On September 26, 2011 a
Motion-Secondary
was filed
involving a dispute between
Corrales, Gilbert,
Corrales, Lorraine,
and
for Trust
in the District Court of San Bernardino County.
Preview
F LE I D
SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA
Harvey M. Payne III (SBN 175523) COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO
SA” BERNARD'NO ”'STR'CT
LAW OFFICES 0F HARVEY M. PAYNE 111
10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Ste. 210 FEB 2 5 2022
San Diego, California 92 1 31
858-271-1900 .‘
BY 101““1C9P“
BRITfiEY SPEARS' DEPUTY
\DmflQUl-bUJNh-n
Attorney for Petitioner
Gilbert Corrales
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
In the matter 0fthe ) CASE No.: PROPSI 100680
)
PETE CORRALES AND CARMEN C,
G. )
PETITIONER GILBERT CORRALES’
CORRALES REVOCABLE TRUST Dated )
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
November 25, 1994
OPPOSITION To LORRAINE
)
CORRALES’ ‘MOTION FOR
)
JUDGMENT ON THE PETITION’
)
Gilbert Corrales, )
)
Petitioner
DATE: March 10, 2022
g
TIME: 9:00 a.m.
VS‘ )
NNNNNNHr—Ir—Ir—tr—Ap—Iv—Ap—ag—np—A
DEPT: s36
)
Lorraine Corrales )
gflgmwar-‘OKOOONQUIhUJND—‘O
)
Respondent )
)
Petitioner, Gilbert Corrales, hereby submits the following Points and Authorities in
opposition to Lorraine Corrales’ ‘Motion for Judgment on the Petition’ as follows:
I.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Lorraine Corrales motion for Judgment 0n the Pleadings fails for multiple, interrelated
reasons, as further explained below:
1. The pleadings in this case allege that Lorraine Corrales breached her duties as Trustee
[\J
of the Trust for failing to distribute all trust assets from the Pete G. Corrales and Carmen C.
-1-
PETITIONER GILBERT CORRALES’ POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
LORRAINE CORRALES’ ‘MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PETITION’
Corrales Revocable Trust Dated November 25, 1994 between herself and her brother (50-50 as
required by the Trust). The present motion cannot, by its nature alone, prove otherwise. This is
because a motion for judgment on the pleadings is a facial challenge to the pleadings, which by
its nature, accepts the allegations of the pleadings as true, and is not a ‘speaking motion.’
\OWflmm-PUJNr—I
Lorraine’s motion is premised entirely on extrinsic documents presented to this court.
2. The accountings filed by Lorraine Corrales otherwise affirmatively demonstrate that
she has in fact breached her duties as Trustee because they show she has not given Petitioner his
50% share of their parents’ trust. Her attempts to escape her breaches by trying to hide behind a
waiver of accounting document allegedly signed by Gilbert Corrales has no rightful place in
either this motion, specifically, or otherwise under the overall law governing a trustee’s actions.
II.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This lawsuit began by the filing of a Petition by Gilbert Corrales 0n June 18, 2019.
Petitioner alleged that Lorraine Corrales (“Respondent”) had never accounted for millions of
dollars in Trust assets; otherwise had kept Petitioner on a financial leash and Respondent had
NNNNNNNr—Ar—‘r—Ap—Ir—Av—dp—Ar—an—Ir—n
taken more than her share of the Corrales Trust which belonged 50% to Petitioner. What has
been discovered to date is that Lorraine implemented a scheme to take (far) more than her 50%
share of their parents’ trust, under the guise of protecting her vulnerable brother.
OGSONMAWNHOCWNmm-PWNHO
The originating petition asked for an accounting of the assets of the Trust as a first step
into detelmining where all of Petitioner’s money had gone. This court, on November 5, 2019,
ordered Lorraine Corrales to file and serve an accounting by February 21, 2020 (pre-COVID-
19), yet Respondent failed to serve Petitioner with an accounting until the night before (August
3 1 2020) the first hearing in this matter after the court
,
shutdown due to COVID-19. This first
accounting was thereafter filed in this matter the next day on September 1, 2020. This
unexplainable delay resulted in spite of statements by Respondent’s counsel that counsel was
only waiting on closing statements from the sale of real property within the Trust before being
able to serve and file the accounting back in early March 2020 (pre-COVID-19). Yet
N
-2-
PETITIONER GILBERT CORRALES’ POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
LORRAINE CORRALES’ ‘MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PETITION’
Document Filed Date
February 25, 2022
Case Filing Date
September 26, 2011
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
F LE I D SUPERIOR COURT 0F CALIFORNIA Harvey M. Payne III (SBN 175523) COUNTY 0F SAN BERNARDINO SA” BERNARD'NO ”'STR'CT LAW OFFICES 0F HARVEY M. PAYNE 111 10085 Carroll Canyon Road, Ste. 210 FEB 2 5 2022 San Diego, California 92 1 31 858-271-1900 .‘ BY 101““1C9P“ BRITfiEY SPEARS' DEPUTY \DmflQUl-bUJNh-n Attorney for Petitioner Gilbert Corrales IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO In the matter 0fthe ) CASE No.: PROPSI 100680 ) PETE CORRALES AND CARMEN C, G. ) PETITIONER GILBERT CORRALES’ CORRALES REVOCABLE TRUST Dated ) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN November 25, 1994 OPPOSITION To LORRAINE ) CORRALES’ ‘MOTION FOR ) JUDGMENT ON THE PETITION’ ) Gilbert Corrales, ) ) Petitioner DATE: March 10, 2022 g TIME: 9:00 a.m. VS‘ ) NNNNNNHr—Ir—Ir—tr—Ap—Iv—Ap—ag—np—A DEPT: s36 ) Lorraine Corrales ) gflgmwar-‘OKOOONQUIhUJND—‘O ) Respondent ) ) Petitioner, Gilbert Corrales, hereby submits the following Points and Authorities in opposition to Lorraine Corrales’ ‘Motion for Judgment on the Petition’ as follows: I. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Lorraine Corrales motion for Judgment 0n the Pleadings fails for multiple, interrelated reasons, as further explained below: 1. The pleadings in this case allege that Lorraine Corrales breached her duties as Trustee [\J of the Trust for failing to distribute all trust assets from the Pete G. Corrales and Carmen C. -1- PETITIONER GILBERT CORRALES’ POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO LORRAINE CORRALES’ ‘MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PETITION’ Corrales Revocable Trust Dated November 25, 1994 between herself and her brother (50-50 as required by the Trust). The present motion cannot, by its nature alone, prove otherwise. This is because a motion for judgment on the pleadings is a facial challenge to the pleadings, which by its nature, accepts the allegations of the pleadings as true, and is not a ‘speaking motion.’ \OWflmm-PUJNr—I Lorraine’s motion is premised entirely on extrinsic documents presented to this court. 2. The accountings filed by Lorraine Corrales otherwise affirmatively demonstrate that she has in fact breached her duties as Trustee because they show she has not given Petitioner his 50% share of their parents’ trust. Her attempts to escape her breaches by trying to hide behind a waiver of accounting document allegedly signed by Gilbert Corrales has no rightful place in either this motion, specifically, or otherwise under the overall law governing a trustee’s actions. II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY This lawsuit began by the filing of a Petition by Gilbert Corrales 0n June 18, 2019. Petitioner alleged that Lorraine Corrales (“Respondent”) had never accounted for millions of dollars in Trust assets; otherwise had kept Petitioner on a financial leash and Respondent had NNNNNNNr—Ar—‘r—Ap—Ir—Av—dp—Ar—an—Ir—n taken more than her share of the Corrales Trust which belonged 50% to Petitioner. What has been discovered to date is that Lorraine implemented a scheme to take (far) more than her 50% share of their parents’ trust, under the guise of protecting her vulnerable brother. OGSONMAWNHOCWNmm-PWNHO The originating petition asked for an accounting of the assets of the Trust as a first step into detelmining where all of Petitioner’s money had gone. This court, on November 5, 2019, ordered Lorraine Corrales to file and serve an accounting by February 21, 2020 (pre-COVID- 19), yet Respondent failed to serve Petitioner with an accounting until the night before (August 3 1 2020) the first hearing in this matter after the court , shutdown due to COVID-19. This first accounting was thereafter filed in this matter the next day on September 1, 2020. This unexplainable delay resulted in spite of statements by Respondent’s counsel that counsel was only waiting on closing statements from the sale of real property within the Trust before being able to serve and file the accounting back in early March 2020 (pre-COVID-19). Yet N -2- PETITIONER GILBERT CORRALES’ POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO LORRAINE CORRALES’ ‘MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PETITION’