Montecito Bank & Trust vs Theresa Colosi et al

Case Number

22CV04591

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 12/12/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Quash; Motion for Order

Tentative Ruling

(1)       Motion of Plaintiff Montecito Bank & Trust to Quash Subpoenas of Plaintiff Montecito Bank & Trust Personnel – For all the reasons stated herein, plaintiff Montecito Bank & Trust’s motion to quash is granted.

(2)       Motion of Defendant Colosi to Set Aside all Judgments and Orders of the Trial Court and to Order Montecito Bank & Trust to Restore Colosi’s Property – For all the reasons stated herein, defendant Theresa Colosi’s motion to set aside all judgments and orders of the trial court and to restore her property is denied.

(3)       Motion of Defendant Guier for Release of Funds Held by the Santa Barbara County Superior Court as a Result of an Interpleader Action – For all the reasons stated herein, defendant Christian Guier’s motion for release of Interpleaded Funds is granted. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to issue a check from the Interpleaded Funds in this action made out to defendant Christian Guier for the amount of $92,961.30.

Background:

The following background is taken from court files and records in this and other related actions, and is provided for context.

Theresa L. Colosi (Colosi) and Christian Guier (Guier), who are each defendants in this case, are, respectively, the biological mother and father of John Doe. Pursuant to a domestic violence restraining order issued in Santa Clara County Superior Court case number 1-08-CP-016402 entitled In the Matter of Theresa Colosi and Christian Guier (the Paternity Action), Colosi was prohibited from having any unsupervised contact with John Doe. In May 2019, Cynthia Hann (Hann), also a defendant in this case, was designated and hired to supervise Colosi’s scheduled visitations with John Doe.

On December 8, 2019, Hann was scheduled to supervise a visit between Colosi and John Doe. During that visit, Colosi suddenly attacked Hann by repeatedly striking her on the head with a metal canister. Colosi had previously chartered a private plane to fly her and John Doe, whom Colosi had planned to abduct, from Lompoc to Montana. Hann and John Doe were able to escape until police and paramedics arrived, but Colosi fled and took the private plane from Lompoc to Montana. Colosi was arrested by Montana authorities, and extradited to Santa Barbara.

Prior to the assault on Hann described above, Colosi had, on June 24, November 20, November 22, and December 6, 2019, used funds in her deposit accounts at Montecito Bank & Trust (MBT), the plaintiff in this case, to purchase a series of fifty cashier’s checks from MBT totaling $1,345,454.33. The checks were payable by MBT on the date they were obtained, and were made originally payable to “Theresa Colosi.” Colosi was in possession of the cashier’s checks when she was arrested in Montana. MBT holds the funds set aside for payment of those checks.

On December 23, 2019, Colosi was charged with five felony and misdemeanor criminal counts in Santa Barbara County Superior Court case number 19CR12190 entitled People v. Theresa Lynn Colosi.

In addition, Guier has obtained orders from the Santa Clara County Superior Court, under which Colosi was ordered to pay to Guier substantial amounts for child support and related expenses. Guier was unable to obtain the cashier’s checks or any funds, because those checks were being held as evidence in the criminal case against Colosi.

On June 5, 2020, Hann filed, as Santa Barbara County Superior Court case number 20CV01984 entitled Cindy M. Hann vs. Theresa Lynn Colosi (the Hann Action), a complaint against Colosi, alleging causes of action for (1) civil assault and battery, (2) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (3) avoidance, recovery, and damages for fraudulent transfers under common law and the California Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. That complaint seeks punitive damages and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4, which applies to actions for damages against a defendant based upon that defendant’s commission of a felony for which that defendant has been convicted.

On November 17, 2022, MBT filed its original complaint in this case against Colosi, Guier, and the County of Santa Barbara (the County), alleging one cause of action for interpleader of the sum of $1,345,454.33 with the clerk of this court. MBT alleges that this amount represents the funds backing the cashier’s checks purchased by Colosi and further described above.

On January 31, 2023, Guier filed an answer to MBT’s original complaint. In that answer, Guier alleges that he is a judgment creditor of Colosi in the total amount of $836,573.12, plus interest, which arises from judgments entered on June 11, 2020, January 25, 2021, and November 1, 2022, in the amounts of, respectively, $420,354.92, $350,040, and $66,178.20.

On March 9, 2023, MBT filed a request for dismissal of this action as to the County only, without prejudice.

On April 4, 2023, with leave to add Hann as a party granted by this court on March 24, 2023, MBT filed in this case, its operative first amended complaint in interpleader (the FACI) against Colosi, Guier, and Hann (collectively, defendants). On that same date, MBT filed a notice of the deposit of the amount of $1,345,454.33 (the Interpleaded Funds).

In the FACI, MBT alleges that an actual dispute exists as to the ownership of and rights to the cashier’s checks and the Interpleaded Funds, that the respective claims of defendants to the checks and the Interpleaded Funds are adverse and conflicting, and that MBT is unable to safely determine which of the claims is valid or the identity of the owners or recipients of the Interpleaded Funds. MBT further alleges that it has no claim to the cashier’s checks or the Interpleaded Funds beyond the obligation to pay those funds, and does not take any position regarding to whom the Interpleaded Funds should be delivered.

The FACI seeks attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6, and an order discharging MBT from any actual or potential liability arising from or relating directly or indirectly to the checks, the Interpleaded Funds, or any claims asserted by any defendant in this action.

On April 12, 2023, Kevin Hutcheson (Hutcheson) filed a verified claim in interpleader, in which Hutcheson asserts that he is the attorney appointed in the Paternity Action to represent Colosi’s minor child, and that the Santa Clara County Superior Court has entered orders for Colosi to pay Hutcheson for his services in that action. According to Hutcheson, the amount awarded pursuant to these orders totals, as of April 1, 2023, $142,069.74. (See Hutcheson Verified Claim, ¶ 6.)

On May 11, 2023, Hann filed an answer to the FACI, alleging that Colosi’s felony assault caused Hann great bodily injury, and that Hann is entitled restitution in the criminal case. Hann further alleges that she has a current action pending against Colosi in this court for which she is entitled to judgment in an amount to be determined, plus interest, costs, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.4. Hann contends she is entitled to a portion of the Interpleaded Funds.

On June 2, 2023, Colosi appeared in this action by filing a document entitled “Response and Opposition to Interpleader, Request for Permanent Injunction” (the Colosi Response). Among others, the Colosi Response seeks orders denying the FACI, directing the clerk to return the Interpleaded Funds to MBT to be held in trust until further instructions from Colosi, and imposing a permanent injunction.

On June 12, 2023, Colosi filed a motion for a permanent injunction and other orders, which was opposed by MBT and Guier. On July 21, 2023, the court denied that motion.

On August 8, 2023, MBT filed a motion for discharge of liability and an award of costs and fees (the Discharge Motion), which was opposed by Colosi and to which Guier filed a response requesting that any fees or costs awarded to MBT be paid from the Interpleaded Funds only.

In addition, on August 29, 2023, Guier filed a motion for release of funds held by MBT (the Guier Motion), which was opposed by Colosi.

On September 1, 2023, Hutcheson filed a motion for the release of the amount of $145,795.74 from the Interpleaded Funds (the Hutcheson Motion), which was also opposed by Colosi.

On September 12, 2023, Colosi filed motion to dismiss this action.

On October 13, 2023, the court entered an order granting the Discharge Motion and awarding to MBT the amount of at least $34,571.16 to be paid from the Interpleaded Funds; denying Colosi’s motion to dismiss; and denying the Guier Motion and the Hutcheson Motion, without prejudice to the continued pursuit by Hutcheson and Guier of their claims at trial. Further, the court scheduled a trial confirmation conference on May 3, 2023.

Pursuant to the court’s May 6, 2024, trial call order, this case was set for trial on June 10, 2024.

On June 10, 2024, following a trial, the court entered an order (the Trial Order) granting the relief requested by Guier, Hann, and Hutcheson in this action, and directing each of these defendants to prepare and submit proposed orders for distributions of the Interpleaded Funds.

On July 16, 2024, the court signed a ruling submitted by Hann, stating that the court is not issuing any orders with respect to the claim of Hann, without prejudice to a further request by Hann once a judgment is obtained in the Hann Action.

Also on July 16, 2024, the court signed and entered an order (the Guier Order), awarding to Guier the sum of $451,774.15, payable from the Interpleaded Funds, and directing the clerk of the court to issue a check from the Interpleaded Funds payable to the Law Offices of Walter Pierce Hammon and Guier for this sum. (Guier Order, ¶ 1.)

Pursuant to the Guier Order, the court also ordered that there shall remain, in trust with the court, the amount of $150,000 to serve as security for child support and add on arrears, which includes amounts previously ordered and the amount of $50,000 ordered at the June 10, 2024, trial of this case. (Guier Order, ¶ 2.) The court further ordered that the amount of $150,000 remaining with the court shall be disbursed after the Santa Clara County Superior Court calculates additional child support arrears and “add ons,” and designated the Santa Clara County Superior Court as the appropriate venue to calculate the additional child support and add on arrears owed to Guier. (Ibid.)

On August 19, 2024, Colosi filed a notice of appeal from the Trial Order, among other orders entered in this action.

On April 29, 2025, Guier filed an ex parte application (the Guier Ex Parte) for an order releasing the amount of $92,961.30 from the Interpleaded Funds to Guier. The Guier Ex Parte was supported by a letter to this Department dated April 28, 2025, and a “Sua Sponte order modifying order made on 4/7/25” (the Arrears Order) entered in the Paternity Action on April 10, 2025, in which the Santa Clara County Superior Court granted Guier’s ostensible request to collect on child support and add on arrears from the funds being held through this court, in the amount of $92,961.30. (Apr. 29, 2025, Guier Ex Parte Appl., Exh. C [Arrears Order] at p. 2, ll. 5-6.)

Colosi opposed the Guier Ex Parte on the grounds that, among other things, Colosi was not properly served and does not consent to electronic service. (See Apr. 30, 2025, Colosi Decl., ¶ 2.)

On May 1, 2025, the court denied the Guier Ex Parte.

On July 16, 2025, Guier filed a noticed motion for an order releasing the amount of $92,961.30 from the Interpleaded Funds. This motion is supported by a declaration of Walter Pierce Hammon (Hammon), who is Guier’s counsel.

Hammon states that on April 10, 2025, a hearing was held before the Santa Clara County Superior Court as a result of additional arrearage claims and additional money due and owing by Colosi to Guier, and asserts that the money being held by this court as security for support should be used to satisfy these additional arrearages as determined by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. (Hammon Decl., p. 2, ll. 14-15 & 20-24; see also Arrears Order.) Hammon further states that the Santa Clara County Superior Court has determined that there exist child support and add on arrears totaling $92,961.30, and there is a pending request for additional arrears. (Id. at p. 2, ll. 24-26.) Guier believes that there will be further arrears which may be satisfied in part through the balance of the Interpleaded Funds. (Id. at p. 3, ll. 1-3.)

On October 31, 2025, the court continued the hearing on Guier’s motion for release of Interpleaded Funds until December 12, 2025, and ordered further service of his motion on defendant Colosi.

On November 3, 2025, defendant Colosi filed a motion to set aside all judgments and orders of the trial court and to order MBT to restore defendant Colosi’s property because such judgments and orders were based on information improperly obtained by a search warrant in a criminal matter. MBT and Guier oppose this motion. This motion is set for hearing on December 12, 2025.

On November 10, 2025, defendant Colosi served five trial subpoenas on MBT’s counsel. Two are subpoenas for personal appearance of MBT personnel and production of documents at the December 12, 2025, law and motion hearing. Three are for personal appearance of MBT personnel at the December 12 hearing.

On December 2, 2025, MBT filed a motion to quash the five subpoenas served by defendant Colosi.

On December 4, 2025, the court granted MBT’s ex parte application to shorten the notice period and advance the hearing on MBT’s motion to December 12, 2025. The court ordered that no witnesses shall be required to appear at the December 12 hearing while MBT’s motion to quash is pending.

Analysis:

(1)       MBT’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas of MBT Personnel

The subpoenas served by Colosi seek to compel testimony of MBT personnel at the hearing on December 12, 2025, and to compel MBT personnel to produce certain records at the December 12 hearing. (Cox Decl., Exhs. A-E.) The court notes that these are subpoenas for personal attendance in court.

MBT argues that the subpoenas are procedurally improper and unwarranted, that the MBT personnel do not have authority to produce the requested records, and that the subpoenas improperly seek to compel the testimony of apex witnesses. MBT is correct.

The hearing on December 12 is a hearing of law and motion matters; these are not evidentiary hearings. “Evidence received at a law and motion hearing must be by declaration or request for judicial notice without testimony or cross-examination, unless the court orders otherwise for good cause shown.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(a).)

“A party seeking permission to introduce oral evidence, except for oral evidence in rebuttal to oral evidence presented by the other party, must file, no later than three court days before the hearing, a written statement stating the nature and extent of the evidence proposed to be introduced and a reasonable time estimate for the hearing….” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1306(b).)

The court has not issued any order permitting testimony other than by declaration for any matter before the court on December 12. There is no good cause shown for the testimony and production of documents pursuant to the subpoenas. Colosi has made no written application to the court for the introduction of oral testimony at the December 12 hearing.

For all these reasons, MBT’s motion to quash is granted.

(2)       Colosi’s Motion to Set Aside Judgments and Orders and to Restore Her Property

Colosi filed a motion on November 3, 2025, for an order setting aside all judgments and orders by the trial court in this case and for an order for MBT to restore all of Colosi’s property. This motion is based upon Colosi’s argument that certain evidence obtained in her criminal matter was warrantless and is inadmissible.

The motion argues that information disclosed by MBT pursuant to a search warrant issued in 2019 violated Colosi’s rights under Government Code section 7460 et seq., Penal Code sections 1525 and 1538.5, and her rights against unlawful seizure under the United States and California Constitution. Colosi’s motion is premised on her claim that certain evidence in the criminal case against her, The People of the State of California v. Theresa L. Colosi (Santa Barbara Superior Court, Case No. 19CR12190), was wrongfully seized, and that MBT and/or the Santa Barbara Sherriff violated California’s Right to Financial Privacy Act, Government Code section 7460 et seq.

MBT argues that Colosi’s motion is procedurally improper, MBT has been discharged from all liability pertaining to the Interpleaded Funds, and Colosi has not alleged or proven any basis for setting aside any prior orders. MBT is correct.

As to those judgments and orders that Colosi is currently appealing, “[a]s a general rule, ‘the perfecting of an appeal stays proceedings in the trial court upon the judgment or order appealed from ....’ [Citation.] Thus, generally, the taking of an appeal by the filing of the notice of appeal deprives the trial court of jurisdiction of the cause and vests jurisdiction with the appellate court until issuance of a remittitur by the reviewing court. [Citations.] When the remittitur issues, the jurisdiction of the appellate court terminates and the jurisdiction of the trial court reattaches.” (Andrisani v. Saugus Colony Limited (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 517, 523.)

On August 19, 2024, Colosi filed a notice of appeal of the court’s judgment or orders in this action dated June 10, 2024, June 26, 2024, July 16, 2024, and August 19, 2024. “The trial court’s power to enforce, vacate or modify an appealed judgment or order is suspended while the appeal is pending.” (Elsea v. Saberi (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 625, 629.) Colosi’s motion is denied as to these judgments and orders for lack of jurisdiction.

With respect to all other orders, the motion appears to be a motion for reconsideration.

“When an application for an order has been made to a judge, or to a court, and refused in whole or in part, or granted, or granted conditionally, or on terms, any party affected by the order may, within 10 days after service upon the party of written notice of entry of the order and based upon new or different facts, circumstances, or law, make application to the same judge or court that made the order, to reconsider the matter and modify, amend, or revoke the prior order. The party making the application shall state by affidavit what application was made before, when and to what judge, what order or decisions were made, and what new or different facts, circumstances, or law are claimed to be shown.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (a).)

“This section specifies the court’s jurisdiction with regard to applications for reconsideration of its orders and renewals of previous motions, and applies to all applications to reconsider any order of a judge or court, or for the renewal of a previous motion, whether the order deciding the previous matter or motion is interim or final. No application to reconsider any order or for the renewal of a previous motion may be considered by any judge or court unless made according to this section.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1008, subd. (e).)

Colosi provides no basis upon which the court would revisit any order in this case because of information not available when such orders were issued. The court has already considered Colosi’s arguments in its Minute Order dated July 21, 2023, prior to Colosi’s notice of appeal on August 19, 2024, and prior to the judgments and orders she is currently appealing dated from June 10, 2024 through August 19, 2024.

As previously noted by the court, “[Colosi] reiterated her contentions about MBT’s alleged violation of her privacy rights in disclosing financial information to law enforcement without her consent, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and the California Right to Financial Privacy Act, and law enforcement used that information and provided conflicting declarations regarding how much money she had in her possession when arrested.… To the extent that defendant Colosi contends that MBT, in some manner, violated her financial privacy rights, and she claims some entitlement to relief for that violation, the law makes clear that to the extent any such claim may be valid, it may not be raised or adjudicated within the confines of the interpleader action. Rather, it can be determined, if at all, only in a separate action brought by Colosi against MBT.” (Minute Order, October 13, 2023.)

Colosi cites no new or different facts, circumstances, or law, and no basis on which the court would revisit any of its orders.

For all these reasons, Colosi’s motion to set aside the judgments and orders in this action and restore her property is denied.

(3)       Guier’s Motion for Release of Interpleaded Funds

Guier requests that the court release $92,961.30 from the Interpleaded Funds pursuant to the Guier Order by this court and the Arrears Order by the Santa Clara County Superior Court. This motion is opposed by Colosi on the same grounds that she raised in her motion to set aside all judgments and orders by the trial court. The court rejects those arguments for the same reasons stated above.

Pursuant to the Guier Order dated July 16, 2024, “[t]here shall remain in trust with the Santa Barbara Superior Court the amount of $150,000.00 to serve as security for child support arrears and child support add on arrears…. The Santa Barbara Superior Court defers calculating arrears and designates the Santa Clara County Superior Court as the appropriate venue to calculate additional child support arrears and additional child support add on arrears…. The Court shall specifically reserve jurisdiction of interest on support arrears and child support add on arrears from September l6, 2020 until the time the additional arrears are calculated” (Guier Order, p. 2, ll. 8-12.)

Pursuant to the Arrears Order entered in the Paternity Action on April 10, 2025, the Santa Clara County Superior Court calculated the outstanding child support and add on arrears in the amount of $92,961.30. (Apr. 29, 2025, Guier Ex Parte Appl., Exh. C [Arrears Order] at p. 2, ll. 5-6.) “The [Santa Clara County Superior] court grants father’s request to collect on these arrears from the funds being held through Santa Barbara Superior Court in the amount of $92,961.30. Interest is hereby reserved.” (Ibid.; Hammon Decl., p. 2, ll. 14-15, 20-24.)

The court notes that defendant Hann does not oppose the substance of the relief sought by Guier. (Hann Not. Non. Opp. Re Guier Ex Parte, April 30, 2025.) No claimant or party other than Colosi has opposed the relief sought by Guier.

For all these reasons, Guier’s motion is granted. Guier shall be awarded the sum of $92,961.30 payable from the Interpleaded Funds in the case.