Rubin v. Rubin
| Decision Date | 20 July 2018 |
| Docket Number | B275293 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CHAIM B. RUBIN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. JACOB RUBIN et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC535449)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Dalila Corral Lyons, Judge. Affirmed.
Revere & Wallace and Frank Revere for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Blank Rome, Gregory M. Bordo, Christopher J. Petersen, and Harrison M. Brown for Defendants and Respondents Jacob Rubin, Deena Zyskind, Gloria Schonberger, and Miriam Rubin.
____________________ In this intra-family litigation, appellant Chaim Rubin (Chaim) sued his three siblings for a variety of torts arising out of the distribution of the proceeds of their mother's life insurance policy.1 After a one-day bench trial, the trial court found Chaim's claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations because he was on inquiry notice of his claims more than three years before he filed suit. We conclude that the trial court's findings are supported by substantial evidence, and thus we affirm.
Chaim filed the present action against his three siblings, respondents Jacob Rubin (Jacob), Gloria Schonberger (Gloria), and Deena Zyskind (Deena), on February 6, 2014; he later added Jacob's wife, Miriam Rubin, as an additional defendant.2 The operative second amended complaint, filed September 23, 2014, alleges that after the siblings' mother, Helen Rubin (Helen), died in July 2000, the siblings collected the proceeds of a $2 million life insurance policy, which was to be evenly divided among them. In July 2000, Chaim, Jacob, Gloria, and Deena placed the $2 million in a Chase Bank account on which all four had signing authority. In March 2001, Chaim's siblings opened another account with Chase Bank, entitled the "Chaim B. Rubin EscrowAccount," into which they deposited Chaim's one-fourth share of the insurance proceeds ($500,000). Although the account was opened under Chaim's social security number, only his siblings had signing authority on it, "giving them control of Plaintiff's funds deposited therein." Chaim "was never consulted concerning this account nor did he consent to [it] being opened." Thereafter, between 2001 and 2012, Chaim's siblings transferred his share of the insurance proceeds to several different accounts held in Chaim's name; and in 2013, approximately $426,600 was transferred to an account Jacob controlled.
Chaim alleged that through this conduct, his siblings Chaim alleged that this conduct gave rise to causes of action for unjust enrichment, conversion, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty.
Prior to trial, the parties stipulated to the following facts: In 2001, Jacob, Gloria, and Deena each received $500,000 as their share of Helen's life insurance policy. On March 2, 2001, Jacob opened an escrow account at Chase Bank (account number 2965;hereafter, the "first escrow account"), into which he deposited $500,000 as Chaim's share of the life insurance proceeds. In April 2007, Jacob transferred $569,100 from the first escrow account to a new account (account number 0519; hereafter, the "second escrow account"); and on August 15, 2012, Jacob transferred $594,364 from the second escrow account to another new account (account number 9859; hereafter, the "third escrow account"). Between October 2012 and February 2014, Jacob made nine transfers, totaling $428,100, from the third escrow account to accounts held in his own name. In May 2015, Jacob redeposited $428,100 in the third escrow account, bringing the balance of that account to $594,349. The current balance of the third escrow account is $594,349.
Chaim's trial brief asserted that in 2001, his siblings Chaim claimed damages of $500,000, plus 10 percent interest from March 3, 2001 to the present, for a total of $1,250,000.
Notwithstanding his claim that his siblings had controlled his share of the life insurance proceeds since 2001, Chaim contended there was no conversion of funds until October 18, 2012, when $160,000 was withdrawn from the third escrow account. He further contended that he did not discover the conversion until November 2013, when he learned escrow accounts had been maintained at Chase Bank in his name. Chaim also contended his siblings fraudulently concealed the conversion of his funds.
Defendants' trial brief asserted that while the siblings' mother Helen was still alive, Chaim withdrew money from a family trust account by forging his siblings' signatures, and collected and kept rents from Helen's income properties. After Helen's death, with Chaim's consent, Jacob deposited Chaim's one-fourth share of Helen's $2 million life insurance policy in the first escrow account, which was associated with Chaim's social security number. In 2002, at Chaim's request, Jacob transferred Chaim's portion of the insurance proceeds to the second escrow account, which was not associated with Chaim's social security number, so that Chaim did not have to pay taxes on the interest. In 2012, Jacob opened the third escrow account, again in Chaim's name, when he transferred all of the Chase Bank accounts he controlled from a branch in New York to one in New Jersey.
In late 2012, Jacob learned of an opportunity to invest in a distressed mortgage deed. Jacob believed the investment would yield a much higher rate of return than what was provided by the escrow account. Accordingly, he initiated several transfers from the third escrow account, for a total of $420,000, to purchase the mortgage deed. The balance of the insurance proceeds remained in the third escrow account. After Chaim filed the present action, Jacob redeposited $428,100 into the third escrow account in the hope of resolving the litigation. Since that time, the balance of the account has been $594,349.
Defendants asserted that under the so-called discovery rule, the statute of limitations begins to run " 'when the plaintiff suspects or should suspect that [his] injury was caused by wrongdoing.' " In this case, by 2001, Chaim knew or had reason to suspect that his siblings were wrongfully withholding hisshare of the insurance proceeds; and he made demands on his siblings for the funds beginning in mid-2009. Defendants thus asserted that each of Chaim's claims was barred by the three-year statute of limitations applicable to fraud claims.
On March 21, 2016, defendants made an oral motion to bifurcate trial, with the affirmative defense of statute of limitations to be tried first. All parties stipulated that the statute of limitations on all causes of action was three years. The trial court granted the motion to bifurcate, finding that it "would be a waste of judicial resources and the parties' time and money to proceed with the facts of the case if the statute of limitations bars some or all of the causes of action."
Defendants' only witness was Chaim, who was examined pursuant to Evidence Code section 776. His testimony, introduced primarily through statements he made during his depositions in the present and prior litigation, was as follows.
When Helen died in 2000, Chaim knew that she had a $2 million life insurance policy of which he and his siblings were the beneficiaries. In 2000, the siblings agreed that Jacob would make a claim on the policy and then disburse the funds. When Chaim did not receive his share, he inquired of his siblings in 2000, "[a]nd they said . . . '[you, Chaim,] are not going to get themoney,' or, you know, whatever reasons, ridiculous claims that they could think of raising, they wanted to do that." In 2005, Chaim consulted a lawyer in connection with a separate dispute with his siblings, and Thereafter,
Chaim also was questioned about a case he brought against his siblings in 2009 to dissolve a family partnership. During a 2010 deposition in that action, Chaim testified that in 2005, the partnership's tenant offered $1 million in exchange for a document referred to as an estoppel certificate. The certificate required the signatures of all four siblings; Chaim refused to sign it because ...
To continue reading
Request your trial