In the matter of The Edward Robert Abelia Revocable Trust

34-2021-00302927-PR-TR-FRC: In the matter of The Edward Robert Abelia Revocable Trust 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion of Demurrer in Department 126

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER BY SUNNY ABELIA TO PETITIONER SHELLIE ADAME’S PETITION FOR ORDER TO TRANSFER TITLE TO AND POSSESSION OF REAL PROPERTY AND COMPLAINT FOR RESULTING TRUST; CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST; QUIET TITLE; COMMON COUNTS FOR MONIES PAID AND SERVICES RENDERED; UNJUST ENRICHMENT

MOTION FILED: 5/6/2026

RE: In the Matter of: The Edward Robert Abelia Revocable Trust

Moving Party: Respondent and Trustee Sunny Abelia Attorney: Miranda Fernandez, (916) 282-3600

Responding Party: Petitioner Shellie Adame Attorney: Nicholas Yonano, (916) 817-4422

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2526 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure § 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept126 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 160 5926 9604. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code § 68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website

34-2021-00302927-PR-TR-FRC: In the matter of The Edward Robert Abelia Revocable Trust 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion of Demurrer in Department 126

at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official 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 Trustee and Respondent Sunny Abelia’s (“Respondent”) demurrer to Petitioner’s petition is OVERRULED as follows.

Petitioner Shellie Adame (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to transfer title to and possession of real property arising from an alleged agreement between Petitioner and now-deceased successor trustee and sole beneficiary Vanessa M. Lopez (also referred to as Vanessa Abelia by Respondent). Petitioner indicates she relied on this agreement when contributing improvements, maintenance, and repairs to the property, exceeding $75,000. (Petition, 4:23-27.)

Respondent demurs to the entire petition on basis that it fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action because, in light of Vanessa’s passing, each claim is time-barred by Code of Civil Procedure, sections 366.2 and 366.6. (Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer, 4:2-5:4.) In opposition, Petitioner indicates that no claims are made as to the liability of the person relating to Vanessa, and state the petition seeks only a determination of ownership of the property given the alleged agreement and the improvements to the property provided.

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. 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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2021-00302927-PR-TR-FRC: In the matter of The Edward Robert Abelia Revocable Trust 06/03/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion of Demurrer in Department 126

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, 732-733.) 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 parties dispute the applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, sections 366.2 and 366.3 and whether the claims regarding the ownership of the property are directed towards the liability of decedent Vanessa M. Lopez, or directed toward trust, as the property in dispute is currently held by the trust. Petitioner indicates an agreement occurred regarding the real property, and Petitioner relied on that agreement when rendering contributions and services. (Petition, 5:2-12.) Petitioner is not seeking to enforce liability against Vanessa, but seeks a determination of ownership and possession interests in real property currently held in trust. (Opposition, 5:19-26.)

Accepting the allegations and exhibits as true for purposes of the demurrer, Petitioner provided sufficient facts to state that each cause of action is not time-barred by Code of Civil Procedure, section 366.2 and 366.3. (Serrano v. Priest, supra, 5 Cal.3d at 591.)

The demurrer is OVERRULED.

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