Preview
Phil Foster (SBN 262120) ELECTRONICALLY
TOUR-SARKISSIAN LAW OFFICES, LLP FILED
211 Gough Street, Third Floor Supertor Court of California,
San Francisco, CA 94102 County of San Francisco
(415) 626-7744 telephone 01/20/2017
(415) 626-8189 facsimile Glorkiet tne Court
phil@tslo.com Deputy Clerk
Attorneys for Respondent
JEANNE KWONG
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PROBATE DIVISION
JENNIFER SHUK-HANKWOK, Case No. PES-10-293505 eee
Petitioner, RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO
PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
v. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN
OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’
JEANNE KWONG, individually and as a}| MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR
former trustee of the Stan Kwong Irrevocable} IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY
Trust IL, ADJUDICATION
Respondent.
(PEE Ee Eee PeeEEe | Date: January 26, 2017
AND RELATED CROSS-PETITIONS, Thursday
Time: 2:00 PM
Dept. 204
Location: 400 McAllister Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
Judge: Hon. John K. Stewart
Action filed: May 12, 2010
Trial date: February 27, 2010
DATE APPROVED BY LESLIE GOMEZ
1
RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONa
6
KWONG and Respondent GARY WONG (collectively “Moving
Respondent JEANNE
Parties”) submit the following Non-Opposition To Petitioners’ Separate Statement Of Undisputed
Material Facts In Oppsotion Of Each Of Respoidents’ Motions For Summary Judgment Or In The
Alternative For Summary Adjudication (“Non-Oppositian”)
Although under no obligation to do so, Moving Parties submit this Non-Opposition to make
clear that Moving Parties have not disputed the facts in Petitioner’s separate statement filed with the
opposition papers. No dispute is necessary because Petitioner’s Undisputed Material Facts (“PUMFs”)
do not create a triable fact as to Petitioner’s damages in this case.
The PUMFs are unable to establish a triable fact because Petitioner’s defense of the motions for
summary judgment/adjudication is that Petitioner caused her own damages by making a gift of
community property to her children nine months after Decedent Stan Kwong’s death. Petitioner is
never able to explain how that gift damaged her in this case, and the PUMFs fare no better, failing to
set forth even $1 in damages associated with the gift to her children.
As stated in the moving papers, all facts pled by Petitioner have been accepted as true for
purposes of the motions for summary judgment/adjudication. Even accepting all of Petitioner’s
allegations as true, Petitioner still has no damages in this case.
Since Petitioner failed to meet her burden to show a triable fact as to the existence of damages,
summary judgment is required.
upporting ence Supporting Evidence
1, Stan Kwong created a comprehensive estate Undisputed. :
plan in 2009 based on the restatement of his
earlier Separate Property Trust, and the
creation with his wife Jennifer Kwok ofa
Community Trust.
Evidence: Respondents’ Evidence D and F.
2. The purpose of the Community Trust was to Undisputed.
provide for Jennifer and Stan children in the
event that Stan predeceased Jennifer. At
RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
r IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
~ JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION[ Stan’s death the Community Trust was
divided equally into two shares: a Marital
Trust and a Survivor's Trust.
Kwok Decl. {
Respondents' FE
idence, Ex. F, § 2.4
3. The Marital Trust is funded by Stan’s share Undisputed. |
of the assets of the Community Trust, and |
by certain assets directed to it under the
Stan Kwong Trust.
Kwok Decl. ¥ 6;
Respondents' Evidence, Ex. D, § 4.2.1.3
and Ex. F.
| Undisputed.
creation of two insurance trusts: (i) the
Kwong/K wok Irrevocable Trust dated
September 8, 2008; and (ii) the Stan Kwong
Irrevocable Trust II, dated September 8,
2008. ("Kwong LI").
Kwok Decl. { 9;
Respondents’ Evidence, Ex. C
5. ig Il was an insurance trust created to Undisputed.
hold a life insurance policy that Stan
purchased in 1991, before his marriage,
from Lincoln Benefit Life Company with a
face value of $1 million (the “Lincoln
Policy”).
Kwok Decl. ¢ 9;
Respondents' Evidence, Ex. C
6. When Stan created the Kwong II Trust he Undisputed.
planned to use the Lincoln Policy to fund
the trust; the Lincoln Policy was the sole
intended asset of the Kwong II Trust. Stan
changed the ownership of the Lincoln
Policy from himself to the Kwong II Trust.
Kwok Decl. ¢ 12
7. Stan met his siste:
financial advisor, Gary Wong, in early
2008. Gary persuaded Stan to use his
Lincoln policy of $1 million to trade in for
another policy of the same coverage with a
different carrier, The difference was that
3
RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION24
25
‘Stan would have to pay premiums for the
st of his life, but he got a higher rated
insurance company.
Kwok Deel. ¢ 10
8. Stan later decided to drop the idea of
trading in the Lincoln Policy, and asked
Gary Wong instead to transfer the Lincoln
Policy to Stan's new insurance trust, Kwong
II, instead
Kwok Decl. ¥ 10
9. The Kwong II Trust specifics that "The
Trustee shali designate this Trust as
Beneficiary of all life insurance policies
owned by the Trust."
Respondents’ Evidence, Ex. C, § 9B
10. Two months after Stan passed on July 8
2009, in September, Jennifer discovered
that Jeanne Kwong had failed to change the
beneficiary of the Lincoln Policy from her
mother, Lau Kwong, to the Kwong II Trust.
Lau Kwong claimed the insurance proceeds
that Stan wanted and intended to leave to
Jennifer and his children.
Kwok Decl. ¥ 13
the trustee of Kwong II, contact Lincoln
Benefit Life Company, to explain that a
mistake had been made and that a change in
the beneficiary of the Lincoln Policy was
supposed to have been completed.
Kwok Deel. € 14
Undisputed.
U ndisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
12. Jeanne Kwong refused to do anything to
intervene or even communicate with
Lincoln Benefit Life Company; instead she
resigned as trustee of the Kwong II Trust.
Kwok Decl. ¥ 14
Undisputed.
13. Lau Kwong amended her own trust
agreement in late July, 2009. Lau Kwong
removed Stan's children, Justin Kwong
(aged two at the time) and Michelle Kwong
Undisputed.
4
RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION(aged one at the time), from her estate plan;
that is, Lau Kwong disinherited the children
less than three weeks after Stan’s death, and
one week after Stan’s funeral.
Kwok Decl. ¥ 16
transfer any specific real property, and new
deeds were required for each of the parcels
of real property that Stan or Jennifer put
into one Community Trust. Stan’s
community property remained his after the
Conveyance, and my community property
remained mine.
Kwok Decl. 4 8
15. Neither Lau Kwong, Larry ‘Kwong nor
Jeanne Kwong, nor anyone else, ever said
or did anything that informed or caused
Jennifer to understand or think that Stan
owed any of them money, or that Stan was
indebted to them in an amount of more than
$6.0 million, or in any amount.
Kwok Decl. {17
fac
| Undisputed.
| Undisputed.
16. As a consequence of the events after Stan's
death -- more than $6 million of claims
against the estate, loss of the $1 million
insurance proceeds, and the disinheritance
of Stan's children -- Jennifer took action to
preserve the purpose and intent of Stan’s
overall estate plan.
Kwok Decl. {18
17. The Disclaimer executed on April 1, 2010, :
created two trusts for Stan's children. Justin
Kwong, (now seven), and Michelle Kwong,
(now six).
Kwok Decl. § 19; Ex. A
18. The children's trusts are to be funded by
assets that Jennifer would otherwise have
received from the Marital Trust, which was
created ai Stan’s death and holds Stan’s
share of the community property.
Kwok Decl, (19; Exs, B and C_
RESPONDENTS’
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Undisputed.
5
NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION24
25
19. The estate tax retum for the Community
Trust reflects the Disclaimer and its effect
of creating two new trusts for Stan children
funded with more than $1 million in each.
Kwok Decl. ¢ 19; Exs. B and C
20. Stan intended and wanted to leave his assets
to Jennifer and to their children, and he did
so in creating his comprehensive estate
plan.
Kwok Decl. { 20
of Assets from the Stan Kwong Trust was
filed on May 14, 2010 (The "Disclaimer
Petition").
Evidence: Bernhard Decl. Ex. A
| Undisputed,
|
\ eet
| Undisputed.
|
|
|
j
Undisputed.
22. The Disclaimer Petition was tried in this
court in June-July, 2015 and a Statement of
Decision was entered on October 26, 2015
("Statement of Decision").
Evidence: October 26, 2015 Statement of
Decision, Bernhard Decl. Ex. B
23. The Court's Statement of Decision granted
Jennifer Kwok's Petition and ordered the
Stan Kwong Trust, Jeanne Kwong, as the
trustee of "to (1) distribute immediately all
assets of that trust to Petitioner Jennifer
Kwok, as trustee of the marital trust
established under the Stanley Kwong and
Jennifer Kwok Revocable Trust dated April
6, 2009..."
Evidence: October 26, 2015 Statement of
Decision, Bernhard Decl. Ex. B
|
| Undisputed.
Undisputed.
Jennifer Kwok's Disclaimer, no Bypass
trust exist to be funded.
Evidence: October 26, 2015 Statement of
Decision, Bernhard Decl. Ex. B
25. The Stan Kwon Trust has never made even
a partial distribution to the Marital Trust, _
6
RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
| Undisputed.
“| Undi sputed.
JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONdespite request to do so.
Kwok Decl. 4 21
January 19, 2017. TOUR-SARK AM
LEN! FFD
PHIL FOSTER
Attorneys for Respondent
JEANNE KWONG
AN a OFFICES, LLP
January 19, 2017. MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
By: 2 eo AY ~
x
EDWARD S. ZUSMAN
Attorneys for Regpondent
GARY WONG
7
RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONPROOF OF SERVICE
Iam employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age
of eighteen and not a party to the above-captioned action. My business address is 211 Gough Street,
Third Floor, San Francisco, California 94102. On the date below, I served the following document(s)
on all interested parties:
RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
[XXXX] (BY EMAIL SERVICE) causing the documents to be sent to the person(s) registered
to receive electronic service in this matter via File & ServExpress. I did not receive,
within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other
indication that the transmission was unsuccessful.
[XXXX] (BY FIRST CLASS MAIL) I am readily familiar with my office’s practices for
collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal
Service. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary
course of business. On the date shown below, I placed a true copy enclosed in a sealed
envelope with First Class postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail in San
Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST.
[ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) causing to be delivered by hand and leaving a true copy
with the person and/or secretary at the address shown below:
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 20, 2017.
i Le
PROOF OF SERVICESERVICE LIST
Richard Bryan
Bryan Hinshaw, PC
425 California Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Attorneys for Respondent FENG OUYANG
David Wakukawa
Markun Zusman & Compton LLP
465 California Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Attorneys for Respondent GARY WONG
Daniel Bernhard
Freeland Cooper & Foreman, LLP
150 Spear Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94105
Attorneys for Respondent JENNIFER SHUK-HAN WONG
PROOF OF SERVICE
Preview
Phil Foster (SBN 262120) ELECTRONICALLY TOUR-SARKISSIAN LAW OFFICES, LLP FILED 211 Gough Street, Third Floor Supertor Court of California, San Francisco, CA 94102 County of San Francisco (415) 626-7744 telephone 01/20/2017 (415) 626-8189 facsimile Glorkiet tne Court phil@tslo.com Deputy Clerk Attorneys for Respondent JEANNE KWONG SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PROBATE DIVISION JENNIFER SHUK-HANKWOK, Case No. PES-10-293505 eee Petitioner, RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF v. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ JEANNE KWONG, individually and as a}| MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR former trustee of the Stan Kwong Irrevocable} IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY Trust IL, ADJUDICATION Respondent. (PEE Ee Eee PeeEEe | Date: January 26, 2017 AND RELATED CROSS-PETITIONS, Thursday Time: 2:00 PM Dept. 204 Location: 400 McAllister Street San Francisco, CA 94102 Judge: Hon. John K. Stewart Action filed: May 12, 2010 Trial date: February 27, 2010 DATE APPROVED BY LESLIE GOMEZ 1 RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONa 6 KWONG and Respondent GARY WONG (collectively “Moving Respondent JEANNE Parties”) submit the following Non-Opposition To Petitioners’ Separate Statement Of Undisputed Material Facts In Oppsotion Of Each Of Respoidents’ Motions For Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative For Summary Adjudication (“Non-Oppositian”) Although under no obligation to do so, Moving Parties submit this Non-Opposition to make clear that Moving Parties have not disputed the facts in Petitioner’s separate statement filed with the opposition papers. No dispute is necessary because Petitioner’s Undisputed Material Facts (“PUMFs”) do not create a triable fact as to Petitioner’s damages in this case. The PUMFs are unable to establish a triable fact because Petitioner’s defense of the motions for summary judgment/adjudication is that Petitioner caused her own damages by making a gift of community property to her children nine months after Decedent Stan Kwong’s death. Petitioner is never able to explain how that gift damaged her in this case, and the PUMFs fare no better, failing to set forth even $1 in damages associated with the gift to her children. As stated in the moving papers, all facts pled by Petitioner have been accepted as true for purposes of the motions for summary judgment/adjudication. Even accepting all of Petitioner’s allegations as true, Petitioner still has no damages in this case. Since Petitioner failed to meet her burden to show a triable fact as to the existence of damages, summary judgment is required. upporting ence Supporting Evidence 1, Stan Kwong created a comprehensive estate Undisputed. : plan in 2009 based on the restatement of his earlier Separate Property Trust, and the creation with his wife Jennifer Kwok ofa Community Trust. Evidence: Respondents’ Evidence D and F. 2. The purpose of the Community Trust was to Undisputed. provide for Jennifer and Stan children in the event that Stan predeceased Jennifer. At RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED r IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ~ JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION[ Stan’s death the Community Trust was divided equally into two shares: a Marital Trust and a Survivor's Trust. Kwok Decl. { Respondents' FE idence, Ex. F, § 2.4 3. The Marital Trust is funded by Stan’s share Undisputed. | of the assets of the Community Trust, and | by certain assets directed to it under the Stan Kwong Trust. Kwok Decl. ¥ 6; Respondents' Evidence, Ex. D, § 4.2.1.3 and Ex. F. | Undisputed. creation of two insurance trusts: (i) the Kwong/K wok Irrevocable Trust dated September 8, 2008; and (ii) the Stan Kwong Irrevocable Trust II, dated September 8, 2008. ("Kwong LI"). Kwok Decl. { 9; Respondents’ Evidence, Ex. C 5. ig Il was an insurance trust created to Undisputed. hold a life insurance policy that Stan purchased in 1991, before his marriage, from Lincoln Benefit Life Company with a face value of $1 million (the “Lincoln Policy”). Kwok Decl. ¢ 9; Respondents' Evidence, Ex. C 6. When Stan created the Kwong II Trust he Undisputed. planned to use the Lincoln Policy to fund the trust; the Lincoln Policy was the sole intended asset of the Kwong II Trust. Stan changed the ownership of the Lincoln Policy from himself to the Kwong II Trust. Kwok Decl. ¢ 12 7. Stan met his siste: financial advisor, Gary Wong, in early 2008. Gary persuaded Stan to use his Lincoln policy of $1 million to trade in for another policy of the same coverage with a different carrier, The difference was that 3 RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION24 25 ‘Stan would have to pay premiums for the st of his life, but he got a higher rated insurance company. Kwok Deel. ¢ 10 8. Stan later decided to drop the idea of trading in the Lincoln Policy, and asked Gary Wong instead to transfer the Lincoln Policy to Stan's new insurance trust, Kwong II, instead Kwok Decl. ¥ 10 9. The Kwong II Trust specifics that "The Trustee shali designate this Trust as Beneficiary of all life insurance policies owned by the Trust." Respondents’ Evidence, Ex. C, § 9B 10. Two months after Stan passed on July 8 2009, in September, Jennifer discovered that Jeanne Kwong had failed to change the beneficiary of the Lincoln Policy from her mother, Lau Kwong, to the Kwong II Trust. Lau Kwong claimed the insurance proceeds that Stan wanted and intended to leave to Jennifer and his children. Kwok Decl. ¥ 13 the trustee of Kwong II, contact Lincoln Benefit Life Company, to explain that a mistake had been made and that a change in the beneficiary of the Lincoln Policy was supposed to have been completed. Kwok Deel. € 14 Undisputed. U ndisputed. Undisputed. Undisputed. 12. Jeanne Kwong refused to do anything to intervene or even communicate with Lincoln Benefit Life Company; instead she resigned as trustee of the Kwong II Trust. Kwok Decl. ¥ 14 Undisputed. 13. Lau Kwong amended her own trust agreement in late July, 2009. Lau Kwong removed Stan's children, Justin Kwong (aged two at the time) and Michelle Kwong Undisputed. 4 RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION(aged one at the time), from her estate plan; that is, Lau Kwong disinherited the children less than three weeks after Stan’s death, and one week after Stan’s funeral. Kwok Decl. ¥ 16 transfer any specific real property, and new deeds were required for each of the parcels of real property that Stan or Jennifer put into one Community Trust. Stan’s community property remained his after the Conveyance, and my community property remained mine. Kwok Decl. 4 8 15. Neither Lau Kwong, Larry ‘Kwong nor Jeanne Kwong, nor anyone else, ever said or did anything that informed or caused Jennifer to understand or think that Stan owed any of them money, or that Stan was indebted to them in an amount of more than $6.0 million, or in any amount. Kwok Decl. {17 fac | Undisputed. | Undisputed. 16. As a consequence of the events after Stan's death -- more than $6 million of claims against the estate, loss of the $1 million insurance proceeds, and the disinheritance of Stan's children -- Jennifer took action to preserve the purpose and intent of Stan’s overall estate plan. Kwok Decl. {18 17. The Disclaimer executed on April 1, 2010, : created two trusts for Stan's children. Justin Kwong, (now seven), and Michelle Kwong, (now six). Kwok Decl. § 19; Ex. A 18. The children's trusts are to be funded by assets that Jennifer would otherwise have received from the Marital Trust, which was created ai Stan’s death and holds Stan’s share of the community property. Kwok Decl, (19; Exs, B and C_ RESPONDENTS’ Undisputed. Undisputed. Undisputed. 5 NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION24 25 19. The estate tax retum for the Community Trust reflects the Disclaimer and its effect of creating two new trusts for Stan children funded with more than $1 million in each. Kwok Decl. ¢ 19; Exs. B and C 20. Stan intended and wanted to leave his assets to Jennifer and to their children, and he did so in creating his comprehensive estate plan. Kwok Decl. { 20 of Assets from the Stan Kwong Trust was filed on May 14, 2010 (The "Disclaimer Petition"). Evidence: Bernhard Decl. Ex. A | Undisputed, | \ eet | Undisputed. | | | j Undisputed. 22. The Disclaimer Petition was tried in this court in June-July, 2015 and a Statement of Decision was entered on October 26, 2015 ("Statement of Decision"). Evidence: October 26, 2015 Statement of Decision, Bernhard Decl. Ex. B 23. The Court's Statement of Decision granted Jennifer Kwok's Petition and ordered the Stan Kwong Trust, Jeanne Kwong, as the trustee of "to (1) distribute immediately all assets of that trust to Petitioner Jennifer Kwok, as trustee of the marital trust established under the Stanley Kwong and Jennifer Kwok Revocable Trust dated April 6, 2009..." Evidence: October 26, 2015 Statement of Decision, Bernhard Decl. Ex. B | | Undisputed. Undisputed. Jennifer Kwok's Disclaimer, no Bypass trust exist to be funded. Evidence: October 26, 2015 Statement of Decision, Bernhard Decl. Ex. B 25. The Stan Kwon Trust has never made even a partial distribution to the Marital Trust, _ 6 RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY | Undisputed. “| Undi sputed. JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONdespite request to do so. Kwok Decl. 4 21 January 19, 2017. TOUR-SARK AM LEN! FFD PHIL FOSTER Attorneys for Respondent JEANNE KWONG AN a OFFICES, LLP January 19, 2017. MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP By: 2 eo AY ~ x EDWARD S. ZUSMAN Attorneys for Regpondent GARY WONG 7 RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATIONPROOF OF SERVICE Iam employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the above-captioned action. My business address is 211 Gough Street, Third Floor, San Francisco, California 94102. On the date below, I served the following document(s) on all interested parties: RESPONDENTS’ NON-OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS’ SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN OPPOSITION OF EACH OF RESPONDENTS’ MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION [XXXX] (BY EMAIL SERVICE) causing the documents to be sent to the person(s) registered to receive electronic service in this matter via File & ServExpress. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. [XXXX] (BY FIRST CLASS MAIL) I am readily familiar with my office’s practices for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business. On the date shown below, I placed a true copy enclosed in a sealed envelope with First Class postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail in San Francisco, California, addressed as follows: SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST. [ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) causing to be delivered by hand and leaving a true copy with the person and/or secretary at the address shown below: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on January 20, 2017. i Le PROOF OF SERVICESERVICE LIST Richard Bryan Bryan Hinshaw, PC 425 California Street, Suite 300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Attorneys for Respondent FENG OUYANG David Wakukawa Markun Zusman & Compton LLP 465 California Street, 5th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 Attorneys for Respondent GARY WONG Daniel Bernhard Freeland Cooper & Foreman, LLP 150 Spear Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Attorneys for Respondent JENNIFER SHUK-HAN WONG PROOF OF SERVICE