Preview
1
Clinton Killian, SBN 116501
2 Nader Fannyan, SBN 320752
KILLIAN & FANNYAN, APC 2/9/2021 11:47 AM
3 1300 Clay St. Suite 600
Oakland, CA 94612
4 510-500-5775 ph.
ckillian@killfannlaw.com
5 nf@killfannlaw.com
6 Attorneys for Respondent
EUNICE EYVONNE TOM
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
10
In Re: CASE NO. 18 PR001016
11
THE ESTATE OF HARRY W.K.TOM RESPONDENT EUNICE TOM’S REPLY TO
12 ____________________________________
JOLEEN TOM SNETHEN, PETITIONER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
13 IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR
Petitioner, SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE
14
vs. ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY
15 ADJUDICATION
EUNICE EYVONNE TOM,
16
Respondent. Date: 2/16/2021
17 Time: 9:00 am
Dept: 30
18
19
I. OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
20
Respondent and moving party Eunice Tom’s reply to Petitioner’s separate statement in
21
opposition to motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication as follows:
22
23 PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT
24 Respondent and Opposing Party’s
moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
25 Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
26
27 1. Petitioner is the 64 Undisputed.
year-old daughter of
28 Harry Tom and Glenda
Tom. Exhibit 18, p. 2;
1
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 Ex. 24, Pet Resp to the
Form Interrog p. 3 #2.2.
4
2. Petitioner is married to Undisputed.
5 Schuyler Snethen since
1974 and they have three
6
children: Chelsey
7 Snethen, born 1978; Ryan
Snethen, born 1984; Erin
8 Cus-Snethen, born 1986.
Exhibit 25 page 9 L3,
9 Exhibit 26, P8 L 19,
Exhibit 27 P9 L5
10
11 3. On October 2, 1964, Undisputed
Harry and Glenda Tom,
12 as joint tenants, purchased
the real property located
13 at 848 Hemlock Dr. South
14 San Francisco, CA that is
the subject of this lawsuit
15 (“Property”). Ex. 28
16 4. Glenda Tom died Undisputed.
February 5, 2000. Ex. 28
17
18 5. On April 2, 2001, Undisputed.
Harry Tom executed the
19 Harry W.K. Tom 2001
trust. (“ 2001 trust”). Ex.
20 1
21
6. On April 2, 2001, Undisputed.
22 Harry Tom transferred the
property into the 2001
23 trust. Ex. 2
24 7. The property was the Disputed. No The documents speaks for itself. See
25 sole asset of the 2001 competent evidence Exhibit 1 page 11. EC § 1520-1523.
trust. Ex. 1 is presented.
26 Speculation. This is
a legal determination
27 based on disputed
material facts. See
28 Exhibit F.
2
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 8. On August 15, 2003, Disputed. No The grant deed shows a transfer from Harry
Harry Tom removed the competent evidence Tom trustee to Harry WK Tom an unmarried man.
4 property from the 2001 is presented. see Exhibit 3. The documents speaks for itself.
trust by transferring the Speculation. This is EC § 1520-1523. Petitioner presents no
5 property title to his name a legal determination Evidence to dispute the validity of the deed.
individual, an unmarried based on disputed
6
man, only. Ex. 3. material facts. See
7 Exhibit F.
9. As of August 15, 2003, Disputed. No The documents speaks for itself. EC § 1520-
8 Harry Tom was the sole competent evidence 1523. The grant deed shows a transfer from
owner of the property, not is presented. Harry Tom trustee to Harry WK Tom an
9 the 2001 trust. Ex. 3. Speculation. This is unmarried man see Exhibit 3.
a legal determination Petitioner presents no evidence to
10
based on disputed dispute the transfer.
11 material facts. See
Exhibit F.
12 10. After the 2003 Disputed. No The documents speaks for itself. Petitioner
property transfer, the trust competent evidence presents no evidence to dispute its validity.
13 contained no other is presented. EC § 1520-1523.
14 property or assets. Ex. 1, Speculation. This is
3. a legal determination
15 based on disputed
material facts. See
16 Exhibit F.
11. The 2001 trust was Disputed. No Petitioner produces no evidence or law to
17
no longer active or valid competent evidence dispute the application of PC§ 15202.
18 because it contained no is cited.
assets. PC§ 15202 Speculation.
19 Erroneous legal and
factual conclusion.
20 See Exhibit F.
12. In 2007 Harry Tom Undisputed.
21
and respondent Eunice
22 Tom began a committed
romantic relationship.
23 Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne
Tom p. 2, ¶3, l 4
24
25 13. Starting in 2007, Undisputed.
Harry Tom and
26 respondent Eunice spent
considerable time
27 together, at her house and
with friends, and traveled
28 together. Dec. of Eunice
3
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 Eyvonne Tom p. 2, ¶5, L
14
4
14. By 2008, Harry Tom Disputed. Misstates Petitioner’s evidence lacks foundation and
5 was primarily living at the evidence cited. does not dispute respondent’s evidence.
respondent’s home at The cited evidence EC § 702, 800.
6
1431 Shafter Ave., San does include the
7 Francisco, CA. Dec. of phrase “primarily
Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. living.” See
8 2, ¶3, L 5 Declaration of
Joleen Snethen
9 (hereinafter “Joleen
Dec.”), p.8, lines 12-
10
14; Declaration of
11 Chelsey Snethen
(hereinafter
12 “Chelsey Dec.”),
p.6, lines 14-16.
13 15. In 2008, Harry stated Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s response does not dispute the
14 he had a very poor Respondent’s statements made by Harry Tom to
relationship with Joleen Objection to respondent. EC § 702, 800.
15 because she expected her Evidence Nos. 1 and
him to take care of her, 60. See Joleen Dec.,
16 lived in his house rent paras.17, 18, and 20;
free, and she was very Declaration of
17 hostile towards him. Dec. Schuyler Snethen
18 of Eunice Eyvonne Tom (hereinafter
p. 2, ¶4, L 9; “Schuyler Dec.”),
19 Dec. of Bess Hayashi p. p.5, lines 17-27;
2, ¶6, L 19. Chelsey Dec., p.6,
20 lines 6-14;
Declaration of Ruth
21
Duran (hereinafter
22 “Ruth Dec.”), p.2,
lines 4-23 and p.3,
23 lines 1-2 and p.3,
lines 8-11.
24 16. Harry Tom was an Undisputed.
avid fisherman who went
25
several times a week, both
26 alone and with friends.
Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne
27 Tom p. 2, ¶6, L 20
28 17. On May 26, 2015, Disputed, in part. Petitioner’s evidence does not dispute
4
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 Harry Tom stopped by his Harry did not stop by respondent’s declaration.
property to store fish to pay his cell phone
4 catch and to pay his bill. See Joleen
$20/month shared cell Dec., p.4, lines 11-
5 phone bill account to 12.
petitioner. Dec. of Eunice
6
Eyvonne Tom p. 3, ¶9, L
7 10
8 18. During his visit, Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s evidence is not dispute
petitioner demanded Respondent’s respondent’s declaration.
9 money from Harry Tom Objection to
and he refused to give her Evidence No. 3. See
10
any additional money. Joleen Dec., p.4,
11 Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne lines 11-12; p.9,
Tom p. 3, ¶9, L 12 lines 8-26;p.10, lines
12 1-2; Schuyler Dec.,
p.6, lines 18-27; p.7,
13 lines 1-15.
14 19. Joleen told Harry she Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s evidence does not dispute Harry
wanted to guarantee her Respondent’s Tom statements.
15 inheritance from him. Objection to
Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne Evidence No. 4. See
16 Tom p. 3, ¶10, L 15 Joleen Dec., p.4,
lines 11-12; p.9,
17 lines 8-9 and 17-19;
18 Schuyler Dec., p.6,
lines 18-19 ;p.7,
19 lines 2-5.
20. Joleen had prepared a Disputed, in part. Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute
20 handwriting document to Joleen wanted to respondent separate statement.
confirm that she would confirm the
21
receive Harry Tom’s agreement between
22 property when he passed her and her father
away. (“2015 document”). regarding the
23 Ex. 4, Dec. of Eunice property and his
Eyvonne Tom p. 3, ¶10, trust. See Joleen
24 L 15 Dec., p.3, lines 25-
26, p.4, lines 1-6 and
25
p.4, lines 13-14.
26 21. Harry Tom was Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute
reluctant to sign the Respondent’s Harry Tom statements.
27 document but did so to Objection to
stop Joleen’s hostility Evidence No. 4. See
28 towards him. Dec. of Joleen Dec., p.4,
5
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. lines 6-19.
3, ¶10, L 18
4
22. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute this
5 believe the 2015 Respondent’s separate statement.
document constituted a Objection to
6
valid legal agreement. Evidence No. 5. See
7 Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne Joleen Dec., p.4,
Tom p. 3, ¶10, L 21 lines 18-19, p6, lines
8 6-7; Schuyler Dec.,
p.4, line 19.
9 23. The 2015 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute
10 does not constitute a evidence is cited PC §21700, PC §15208.
contract to make will, other than the
11 devise, or other subject document.
testamentary instrument. This is a legal
12 Ex. 4, PC §21700, PC determination that is
§15208 based on disputed
13 questions of material
14 fact. See Joleen
Dec., paras.4, 5, 7, 8,
15 9, 23, 24; Schuyler
Dec., paras.3, 4, 18;
16 Chelsey Dec.,
para.3; Exhibits 1, 4,
17 7, and F.
18 24. The 2015 document Disputed. It says The document speaks for itself. Petitioner
prepared by petitioner this, but the drafted the document and any ambiguity
19 stated the property would reference is the is construed against her. CC §1654.
remain in a trust set up agreement between Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
20 between Joleen and Harry Joleen and her father Separate statement.
in 2002. Ex. 4, with reference to his
21
only trust that was
22 prepared in 2001.
See Ex. 1; See
23 Joleen Dec., para.7,
23, and 24.
24 25. At no time was a 2002 Disputed. It says The document speaks for itself. Petitioner
trust written by Joleen and this, but the drafted the document and any ambiguity
25
Harry Tom. Ex. 1, 4, reference is the is construed against her. CC §1654.
26 agreement between Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
Joleen and her father Separate statement.
27 with reference to his
only trust that was
28 prepared in 2001.
6
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 See Ex. 1; See
Joleen Dec., para.7,
4 23, and 24.
26. The 2015 document Undisputed.
5 states that Joleen promise
not to sell the property
6
and pass it on to her
7 children. [sic] Ex. 4,
8 27. The 2015 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute
does not constitute a evidence is cited Ex. 4, PC §21700, CC §1550 PC §15208.
9 contract to make a will other than the
10 because no contract was subject document.
formed between Joleen This is a legal
11 and Harry Tom. Ex. 4, determination that is
PC §21700, CC §1550 based on disputed
12 PC §15208 questions of material
fact. See Joleen
13 Dec., paras.4, 5, 7, 8,
14 9, 23, 24; Schuyler
Dec., paras.3, 4, 18;
15 Chelsey Dec.,
para.3; Exhibits 1, 4,
16 7 and F.
28. The 2015 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declarations do not dispute the
17
lacks consideration evidence is cited. separate statement or CC §1550, Mattei v.
18 because there were no See Joleen Dec., Hopper (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 119, 122; Jara v.
mutual promises of legal paras.4, 5, 7, 8, 9, Suprema Meats, Inc. (2004) 121 CA4th 1238,
19 obligation. CC §1550, 23, 24; Schuyler 1249. PC §15208.
Mattei v. Hopper Dec., paras.3, 4, 18;
20 (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 119, Chelsey Dec.,
122; Jara v. Suprema para.3; Exhibits 4, 7.
21
Meats, Inc. (2004) 121
22 CA4th 1238, 1249. PC
§15208
23
24 29. In order for a Objection. No The material fact is stated and petitioner does
25 contract to be valid, the material fact or not dispute the legal holdings Bleecher v.
parties must exchange evidence is Conte (1981) 29 Cal.3d 345, 350; Scottsdale
26 promises that represent identified. This is a Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins. Co. (2002) 98 CA4th
legal legal determination. 86, 94–95.
27 obligations. Bleecher v.
Conte (1981) 29 Cal.3d
28 345, 350; Scottsdale
7
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins.
Co. (2002) 98 CA4th 86,
4 94–95.
30. Without mutuality of Objection. No Petitioner does not dispute the legal holdings
5 obligation, an agreement material fact or of Mattei Ibid.
lacks consideration, and evidence is
6
no enforceable contract identified. This is a
7 has been created. Mattei legal determination.
Ibid.
8 31. Also, a contract is Objection. No Petitioner does not dispute the legal holdings
illusory where one party material fact or of Martin v. World Savings (2001) 92 CA4th
9 provides no legal evidence is 803, 809.
10 consideration. Martin v. identified. This is a
World Savings (2001) 92 legal determination.
11 CA4th 803, 809.
32. If a promise leaves a Objection. No Petitioner’s does not dispute the legal
12 party free to perform or material fact or holdings of Mattei Ibid.; Asmus v. Pacific Bell
to withdraw from the evidence is (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1, 15–16.
13 agreement at his or her identified. This is a
14 own unrestricted legal determination.
pleasure, the promise is
15 illusory and provides no
consideration, and the
16 contract is unenforceable
Mattei Ibid.; Asmus v.
17
Pacific Bell (2000) 23
18 Cal.4th 1, 15–16.
33. The 2015 document Disputed. No The document speaks for itself. Petitioner’s
19 did not amend or modify material fact is declarations do not dispute the fact or Ex. 4,
the 2001 trust. Ex. 4, PC identified. This is a PC §15401, 15402.
20 §15401, 15402 legal determination
that is based on
21
disputed questions of
22 material fact. See
Joleen Dec., paras.4,
23 5, 7, 8, 9, 23, 24;
Schuyler Dec.,
24 paras.3, 4, 18;
Chelsey Dec.,
25
para.3; Exhibits 1, 4,
26 7 and F.
34. The 2015 document Objection. No The document speaks for itself. Petitioner’s
27 does not change title to evidence is cited. objection does not dispute the factual or legal
the real property as held This is a legal holding of CC §§1091, 1092.
28 by the 2003 deed. CC determination that is
8
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 §§1091, 1092. based on disputed
questions of material
4 fact.
35. The 2015 document Objection. No The document speaks for itself. Petitioner has
5 does not constitute a evidence is cited. no evidence to dispute CC §§1091, 1092.
change of title to the This is a legal
6
property. CC §§1091, determination that is
7 1092. based on disputed
questions of material
8 fact.
36. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
9 believe the 2015 Respondent’s Fact.
10 document modified his Objection to
trust or transferred any Evidence No. 5. See
11 interest of his property. Joleen Dec., p.4,
Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne lines 18-19.
12 Tom p. 3, ¶11, L 21, Ex
1, 2, 3
13 37. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
14 believe the 2015 Respondent’s Fact.
document was legal. Dec. Objection to
15 of Eunice Eyvonne Tom Evidence No. 5. See
p. 3, ¶11, L 21, Ex 1, 2, Joleen Dec., p.4,
16 3, 4. lines 18-19.
38. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
17
believe the 2015 Respondent’s Fact.
18 document prevented him Objection to
from disposing of his Evidence No. 5.
19 property in any manner he Disputed. See
saw fit. Dec. of Eunice Joleen Dec., p.4,
20 Eyvonne Tom p. 3, ¶11, lines 18-19.
L 21, Ex 1, 2, 3
21
39. Harry Tom was never Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
22 given a copy of the 2015 Respondent’s Fact.
document. Dec. of Eunice Objection to
23 Eyvonne Tom p. 3, ¶10, Evidence No. 4. The
L 20 implication is that
24 Joleen refused to
25 give Harry a copy of
this document. This
26 is not true. See
Joleen Dec., p.4,
27 lines 8-9.
40. Respondent never Disputed. See Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
28 saw the 2015 document Joleen Dec., p.6, Fact.
9
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 prior to this litigation. lines 1-6; Schuyler
Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne Dec., p.4, lines 11-
4 Tom p. 3, ¶11, L 24 19.
41. Several times in their Undisputed.
5 relationship, Harry
discussed and proposed
6
marriage to Eunice.
7 Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne
Tom p. 3, ¶12, L 25
8 42. On April 5, 2017, at Undisputed
Harry’s birthday
9 celebration, Harry
10 proposed marriage again
and Eunice accepted. Dec.
11 of Eunice Eyvonne Tom
p. 4, ¶12, L 1
12 43. In May 2017, Harry Undisputed.
and Eunice moved from
13 her San Francisco home
14 and rented a house in
Concord CA. Dec. of
15 Eunice Eyvonne Tom p.
4, ¶12, L 4
16 44. On May 23, 2017, Undisputed.
after fishing with friends,
17
Harry stopped by his
18 house to pick up his mail.
Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne
19 Tom p. 4, ¶13, L 6
20 45. He became angry Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
when he discovered Respondent’s Fact.
21
Joleen and opened his Objection to
22 mail again after he had Evidence No. 6. See
repeatedly told her not to Joleen Dec., p.5,
23 do so. Dec. of Eunice lines 1-4.
Eyvonne Tom p. 4, ¶13,
24 L7
25 46. Joleen was angry Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
because she had Respondent’s Fact.
26 discovered Harry had Objection to
changed the mailing Evidence No. 6. See
27 address of his bank Joleen Dec., p.5,
account statements to his lines 1-4.
28 new Concord home and
10
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 he had removed Joleen as
the account POD
4 beneficiary. Dec. of
Eunice Eyvonne Tom p.
5 4, ¶13, L 8; Ex 5, 6
47. Joleen accused Harry Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
6
of giving away her Respondent’s Fact.
7 inheritance. Dec. of Objection to
Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. Evidence No. 7. See
8 4, ¶14, L 11 Joleen Dec., p.5,
lines 3-4.
9 48. She demanded that he Disputed. The cited Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
10 sign a handwritten evidence is Fact.
document she prepared inapplicable. Refer
11 stating the 2001 trust was to Respondent’s
irrevocable. (“2017 Objection to
12 document”). Ex 7; Dec. Evidence Nos. 6 and
of Eunice Eyvonne Tom 7. See Joleen Dec.,
13 p. 4, ¶13, L 8 p.4, lines 20-25.
14
49. Below Harry Undisputed.
15 signature, Joleen wrote, “
I still grant Joleen and my
16 grandchildren interest and
ownership of the
17
residence… upon my
18 death.” Ex 7.
50. Joleen sign below the Undisputed
19 second portion and wrote
“agreed upon”. [sic] Ex 7.
20 51. The 2017 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
lacks consideration evidence is cited. fact or the legal holding of Mattei v. Hopper
21
because there were no See Joleen Dec., (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 119, 122; Jara v. Suprema
22 mutual promises of legal paras.4, 5, 7, 8, 9, Meats, Inc. (2004) 121 CA4th 1238, 1249.
obligation. Mattei v. 23, 24; Schuyler Ex 7.
23 Hopper (1958) 51 Cal. Dec., paras.3, 4, 18;
2d 119, 122; Jara v. Chelsey Dec.,
24 Suprema Meats, Inc. para.3; Exhibits 1, 4,
25 (2004) 121 CA4th 1238, 7.
1249. Ex 7.
26 52. In order for a Disputed. This is a Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
contract to be valid, the legal determination fact or the legal holding of Bleecher v. Conte
27 parties must exchange that is based on (1981) 29 Cal.3d 345, 350; Scottsdale Ins. Co.
promises that represent disputed questions of v. Essex Ins. Co. (2002) 98 CA4th 86, 94–95.
28 legal material fact. See
11
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 obligations. Bleecher v. Joleen Dec., paras.4,
Conte (1981) 29 Cal.3d 5, 7, 8, 9, 23, 24;
4 345, 350; Scottsdale Schuyler Dec.,
Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins. paras.3, 4, 18;
5 Co. (2002) 98 CA4th 86, Chelsey Dec.,
94–95. para.3; Exhibits 1, 4,
6
7.
7 53. Without mutuality of Objection. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
obligation, an agreement material fact or fact or the legal holding of Mattei Ibid.
8 lacks consideration, and evidence is
no enforceable contract identified. This is a
9 has been created. Mattei legal determination.
Ibid.
10
54. Also, a contract is Objection. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
11 illusory where one party material fact or fact or the legal holding of Martin v. World
provides no legal evidence is Savings (2001) 92 CA4th 803, 809.
12 consideration. Martin v. identified. This is a
World Savings (2001) 92 legal determination.
13 CA4th 803, 809.
14 55. If a promise leaves a Objection. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
party free to perform or material fact or fact or the legal holding of Mattei Ibid.;
15 to withdraw from the evidence is Asmus v. Pacific Bell (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1,
agreement at his or her identified. This is a 15–16.
16 own unrestricted legal determination.
pleasure, the promise is
17
illusory and provides no
18 consideration, and the
contract is unenforceable
19 Mattei Ibid.; Asmus v.
Pacific Bell (2000) 23
20 Cal.4th 1, 15–16.
56. The 2017 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
21
does not contain any evidence is cited Fact. The document speaks for itself.
22 promises from Joleen that other than the EC § 1520-1523.
would constitute subject documents.
23 consideration for a This is a legal
contract. Ex 7. determination that is
24 based on disputed
questions of material
25
fact. See Joleen
26 Dec., paras.4, 5, 7, 8,
9, 23, 24; Schuyler
27 Dec., paras.3, 4, 18;
Chelsey Dec.,
28 para.3; Exhibits 1, 4,
12
RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION
Respondent and Opposing Party’s
1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to
Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and
2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence
3 7.
57. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
4 believe the 2017 Respondent’s Fact.
document was valid. Dec. Objection to
5 of Eunice Eyvonne Tom Evidence No. 8. See
p. 4, ¶15, L 18. Joleen Dec., p.4,
6
line 26-p.5 line 1.
7 58. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
believe the 2017 Respondent’s Fact.
8 document prevented him Objection to
from disposing of his Evidence No. 8. See
9 property in any manner he Joleen Dec., p.4,
10 saw fit. Dec. of Eunice line 26-p.5, line 1.
Eyvonne Tom p. 4, ¶15,
11 L 19.
59. Harry Tom signed the Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the
12 2017 document to stop the Respondent’s Fact.
Preview
1 Clinton Killian, SBN 116501 2 Nader Fannyan, SBN 320752 KILLIAN & FANNYAN, APC 2/9/2021 11:47 AM 3 1300 Clay St. Suite 600 Oakland, CA 94612 4 510-500-5775 ph. ckillian@killfannlaw.com 5 nf@killfannlaw.com 6 Attorneys for Respondent EUNICE EYVONNE TOM 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 10 In Re: CASE NO. 18 PR001016 11 THE ESTATE OF HARRY W.K.TOM RESPONDENT EUNICE TOM’S REPLY TO 12 ____________________________________ JOLEEN TOM SNETHEN, PETITIONER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 13 IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR Petitioner, SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE 14 vs. ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY 15 ADJUDICATION EUNICE EYVONNE TOM, 16 Respondent. Date: 2/16/2021 17 Time: 9:00 am Dept: 30 18 19 I. OBJECTIONS TO RESPONDENT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 20 Respondent and moving party Eunice Tom’s reply to Petitioner’s separate statement in 21 opposition to motion for summary judgment or in the alternative summary adjudication as follows: 22 23 PETITIONER’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S SEPARATE STATEMENT 24 Respondent and Opposing Party’s moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to 25 Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 26 27 1. Petitioner is the 64 Undisputed. year-old daughter of 28 Harry Tom and Glenda Tom. Exhibit 18, p. 2; 1 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 Ex. 24, Pet Resp to the Form Interrog p. 3 #2.2. 4 2. Petitioner is married to Undisputed. 5 Schuyler Snethen since 1974 and they have three 6 children: Chelsey 7 Snethen, born 1978; Ryan Snethen, born 1984; Erin 8 Cus-Snethen, born 1986. Exhibit 25 page 9 L3, 9 Exhibit 26, P8 L 19, Exhibit 27 P9 L5 10 11 3. On October 2, 1964, Undisputed Harry and Glenda Tom, 12 as joint tenants, purchased the real property located 13 at 848 Hemlock Dr. South 14 San Francisco, CA that is the subject of this lawsuit 15 (“Property”). Ex. 28 16 4. Glenda Tom died Undisputed. February 5, 2000. Ex. 28 17 18 5. On April 2, 2001, Undisputed. Harry Tom executed the 19 Harry W.K. Tom 2001 trust. (“ 2001 trust”). Ex. 20 1 21 6. On April 2, 2001, Undisputed. 22 Harry Tom transferred the property into the 2001 23 trust. Ex. 2 24 7. The property was the Disputed. No The documents speaks for itself. See 25 sole asset of the 2001 competent evidence Exhibit 1 page 11. EC § 1520-1523. trust. Ex. 1 is presented. 26 Speculation. This is a legal determination 27 based on disputed material facts. See 28 Exhibit F. 2 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 8. On August 15, 2003, Disputed. No The grant deed shows a transfer from Harry Harry Tom removed the competent evidence Tom trustee to Harry WK Tom an unmarried man. 4 property from the 2001 is presented. see Exhibit 3. The documents speaks for itself. trust by transferring the Speculation. This is EC § 1520-1523. Petitioner presents no 5 property title to his name a legal determination Evidence to dispute the validity of the deed. individual, an unmarried based on disputed 6 man, only. Ex. 3. material facts. See 7 Exhibit F. 9. As of August 15, 2003, Disputed. No The documents speaks for itself. EC § 1520- 8 Harry Tom was the sole competent evidence 1523. The grant deed shows a transfer from owner of the property, not is presented. Harry Tom trustee to Harry WK Tom an 9 the 2001 trust. Ex. 3. Speculation. This is unmarried man see Exhibit 3. a legal determination Petitioner presents no evidence to 10 based on disputed dispute the transfer. 11 material facts. See Exhibit F. 12 10. After the 2003 Disputed. No The documents speaks for itself. Petitioner property transfer, the trust competent evidence presents no evidence to dispute its validity. 13 contained no other is presented. EC § 1520-1523. 14 property or assets. Ex. 1, Speculation. This is 3. a legal determination 15 based on disputed material facts. See 16 Exhibit F. 11. The 2001 trust was Disputed. No Petitioner produces no evidence or law to 17 no longer active or valid competent evidence dispute the application of PC§ 15202. 18 because it contained no is cited. assets. PC§ 15202 Speculation. 19 Erroneous legal and factual conclusion. 20 See Exhibit F. 12. In 2007 Harry Tom Undisputed. 21 and respondent Eunice 22 Tom began a committed romantic relationship. 23 Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. 2, ¶3, l 4 24 25 13. Starting in 2007, Undisputed. Harry Tom and 26 respondent Eunice spent considerable time 27 together, at her house and with friends, and traveled 28 together. Dec. of Eunice 3 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 Eyvonne Tom p. 2, ¶5, L 14 4 14. By 2008, Harry Tom Disputed. Misstates Petitioner’s evidence lacks foundation and 5 was primarily living at the evidence cited. does not dispute respondent’s evidence. respondent’s home at The cited evidence EC § 702, 800. 6 1431 Shafter Ave., San does include the 7 Francisco, CA. Dec. of phrase “primarily Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. living.” See 8 2, ¶3, L 5 Declaration of Joleen Snethen 9 (hereinafter “Joleen Dec.”), p.8, lines 12- 10 14; Declaration of 11 Chelsey Snethen (hereinafter 12 “Chelsey Dec.”), p.6, lines 14-16. 13 15. In 2008, Harry stated Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s response does not dispute the 14 he had a very poor Respondent’s statements made by Harry Tom to relationship with Joleen Objection to respondent. EC § 702, 800. 15 because she expected her Evidence Nos. 1 and him to take care of her, 60. See Joleen Dec., 16 lived in his house rent paras.17, 18, and 20; free, and she was very Declaration of 17 hostile towards him. Dec. Schuyler Snethen 18 of Eunice Eyvonne Tom (hereinafter p. 2, ¶4, L 9; “Schuyler Dec.”), 19 Dec. of Bess Hayashi p. p.5, lines 17-27; 2, ¶6, L 19. Chelsey Dec., p.6, 20 lines 6-14; Declaration of Ruth 21 Duran (hereinafter 22 “Ruth Dec.”), p.2, lines 4-23 and p.3, 23 lines 1-2 and p.3, lines 8-11. 24 16. Harry Tom was an Undisputed. avid fisherman who went 25 several times a week, both 26 alone and with friends. Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne 27 Tom p. 2, ¶6, L 20 28 17. On May 26, 2015, Disputed, in part. Petitioner’s evidence does not dispute 4 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 Harry Tom stopped by his Harry did not stop by respondent’s declaration. property to store fish to pay his cell phone 4 catch and to pay his bill. See Joleen $20/month shared cell Dec., p.4, lines 11- 5 phone bill account to 12. petitioner. Dec. of Eunice 6 Eyvonne Tom p. 3, ¶9, L 7 10 8 18. During his visit, Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s evidence is not dispute petitioner demanded Respondent’s respondent’s declaration. 9 money from Harry Tom Objection to and he refused to give her Evidence No. 3. See 10 any additional money. Joleen Dec., p.4, 11 Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne lines 11-12; p.9, Tom p. 3, ¶9, L 12 lines 8-26;p.10, lines 12 1-2; Schuyler Dec., p.6, lines 18-27; p.7, 13 lines 1-15. 14 19. Joleen told Harry she Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s evidence does not dispute Harry wanted to guarantee her Respondent’s Tom statements. 15 inheritance from him. Objection to Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne Evidence No. 4. See 16 Tom p. 3, ¶10, L 15 Joleen Dec., p.4, lines 11-12; p.9, 17 lines 8-9 and 17-19; 18 Schuyler Dec., p.6, lines 18-19 ;p.7, 19 lines 2-5. 20. Joleen had prepared a Disputed, in part. Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute 20 handwriting document to Joleen wanted to respondent separate statement. confirm that she would confirm the 21 receive Harry Tom’s agreement between 22 property when he passed her and her father away. (“2015 document”). regarding the 23 Ex. 4, Dec. of Eunice property and his Eyvonne Tom p. 3, ¶10, trust. See Joleen 24 L 15 Dec., p.3, lines 25- 26, p.4, lines 1-6 and 25 p.4, lines 13-14. 26 21. Harry Tom was Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute reluctant to sign the Respondent’s Harry Tom statements. 27 document but did so to Objection to stop Joleen’s hostility Evidence No. 4. See 28 towards him. Dec. of Joleen Dec., p.4, 5 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. lines 6-19. 3, ¶10, L 18 4 22. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute this 5 believe the 2015 Respondent’s separate statement. document constituted a Objection to 6 valid legal agreement. Evidence No. 5. See 7 Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne Joleen Dec., p.4, Tom p. 3, ¶10, L 21 lines 18-19, p6, lines 8 6-7; Schuyler Dec., p.4, line 19. 9 23. The 2015 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute 10 does not constitute a evidence is cited PC §21700, PC §15208. contract to make will, other than the 11 devise, or other subject document. testamentary instrument. This is a legal 12 Ex. 4, PC §21700, PC determination that is §15208 based on disputed 13 questions of material 14 fact. See Joleen Dec., paras.4, 5, 7, 8, 15 9, 23, 24; Schuyler Dec., paras.3, 4, 18; 16 Chelsey Dec., para.3; Exhibits 1, 4, 17 7, and F. 18 24. The 2015 document Disputed. It says The document speaks for itself. Petitioner prepared by petitioner this, but the drafted the document and any ambiguity 19 stated the property would reference is the is construed against her. CC §1654. remain in a trust set up agreement between Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 20 between Joleen and Harry Joleen and her father Separate statement. in 2002. Ex. 4, with reference to his 21 only trust that was 22 prepared in 2001. See Ex. 1; See 23 Joleen Dec., para.7, 23, and 24. 24 25. At no time was a 2002 Disputed. It says The document speaks for itself. Petitioner trust written by Joleen and this, but the drafted the document and any ambiguity 25 Harry Tom. Ex. 1, 4, reference is the is construed against her. CC §1654. 26 agreement between Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the Joleen and her father Separate statement. 27 with reference to his only trust that was 28 prepared in 2001. 6 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 See Ex. 1; See Joleen Dec., para.7, 4 23, and 24. 26. The 2015 document Undisputed. 5 states that Joleen promise not to sell the property 6 and pass it on to her 7 children. [sic] Ex. 4, 8 27. The 2015 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute does not constitute a evidence is cited Ex. 4, PC §21700, CC §1550 PC §15208. 9 contract to make a will other than the 10 because no contract was subject document. formed between Joleen This is a legal 11 and Harry Tom. Ex. 4, determination that is PC §21700, CC §1550 based on disputed 12 PC §15208 questions of material fact. See Joleen 13 Dec., paras.4, 5, 7, 8, 14 9, 23, 24; Schuyler Dec., paras.3, 4, 18; 15 Chelsey Dec., para.3; Exhibits 1, 4, 16 7 and F. 28. The 2015 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declarations do not dispute the 17 lacks consideration evidence is cited. separate statement or CC §1550, Mattei v. 18 because there were no See Joleen Dec., Hopper (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 119, 122; Jara v. mutual promises of legal paras.4, 5, 7, 8, 9, Suprema Meats, Inc. (2004) 121 CA4th 1238, 19 obligation. CC §1550, 23, 24; Schuyler 1249. PC §15208. Mattei v. Hopper Dec., paras.3, 4, 18; 20 (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 119, Chelsey Dec., 122; Jara v. Suprema para.3; Exhibits 4, 7. 21 Meats, Inc. (2004) 121 22 CA4th 1238, 1249. PC §15208 23 24 29. In order for a Objection. No The material fact is stated and petitioner does 25 contract to be valid, the material fact or not dispute the legal holdings Bleecher v. parties must exchange evidence is Conte (1981) 29 Cal.3d 345, 350; Scottsdale 26 promises that represent identified. This is a Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins. Co. (2002) 98 CA4th legal legal determination. 86, 94–95. 27 obligations. Bleecher v. Conte (1981) 29 Cal.3d 28 345, 350; Scottsdale 7 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins. Co. (2002) 98 CA4th 86, 4 94–95. 30. Without mutuality of Objection. No Petitioner does not dispute the legal holdings 5 obligation, an agreement material fact or of Mattei Ibid. lacks consideration, and evidence is 6 no enforceable contract identified. This is a 7 has been created. Mattei legal determination. Ibid. 8 31. Also, a contract is Objection. No Petitioner does not dispute the legal holdings illusory where one party material fact or of Martin v. World Savings (2001) 92 CA4th 9 provides no legal evidence is 803, 809. 10 consideration. Martin v. identified. This is a World Savings (2001) 92 legal determination. 11 CA4th 803, 809. 32. If a promise leaves a Objection. No Petitioner’s does not dispute the legal 12 party free to perform or material fact or holdings of Mattei Ibid.; Asmus v. Pacific Bell to withdraw from the evidence is (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1, 15–16. 13 agreement at his or her identified. This is a 14 own unrestricted legal determination. pleasure, the promise is 15 illusory and provides no consideration, and the 16 contract is unenforceable Mattei Ibid.; Asmus v. 17 Pacific Bell (2000) 23 18 Cal.4th 1, 15–16. 33. The 2015 document Disputed. No The document speaks for itself. Petitioner’s 19 did not amend or modify material fact is declarations do not dispute the fact or Ex. 4, the 2001 trust. Ex. 4, PC identified. This is a PC §15401, 15402. 20 §15401, 15402 legal determination that is based on 21 disputed questions of 22 material fact. See Joleen Dec., paras.4, 23 5, 7, 8, 9, 23, 24; Schuyler Dec., 24 paras.3, 4, 18; Chelsey Dec., 25 para.3; Exhibits 1, 4, 26 7 and F. 34. The 2015 document Objection. No The document speaks for itself. Petitioner’s 27 does not change title to evidence is cited. objection does not dispute the factual or legal the real property as held This is a legal holding of CC §§1091, 1092. 28 by the 2003 deed. CC determination that is 8 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 §§1091, 1092. based on disputed questions of material 4 fact. 35. The 2015 document Objection. No The document speaks for itself. Petitioner has 5 does not constitute a evidence is cited. no evidence to dispute CC §§1091, 1092. change of title to the This is a legal 6 property. CC §§1091, determination that is 7 1092. based on disputed questions of material 8 fact. 36. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 9 believe the 2015 Respondent’s Fact. 10 document modified his Objection to trust or transferred any Evidence No. 5. See 11 interest of his property. Joleen Dec., p.4, Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne lines 18-19. 12 Tom p. 3, ¶11, L 21, Ex 1, 2, 3 13 37. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 14 believe the 2015 Respondent’s Fact. document was legal. Dec. Objection to 15 of Eunice Eyvonne Tom Evidence No. 5. See p. 3, ¶11, L 21, Ex 1, 2, Joleen Dec., p.4, 16 3, 4. lines 18-19. 38. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 17 believe the 2015 Respondent’s Fact. 18 document prevented him Objection to from disposing of his Evidence No. 5. 19 property in any manner he Disputed. See saw fit. Dec. of Eunice Joleen Dec., p.4, 20 Eyvonne Tom p. 3, ¶11, lines 18-19. L 21, Ex 1, 2, 3 21 39. Harry Tom was never Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 22 given a copy of the 2015 Respondent’s Fact. document. Dec. of Eunice Objection to 23 Eyvonne Tom p. 3, ¶10, Evidence No. 4. The L 20 implication is that 24 Joleen refused to 25 give Harry a copy of this document. This 26 is not true. See Joleen Dec., p.4, 27 lines 8-9. 40. Respondent never Disputed. See Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 28 saw the 2015 document Joleen Dec., p.6, Fact. 9 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 prior to this litigation. lines 1-6; Schuyler Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne Dec., p.4, lines 11- 4 Tom p. 3, ¶11, L 24 19. 41. Several times in their Undisputed. 5 relationship, Harry discussed and proposed 6 marriage to Eunice. 7 Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. 3, ¶12, L 25 8 42. On April 5, 2017, at Undisputed Harry’s birthday 9 celebration, Harry 10 proposed marriage again and Eunice accepted. Dec. 11 of Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. 4, ¶12, L 1 12 43. In May 2017, Harry Undisputed. and Eunice moved from 13 her San Francisco home 14 and rented a house in Concord CA. Dec. of 15 Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. 4, ¶12, L 4 16 44. On May 23, 2017, Undisputed. after fishing with friends, 17 Harry stopped by his 18 house to pick up his mail. Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne 19 Tom p. 4, ¶13, L 6 20 45. He became angry Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the when he discovered Respondent’s Fact. 21 Joleen and opened his Objection to 22 mail again after he had Evidence No. 6. See repeatedly told her not to Joleen Dec., p.5, 23 do so. Dec. of Eunice lines 1-4. Eyvonne Tom p. 4, ¶13, 24 L7 25 46. Joleen was angry Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the because she had Respondent’s Fact. 26 discovered Harry had Objection to changed the mailing Evidence No. 6. See 27 address of his bank Joleen Dec., p.5, account statements to his lines 1-4. 28 new Concord home and 10 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 he had removed Joleen as the account POD 4 beneficiary. Dec. of Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. 5 4, ¶13, L 8; Ex 5, 6 47. Joleen accused Harry Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 6 of giving away her Respondent’s Fact. 7 inheritance. Dec. of Objection to Eunice Eyvonne Tom p. Evidence No. 7. See 8 4, ¶14, L 11 Joleen Dec., p.5, lines 3-4. 9 48. She demanded that he Disputed. The cited Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 10 sign a handwritten evidence is Fact. document she prepared inapplicable. Refer 11 stating the 2001 trust was to Respondent’s irrevocable. (“2017 Objection to 12 document”). Ex 7; Dec. Evidence Nos. 6 and of Eunice Eyvonne Tom 7. See Joleen Dec., 13 p. 4, ¶13, L 8 p.4, lines 20-25. 14 49. Below Harry Undisputed. 15 signature, Joleen wrote, “ I still grant Joleen and my 16 grandchildren interest and ownership of the 17 residence… upon my 18 death.” Ex 7. 50. Joleen sign below the Undisputed 19 second portion and wrote “agreed upon”. [sic] Ex 7. 20 51. The 2017 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the lacks consideration evidence is cited. fact or the legal holding of Mattei v. Hopper 21 because there were no See Joleen Dec., (1958) 51 Cal. 2d 119, 122; Jara v. Suprema 22 mutual promises of legal paras.4, 5, 7, 8, 9, Meats, Inc. (2004) 121 CA4th 1238, 1249. obligation. Mattei v. 23, 24; Schuyler Ex 7. 23 Hopper (1958) 51 Cal. Dec., paras.3, 4, 18; 2d 119, 122; Jara v. Chelsey Dec., 24 Suprema Meats, Inc. para.3; Exhibits 1, 4, 25 (2004) 121 CA4th 1238, 7. 1249. Ex 7. 26 52. In order for a Disputed. This is a Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the contract to be valid, the legal determination fact or the legal holding of Bleecher v. Conte 27 parties must exchange that is based on (1981) 29 Cal.3d 345, 350; Scottsdale Ins. Co. promises that represent disputed questions of v. Essex Ins. Co. (2002) 98 CA4th 86, 94–95. 28 legal material fact. See 11 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 obligations. Bleecher v. Joleen Dec., paras.4, Conte (1981) 29 Cal.3d 5, 7, 8, 9, 23, 24; 4 345, 350; Scottsdale Schuyler Dec., Ins. Co. v. Essex Ins. paras.3, 4, 18; 5 Co. (2002) 98 CA4th 86, Chelsey Dec., 94–95. para.3; Exhibits 1, 4, 6 7. 7 53. Without mutuality of Objection. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the obligation, an agreement material fact or fact or the legal holding of Mattei Ibid. 8 lacks consideration, and evidence is no enforceable contract identified. This is a 9 has been created. Mattei legal determination. Ibid. 10 54. Also, a contract is Objection. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 11 illusory where one party material fact or fact or the legal holding of Martin v. World provides no legal evidence is Savings (2001) 92 CA4th 803, 809. 12 consideration. Martin v. identified. This is a World Savings (2001) 92 legal determination. 13 CA4th 803, 809. 14 55. If a promise leaves a Objection. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the party free to perform or material fact or fact or the legal holding of Mattei Ibid.; 15 to withdraw from the evidence is Asmus v. Pacific Bell (2000) 23 Cal.4th 1, agreement at his or her identified. This is a 15–16. 16 own unrestricted legal determination. pleasure, the promise is 17 illusory and provides no 18 consideration, and the contract is unenforceable 19 Mattei Ibid.; Asmus v. Pacific Bell (2000) 23 20 Cal.4th 1, 15–16. 56. The 2017 document Disputed. No Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 21 does not contain any evidence is cited Fact. The document speaks for itself. 22 promises from Joleen that other than the EC § 1520-1523. would constitute subject documents. 23 consideration for a This is a legal contract. Ex 7. determination that is 24 based on disputed questions of material 25 fact. See Joleen 26 Dec., paras.4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 23, 24; Schuyler 27 Dec., paras.3, 4, 18; Chelsey Dec., 28 para.3; Exhibits 1, 4, 12 RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION Respondent and Opposing Party’s 1 moving party’s Response and Respondent moving party’s reply to Undisputed Material Supporting Opposing Party’s Response and 2 Facts and Evidence Evidence Supporting Evidence 3 7. 57. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 4 believe the 2017 Respondent’s Fact. document was valid. Dec. Objection to 5 of Eunice Eyvonne Tom Evidence No. 8. See p. 4, ¶15, L 18. Joleen Dec., p.4, 6 line 26-p.5 line 1. 7 58. Harry Tom did not Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the believe the 2017 Respondent’s Fact. 8 document prevented him Objection to from disposing of his Evidence No. 8. See 9 property in any manner he Joleen Dec., p.4, 10 saw fit. Dec. of Eunice line 26-p.5, line 1. Eyvonne Tom p. 4, ¶15, 11 L 19. 59. Harry Tom signed the Disputed. Refer to Petitioner’s declaration does not dispute the 12 2017 document to stop the Respondent’s Fact.