Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV12347, Date: 2025-02-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV12347    Hearing Date: February 24, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 24, 2025                 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE:                         Sabrina Armster, et al. v. Patricia Jefferson, et al.

CASE NO.:                 24STCV12347           

DEMURRER TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

MOVING PARTY:               Defendant Patricia Jefferson

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiffs Lorraine Denson and Willie Bell Bolton.

CASE HISTORY:

·         05/15/24: Complaint filed.

·         09/11/24: First Amended Complaint filed.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            This is a real property dispute. Plaintiffs allege that they are successors in interest to their sister, Regina Tanner, whose estate included parcels of real property at 9 Pine Court, Inglewood, CA 90302 and 816 North Santa Fe Ave., Compton, CA 90221. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, who was the decedent’s niece and caretaker, either forged the decedent’s signature to transfer the properties to Defendant or induced the decedent, who was suffering from dementia, to assent to the transfer.

Defendant demurs to the First Amended Complaint in its entirety.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

DISCUSSION:

Defendant demurs to the First Amended Complaint in its entirety.

//

Legal Standard

A demurrer tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at p. 747.) The ultimate facts alleged in the complaint must be deemed true, as well as all facts that may be implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Marshall v. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1397, 1403; see also Shields v. County of San Diego (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 103, 133 [stating, “[o]n demurrer, pleadings are read liberally and allegations contained therein are assumed to be true”].) “This rule of liberal construction means that the reviewing court draws inferences favorable to the plaintiff, not the defendant.” (Perez v. Golden Empire Transit Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238.)

Meet and Confer

Before filing a demurrer, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person or by telephone with the party who has filed the pleading subject to the demurrer and file a declaration detailing their meet and confer efforts.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a).) However, an insufficient meet and confer process is not grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4)

            The Declaration of Victoria Tsylina in support of the Demurrer states she sent Plaintiffs’ counsel a meet-and-confer letter on September 20, 2024, but received no response. (Declaration of Victoria Tsylina ISO Dem. ¶¶ 2-4; Exh. A.) A single letter is not a sufficient effort to informally resolve this dispute, even where no response is received. The Code of Civil Procedure obligates Defendant’s counsel to attempt to confer in person or by telephone. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a).) Nevertheless, the Court will address the merits of the Demurrer.

Request for Judicial Notice

            Defendant requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Petition for Probate of Mable Regina Tanner’s 2016 Will filed on September 16, 2024, LASC Case No. 24STPB10512. Defendant’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records).

            Plaintiffs request that the Court take judicial notice of (1)-(2) the May 15, 2024 affidavits filed by Sabrina Armster and Karl Hall in this action; (3) Plaintiffs’ probate petition with Case No. 24STPB10512; and (4) Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendant’s Petition for Probate in the same action. Plaintiffs’ requests are GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452(d) (court records).

Compliance With Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.32

            Defendant demurs to the First Amended Complaint in its entirety on the grounds that the First Amended Complaint does not include an affidavit in compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32. This code section provides:

(a) The person who seeks to commence an action or proceeding or to continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent's successor in interest under this article, shall execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following:

(1) The decedent's name.

(2) The date and place of the decedent's death.

(3) “No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent's estate.”

(4) If the decedent's estate was administered, a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent's cause of action to the successor in interest.

(5) Either of the following, as appropriate, with facts in support thereof:

(A) “The affiant or declarant is the decedent's successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) and succeeds to the decedent's interest in the action or proceeding.”

(B) “The affiant or declarant is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent's successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) with respect to the decedent's interest in the action or proceeding.”

(6) “No other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding.”

(7) “The affiant or declarant affirms or declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 377.32(a).) Defendant argues that the First Amended Complaint is defective because it was not accompanied by such an affidavit. However, a cursory review of the record establishes that Sabrina Armster, as personal representative of Lorraine Denson, and Karl Hall, as personal representative of Willie Bell Bolton, filed Declarations precisely mirroring the statutory language on May 15, 2024, with the original Complaint. Plaintiffs thus submitted these affidavits at the commencement of the action, as required by the statutory language.

            In reply, Defendant asserts that the May 15, 2024 affidavits should be disregarded because they are factually incorrect regarding the existence of a superior right to commence the proceeding. This is a factual argument that is wholly inappropriate for resolution on a demurrer. The Court is therefore not persuaded that the First Amended Complaint is defective on this basis.

Standing to Sue

            Defendant next argues that Plaintiffs do not have standing to sue because they do not have any interest in the properties which are the subject of this action according to the 2016 will of the decedent. Although the existence of the Decedent’s putative 2016 will is subject to judicial notice as a record of this Court, the authenticity and validity of that document is also a factual question which is not appropriate for resolution on demurrer. The Court is therefore unpersuaded that the First Amended Complaint is defective on this basis.

Specificity of Fraud Claims

            Defendant also demurs to Plaintiffs’ claims for quiet title (first and second causes of action), cancellation of instruments (third and fourth causes of action) and imposition of constructive trust (sixth cause of action) on the grounds that they are premised on fraud claims which are not pled with the requisite specificity. Defendant’s argument is specious. The First Amended Complaint plainly alleges that Defendant forged her aunt’s signature on specific instruments identified in the pleadings and thereafter and had the false signatures notarized. (FAC ¶¶ 16-18.) Nothing further is required.

            Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the first through fourth and sixth causes of action are OVERRULED.

Fifth Cause of Action: Elder Abuse

            Defendant demurs to the fifth cause of action for elder abuse for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action on the grounds that Plaintiffs failed to allege any deprivation of the decedent’s rights through Defendant’s alleged conduct. This argument is equally specious. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant orchestrated the fraudulent conveyance of a partial interest in real property to herself from the decedent. (FAC ¶ 16.) That allegation, on its face, is an allegation of a deprivation of property. (See Welf & Inst Code § 15610.30.) Defendant’s argument is without merit.

            Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action is OVERRULED.

CONCLUSION:

Accordingly, Defendant’s Demurrer to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:  February 24, 2025                              ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.