Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: BC715362, Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC715362    Hearing Date: September 1, 2022    Dept: 47

VICHIT TILAKAMONKUL, et al. v. VICHAI TILAKAMONKUL, et al., Case No. BC715362

TENTATIVE RULING MODIFYING FINAL STATEMENT OF DECISION

                Based on the following evidence and findings already made, the Court concludes that all seven brothers share a beneficial interest in the Mt. Bigelow and Ransom properties and that they are each entitled to a one-seventh share of these properties. 

As to the Mt. Bigelow property, it was purchased in 2008 as an investment and to house RT V employees of the San Diego restaurant.  (TT 12-21-21, p. 43; SS, p. 11.)  According to Somsak, Sumeth provided money from the Newport Beach and Laguna Beach restaurants to make the down payment on the Mt. Bigelow property. (TT 1/3/22, p. 17-18.) In his deposition, Virut testified that he bought the property in 2008 or 2009 on behalf of RT II, for the benefit of all seven brothers.  (SS, p. 20.)  Sumeth confirmed that the Mt. Bigelow property was initially owned by all seven brothers.  (TT 12-16-21, p. 93; TT 12-15-21, p. 43; see also TT 12-20-21, pp. 112-113.) 

Title was transferred several times during the brothers’ ownership of the Mt. Bigelow property.  In 2006, title was taken in Virut’s name and in 2015, in the names of Virut, Sumeth and one of their wives.  (Exh. 95-96.)  Virut stated that the Mt. Bigelow property was put in Sumeth’s name at one point to facilitate refinancing.  (SS, p. 20.) 

While T-Team claims ownership of the Mt. Bigelow property, there is no documentary evidence that title was held in T-Team’s name but rather that it managed the investment, receiving rental income from the property that was paid by the RT IV restaurants in San Diego and using that income to pay the mortgage and property taxes.  (TT 12-16-21, pp. 64-66; TT 12-20-21, pp. 56-57.) According to Vichit, the property belonged to all seven brothers regardless of who held title.  (TT 12-21-21, p. 46.) 

Turning to the Ransom property, the houses were purchased in connection with the brothers’ jointly owned Manhattan Beach restaurant to provide a residence for its employees.  (TT 12-15-21, pp. 36-37.) Virut testified that title to the Ransom property was taken in the names of Vichit, Somsak and Virut to facilitate a loan, but that his intent was that the property belonged to RT II.  (SS, pp. 10, 17-18; Exh. 70-71; see also TT 12-20-21, pp. 109-110; TT 12-21-21, pp. 35-36.)  This investment was meant to be shared by all seven brothers, even though title changed to allow for various loan arrangements.  (SS, p. 18; TT 12-15-21, pp. 41-42.) 

Based on the evidence at trial, title to the Ransom property was held in various names.  The property was initially held by Virut, Vichit and Somsak.  (Exh. 30.)  In 2000, the property was placed in trusts via documents that indicated that the property being transferred to the trust was the separate property of all seven brothers and would remain their separate property, subject to the terms of the trusts.  (Exh. 49-50.)  The trust instruments state that the Trustors, who are all seven brothers, “contributed all of the money as payments on the property and have always been considered the owners of the property” and confirm that that the trust document is intended to “accurately reflect the title to the property as was intended from the beginning.”  (Id.)  Then in 2002, the Ransom property was transferred to T-Team.  (Exh. 84-85.)  In May 2007, however, T-Team transferred title to Somsak in connection with a loan transaction.  (Exh. 90-91.)  Thus, as with the title to Mt. Bigelow, the record does not show that T-Team ultimately acquired title to the property or that it held title when the property was sold.     

In the first quarter of 2018, there was a board of directors meeting in which the brothers decided to sell all the restaurants and real estate, including the Mt. Bigelow and Ransom properties.  Virut and Pramorte argued that Vichit and Somsak should receive one-seventh each of the sales proceeds of the brothers’ holdings.  (SS, pp. 16-17. 21.)  According to Virut, this discussion was prompted by an effort to settle the dispute that would become this lawsuit, but the effort was unsuccessful because Defendants would not include the Georgia Sue property as part of the deal as it was owned by Virut and Sumeth alone.  (TT 12-15-21, p. 59.)  

On March 2, 2018, Sumeth’s wife, Chau LeTrihn, sent an email to a broker announcing the intent to sell all the real properties – Georgia Sue, Mt. Bigelow, Ransom, and Melrose properties -- along with the Newport Beach restaurant, all of which were described as owned by Vichai, Sumeth, Virut and Narlong.  (Exh. 43.) The email was reviewed and approved by Sumeth before it was sent out.  (TT 12-16-21, pp. 54-57.)  This is strong evidence that, as of 2018, all defendants viewed the Mt. Bigelow and Ransom properties as being owned by some or all of the brothers themselves and not by the management company, T-Team.  It also provides great force to Plaintiffs’ contention that they own one-seventh of both properties, since the brothers’ disagreement about ownership at the board meeting showed that four of the seven brothers, including Virut, Pramorte, and both Plaintiffs, considered the properties to be owned directly by the seven brothers, rather than by T-Team.

For all these reasons, the Court’s tentative ruling is to modify its final statement of decision to include the discussion above and determine that each Plaintiff owns a one-seventh beneficial interest in the Mt. Bigelow and Ransom properties.