IN THE MATTER OF BEZHAD MOHIT-LINDA SOFIA VELA REVOCABLE TRUST

PLEASE NOTE: Probate cases that are designated as confidential by California law will not be posted online. For tentative rulings in those matters, please contact the judicial secretary at (415) 444- 7260. Page 5 | 14

Petitioner alleges that during her relationship with Decedent she had relied on Decedent’s professional advice with regard to finances, including loans against real properties. As a result, when the couple broke up and Petitioner moved back to her own home, her mortgage had increased from $179,000 to $500,000. On August 1, 2017, Decedent executed a First Amendment to Trust (“Amendment”) reducing the amount of distribution to Petitioner from $1,000,000 to $500,000. On that same day, Decedent wrote a check to Petitioner in the amount of $500,000, allegedly to pay off the mortgage.

Petitioner remained as sole Trustee of the Trust, as amended. Petitioner alleges that Decedent also executed a will in 2018, providing that all assets “other than what is needed to fulfill the existing living trust for Linda Vela, shall be equally divided between my daughters, Maryam Sedi Mohit and Juliet Mitra Mohit.” Decedent died on November 2, 2023, survived by two daughters Maryann Mohit and Juliet Mohit (“Respondents” and “Heirs”). After Decedent’s death, Petitioner learned that the South Beach Property had been sold on December 1, 2021, for $950,000.

Petitioner alleges that Respondents authorized the sale of the South Beach Property without Petitioner’s consent as Trustee. Petitioner further alleges that she has not received the distribution of $500,000 required by the Trust. Petitioner brings this action for construction of trust, ademption of specific gift, abatement of specific gift, recovery of Trust property, and enforcement of a testamentary promise. Among other relief, Petitioner requests double damages under Probate Code section 859.

Respondents filed a response and objection (“Response”) on July 7, 2025. The Court now considers Petitioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

LEGAL STANDARD A party may bring a statutory motion for judgment on the pleadings as to the entire complaint or any cause of action stated therein. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(2)(A).) A plaintiff may move for judgment on the pleadings only after the defendant has filed an answer to the complaint and the plaintiff’s time to demur to the answer has expired. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (f)(1).) The sole ground on which a plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings may be brought is that “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ.

Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A).) Grounds for a motion for judgment on the pleadings must appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from matters properly subject to judicial notice. (See Code. Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (d).) As on a demurrer, the pleading includes matters shown in exhibits attached to it or incorporated by reference. (Frantz v. Blackwell (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 91, 94; Alameda County Waste Management Authority v. Waste Connections US, Inc. (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 1162, 1173-74 [rules governing demurrers apply to motions for judgment on the pleadings except to the extent provided by statute].) “[J]udgment on the pleadings must be denied where there are material factual issues that require evidentiary resolution.” (Schabarum v.

California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216.) A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted with or without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (h).) If a demurrer is directed to the entire complaint, the entire demurrer must be overruled if any cause of action is properly stated. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.50; Steams Ranchos Co. v. Atchison, T & S.F.Ry, (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 36.)

PLEASE NOTE: Probate cases that are designated as confidential by California law will not be posted online. For tentative rulings in those matters, please contact the judicial secretary at (415) 444- 7260. Page 6 | 14

DISCUSSION

Affirmative Defenses. The Response contains multiple affirmative defenses, including (but not limited to) waiver, unclean hands, and unjust enrichment. Petitioner’s brief does not acknowledge the existence of the Response’s affirmative defenses. Because the Response contains affirmative defenses, Petitioner necessarily cannot establish that “the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(1)(A)) if they are completely silent as to the affirmative defenses. Because of Petitioner’s failure to address the Response in its entirety, including the alleged affirmative defenses, the Court need not reach the merits of the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

PR0001332 IN THE MATTER OF LEANNE L. HENDRIX

Petition for Final Distribution on Waiver of Account on First and Final Report of Executor; for Waiver of Statutory Compensation to Executor; for Allowance of Statutory Compensation to Attorney, for Reimbursement of Costs Advanced to Attorney; and, for Retention of Reserve, filed by Brad W. Pennington on 4/14/26.

Ruling. Absent objections, this Petition will be granted without hearing.

PR0001389 IN THE MATTER OF JULIANA GREVESMUHL

Verified Petition for Order (1) Determining Claim to Trust Property (Probate Code § 850); (2) Cancellation of Void Instrument (Civil Code § 3412); (3) Imposition of Constructive Trust; (4) Financial Elder Abuse; (5) Double Damages (Probate Code § 859); (6) Accounting and Surcharge; (7) Fraud, filed by Maria L. Mandolini on 4/15/26.

Ruling. The parties are ordered to appear.

PR0001439 IN THE MATTER OF BERNICE G. REHNEN

Petition for Final Distribution on Approval of First and Final Account and for Allowance of Executor Fee and Attorney Fee, filed by David E. Perotti on 3/4/26.

Ruling. Absent objections, this Petition will be granted without hearing.