Motion,Ex Parte: PHILLIP GARCIA VS. CARRIE WILSON, IN HER CAPACITCY AS TRUSTEE OF THE et al

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                nD

ELECTRONICALLY

LAW OFFICES OF BENNY MARTIN FILED
Benjamin Martin (SBN 257452) eee cous “ rae:
657 Santa Clara Ave.

Venice CA, 90291 08 [07 i 2017
Phone: (510) 227-4406 GY:RONNIE OTERO.
Email: knowyourightsinsf@ gmail.com Deputy Clerk

Attorneys for Plaintiff Phillip Garcia

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

PHILLIP GARCIA, an individual, } Case No. CGC-14-538560
Plaintiff, ) PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S
) OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
| ) MOTION IN LIMINE NOS. 7,8: TO
s ) EXCLUDE EVIDENCE AND
) TESTIMONY RELATED TO
ANGELO WILSON, an individual, et. al. ) DEFENDANTS’ PRIVATE
} FINANCIAL INFORMATION
)
Defendants. 3
)

Plaintiff has no opposition to Defendants’ motions in limine No. 7 and 8 to the extent
Defendants seek to bifurcate the issue of punitive damages. In the majority of cases, bifurcating
evidence of a defendant’s financial condition with punitive damages into the second phase of trial is
reasonable way to manage trial. But here, evidence implicating Defendant Trust’s financial condition]
is directly relevant to Defendant Carrie Wilson’s individual liability.

Here is the issue, as Plaintiff sees it: there is no evidence The Wilson Family Trust exists.
There are no documents establishing the existence of the Trust, or any other trust document setting
the Trust’s terms, purpose, beneficiaries, assets, or revocability. Martin Decl. 412, Ex. K, Response
No. 14. Is it a living trust? A special needs trust? An irrevocable trust?

Plaintiff inquired in discovery onto the last time anyone had seen any Trust document.

Defendants refused to respond based on financial privacy. Martin Decl. 913, Ex. L, Response No. 52.

Loe
PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7: TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY RELATED TO DEFENDANTS’ PRIVATE FINANCIAL INFORMATIONnD

Plaintiff inquired in discovery onto whether the Trust has a bank account, and whether it
deposited the proceeds from the sale of the Subject Premises into it. Defendants refused to respond
based on financial privacy. Martin Decl. §13, Ex. L, Response No. 48-50.

Plaintiff inquired in discovery onto the identity of the Trust’s beneficiaries. Defendants
refused to respond based on financial privacy. Martin Decl. 413, Ex. L, Response No. 53, 56.

Plaintiff inquired in discovery onto why Defendants instructed him to make out his monthly
rent checks to Carrie Wilson in her individual capacity, and not to the Trust. Defendants refused to
respond based on financial privacy. Martin Decl. [13, Ex. L, Response No. 14.

Plaintiff inquired in discovery onto the jurisdictions in which the Trust is registered.
Defendants refused to respond based on financial privacy. Martin Decl. § 13, Ex. L, Response No. 47.

Nevertheless, the titleholder of the Subject Premises (the property owner) when all alleged
torts occurred was The Wilson Family Trust. In 1994, Carrie Wilson (and her now deceased husband
Frankie Wilson) transferred title to themselves as Trustees of the Trust. The Transfer Deed is
attached as Exhibit B to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Martin Decl. 914, Ex. M

What are the legal implications of 1) a nonexistent trust property owner, or 2) an existing trust
used by the trustee as a personal ATM machine?

According Defendants, inquiring onto the existence of the Trust - on paper or anywhere else -
implicates financial privacy. But these facts are directly relevant to Carrie Wilson’s personal
liability.

Evidence in the form of the financial accounts into which Plaintiff's rent checks were
deposited is relevant to show weather the Trust exists, and if it does, Carrie Wilson’s personal
liability for torts committed in the course administration of the trust. Cal. Prob Code § 18002. If the
Trust does not exist other than to serve as Carrie Wilson’s personal ATM machine, then Carrie
Wilson would be personally liable for the Trust’s misconduct. If the Trust does not exist, Plaintiff's
remedy would sound in equity against Carrie Wilson in her individual capacity for all damages
otherwise attributable to the Trust. Cal. Civ. Code § 3539. Defendant Carrie Wilson cannot hide
behind a nonexistent trust; equity requires Carrie Wilson to be held individually responsible. Cal.
Civ. Code § 3439.12.

Finally, if Carrie Wilson did not disclose she entered into the lease agreement with Plaintiff as

Trustee, then she is liable for all breached thereof. Cal. Prob. Code § 18000(a). Here, the Trust was

Loe
PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7: TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY RELATED TO DEFENDANTS’ PRIVATE FINANCIAL INFORMATIONnD

not identified in the lease agreement with Plaintiff—Carrie Wilson and Frankie Wilson were in their
individual capacities. Martin Decl. 414, Ex. M.

Accordingly, evidence Defendants claim implicates financial privacy are relevant to prove the
identity of the true property owner. While Plaintiff has no objection to bifurcating the issue of
punitive damages, financial evidence from the Trust is relevant to Defendant Carrie Wilson’s
personal liability.

Hil. CONCLUSION.
For the reasons above-stated, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court bifurcate punitive

damages, and rule on financial privacy objections as they arise.

DATE: Match 27, 2017 LAW OFFICES OF BENNY MARTIN

Benny Martin, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff

Lege
PLAINTIFF PHILLIP GARCIA’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 7: TO EXCLUDE
EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY RELATED TO DEFENDANTS’ PRIVATE FINANCIAL INFORMATION