Choi v. Sagemark Consulting, H041569

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtPremo, Acting P.J.
Citation18 Cal.App.5th 308,226 Cal.Rptr.3d 267
Parties Nelson CHOI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. SAGEMARK CONSULTING et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants; American General Life Insurance Co., Cross-defendant and Respondent.
Decision Date16 November 2017
Docket NumberH041569

18 Cal.App.5th 308
226 Cal.Rptr.3d 267

Nelson CHOI et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
SAGEMARK CONSULTING et al., Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants;

American General Life Insurance Co., Cross-defendant and Respondent.

H041569

Court of Appeal, Sixth District, California.

Filed November 16, 2017


O'Connor and Associates, John D. O'Connor, Jeffrey D. Kirk, San Francisco for Plaintiffs and Appellants Nelson Choi, Jeanne Choi, Choice Instruments, Inc.

Kaufman Dolowich & Voluck, Tad A. Devlin, Gabriel Rubin, San Francisco for Defendants, Cross-complainants and Appellants Sagemark Consulting, Lincoln Financial Advisors, Matthew Roberson, Richard Brown

Edison McDowell & Hetherington, Raymond J. Tittmann, Amy B. Boyea, David T. McDowell, Charan M. Higbee, Oakland for Cross-defendant and Respondent American General Life Insurance Co.

Premo, Acting P.J.

18 Cal.App.5th 312

This civil action arises from the provision of allegedly negligent and fraudulent financial planning advice involving a program for investment in life insurance and annuities under former section 412(i) of the Internal Revenue Code (the "412(i) Plan"). Plaintiffs claim that defendants induced them to establish the 412(i) Plan by misrepresenting its promised benefits and marketing it as a "safe" investment, even though they knew, or should have known, that the plan was likely to invite Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scrutiny. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to take prompt action to mitigate damages when the IRS issued revenue rulings and regulations in 2004 and 2005 that called such 412(i) plans into question. Defendants cross-complained for indemnity and comparative fault against American General Life Insurance Company (American General), whose products funded plaintiffs' 412(i) Plan.

At issue in this appeal are defendants' and American General's separate motions for summary judgment, which the trial

226 Cal.Rptr.3d 270

court granted after finding that plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred by (1) determining that the limitations period began to run as of September 2007, when plaintiffs were "on notice" that the IRS would impose penalties in connection with the 412(i) Plan, rather than in 2010 when penalties were assessed, (2) failing to consider any tolling effect created by the ongoing fiduciary relationship between defendants and plaintiffs, and (3) applying the September 2007 "notice" date as a bar to all causes of action in the complaint.

For the reasons stated herein, we affirm.

18 Cal.App.5th 313

I. BACKGROUND

A. PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT

Husband and wife, Nelson Choi and Jeannie Choi (the Chois), and their closely-held corporation Choice Instruments, Inc. (together "plaintiffs") filed this action in November 2010 against their former financial advisors (individuals Matthew Roberson and Richard Brown, and Sagemark Consulting, Lincoln Financial Advisors, and Lincoln National Corporation—together "defendants"), asserting causes of action for negligence, fraud and deceit, and breach of contract.

According to the complaint, the Chois consulted in 2003 with Roberson and Brown of Sagemark Consulting, who also were authorized agents of Lincoln Financial, for assistance with investments, asset protection, and tax planning. Defendants advised the Chois that an Internal Revenue Code section 412(i) Plan retirement account was ideal for them and would provide tax advantages, asset protection, and steady income. It required a complex program of several steps. First, plaintiffs were to purchase large amounts of "whole life" insurance and pay annual premiums on a five-year schedule. Second, after five years the Chois would purchase the whole life policies from the 412(i) Plan at a low " ‘cash surrender value,’ " leaving cash in the 412(i) Plan account while the Chois would own the whole life policies personally. This allegedly would create a " ‘springing’ " or increasing cash value for plaintiffs. The third step was a " ‘power play’ " exchange of the whole life policies for certain American General Universal Life " ‘Platinum Provider’ " policies, which would allow plaintiffs to take advantage of generous borrowing provisions and tax-free cash flow based on the increased policy values.

Per defendants' recommendation, Choice Instruments bought the Chois individual American General whole life policies in 2003, which required annual premium payments on a five-year schedule through 2007, for a total purchase price of $1,275,000. Defendants urged the Chois to buy similar policies in 2004, requiring premium payments over five years through 2008, for a total purchase price of $439,000. The policies comprised 70 to 75 percent of the 412(i) Plan portfolio. Defendants allegedly touted the "certainty of the immediate deductibility of such contributions" to the 412(i) Plan account, which they "assured ... was appropriate and authorized by applicable tax law." They allegedly assured plaintiffs that the program was " ‘bullet proof,’ " time-tested, and carried no substantial risk of adverse IRS action or tax consequences.

The IRS audit began in 2006. Plaintiffs alleged damages beginning in 2008, when contrary to the previously-represented " ‘exit strategy’ " of

18 Cal.App.5th 314

purchasing the whole life policies at the low cash surrender value, defendants advised them that the IRS would require fair market value. Plaintiffs paid a total of $613,000 for the purchase of

226 Cal.Rptr.3d 271

the four policies (approximately $300,0001 over the anticipated cost). Defendants advised plaintiffs to convert the 412(i) Plan to a traditional Internal Revenue Code section 412 Plan (the "412 Plan") because the IRS had adopted a negative view of the policies under the 412(i) Plan and considered them defective and not IRS-approved. Defendants asserted that this was the fault of American General.

Plaintiffs alleged additional damages in 2008 and 2009 from the purchase of whole life policies through Penn Mutual, which they claimed defendants falsely advised was necessary to comply with the requirements of the converted 412 Plan and resulted in an "immediate loss" in cash value of approximately $470,000. Plaintiffs further alleged that in 2009, after the IRS audit ended, they were required to pay in excess of $440,000 in back taxes and interest for disallowed deductions under the 412(i) Plan, plus $60,000 in additional penalties, and faced future estimated payments of $100,000 to the Franchise Tax Board of California and anticipated IRS penalties of $600,000 for not reporting the transactions on form 8886.

Plaintiffs in sum alleged that defendants "misrepresented, concealed and failed to disclose" the risk that: (1) the "great weighting of life insurance policies" in excess of 50 percent of plan assets would render the 412(i) Plan "suspect and defective in the view of the IRS"; (2) the IRS would disallow the deductibility of contributions into the 412(i) Plan account for the life insurance purchases; (3) the " ‘springing’ " cash values would be suspect and unlikely to be approved by the IRS, so plaintiffs would be forced to pay far more (fair market value) than the low cash surrender value; (4) the "irrevocable right" to "power play" exchange the whole life policies for the superior " ‘Platinum Provider’ " policies was not guaranteed, because American General had a reservation of rights to change or withdraw policies; and (5) the policy purchases were most likely "reportable transactions to be listed on Form 8886" and could be considered abusive tax shelters. They alleged that they would have been better served by purchasing all or mostly annuities in a 412(i) Plan, or by "conventional investments," and that defendants' representations that the 412(i) Plan was time-tested and carried little risk of disallowance were false.

18 Cal.App.5th 315

B. DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND CROSS-COMPLAINT

Defendants answered the complaint, pleading as an affirmative defense the bar of "the applicable statute of limitations, including but not limited to California Code of Civil Procedure section 338." Defendants also cross-complained against American General for indemnity and comparative fault. Defendants assert on appeal that the cross-complaint was "wholly derivative" of plaintiffs' complaint, so if they were found not liable to plaintiffs, American General would not be liable to them.2

C. SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDINGS

Defendants moved for summary judgment

226 Cal.Rptr.3d 272

( Code Civ. Proc., § 437c )3 in October 2013, and plaintiffs filed opposition in May 2014, following stipulated time extensions.

Defendants argued that plaintiffs could not prevail as a matter of law as to each cause of action, that plaintiffs' claims were barred by the applicable statute of limitations, and that the corporate defendants were not proper parties to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Area 55, LLC v. Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP, D075648
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 29, 2021
    ...(2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 815, 827, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 667, italics added; accord, 61 Cal.App.5th 173 Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 322, fn. 7, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 [" section 458 has been strictly construed"].)Based on the foregoing authorities and the record on appeal, we......
  • Moss v. Duncan, D075101
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 20, 2019
    ...but can be resolved as a matter of law when, as here, the material facts are not disputed. ( Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 323–324, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 ( Choi ); Sahadi v. Scheaffer (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 704, 714, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 517 ( Sahadi ).) We review the rulin......
  • Green Mut. Prop. & Inv. Co. v. Wilshire Bank, B275613
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 2018
    ...that matters for statute of limitations purposes. (Adams v. Paul (1995) 11 Cal.4th 583, 589; accord, Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 323.) Even if GM Equity suffered harm when GM Property sold the real property in 2014, GM Equity was initially damaged, if at all, at t......
  • Munoz v. Welch, B301717
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 29, 2020
    ...of appreciable and actual harm, however uncertain in amount, will commence the statutory period"]; Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 323 ["[i]f the last element to occur in a tort action is damages, 'the statute of limitations begins to run on the occurrence of "appreci......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Area 55, LLC v. Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP, D075648
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • January 29, 2021
    ...(2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 815, 827, 252 Cal.Rptr.3d 667, italics added; accord, 61 Cal.App.5th 173 Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 322, fn. 7, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 [" section 458 has been strictly construed"].)Based on the foregoing authorities and the record on appeal, we......
  • Moss v. Duncan, D075101
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • June 20, 2019
    ...but can be resolved as a matter of law when, as here, the material facts are not disputed. ( Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 323–324, 226 Cal.Rptr.3d 267 ( Choi ); Sahadi v. Scheaffer (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 704, 714, 66 Cal.Rptr.3d 517 ( Sahadi ).) We review the rulin......
  • Green Mut. Prop. & Inv. Co. v. Wilshire Bank, B275613
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 2018
    ...that matters for statute of limitations purposes. (Adams v. Paul (1995) 11 Cal.4th 583, 589; accord, Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 323.) Even if GM Equity suffered harm when GM Property sold the real property in 2014, GM Equity was initially damaged, if at all, at t......
  • California-American Water Co. v. Marina Coast Water Dist., A160662
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 28, 2022
    ...can draw only one legitimate inference from uncontradicted evidence about the limitations issue. (Choi v. Sagemark Consulting (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 308, 323-[3]24.)" The trial court's order then had a section entitled "Marina's Burden" where, under the heading "Accrual," the court recited f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT