First Amended Complaint (i) to substitute in Hopkins as defendant, (ii) to dismiss John Hopkins, Jr. (“Hopkins Jr.”) as a defendant, and (iii) to allege newly discovered facts.  Plaintiff moves for this relief pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.41.

“On motion, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding against the decedent that does not abate to be continued against the decedent’s personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent’s successor in interest, except that the court may not permit an action or proceeding to be continued against the personal representative unless proof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims is first made.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.41.)

First, the court denies Plaintiff’s request to substitute Hopkins as a defendant in place of Soileau in this action because Plaintiff has not shown that Hopkins is Soileau’s successor in interest within the meaning of section 377.41.

For purposes of section 377.41, a “‘decedent’s successor in interest’ means the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of the cause of action.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.11.)  A “beneficiary of the decedent’s estate” is defined to mean (1) “[i]f the decedent died leaving a will, the sole beneficiary or all of the beneficiaries who succeed to a cause of action, or to a particular item of property that is the subject of a cause of action, under the decedent’s will[,]” or (2) “[i]f the decedent died without leaving a will, the sole person or all of the persons who succeed to a cause of action, or to a particular item of property that is the subject of a cause of action, under Sections 6401 and 6402 of the Probate Code or, if the law of a sister state or foreign nation governs succession to the cause of action or particular item of property, under the law of the sister state or foreign nation.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.10.)

The court acknowledges that Plaintiff has presented evidence showing that Hopkins is the sole surviving beneficiary of the Hopkins Soileau Family Trust dated July 28, 1999 (the “Trust”), and, as such, may be entitled to 100 percent of the shares to the subject property.  (RJN Ex. A, Pet., Declaration of Trust, Ch. 5, p. 1 [Schedule A of Declaration listing Trust property to include the subject property (i.e., 5962 Hooper Ave., Los Angeles, California (Pet., ¶ 1))], Ch. 2, p. 9, §§ 2 [naming Hopkins, Francis Marie Allison, and George David Hopkins as successor beneficiaries], 3, subd. (B) [“If any beneficiary is deceased prior to distribution, the deceased beneficiary’s share shall pass to the surviving beneficiaries equally”]; Kurtzhall Decl., ¶¶ 8-9, 11.)  However, Plaintiff has not presented evidence or argument establishing that, because Hopkins is the sole surviving Trust beneficiary, he is a beneficiary of Soileau’s “estate” as defined by sections 377.11 and 377.10.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 377.11 [successor in interest for a decedent is “the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate”] [emphasis added], 377.10.) 

Moreover, Plaintiff has not presented evidence or argument establishing that Hopkins has succeeded to the real property that is the subject of this action.  (Ibid. [successor in interest for a decedent is any “other successor in interest who succeeds . . . to a particular item of the property that is the subject of the cause of action”].)  Instead, the evidence submitted by Plaintiff appears to show that the subject property has not been distributed to Hopkins.  (Kurtzhall Decl., ¶ 10 [Francis Marie Allison “never assumed her role as trustee of the Trust and never distributed the Trust Estate to the Successor Beneficiaries prior to her death”].)  Thus, the subject property still appears to be an asset of the Trust.  (Ibid.)

Because a trust is not a legal entity, cannot hold title to property, and “cannot sue or be sued[,]” the proper defendant in this action is the current trustee of the Trust as the owner of legal title to the subject property.  (Portico Management Group, LLC v. Harrison (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 464, 473 [trust cannot hold title to property; instead, “[l]egal title to property owned by a trust is held by the trustee”] [internal quotations omitted]]; Ibid. [“‘As a general rule, the trustee is the real party in interest with standing to sue and defend on the trust’s behalf.  [Citations.]’”].)  Plaintiff has not shown or argued that Hopkins is now a trustee of the Trust.  

The Trust documents establish that, upon the death of the original co-trustees (i.e., Hopkins Jr. and Soileau), the first successor trustee nominated therein shall immediately become trustee of the Trust and shall have the powers set forth herein, including the authority to appoint the second successor trustee.  (RJN Ex. A, Pet., Declaration of Trust, Ch. 2, p. 2 [naming as settlors and co-trustees Hopkins Jr. and Soileau], Ch. 2, p. 4, III, § B.)  Francis Marie Allison (“Allison”) was named as the only successor trustee.  (Id., § C, subd. (1)(a).)  Plaintiff (1) has asserted that Allison did not assume her role as trustee, and (2) has not presented evidence establishing that Allison, prior to her death, designated a second successor trustee.  (Kurtzhall Decl., ¶ 10.)  Further, Plaintiff has not presented evidence establishing that another individual has been appointed a trustee pursuant to the provisions of the Probate Code.  (Prob. Code, § 15660, subd. (a) [“If the trust has no trustee or if the trust instrument requires a vacancy in the office of a cotrustee to be filled, the vacancy shall be filled as provided in this section”].)  However, it appears to the court that Plaintiff may be able to file a petition to appoint a trustee (e.g., Hopkins) to fill the vacancy and thereafter request leave to amend the Complaint to name the current trustee—who will hold legal title to the property owned by the Trust—as a defendant in this action.  (Prob. Code, § 15660, subd. (d); Portico Management Group, LLC, supra, 202 Cal.App.4th at p. 473.)

Thus, the court denies (1) Plaintiff’s request to substitute Hopkins in place of Soileau in this action because Plaintiff has not shown that Hopkins is Soileau’s successor in interest within the meaning of section 377.41, and (2) Plaintiff’s related request to amend the Complaint to name Hopkins as a defendant in this action in place of Soileau.  The court denies these requests without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing another appropriate motion that seeks to name the current trustee of the Trust as a defendant in this action.

Second, the court denies Plaintiff’s requests to amend the Complaint to dismiss Hopkins Jr. as a defendant and to allege newly discovered facts because Plaintiff has not complied with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324, which requires Plaintiff to file, inter alia, a copy of the proposed pleading and a supporting declaration specifying the effect of the proposed amendment.  (Mot., p. 4:1-7; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 3.1324.)  The court denies Plaintiff’s request without prejudice to Plaintiff’s filing an amended motion that complies with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1324.

ORDER

            The court denies plaintiff Title Remediation Corporation, as trustee of The New Century Financial Distressed Portfolio Trust(s)’s motion to substitute successor in interest.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  June 17, 2024

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court