SEAN LYONS TRUST BY TRUSTEE SEAN LYONS JOHNSON vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.

First, “although generally nonattorney trustees cannot appear in propria persona because they are representing the interests of others, a trustee who is also the only settlor and beneficiary “does not appear in court proceedings concerning the trust in a representative capacity.” [Citation] 25CV144333: SEAN LYONS TRUST BY TRUSTEE SEAN LYONS JOHNSON vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Paintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 625376752967 in Department 520 Instead, such a trustee “represents his or her own interests, not someone else's,” and therefore has the right to self-representation. [Citation].” (Boshernitsan v. Bach (2021) 61 Cal.App.5th 883, 894.)

Here, Plaintiff represents that he is the Trust’s sole beneficiary and trustor or settlor. (FAC ¶ 5; Ex. C, p. 69.) Thus, although the Court ordered Plaintiff to obtain counsel in its January 15, 2026 Order sustaining with leave to amend Defendant’s first Demurrer, Plaintiff cured its standing issue in amending the FAC to sue as Sean Lyons Trust, by trustee Sean Lyons Johnson, as opposed to originally bringing suit as the Lyon Stone Trust. Accordingly, Plaintiff may represent the trust in pro per.

First Cause of Action: Conversion

“Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another.” (Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 451-452.) “The elements of a conversion are the plaintiff's ownership or right to possession of the property at the time of the conversion; the defendant's conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and damages.” (Ibid.) Neither legal title nor absolute ownership of the property is necessary; a party need only allege it is entitled to immediate possession at the time of conversion. (Ibid.) “Money can be the subject of an action for conversion if a specific sum capable of identification is involved.” (Ibid.)

Defendant demurs to the first causes of action on the grounds that the FAC fails to identify the trust payment documents attached to the FAC as legal tender, as they are “confusing and unintelligible [as] . . . . [t]hey do not represent an actual attempt to make a payment[.]” (MPA, pp. 10:28-11:3.) Further, Plaintiff fails to allege any ill intention or purpose on Defendant's part. The Court agrees with Defendant that the allegations are not sufficient to identify how the conduct was wrongful; however, Plaintiff offers some specific examples in its limited supplemental brief which reflect that it may be able to sufficiently cure these defects. (Supp. pp. 5:22-6:17.)

Accordingly, the Court SUSTAINS the Demurrer to the first cause of action WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Second Cause of Action: Money Had and Received

Here, the FAC alleges that Plaintiff tendered the subject ‘Trust Payment’ (FAC, ¶ 1, Ex. B) to Defendant for a mortgage loan Defendant services; Defendant received it but thereafter did not use it for its intended purpose; and retained it despite having no basis to do so given its refusal to process it as a valid form of payment. (FAC, ¶¶ 10-12.) Thus, Plaintiff has not yet received it back or obtained documentation to show its application. (Id. at ¶¶ 27-28.) In other

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV144333: SEAN LYONS TRUST BY TRUSTEE SEAN LYONS JOHNSON vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Paintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 625376752967 in Department 520 words, Plaintiff’s claim appears to rely on Defendant’s continued physical possession of the ‘Trust Payment’ despite not having any use for it.

However, at the hearing it was clear that the second cause of action could be further amended to more clearly and concisely state the basis for concluding that the documents in Exhibit B represent "money" or a "monetary instrument." As it stands now, Plaintiff must offer a series of explanations to "connect the dots" between the documents in Exhibit B to conclude that "money" or a "monetary instrument" was actually given to Defendant. The explanation does not currently appear in the operative pleading.

Therefore, the Demurrer to the second cause of action is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Third Cause of Action: Accounting

An action for an accounting has two elements: (1) “that a relationship exists between the plaintiff and defendant that requires an accounting” and (2) “that some balance is due the plaintiff that can only be ascertained by an accounting. (Sass v. Cohen (2020) 10 Cal.5th 861, 869.)

‘A suit for an accounting will not lie where it appears from the complaint that none is necessary or that there is an adequate remedy at law. (Citations.) An accounting will not be accorded with respect to a sum that a plaintiff seeks to recover and alleges in his complaint to be a sum certain.’ (St. James Church v. Superior Court (1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 352, 359, 287 P.2d 387, 391.) (Civic Western Corp. v. Zila Industries, Inc. (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 1, 14.)

Here, it is not clear why Plaintiff requires an accounting if it claims that it tendered $349,026.31 and it was not applied whatsoever according to its purpose; however, to the extent that Plaintiff may assert facts to explain a basis for its belief that it is necessary, the Demurrer to the third cause of action is also SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint by no later than June 18, 2026.

Plaintiff is cautioned that when the court has already sustained a demurrer to a similar cause of action with leave to amend, and plaintiffs do not remedy the facial deficiencies, the Court may “infer that the pleader has no additional allegations with which to make its claim certain and has already pleaded its case to best advantage” and conclude that permitting a further opportunity for amendment would be futile. (Cf. Hills Transp. Co. v. Sw. Forest Indus., Inc. (1968) 266Cal.App.2d 702, 713-714.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV144333: SEAN LYONS TRUST BY TRUSTEE SEAN LYONS JOHNSON vs SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Paintiff's First Amended Complaint; filed by Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# 625376752967 in Department 520

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on May 28, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on May 27, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.