Preview
BETTS & RUBIN, A Professional Corporation E-FILED
Attorneys at Law 6/12/2020 3:01 PM
907 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 201 Superior Court of California
Fresno, California 93721 County of Fresno
AWN Telephone: (559) 438-8500
By: A. Ramos, Deputy
Facsimile: (559) 438-6959
James B. Betts (State Bar #1 10222)
Joseph D. Rubin (State Bar #149920)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Janet L. Seibert, as Trustee of
the Janet Louise Seibert Trust
\OOOQQUI
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 COUNTY OF FRESNO
11
12 JANET L. SEIBERT, as Trustee ofthe ) Case No. 1QCECGOOZB8
Janet Louise Seibert Trust,
13 g
Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
14 ) AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
v. ) MOTION T0 JOIN
15 ) INDISPENSABLE PARTY
)
16 WENDY SEIBERT and DOES 1-20, ) DATE: June 25, 2020
inclusive ) TIME: 9:30 a.m.
17 ) DEPT: 502
Defendants. )
JUDGE: Alan M. Simpson
18 ) TRIAL DATE: August 3, 2010
)
19 )
)
20 )
)
21 )
22 Plaintiff Janet Louise Seibert, Trustee, respectfully submits the following Opposition
23 to Motion to Join Indispensable Party.
24 I. INTRODUCTION
25 This is a quiettitle action involving certain real property located in Sanger, California,
26 owned by the Janet Louise Seibert Trust (“Trust”). Defendant brings the instant motion to
27 force the joinder of Plaintiff’s son, Kyle Seibert, as an indispensable party. Defendant’s
28 motion ispredicated upon her assertion that: “there is no dispute that Kyle has an adverse
Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities
claim to the property” (Defendant’s Points and Authorities p.3210).
Succinctly stated, Defendant is wrong. Kyle Seibert, the asserted indispensable
UJN
party, specifically denies that his mother promised to gift Defendant and himself an interest
in the subject property; denies that he has any interest in the property except as a
remainder beneficiary of the Trust, and states that he has no interest in jointing this lawsuit
(Declaration of Kyle Seibert 1m 4,5 and 6). As such, Defendant’s motion should be denied.
\OOOQQUI-h
ll. BACKGROUND FACTS
In 1993, Grantors Robert and Harriet Wolf created The Wolf Family Irrevocable
Trust. The principal asset of the Wolf Family Irrevocable Trust was, ’and is, real property
1o located in Sanger, California, which is commonly referred to as Wolf Lakes. (Declaration
11 of Janet Seibert 1] 4)
12 The Wolf Family Irrevocable Trust also created two irrevocable sub-trusts, including
13 the Janet Louise Seibert Trust (also referred to as “Trust”) to receive a portion of the
14 subject real property. Janet Seibert is the sole named beneficiary and the sole Trustee of
15 the Trust. The Trust is a generation skipping trust, and designates Plaintiff’s children as
16 remainder beneficiaries. The express terms of both the Wolf Family Irrevocable Trust and
17 the Janet Louise Seibert Trust prohibit Plaintiff from gifting or transferring Trust property
18 without receiving adequate consideration. (Dec of J. Seibert 1m 5—8)
19 Plaintiff’s eldest son, Kyle Seibert, married Defendant Wendy Seibert. In
20 approximately 2010, Plaintiff allowed her son and daughter-in—Iaw to build a single family
21 residence on a portion of the Trust property. However, Plaintiff never promised to “gift”
22 them any portion of the Trust property, and never transferred the subject property, to Kyle
23 or Wendy Seibert. (Dec of J. Seibert 11119,10)
24 Title to the subject property is, and at all times herein relevant has been, exclusively
25 in the name of the Trust, which pays all real estate taxes on the property. (Dec of J.
26 Seibert, 11 11).
27 In Defendant Wendy Seibert’s recent deposition, she testified that:
28 ~
Plaintiff Janet Seibert promised to gift 20 acres of Trust property to Kyle and
- 2 -
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
herself, and, as a result, she built a single family residence on a certain
portion of that property. (Defendant deposition p. 38:23-3929);
-
She has no documentation which reflects Plaintiff Janet Seibert’s purported
promise. (Defendant deposition p. 50:2—9);
“001-9-le
-
She does not know who owns the property today. (Defendant deposition
p.36:15-17); and
-
She did not give or pay anything in exchange for her ownership of the
m property. (Defendant deposition p.108225-109:6).
(See Declaration of James B. Betts, 113)
10 Defendant and Kyle Seibert subsequently divorced, and the parties’ relationship
11 became strained. Despite this strain, Plaintiff has allowed Defendant and her chiidren to
12 continue to occupythe single family residence which was built on Trust property. However,
13 in response to Defendant’s assertions that she owns the real property upon which the
14 single family residence is built, Plaintiff initiated this quiet titleaction.
15 Finally, Defendant asserts in the instant motion that Plaintiff’s son, Kyle Seibert, is
16 an indispensable party because:
17 -
he was gifted an interest in the Trust property along with Defendant; and
18 °
he also has an “adverse claim” to the property.
19 However, Kyle Seibert disputes Defendant’s contentions, and admits that he has no
20 interest in the property, except as a remainder beneficiary under the Trust. (Dec. Of K.
21 Seibert 1m 4,5)
22 Ill. KYLE SEIBERT IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY
23 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 389(a), a person must be made a party
24 to a proceeding if:(1) in his absence complete relief can not be accorded among those
25 already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so
26 situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair
27 or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii)leave any of the persons already parties
28 subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent
- 3 -
Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities
obligations by reason of his claim interest. lf such a person can not be joined, the Court
shall determine whether an equity and good conscience the action should proceed among
AWN the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being
thus regarded as indispensable.
While itis just one of the factors listed in CCP Section 389(b) to determine whether
an unjoined person is an indispensable party, potential prejudice to that unjoined person
is
\OOOVGUI
of critical importance. Specifically, the controlling test for determining whether a person
an indispensable party is where the Plaintiff seeks some type of affirmative relief which,
if granted, would injure or affect the interest of a third person. Ifso, that person is an
10 indispensable party. Tracv Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at 1298.
11 In other words, a person is an indispensable party if his or her rights must necessarily be
12 affected by the judgment. Save Our Bav. Inc. v. San Dieqo Unified Port Dist. (1996) 42
13 Cal.App.4th 686, 692-3.
14 Failure tojoin an indispensable party is not ajurisdictional defect in the fundamental
15 sense; even in the absence of an indispensable party, the Court stillhas the power to
16 render a decision as to the parties before itwhich will stand. Itis for reasons of equity and
17 convenience, and not because itis without power to proceed, that the court should not
18 proceed with a case where itdetermines that an indispensable party isabsent and can not
19 be joined. Save Our Bay, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p.693.
20 In the instant case, Defendant claims that Plaintiff gifted 20 acres of Trust property
21 to her and her then husband, Kyle Seibert (Dec of Wendy Seibert 117). Contrary to
22 Defendant’s contentions, Kyle Seibert denies that Plaintiff ever promised to gift the subject
23 property to him or Defendant Wendy Seibert. Kyle Seibert further states that he does not
24 claim to have any interest in the property separate and apart from his status as a residual
25 beneficiary under the Trust. (Dec. Of K. Seibert 1m 4,5)
26 As a result, the requested determination in this action, (Le. that Wendy Seibert is
27 not an owner of the subject property), does not in any way impact or infringe upon the
28 interests of Kyle Seibert. Thus, under the “controlling test” for an indispensable party,
- 4 -
Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities
Plaintiff’s requested relief, ifgranted, does not threaten to injure or affect the rights of Kyle
Seibert.
#UJN
Similarly, none of the factors identified in CCP § 389(3) weigh in favor of a finding
that Kyle Seibert is an indispensable party. Specifically, because Wendy Seibert is the
only individual who claims an adverse interest in the Trust property, complete relief can be
accorded amongstthe existing parties. Stated differently, because Kyle Seibert denies that
\OOONONU‘I
he possesses an adverse interest in the property, this Court can issue Judgment to quiet
title in the name of the Trust without impairing any rights Kyle Seibert may have. In
addition, because Kyle Seibert does not claim any interest in the property, the disposition
10 of this case can not lead to a multiplicity of actions. Rather, Defendant’s motion is just an
11 attempt to extend the reach of Wendy and Kyle Seibert’s acrimonious divorce proceedings
12 into a straightforward case regarding titleto real property owned by the Janet L. Seibert
l3 Trust.
14 IV. CONCLUSION
15 The fundamental premise of Defendant’s motion is her assertion that her ex-
16 husband, Kyle Seibert, possesses an “adverse interest” in the subject real property.
17 However, Kyle Seibert expressly denies this contention. (Dec. of K. Seibert 1m 4,5). As
18 such, complete relief can be afforded in the absence of Kyle Seibert as a party, and
19 Defendant’s motion should be denied.
20
21 DATED: June g} 2020 BETTS & RUBIN
22
23
24
EVE?»
”James B.
Attorneys for
Betts
Plaintiff
w
Janet Seibert as
Trustee of the Janet Louise Seibert Trust
25
26
27
28
- 5 —
Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities
PROOF OF SERVICE
l am a citizen of the United State of America, a resident of Fresno County,
California, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within-entitled cause or matter.
My business address is 907 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 201, Fresno, California 93721. On
June 12, 2020, | caused to be served MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTY on the parties in this
action by placing a copy in an envelope and delivering it as follows:
\OOOflQUl-hwwp—A
X (By Mail) |placed the envelope for collection and processing for mailing following
this business’ ordinary practice with which |am readily familiar. On the same day
correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary
course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid.
X (By Electronic Mail) | caused each documentto be sentelectronicallytothe
address above.
(By Hand) I caused each envelope to be delivered by hand.
Each envelope was addressed as follows:
William J. Keeler
Garvey Schubert Barer
121 SW Morrison Street, 11*“ Floor
Portland, OR 97204
Email: wkeeler@gsblaw.com
I deciare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the
above is true and correct. Executed on June 12, 2020, at Fresno, California.
OOQCNm-bWNHOOOOQQMAWNh-‘O
amt»
Adriana Garcia
{Ma 30MB.
- 6 -
Memorandum of Points and Authorities
Preview
BETTS & RUBIN, A Professional Corporation E-FILED Attorneys at Law 6/12/2020 3:01 PM 907 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 201 Superior Court of California Fresno, California 93721 County of Fresno AWN Telephone: (559) 438-8500 By: A. Ramos, Deputy Facsimile: (559) 438-6959 James B. Betts (State Bar #1 10222) Joseph D. Rubin (State Bar #149920) Attorneys for Plaintiff Janet L. Seibert, as Trustee of the Janet Louise Seibert Trust \OOOQQUI SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 COUNTY OF FRESNO 11 12 JANET L. SEIBERT, as Trustee ofthe ) Case No. 1QCECGOOZB8 Janet Louise Seibert Trust, 13 g Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 14 ) AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO v. ) MOTION T0 JOIN 15 ) INDISPENSABLE PARTY ) 16 WENDY SEIBERT and DOES 1-20, ) DATE: June 25, 2020 inclusive ) TIME: 9:30 a.m. 17 ) DEPT: 502 Defendants. ) JUDGE: Alan M. Simpson 18 ) TRIAL DATE: August 3, 2010 ) 19 ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) 22 Plaintiff Janet Louise Seibert, Trustee, respectfully submits the following Opposition 23 to Motion to Join Indispensable Party. 24 I. INTRODUCTION 25 This is a quiettitle action involving certain real property located in Sanger, California, 26 owned by the Janet Louise Seibert Trust (“Trust”). Defendant brings the instant motion to 27 force the joinder of Plaintiff’s son, Kyle Seibert, as an indispensable party. Defendant’s 28 motion ispredicated upon her assertion that: “there is no dispute that Kyle has an adverse Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities claim to the property” (Defendant’s Points and Authorities p.3210). Succinctly stated, Defendant is wrong. Kyle Seibert, the asserted indispensable UJN party, specifically denies that his mother promised to gift Defendant and himself an interest in the subject property; denies that he has any interest in the property except as a remainder beneficiary of the Trust, and states that he has no interest in jointing this lawsuit (Declaration of Kyle Seibert 1m 4,5 and 6). As such, Defendant’s motion should be denied. \OOOQQUI-h ll. BACKGROUND FACTS In 1993, Grantors Robert and Harriet Wolf created The Wolf Family Irrevocable Trust. The principal asset of the Wolf Family Irrevocable Trust was, ’and is, real property 1o located in Sanger, California, which is commonly referred to as Wolf Lakes. (Declaration 11 of Janet Seibert 1] 4) 12 The Wolf Family Irrevocable Trust also created two irrevocable sub-trusts, including 13 the Janet Louise Seibert Trust (also referred to as “Trust”) to receive a portion of the 14 subject real property. Janet Seibert is the sole named beneficiary and the sole Trustee of 15 the Trust. The Trust is a generation skipping trust, and designates Plaintiff’s children as 16 remainder beneficiaries. The express terms of both the Wolf Family Irrevocable Trust and 17 the Janet Louise Seibert Trust prohibit Plaintiff from gifting or transferring Trust property 18 without receiving adequate consideration. (Dec of J. Seibert 1m 5—8) 19 Plaintiff’s eldest son, Kyle Seibert, married Defendant Wendy Seibert. In 20 approximately 2010, Plaintiff allowed her son and daughter-in—Iaw to build a single family 21 residence on a portion of the Trust property. However, Plaintiff never promised to “gift” 22 them any portion of the Trust property, and never transferred the subject property, to Kyle 23 or Wendy Seibert. (Dec of J. Seibert 11119,10) 24 Title to the subject property is, and at all times herein relevant has been, exclusively 25 in the name of the Trust, which pays all real estate taxes on the property. (Dec of J. 26 Seibert, 11 11). 27 In Defendant Wendy Seibert’s recent deposition, she testified that: 28 ~ Plaintiff Janet Seibert promised to gift 20 acres of Trust property to Kyle and - 2 - Memorandum of Points and Authorities herself, and, as a result, she built a single family residence on a certain portion of that property. (Defendant deposition p. 38:23-3929); - She has no documentation which reflects Plaintiff Janet Seibert’s purported promise. (Defendant deposition p. 50:2—9); “001-9-le - She does not know who owns the property today. (Defendant deposition p.36:15-17); and - She did not give or pay anything in exchange for her ownership of the m property. (Defendant deposition p.108225-109:6). (See Declaration of James B. Betts, 113) 10 Defendant and Kyle Seibert subsequently divorced, and the parties’ relationship 11 became strained. Despite this strain, Plaintiff has allowed Defendant and her chiidren to 12 continue to occupythe single family residence which was built on Trust property. However, 13 in response to Defendant’s assertions that she owns the real property upon which the 14 single family residence is built, Plaintiff initiated this quiet titleaction. 15 Finally, Defendant asserts in the instant motion that Plaintiff’s son, Kyle Seibert, is 16 an indispensable party because: 17 - he was gifted an interest in the Trust property along with Defendant; and 18 ° he also has an “adverse claim” to the property. 19 However, Kyle Seibert disputes Defendant’s contentions, and admits that he has no 20 interest in the property, except as a remainder beneficiary under the Trust. (Dec. Of K. 21 Seibert 1m 4,5) 22 Ill. KYLE SEIBERT IS NOT AN INDISPENSABLE PARTY 23 Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 389(a), a person must be made a party 24 to a proceeding if:(1) in his absence complete relief can not be accorded among those 25 already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so 26 situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair 27 or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii)leave any of the persons already parties 28 subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent - 3 - Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities obligations by reason of his claim interest. lf such a person can not be joined, the Court shall determine whether an equity and good conscience the action should proceed among AWN the parties before it, or should be dismissed without prejudice, the absent person being thus regarded as indispensable. While itis just one of the factors listed in CCP Section 389(b) to determine whether an unjoined person is an indispensable party, potential prejudice to that unjoined person is \OOOVGUI of critical importance. Specifically, the controlling test for determining whether a person an indispensable party is where the Plaintiff seeks some type of affirmative relief which, if granted, would injure or affect the interest of a third person. Ifso, that person is an 10 indispensable party. Tracv Press, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, 164 Cal.App.4th at 1298. 11 In other words, a person is an indispensable party if his or her rights must necessarily be 12 affected by the judgment. Save Our Bav. Inc. v. San Dieqo Unified Port Dist. (1996) 42 13 Cal.App.4th 686, 692-3. 14 Failure tojoin an indispensable party is not ajurisdictional defect in the fundamental 15 sense; even in the absence of an indispensable party, the Court stillhas the power to 16 render a decision as to the parties before itwhich will stand. Itis for reasons of equity and 17 convenience, and not because itis without power to proceed, that the court should not 18 proceed with a case where itdetermines that an indispensable party isabsent and can not 19 be joined. Save Our Bay, supra, 42 Cal.App.4th at p.693. 20 In the instant case, Defendant claims that Plaintiff gifted 20 acres of Trust property 21 to her and her then husband, Kyle Seibert (Dec of Wendy Seibert 117). Contrary to 22 Defendant’s contentions, Kyle Seibert denies that Plaintiff ever promised to gift the subject 23 property to him or Defendant Wendy Seibert. Kyle Seibert further states that he does not 24 claim to have any interest in the property separate and apart from his status as a residual 25 beneficiary under the Trust. (Dec. Of K. Seibert 1m 4,5) 26 As a result, the requested determination in this action, (Le. that Wendy Seibert is 27 not an owner of the subject property), does not in any way impact or infringe upon the 28 interests of Kyle Seibert. Thus, under the “controlling test” for an indispensable party, - 4 - Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities Plaintiff’s requested relief, ifgranted, does not threaten to injure or affect the rights of Kyle Seibert. #UJN Similarly, none of the factors identified in CCP § 389(3) weigh in favor of a finding that Kyle Seibert is an indispensable party. Specifically, because Wendy Seibert is the only individual who claims an adverse interest in the Trust property, complete relief can be accorded amongstthe existing parties. Stated differently, because Kyle Seibert denies that \OOONONU‘I he possesses an adverse interest in the property, this Court can issue Judgment to quiet title in the name of the Trust without impairing any rights Kyle Seibert may have. In addition, because Kyle Seibert does not claim any interest in the property, the disposition 10 of this case can not lead to a multiplicity of actions. Rather, Defendant’s motion is just an 11 attempt to extend the reach of Wendy and Kyle Seibert’s acrimonious divorce proceedings 12 into a straightforward case regarding titleto real property owned by the Janet L. Seibert l3 Trust. 14 IV. CONCLUSION 15 The fundamental premise of Defendant’s motion is her assertion that her ex- 16 husband, Kyle Seibert, possesses an “adverse interest” in the subject real property. 17 However, Kyle Seibert expressly denies this contention. (Dec. of K. Seibert 1m 4,5). As 18 such, complete relief can be afforded in the absence of Kyle Seibert as a party, and 19 Defendant’s motion should be denied. 20 21 DATED: June g} 2020 BETTS & RUBIN 22 23 24 EVE?» ”James B. Attorneys for Betts Plaintiff w Janet Seibert as Trustee of the Janet Louise Seibert Trust 25 26 27 28 - 5 — Memorandum of Pointsand Authorities PROOF OF SERVICE l am a citizen of the United State of America, a resident of Fresno County, California, over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within-entitled cause or matter. My business address is 907 Santa Fe Avenue, Suite 201, Fresno, California 93721. On June 12, 2020, | caused to be served MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO JOIN INDISPENSABLE PARTY on the parties in this action by placing a copy in an envelope and delivering it as follows: \OOOflQUl-hwwp—A X (By Mail) |placed the envelope for collection and processing for mailing following this business’ ordinary practice with which |am readily familiar. On the same day correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, itis deposited in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. X (By Electronic Mail) | caused each documentto be sentelectronicallytothe address above. (By Hand) I caused each envelope to be delivered by hand. Each envelope was addressed as follows: William J. Keeler Garvey Schubert Barer 121 SW Morrison Street, 11*“ Floor Portland, OR 97204 Email: wkeeler@gsblaw.com I deciare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on June 12, 2020, at Fresno, California. OOQCNm-bWNHOOOOQQMAWNh-‘O amt» Adriana Garcia {Ma 30MB. - 6 - Memorandum of Points and Authorities