Motion,Ex Parte: IN RE: STAN KWONG IRREVOCABLE TRUST II

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                24

25

Phil Foster (SBN 262120)
TOUR-SARKISSIAN LAW OFFICES, LLP

211 Gough Street, Third Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102 FILED.
(415) 626-7744 telephone Superior Court of Cant
(415) 626-8189 facsimile County of San Francisco
phil@tslo.com 11/08/2016

Clerk of the Court
= BY-MICHAEL RAYRAY
Attorneys for Respondent Deputy Clerk

JEANNE KWONG

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

PROBATE DIVISION

JENNIFER SHUK-HAN KWOK, Case No. PES-10-293505 |

Petitioner, SEPARATE STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR |
v. IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY |

ADJUDICATION |
JEANNE KWONG, individually and as a |
former trustee of the Stan Kwong Irrevocable

Trust IL, Date: January 26, 2017
Thursday i
Respondent. Time: 2:00 PM
Dept. 204
AND RELATED CROSS-PETITIONS. Location: 400 McAllister Street

San Francisco, CA 94102
Judge: Hon. Andrew Y.S. Cheng

Action filed: May 12, 2010
Trial date: February 27, 2010

DATE APPROVED BY LESLIE GOMEZ

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350, Respondent JEANNE KWONG submits
the following Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence in Support of

Motion For Summary Judgment Or In The Alternative For Summary Adjudication.

i
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION“Moving Party’s Undisputed Material Facts and | Opposing Party’s Response ‘and. Supporting
Supporting Evidence | Evidence

+ st

1. In 1991, Petitioner sold Decedent Stan
Kwong (“Stan”) a $1 million life insurance
policy on Stan’s life from Lincoln Benefit
Life Company (“Lincoln Policy”).

Evid.Ex. A pp.105:2-106:13. |

the beneficiary on the $1 million Lincoln
Policy.

Evid.Ex. A p.105:23-25; Ex. B p.2:15-16.

irrevocable life insurance trust (“Insurance
Trust”) to hold and administer life
insurance on Stan’s life.

Evid.Ex. B pp.1:25-2:1; Evid.Ex. C.
4. “Stan made Petitioner’s cousin Feng ~ 4
Ouyang and Stan’s sister Jeanne the two
co-trustees of the Insurance Trust.

Evid.Ex. Cp.17, § 1A.

5. Petitioner was the sole beneficiary of the
Insurance Trust.

Evid.Ex. B p.1:25-26; Ex. C p.2, § 5.B.

6. At Petitioner’s death, ‘the Insurance Trust
was to terminate and distribute its assets to
Stan and Petitioner’s children.

Evid.Ex, C p.3, § 5.D.

7. On or about October 3, 2008, Stan
transferred ownership of the Lincoln
Policy to the Insurance Trust.

Evid.Ex. B p.2:23-25.

2
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION8. According to Petitioner, Stan expected his |
sister Jeanne to change the beneficiary of
the Lincoln Policy from Stan’s mother to
the Insurance Trust.

|

Evid.Ex. B p.3:1-2.
| 9. No change of beneficiary was ever made.

Evid.Ex. B p.3:15.

the policy.

Evid.Ex. B p.3:15.

11. Stan died July 8, 2009.

Evid.Ex. B p.1:24-25.

|
|

12. The Lincoln Policy paid the $1 million
death benefit to Stan’s mother.

Evid. Ex. B p.4:5-7.

13. Petitioner filed the Petition in this case on
May 12, 2010, claiming damages against
Jeanne in the amount of $1 million for
allegedly failing to change the beneficiary
of the Lincoln Policy.

Evid.Ex. B p.4:19-20, p.5:6-10.

property trust known as the Amended and
Restated Stan Kwong Trust (“Separate
Trust’) to hold and administer Stan’s
separate property.

Evid.Ex. D.

Fig Sian appoined bis asta Jeune asthe
successor trustee of the Separate Trust.

Evid.Ex. D p.9, § 9.1.1.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION16. The Separate Trust became irrevocable -
and no longer subject to amendment,
alteration, or revocation at Stan’s death.

Evid.Ex. D p.2, § 2.5.

‘17. Stan’s sister Jeanne was named as
successor trustee of the Separate Trust.

Evid.Ex. D p.9, § 9.1.1.

sole residuary beneficiary of the Separate
Trust.

Evid.Ex. D p.4 §§ 4.2.1, 4.2.1.3.

19.

Separate Trust, as of the date of Stan’s
death, at an approximate $6.47 million on
Stan’s Estate Tax Return.

Evid.Ex. G p.18.

20. Also as of the date of Stan’s death, the
Separate Trust had an aggregate cash
balance of $68,838.00 in various bank
accounts and $2,203,000.00 in multiple
promissory notes owed to the Separate |
Trust.

Evid. Ex. D & G,

21. Petitioner valued the assets in Stan’s
probate estate, as of the date of Stan’s
death, with a net value of $1,897,958.42.

Evid. Ex. 1 & J.

Stan’s will and entitled to all of the
separate property assets in Stan’s probate
estate, which Petitioner (as Executor of
Stan’s probate estate) valued at
$1,897,958.42.

4
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION4

6

23.

24,

25.

26.

~ Evid. Ex. E [Stan’s will];
Evid. Ex. I & J Inventory & Appraisals
filed by Petitioner in Stan's probate].
Petitioner has been the sole Executor of
Stan’s probate estate since Stan’s death,

Evid.Ex. E.

The dispositive provisions of the Separate |

Trust provided that, after making specific
bequests of real property and corporate
stock to Petitioner, a “Bypass Trust” was
to be funded for Stan’s children, sister, and
4 nieces (not including Petitioner).

Evid.Ex. D p.4, § 4.2.1.2.

The Bypass Trust has a funding limit that |

restricts its funding to the amount of
Stan’s available exemption from federal
estate tax.

Evid.Ex. D p.4, § 4.2.1.2.

‘The federal estate tax exemption was set
by Congress at $3.5 million in the year
2009.

Evid.Ex. H pp.461:21-22; former 26
U.S.C.A. § 2010 (enacted in 2001 as
Pub.L 107-16, amended December 2010).

After the Bypass Trust is funded up to its
limit, all remaining assets in the Separate
Trust pass in trust to the Separate Trust’s
residuary beneficiary.

Evid.Ex. D p., § 4.2.1.3.

28.

The sole residuary beneficiary is Petitioner
as the trustee and sole beneficiary of a
Marital Trust created by Stan and
Petitioner to hold the couple’s
approximate $11 million of community
_property.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY

5

ADJUDICATIONEvid.Ex. D p.4, § 4.2.1.3;
Evid.Ex. F p.6, § 5.4.

and Petitioner’s children at Petitioner’s
death.

Evid.Ex. F p.9, §§ 7.2.2, 7.2.3.

30. When the Lincoln Policy paid the $1
million death benefit to Stan’s mother, it
used up $1 million of Stan’s $3.5 million
federal estate tax exemption

Evid.Ex. H pp.461:20-462:7;
26 USC § 2042.

exemption amount caused the funding
limit of the Bypass Trust to be reduced
from $3.5 million to $2.5 million.

Evid.Ex. H pp.461:20-462:7.

32. With the funding limit of the Bypass Trust |
decreased by $1 million, the amount to the
residuary beneficiary increased by $1
million.

Evid.Ex. D p.4, § 4.2.1.3.

November 7, 2016. SIAN IAW OFFICES, LLP

PHIL FOSTER
Attorneys for Respondent
JEANNE KWONG

6
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN
SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY
ADJUDICATION