Richard E. Keith Survivors Trust v. Judith Keith

Inadequate Meet and Confer

Defendant’s declaration in support of the demurrer does not explicitly show that she complied with the meet and confer requirements of Code of Civil Procedure Section 430.41, which requires the demurring party to meet and confer “in person or by telephone.” (See Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41(a); Declaration of Neusha N. Ghaedi, ¶ 14, Exh. 2.) Notwithstanding the failure to strictly comply with the meet and confer requirements, the court’s ruling is not based upon the same. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 430.41(a)(4).)

Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleading. (Hernandez v. City of Pomona (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1492, 1497.) As a general rule, in testing a pleading against a demurrer, the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be. (Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604.) The court gives the pleading a reasonable interpretation by reading it as a whole and all of its parts in their context. (Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Calif. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125.)

In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) The face of the complaint includes matters shown in exhibits attached to the complaint and incorporated by reference. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94.) “The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action.” (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.)

A demurrer for uncertainty will be sustained only where the complaint is so bad that defendant cannot reasonably respond—i.e., he or she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against him or her. (Khoury v. Maly's of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616; A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695.) Moreover, a demurrer for uncertainty may

lie if the failure to label the parties and claims renders the complaint so confusing defendant cannot tell what he or she is supposed to respond to. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139 fn. 2.)

If the complaint fails to state a cause of action, the court must grant the plaintiff leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 317.) “Liberality in permitting amendment is the rule, if a fair opportunity to correct any defect has not been given.” (Angie M. v. Sup. Ct. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1227; Stevens v. Sup. Ct. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 601.)

Merits

First Cause of Action – Ejectment

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Defendant argues the action concerns the internal affairs of a trust and therefore falls exclusively within probate jurisdiction pursuant to Probate Code section 17000. The Court agrees in part.

Probate Code section 17000 grants the superior court exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trusts, including proceedings to determine rights, duties, and interests under trust instruments. However, the probate and civil departments are divisions of the same superior court, and the statute concerns departmental allocation rather than fundamental subject matter jurisdiction. (Harnedy v. Whitty (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1344– 45.)

The Complaint seeks possession of trust property based entirely upon interpretation and enforcement of conditions contained in the Fifth Amendment to the Trust. Resolution of the action necessarily requires determination of the scope of Defendant’s occupancy rights under the Trust; whether Defendant materially breached those conditions; and whether such breaches terminated her occupancy rights. These are matters concerning the administration and internal affairs of the Trust. (Prob. Code, § 17200(b).)

Nevertheless, dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is not warranted because the superior court retains fundamental jurisdiction over the controversy. At most, the issue concerns the appropriate department within the superior court. Accordingly, the demurrer is OVERRULED on the ground of lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

B. Sufficiency of the Ejectment Claim

“To state a cause of action for ejectment, a plaintiff must allege: (1) plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; and (2) defendant’s wrongful occupation or withholding of possession.” (2710 Sutter Ventures, LLC v. Millis (2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 842, 850.) The Complaint alleges the Trust holds title to the Property and alleges Defendant’s occupancy rights terminated upon breach of express conditions set forth in the Trust amendment. Plaintiff further alleges Defendant failed to cure after notice and continues to occupy the Property wrongfully.

These allegations are sufficient at the pleading stage to allege a possessory right and wrongful withholding.

Defendant argues a trustee cannot maintain ejectment against a beneficiary. Defendant relies principally on Tyler v. Granger (1874) 48 Cal. 259. However, the Complaint alleges Defendant’s occupancy rights were conditional and terminated upon breach. At the pleading stage, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that Plaintiff lacks standing to seek possession where the Trust instrument allegedly authorizes termination of occupancy rights upon noncompliance. Moreover, Defendant’s submission of extrinsic evidence to support her position is improper at the demurrer stage. (SKF Farms v. Sup. Ct. (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [a demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.”]

Whether Defendant remains a beneficiary with superior possessory rights, whether any breach occurred, and whether termination was proper are factual and interpretive issues not appropriately resolved on demurrer. Accordingly, the demurrer to the First Cause of Action on grounds of failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is OVERRULED.

C. Uncertainty

Finally, Defendant also contends the Complaint is uncertain because it fails to specify the repairs allegedly required or the conduct constituting noncooperation. While the allegations are somewhat general, the Complaint identifies categories of alleged breaches, references written notices and inspections, and provides sufficient notice of the claims asserted. Greater specificity may be obtained through discovery.

The demurrer for uncertainty to the First Cause of Action is therefore OVERRULED.

Second Cause of Action – Breach of Trust Conditions

The second cause of action alleges Defendant breached conditions imposed by the Fifth Amendment to the Trust concerning her occupancy of the Property. Although styled as “Breach of Trust Conditions,” the claim is essentially one for breach of contract, seeking enforcement of occupancy conditions allegedly imposed by the Trust instrument. The elements of a breach of contract claim are: 1) a contract; 2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance; 3) breach; and 4) damages. (Wall Street Network, Ltd. v. N.Y. Times Co. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1171, 1178.)

The Court finds the cause of action sufficiently pleads: the existence of express occupancy conditions; Defendant’s acceptance of the occupancy benefit; alleged breaches of those conditions; and resulting damages and interference with trust administration. At the pleading stage, these allegations are sufficient to state a claim for enforcement of the alleged occupancy conditions and related damages.

To the extent Defendant argues the claim improperly seeks adjudication of internal trust affairs in the civil department, the Court notes again that the issue concerns departmental assignment rather than fundamental jurisdiction.

The demurrer to the Second Cause of Action for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action is therefore OVERRULED.

For the same reasons discussed above, the allegations are sufficiently intelligible to permit a response. The demurrer for uncertainty to the Second Cause of Action is OVERRULED.

All parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(B) to contest the tentative decision. Parties who request oral argument are required to appear in person or remotely by ZOOM. Regardless of whether a party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the prevailing party shall prepare an order consistent with the announced ruling as required by Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.11.

The Zoom appearance information for May, 2026 is as follows: https://marin-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615487764?pwd=Ob4B5J7LLKcpnkxzJjjEOSHNzEGafG.1 Meeting ID: 161 548 7764 Passcode: 502070

If you are unable to join by video, you may join by telephone by calling (669) 254-5252 and using the above-provided passcode. Zoom appearance information may also be found on the Court’s website: https://www.marin.courts.ca.gov