Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Moving Party: Defendant Darla Bell
Responding Party: None (would be Plaintiff in pro per James D. Headgepath)
Ruling: The unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, to sever the Third Cause of Action is DENIED. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 438(c)(1)(B); 1048)
The Third Cause of Action Declaratory Relief seeks a judicial determination and declaration as to “(1) the illegal and unenforceable nature of the Trust and/or Will; (2) that the Trust and/or Will was executed by Decedent Headgepath as a result of ‘undue influence’ pursuant to California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15610.70(a)(1)-(4); (3) a declaration that the distribution of all Decedent Headgepath’s property to Defendant is unconscionable and an inequitable result; and (4) a declaration that Defendant Bell is barred from any recovery for estate property because of her fraudulent and wrongful conduct.” (SAC ¶ 27.)
While the probate division of this court has exclusive jurisdiction to act in a decedent’s estate administration, the probate division does not have exclusive jurisdiction over actions to determine the existence of a trust. (Prob. Code, §§ 7050; 17000(b).) In any case, a nonprobate department entertaining a matter within exclusive probate court jurisdiction does not lack fundamental jurisdiction over the matter. (Harnedy v. Whitty (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1344-1345; In re Michael R. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 126, 146; Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, 695.)
The court finds it would not further judicial expedition and economy to sever the Third Cause of Action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1048(b); Bunch v. Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1283; Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971) 3 Cal.3d 875, 888 [footnote omitted].)
Moving party to give notice.