Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 22AHCV00330, Date: 2023-07-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22AHCV00330    Hearing Date: July 21, 2023    Dept: 3

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - NORTHEAST DISTRICT

I. INTRODUCTION       

On June 3, 2022, Primerica Life Insurance Company (“Primerica”) filed a complaint-in-interpleader naming Perla Ragos Joyce (“Perla”) and Latoya Joyce (“Latoya”) as defendants-in-interpleader (Perla and Latoya are referred to by their first names only to avoid confusion).  Primerica alleges that in or about July 2012, it issued a term life insurance policy, Policy Number 0489317355, (“Policy”) to Jimmie Ishan Joyce (“Jimmie”).  The Policy provided for a payment of a death benefit in the amount of $50,000 to Jimmie’s designated beneficiary or beneficiaries.  Jimmie’s application for the Policy designated his daughter, Latoya, as the Policy’s sole beneficiary.  On or about January 31, 2013, Jimmie submitted a document called a Multipurpose Change Form (“Form”) which revoked his previous beneficiary designations and designated Perla as the sole beneficiary.  Perla submitted a claim for the death benefit and Latoya contested the validity of the Form, claiming, among other things, that the Form was submitted when Jimmie was “heavily medicated and mentally diminished and without capacity.”  Due to these competing claims, Primerica filed this interpleader action to determine to whom the death benefit from the Policy should be paid.

The interpleader proceeding is traditionally viewed as two lawsuits in one. The first dispute is between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the right to interplead the funds; the second dispute to be resolved is who is to receive the interpleaded funds. (San Francisco Savings Union v. Long (1898) 123 Cal. 107, 109; State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 612; Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Mitchell (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 16, 19.)  Thus, an interpleader action follows a two-step process. First, the court determines if the plaintiff may bring the suit and force the claimants to interplead. (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1114.) If the court finds the plaintiff has a right to do so, the court enters an interlocutory decree requiring the remaining parties to litigate their claims among themselves. (Dial 800 v. Fesbinder (2004) 118 Cal. App. 4th 32.) The order thereby preserves the fund, discharges the stakeholder from further liability, and keeps the fund in the court’s custody until the rights of the potential claimants of the monies can be adjudicated. (Id.)  

On July 20, 2022, Perla filed an answer to the complaint which asserted her right to the Funds and claims against Primerica.  Primerica deposited $51,684.93 (the “Funds”) with the Court on August 15, 2022.  On October 31, 2022, Primerica filed an acknowledgement of receipt executed by Latoya on October 26, 2022, showing that Latoya received a copy of the summons, complaint, and Perla’s answer.  Neither Perla nor Latoya have disputed Primerica’s right to interplead the Funds and Primerica’s role as a mere stakeholder.  Therefore, the Court first discharges Primerica from the action before proceeding to adjudicate Perla and Latoya’s claims to the Funds. 

On April 28, 2023, Perla filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims and causes of action alleged by Latoya for the Funds.  In the alternative, Perla seeks summary adjudication. 

On May 19, 2023, Perla filed a motion for terminating and issue sanctions against Latoya requesting that the Court enter a default judgment against Latoya after Latoya failed to serve discovery responses as previously ordered. 

II.      LEGAL STANDARD

“The purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether . . . trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.”  (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) “The court must grant the motion if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact.” (Ibid. [internal quotation marks omitted].)

III.     DISCUSSION

Perla argues that there is no dispute of material fact as to who the beneficiary of Jimmie’s Policy should be.  She introduces two “Multipurpose Change Forms” that Jimmie executed on January 31, 2013, and July 22, 2015, and an internal note between Primerica’s employees documenting a conversation with Jimmie.  (McFee Decl., Exs. 6-8.)  She argues that these forms and documentation confirm that Jimmie intended to – and did -- designate her as his beneficiary.  (McFee Decl., Exs. 6-7.)  Perla declares she was not involved with the preparation or signing of either form designating her as a beneficiary.  (Perla Decl., ¶ 8.) 

Perla also argues that there is no evidence behind Latoya’s claim that Jimmie was mentally incapacitated.  On February 17, 2021, Primerica asked Latoya to submit any court documents or medical records showing undue influence or mental incapacity.  (UMF No. 9, McFee Decl., Ex. 3.)  Latoya provided documents on March 8, 2021, but Primerica determined that none of these documents relate to or support her claim that Jimmie lacked capacity or that Perla exercised undue influence when Jimmie executed the beneficiary change forms.  (McFee Decl., Exs. 12-13.)   The Court has reviewed the documents Latoya submitted and agrees with Primerica’s conclusion.  Latoya provided copies of her driver’s license and social security card, Jimmie’s death benefit, an affidavit of collection of Jimmie’s personal property, her birth certificate, her mother’s death certificate, and billing records for Jimmie’s medical services received after 2015.  (UMF No. 10.)  These documents do not bear on the validity of the beneficiary designations and the medical records relate to services provided after the Jimmie executed the second beneficiary change form in 2015. 

Perla also declares that she never noticed any mental incapacity during her marriage to Jimmie or at any point during their friendship.  (Perla Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)  Perla also states that while Jimmie resided at Live Oak Rehab Center, his medical records do not reflect any sign of incapacity and he was given permission to leave the facility at any time.  (Perla Decl., Exs. 1-2.)

Perla has established that she is the proper recipient of the Funds.  Latoya did not appear to make a competing claim, nor did she oppose Perla’s motion to raise a triable issue of material fact.  Therefore, the Funds, along with any accrued interest, should be distributed to Perla. 

IV.     CONCLUSION

Primerica is discharged from further liability and dismissed from the action.

Perla’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  Because the Court grants Perla’s motion for summary judgment, her motion for terminating sanctions is moot and taken off calendar. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the Clerk of the Court pay to Perla Ragos Joyce, in care of her counsel Ryan K. Yagura, 1104 Lorain Road, San Marino CA 91108, her claim in the amount of $51,684.93.

Dated this 21st day of July, 2023

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at ALHDEPT3@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.