Matter of The Armando I Perez Trust

Case Number

22PR00501

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 06/18/2025 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

1. Motion for Change of Venue, 2. Demurrer, 3. Petition for Instructions

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

DEMURRER

Statute of Limitations Argument

It is well-established law that when a pleading is stricken from the record, leave to amend may be granted. (CCP, §435.5(c)(1).)  Although the minute order striking the initial pleading at issue does not indicate whether leave to amend was granted, it is absolutely undisputed that the initial Petition filed in case no. 25PR00023 was timely filed within the Statute of Limitations set forth in Probate Code section 16061.7.  In the moving papers here, Ms. Perez-Hogan acknowledged the previous petition was filed on January 14, 2025, in case no. 25PR00023 before the deadline elapsed. 

Therefore, this Court should exercise its discretion and overrule the Demurrer as to causes of action 1-3 and 6, and clarify on the record that leave to amend was given re: the Amended Petition when the Court ordered the prior iteration stricken from the record in case no. 25PR00023.  This will honor California’s public policy to resolve cases on the merits, and well as honor the completely different statute of limitations in Elder Abuse cases, that received only cursory mention by Ms. Perez-Hogan in the moving papers.

Uncertainty Argument

A cause of action is uncertain when the allegations are so bad that the opposing party cannot reasonably be expected to respond.  Stated another way, when the responding party cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against them, the pleading (or cause) is uncertain.  (Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616 [citing Weil & Brown, Civ. Pro. Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2008) ¶7:84].)

In this case, Ms. Perez-Hogan claims the subject Petition is uncertain, but then immediately outlines how the prayer for relief cannot possibly be granted by specifically explaining what the claims against her are, and why she cannot be held liable to respond.  This is not uncertainty. Thus, the Demurrer should be overruled on the grounds of uncertainty.

Failure to State a Claim

Despite the certainty of the claims, Ms. Perez-Hogan rightfully points out the absolute lack of this Court’s authority to order her to perform a task she has no access to accounts to complete, or be removed from a position of trustee that she does not currently hold.  Opposition’s lack of citation to authority for the proposition that this Court can remove a trustee who is not currently serving, or prospectively will serve, and then force that person to account, is akin to a claim that this Court has magical powers to make orders on speculation and conjecture that somehow would avoid summary judgment for the same flaw in the future.  (Buehler v.  Alpha Beta Co.  (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 729, 733 [An argumentative opposition based upon conjecture and speculation is insufficient to raise a triable issue of material fact.].)

Accordingly, the Demurrer should be sustained against the fourth and fifth causes of action, without leave to amend.

Lack of Standing Argument

The issue of a beneficiary’s standing was so fundamentally closed to further argument by our State’s Supreme Court in 2020, that this Court should be alarmed the claim was made here in Demurrer, and even more alarmed the case foreclosing that argument was not cited and briefed by either party. 

In Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, the California Supreme Court made it so abundantly clear that any person claiming to have been a beneficiary of a trust, at any time, under any iteration of the trust, has standing to challenge the trust under Probate Code section 17200 (Barefoot v. Jennings (2020) 8 Cal.5th 822, 828 [“So when a plaintiff claims to be a rightful beneficiary of a trust if challenged amendments are deemed invalid, she has standing to petition the probate court under section 17200.”]), that claiming otherwise rises to the level of an unmeritorious claim.

Therefore, the Demurrer should be overruled as to any lack of standing grounds, because the plain language on the face of the Petition at issue, discloses allegations of beneficiary status to at least one iteration of the trust.

Conclusion re: Demurrer

The Demurrer should be overruled on all grounds stated against causes of action 1-3, and 6.  The Demurrer should be sustained without leave to amend as to causes 4 and 5 for failure to state a claim.

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE

On February 3, 2025, Ms. Perez-Hogan filed a Motion for Change of Venue.  That motion was outright denied by this Court on May 15, 2025.  Inexplicably, Ms. Perez-Hogan filed yet another Motion for Change of Venue on April 8, 2025, before the previous motion was ruled upon.  The April motion contains no label identifying it as amended, and seems to be using a different pleading to justify the additional request. There is no briefing on this issue, and nothing in either the moving papers or opposition outlines why the Court’s previous ruling denying a change of venue should somehow be able to not apply in general, instead of the implied specificity argument put forth in the moving papers.  The motion, is again, recommended for denial as an improper motion for reconsideration, or a superfluous motion based on a different pleading, when the facts related to all pleadings on file warrant denial of any change of venue.

Appearances:

The court is open to the public for court business. The court is also conducting hearings via Zoom videoconference.

Meeting ID: 161 956 1423

Passcode: 137305