In the Matter of Neil Smith

34-2023-00333493-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Neil Smith 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Demurrer to Petitioner Glen Sawyer's First Amended Petition to Determine Claim to Property in Department 126

Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 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.

TENTATIVE RULING Administrator and Respondent Jessica Reyes’ (“Respondent”) demurrer to Petitioner Glen Sawyer (“Petitioner”) Amended Petition is SUSTAINED without leave to amend.

On September 2, 2025, Petitioner brought this petition to determine claim to real property and claim for priority reimbursement and equitable interest under Probate Code section 850. Petitioner seeks a determination that he holds an equitable interest in the real property located at 88 El Camino Ave, Sacramento, CA 95815, legally described APN: 275-0011-008-0000 (the “Property”), seeks reimbursements of mortgage payments and improvements, and seeks to enjoin the estate from transferring or disposing of the property until his claim is resolved.

Respondent’s demurrer to the petition was sustained with leave to amend on January 21, 2026. On January 22, 2026, Petitioner filed an amended petition, seeking priority reimbursement, a constructive trust or equitable lien, and other relief.

Respondent demurs to the amended petition in its entirety on the grounds that the petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 430.10(e). Respondent argues that Petitioner never owned the Property and is a tenant with only an interest in possession pursuant to tenancy laws. (Id., 2:2-3.)

A demurrer may be sustained if “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).)

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 “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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333493-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Neil Smith 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Demurrer to Petitioner Glen Sawyer's First Amended Petition to Determine Claim to Property in Department 126

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 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.) “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.)

The Court notes Respondent did not file a declaration stating her meet and confer efforts pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, § 430.41. Nonetheless, Petitioner did not object to the demurrer on this basis. Thus, the Court proceeds on the merits. (Code of Civil Procedure, § 430.41(a)(4) [insufficient meet and confer efforts “shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.”].)

Petitioner first claims standing under Probate Code section 48 as a creditor. “[Probate Code] Section 9100 states that a creditor must file a claim in a probate proceeding either within four months after the court appoints a personal representative or within 60 days after notice,” and that the failure to comply with these time requirements bars the claim under Probate Code Section 9002, subd. (b). (Estate of Bonzi (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1103.) Petitioner does not allege that he complied with the time requirements of Probate Code section 9100 or that his claim is not time barred.

Next, Petitioner claims standing under 850(a)(2)(C), which allows a personal representative or interested party to petition the court, “[w]here the decedent died in possession of, or holding title to, real or personal property, and the property or some interest therein is claimed to belong to another.” (Prob. Code, § 850.) Petitioner states that “Petitioner was in possession of the Property at the time of filing,” and that “[p]ersons in possession may bring a §850 petition.” (Amended Petition, 5:12-13 [emphasis added].) Petitioner does not assert that he has an interest the Property or that the Property belongs to him, but rather that he paid funds towards the Property’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333493-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Neil Smith 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Demurrer to Petitioner Glen Sawyer's First Amended Petition to Determine Claim to Property in Department 126

maintenance and care. (Amended Petition, 3:17-24.) Petitioner also doesn’t state that the decedent died in possession of, or holding title to, the funds paid by Petitioner.

Petitioner’s final authority for his petition is Probate Code section 850(a)(3)(A), which states, “(a) The following persons may file a petition requesting that the court make an order under this part: (3) The trustee or any interested person in any of the following cases: (A) Where the trustee is in possession of, or holds title to, real or personal property, and the property, or some interest, is claimed to belong to another.” This basis fails at the outset, as there is no allegation that a trustee is possession of, or holds title to, the real property or funds paid by Petitioner.

Petitioner opposes on the grounds that the demurrer is untimely. However, “an interested party may file a demurrer to a petition under the Probate Code ‘at or before the hearing.’” (Goebner v. Superior Court (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 1105, 1111.) Further, by this Court’s order on February 24, 2026, Respondent was required to file and serve any written objection no later than 14 days prior to the hearing on April 28, 2026. Respondent filed this demurrer on April 14, 2026. The demurrer is timely.

Petitioner misconstrues the Court’s probate examiner notes to assert that the amended petition is “procedurally sufficient.” (Opposition, 2:1-6.) The probate examiner notes, relating to the amended petition’s supporting exhibits, are distinct from Respondent’s demurrer, which “test[s] the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law.” (Salimi, supra, 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219.) Petitioner’s argument that the demurrer is moot on this basis is unsupported by any legal authority and is rejected. (See Tanguilig v. Valdez (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 514, 520.)

Because Petitioner’s amended petition does not state facts sufficient to establish a creditor’s claim to real property or funds held by the decedent, the Petition “lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief.” (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) The demurrer is sustained.

The demurrer is SUSTAINED without leave to amend. Petitioner was given leave to amend pursuant to this Court’s order on January 21, 2026, did not request leave to amend in opposing this demurrer to the amended petition, and did not explain whether the defects can be cured. A demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend absent a showing that a reasonable possibility exists that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Blank v. Kirwan, supra, 39 Cal.3d at 311.)

Respondent is directed to submit a formal order for the Court’s signature.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333493-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Neil Smith 05/06/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Demurrer to Petitioner Glen Sawyer's First Amended Petition to Determine Claim to Property in Department 126