Matter of Valorie Avants Trust

Case Number

23PR00563

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 01/17/2024 - 08:30

Nature of Proceedings

Petition to Determine Claim to Real Property

Tentative Ruling

Probate Notes:

Any Respondents desirous to object must file a written objection before the next hearing.  The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver. 

Appearances required.  The following must be submitted:

Quitclaim Deed recorded December 22, 2011.  The condition of the title cannot be adequately verified without resort to the quitclaim deed field December 22, 2011.  Please submit a supplement to the petition with a copy of this deed.  The deed must have a visible file stamp by the County Recorder.

Proof of Personal Service.  Service is governed by Probate Code section 851.  Notices of Petitions “shall contain all of the following”:

(1) A description of the subject property sufficient to provide adequate notice to any party who may have an interest in the property. For real property, the notice shall state the street address or, if none, a description of the property’s location and assessor’s parcel number.

(2) If the petition seeks relief pursuant to Section 859, a description of the relief sought sufficient to provide adequate notice to the party against whom that relief is requested.

(3) A statement advising any person interested in the property that he or she may file a response to the petition.

(Prob. Code, § 851(c) [emphasis added].)

The proof of service must be submitted using Form DE-115, which became mandatory on January 1, 2020.

The proof of service filed does not conform to the above requirements, thus has not satisfied due process.

Once proper service has been completed, any objecting respondents must file a written objection before the next hearing.  The court has authority to require all objectors to file a written objection pursuant CRC, Rule 7.801, or else deem the failure to do so a waiver.

Further Briefing.  From the documents filed with the Court, title to the subject property (1408 E. Olive Ave, Lompoc) came to be solely in the possession of Decedent, half in part from a quitclaim deed recorded in February 2012, and (potentially) half in part from an Affidavit of Death of Joint Tenant filed on 2018.  The Declaration filed as part of the Affidavit of Death of Joint Tenant purports that the 2012 quitclaim deed (which is not on file) was executed by Pamela J. Avants in favor of Decedent and Mary L. Avants.  So, it appears from the record that Pamela was the original title holder in 100% fee simple.

When that quitclaim deed can be verified, and it shows those purported facts to be true, it will likely mean that Pamela transferred her 100% title to her sisters, Decedent and Mary as joint tenants.  That fact is vital to determine title when Mary died in 2018.

Thus, the Court’s only remaining task is to determine whether upon Decedent’s date of death, Decedent held title as trustee of the subject trust (which would allow the Court to grant the petition), or held title as an individual (which would complicate whether the Court could grant the petition).

TITLE TO THE PROPERTY WITH TRUST CONSIDERED

Decedent executed the subject trust in April of 2012.  At that point in time there is no doubt that Decedent owned a 50% interest in the subject property.  The trust does not have a general assignment clause, but does have a “schedule clause” that identifies a 50% interest in the subject Lompoc real property.

Decedent properly recorded this title change (i.e. from herself as an individual to herself as trustee) in a Trust Transfer Grant Deed filed on April 11, 2012. 

This transfer severed the joint tenancy of the property.  (Miller and Starr California Real Estate 4th § 11:29 [“A conveyance to the trustee of an express trust by one joint tenant terminates the joint tenancy and the right of survivorship.”] Citing Civ. Code, § 683.2, subd. (a)(1); Estate of Carpenter  (2d Dist. 1983) 140 Cal. App. 3d 709, 711; Riddle v. Harmon (1st Dist. 1980) 102 Cal. App. 3d 524, 527; Gonzales v. Gonzales (2d Dist. 1968) 267 Cal. App. 2d 428, 435.)  This means that as of April 11, 2012, title to the subject property was held in a tenancy in common, 50/50 between the subject trust and Mary Avants.

Since there was no joint tenancy when Mary died in April of 2018, the Affidavit of Death of Joint Tenant was erroneously filed, and had no legal affect (i.e. it was void). This left ownership of the title to Mary’s 50% in her estate, which there is no evidence on file showing the disposition of.

Decedent amended the subject trust in May of 2018. The amendment made no changes to the property held by the trust, thus is of no relevance to the title determination.

Matters get even more complicated, because on August 14, 2019, a Grant Deed was recorded with language that shows all three surviving sisters believe they owned a property interest and were conveying it to Decedent.

According to that grant deed, the four sisters seemed to believe that they all had an interest in the subject real property to convey to Decedent. Petitioner does not explain how or why the sisters believed they had any right in the property, and the above filed documents show that the sum result of all the transfers before this deed was filed is that title was held 50% in Decedent’s trust, and 50% by the estate of Mary. 

Thus, it is necessary for the Court to require further briefing to answer the following questions:

How did the 50% share owned by Valorie’s trust and 50% share owned by the Estate of Mary L. Avants come to be held by Valorie’s trust, Valorie as an individual, Pamela Avants, and Renee Campbell?

To answer that question, it is likely the Court will have to require Petitioner to obtain a forensic title report to correctly reflect the chain of title.

It is recommended the hearing be continued to a date set by the Court at the hearing, to allow sufficient time for re-service in conformity with the new rule.

Due to staffing limitations, processing times may be delayed. To assist in processing, attorneys and parties should include the next court date in the “Filing Description” field provided by the electronic service provider. That field is also used for further descriptions of the document being e-filed, so be sure to put the calendar date FIRST in the field – BEFORE any further description of the document being e-filed (e.g.: 06/28/16 For XYZ).