Judge: Timothy B. Taylor, Case: 37-2022-00010511-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2023-09-01 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - August 31, 2023

09/01/2023  01:30:00 PM  C-72 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Timothy Taylor

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Other Real Property Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2022-00010511-CU-OR-CTL WOODSON VS WOODSON [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Demurrer, 04/27/2023

Tentative Ruling on Demurrer to Complaint Woodson v. Woodson, Case No. 2022-10511 Sept. 1, 2023, 1:30 p.m., Dept. 72 1. Overview and Procedural Posture.

This is a quiet title action between siblings Carlene and Carland Woodson. Their parents held property in trust, and the trust became irrevocable upon their father's death. There have been extensive proceedings in the Probate Court between the siblings; prior to her elevation to the Court of Appeal, Judge Kelety removed Carlene as trustee of the trust, and appointed Carland as successor trustee.* Both siblings are beneficiaries.

The complaint was filed in March of 2022. Plaintiff was not prompt about effecting service, and then she changed counsel. ROA 13, 18, 20, 23. Service was ultimately effected via publication. ROA 26-28, 34.

Presently, Carland demurs to the complaint. ROA 40-42. Carlene filed a first amended complaint in lieu of opposition. ROA 49.

The case is also set for a sixth continued CMC. ROA 46-48.

2. Applicable Standards.

A. 'A demurrer reaches only matters appearing on the face of the complaint and such matters as may be considered under the doctrine of judicial notice.' Alisal Sanitary Dist. v. Kennedy (1960) 180 Cal.App.2d 69, 73. There are two grounds for a general demurrer: failure to state a cause of action (or defense) (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(e)); and a lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10(a)). See McKenney v. Purepac Pharmaceutical Co. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 72, 77. All other grounds for a demurrer are commonly referred to as 'special demurrers.' See id. B. A quiet title action is one to resolve competing claims to real or personal property. Code Civ. Proc. § 760.020(a). The quiet title plaintiff must file a verified complaint including a description of the property, the basis for the plaintiff's claim of title, the adverse claims the plaintiff seeks to adjudicate, the date as of Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2967500  40 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  WOODSON VS WOODSON [IMAGED]  37-2022-00010511-CU-OR-CTL which the plaintiff seeks to adjudicate those claims, and a prayer for the determination of the plaintiff's title against the adverse claims. Code Civ. Proc. § 761.020.

C. 'A complaint for declaratory relief must demonstrate: (1) a proper subject of declaratory relief, and (2) an actual controversy involving justiciable questions relating to the rights or obligations of a party.' Brownfield v. Daniel Freeman Marina Hospital (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 405, 410.

3. Discussion and Ruling.

A. The demurrer to the complaint is overruled as moot in light of the timely filing and service of the FAC.

Code Civ. Proc. § 472(a).

B. The court elects to exercise its discretion and stay this action.

'Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interest of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.' Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489. '[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.' Landis v. North American Co. (1936) 299 U.S. 248, 254.

In this case, the verified complaint alleged at paragraph 5 that Carlene 'as Trustee of the Trust is the titled owner of [the Property].'** The unverified FAC shifts gears completely, and alleges that 'the Probate Court has no jurisdiction over the Property because the Property is not held in the trust.' (FAC at ¶ 10.) Until the Probate court determines which of these completely inconsistent allegations is true -- a central issue which is cognizable only in the Probate division of the court -- it strikes the court as profoundly wasteful for Carlene to seek to proceed here when the matters in controversy are already being addressed in the Probate division. Further, there is a real danger of inconsistent rulings if the two cases are allowed to proceed in tandem. The only way to eliminate these problems is to stay this case indefinitely while the probate proceedings are completed. Accordingly, this action is stayed in its entirety pending confirmation from the Probate court in Case No. 2021-22017 as to the accuracy of the allegation in paragraph 10 of the FAC.

Either side may approach the court on the ex parte calendar to lift the stay upon completion of the probate proceedings, of if other circumstances warrant such relief.

________________________ *The court's use of first names of persons who share a surname is not intended to be disrespectful, but is a device adopted by the courts of appeal for clarity. See Marriage of Smith (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 469, 475-76.

**Her allegation that she was the trustee was true when the complaint was filed, but it no longer is.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

2967500  40