RAJAREI D. SUMERA VS. THE ESTATE OF GEORGE R. ALSTON ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, June 24, 2025, Line 5. DEFENDANT DOUGLAS ALSTON ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF GEORGE R. ALSTON, DOUGLAS ALSTON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or In The Alternative Summary Adjudication. (PART TWO OF TWO)

The first argument is that George did not bind himself in writing to convey the Property to plaintiff. Even setting aside that the two facts supporting this argument do not clearly establish that George did not bind himself in writing, the argument does not address the second allegation made by plaintiff as to defendant in his capacity as trustee that George died in possession of or holding title to the Property and the Property is claimed to belong to plaintiff. Thus, for this argument to be successful, defendant must also establish his second argument discussed in the next paragraph of this ruling.

The second argument is that there is no evidence that George died holding title to the Property belonging to plaintiff. While this is the one argument that defendant satisfied his summary motion burden, plaintiff presented sufficient facts creating a triable dispute showing that George died holding title to the Property as trustee and plaintiff claims the Property belongs to him by virtue of George's promises to convey the Property to plaintiff. (Declarations of plaintiff and his father).

The third argument is that plaintiff's claim against the defendant as administrator is barred by CCP 366.3. This section is not relevant to plaintiff's claim since plaintiff does not allege that he was promised a distribution from an estate or trust or under another instrument.

The fourth argument is that plaintiff's claim against the defendant as administrator is barred by the statute of frauds. Yet defendant fails to sustain his summary motion burden as to this issue since he does not present any facts showing that George's alleged promise to convey the Property to plaintiff could not be performed within a year of the making of that promise or that George's alleged promise involved the sale of the Property to plaintiff. (Civil Code 1624(a)(1) and (3)).

For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.

Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.