MANN vs MANN, et al.

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Defendants Hardip Singh Mann (“Hardip”) and Harminder K. Mann’s (“Harminder”) (collectively “Defendants”) demurrer to Plaintiff Mandinderjit Kaur Mann’s (“Plaintiff”) second amended complaint (“SAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Overview

This is a quiet title action. Plaintiff alleges that she is purportedly the Executor of the Estate for Decedent, Ravinder Singh Mann (“Decedent”). (SAC, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff is the wife of the Decedent, who allegedly left a will leaving his entire estate to Plaintiff. (Ibid.) Plaintiff filed a Petition for Probate, but has not been appointed executor, allegedly because Hardip objected to her appointment. (SAC, ¶ 9.)

In November 2000, Defendants purchased property located at 7212 Alpine Frost Dr, Sacramento (“Property”). (SAC, ¶ 11.) In June 2019, Harminder conveyed her 1⁄2 interest in the Property to Decedent. (SAC, ¶ 12.) Decedent then conveyed that 1⁄2 interest in the Property to himself and Hardip as joint “owners” with right of survivorship. (SAC, ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff alleges that “the grant deed failed to use express language required by Civ. C. § 683 to create a joint tenancy, rendering the deed invalid for lack of the express term “tenants,” and void on its face. This makes the conveyance a tenancy in common by default.” (SAC, ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges that the “four unities” required to create a joint tenancy were not satisfied, and therefore, the conveyance was a tenancy in common by default. (SAC, ¶ 16.) Plaintiff further alleges that, to the extent a joint tenancy existed, it was terminated when Decedent gifted his interest in the Property to his wife by his last will. (SAC, ¶ 18.)

As a result, Plaintiff alleges “when Decedent Ravinder Singh Mann died, he still owned a 1⁄4 interest in the property as a Tenant in Common, created by default when his attempt to create a Joint Tenancy failed for the above stated reasons.” (SAC, ¶ 19.)

Plaintiff alleges that even though she has not been appointed Executor of Decedent’s estate, she “has standing under the laws of intestate success[ion] as the surviving spouse and heir of the Estate of Decedent, Ravinder Singh Mann . . . as her interest, right and title to her interest in real property that belonged to her late husband at the time of his death is not diminished regardless of whether his well [sic] is admitted to probate, and regardless of whether she is appointed Executor of that will. Either way, she has an interest in any real property in which her husband had an interest the time of his death.” (SAC, ¶ 8.)

Plaintiff brings this action as an individual, and:

in her personal capacity under the laws of intestate succession, as spouse and legal

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

heir of Decedent Ravinder Singh Mann, and as PETITIONER FOR PROBATE PROCEEDING OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT RAVINDER SINGH MANN, which is pending, and if appointed Executor, will also be suing in her capacity as EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DECEDENT RAVINDER SINGH MANN, as well.

(See SAC, Caption)

Defendants demur to the SAC on the grounds that “the court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the pleadings (CCP § 430.10 (a)); and the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action (CCP § 430.10 (e)).” (Demurrer, 2:11-14.)

The Court declines to consider Defendants’ request for judicial notice as it was not cited to nor relied upon in their demurrer.

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.)

A demurrer and a motion to strike “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. §452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v.

Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank v.

Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318, William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616 n.2.) Extrinsic evidence may not properly be considered on demurrer or on a motion to strike. (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881; Hibernia Savings & Loan Soc. v. Thornton (1897) 117 Cal. 481, 482.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

“Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . ., we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendants contend that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10 (a) because the Decedent’s estate must be decided in the probate court.

The Court disagrees. Superior courts are courts of general jurisdiction (i.e. trial court can hear all causes except those given by statute to other trial courts.) (Cal. Const., art VI, §10.) While “[t]he superior court is divided into departments, including the probate department, as a matter of convenience; ... the subject matter jurisdiction of the superior court is vested as a whole.” (Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684,695.) A probate court is simply the superior court “sitting in exercise of its probate jurisdiction.” (Copley v.

Copley (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d at 107 (stating that “[t]he term ‘probate court’ is but a convenient way of expressing the concept of a superior court sitting in exercise of its probate jurisdiction” and is “but a colloquial expression”); see also Estate of Bowles, supra,169 Cal.App.4th at 695.) Thus, “a nonprobate department does not lack fundamental jurisdiction over a probate matter.” (Harnedy v. Whitty (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1344.)

The demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED.

Lack of Standing to Sue

Defendants demur on the ground that Plaintiff lacks standing to sue. Defendants note that Plaintiff admits that she does not posses legal title to the Property, and argue that:

although not adjudicated, even if there was in fact any defect to this grant deed, any correction of such deed would not result in title being transferred to the Plaintiff. It is undisputed that the title would merely revert to the Plaintiff’s deceased husband.

(Demurrer, 6:11-13.)

They further insist that since Plaintiff has not been appointed executor of Decedent’s estate, “Plaintiff has no authority to challenge title or to assert rights on behalf of her deceased

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

husband’s estate. The lack of such an appointment further solidifies her inability to maintain this action.” (Demurrer, 7:15-17.)

Plaintiff argues in opposition that she “has standing and is entitled to obtain quiet title to the 1⁄4 interest in the home that defaulted to her husband, for reasons stated in the complaint. The decedent’s heirs are the only persons that have standing to pursue such interest, and Decedent’s wife, is indisputably the heir of her late husband, pursuant to the laws of intestate succession, California state probate code §6400-6455, and pursuant the will, and thus she has standing to pursue her husband’s property rights in the subject property.” (Opposition, 5:14-20.) She adds that:

4. If Decedent died without a will, intestate, Plaintiff is an heir to her husband’s estate under the laws of intestate succession, California state probate code §6400- 6455, and therefore has standing to pursue her property claim that her husband died owning a 1⁄4 interest in the subject property.

5. If Decedent died with a will, testate, which he did, Plaintiff is the sole heir named in the will, and therefore has standing to standing to pursue her property claim that her husband died owning a 1⁄4 interest in the subject property. California state probate code §6240.

6. Therefore, regardless of whether her husband, Decedent, Ravinder Singh Mann, did [sic] with or without will, and regardless of whether Plaintiff is appointed as executor, as the will requires, she still have standing to pursue her property claim that her husband died owning a 1⁄4 interest in the subject property.

(Opposition, 2:26-3:6.)

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument. Here, Plaintiff alleges that Decedent conveyed his 1⁄2 interest in the Property to himself and Hardip as joint “owners” with right of survivorship. (SAC, ¶ 13.) As a result of this type of conveyance the Decedent’s interest would pass to Hardip upon Decedent’s death, and is not part of Decedent’s estate. Although Plaintiff alleges that the conveyance was a “tenancy in common by default.” (SAC, ¶ 14), the Decedent’s interest in the property becomes a part of his estate. There are no allegations that Decedent’s will has been administered, giving Plaintiff a legal interest in the Property.

As such the demurrer that Plaintiff lacks standing is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend as this is only Defendants’ second challenge to the complaint.

Plaintiff may file and serve a third amended complaint (“TAC”) by no later than March 24, 2025.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

Response to be filed and served within 30 days thereafter, 35 days if the TAC is served by mail. (Although not required by any statute or rule of court, Plaintiff is requested to attach a copy of the instant minute order to the TAC to facilitate the filing of the pleading.)

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

Moving party has indicated the incorrect address in its notice of motion. The correct address for Department 54 of the Sacramento County Superior Court is 813 6th Street, Sacramento California 95814. Moving party shall notify responding party(ies) immediately.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

23CV013483: MANN vs MANN, et al. 03/13/2025 Hearing on Demurrer to Complaint in Department 54

13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.