Wilson v. Gonzalez

• Decision Date: 04 December 2020
• Docket Number: E071587
• Parties: LANNY WILSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARISA GONZALEZ, Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

LANNY WILSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MARISA GONZALEZ, Defendant and Respondent.

E071587

COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

December 4, 2020

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

(Super.Ct.No. RIC606707)

OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Irma Poole Asberry, Judge. Affirmed.

The Law Office of Jeff Grotke and Jeff Grotke for Plaintiff and Appellant.

The Law Offices of Vincent Miller and Vincent Miller for Defendant and Respondent.

While in the hospital awaiting surgery, Paul Wilson¹ drafted a will and left his entire estate to a friend, Marisa Gonzalez. After Paul died, his estranged brother, Lanny Wilson, initiated a will contest in which he claimed he was Paul's rightful heir, and that Gonzalez had convinced Paul to execute a will entirely in her favor through fraud and undue influence. Some doubt was raised in the probate court whether the will contest was timely filed. Lanny filed this lawsuit against Gonzalez asserting causes of action for financial elder abuse and tortious interference with a right of inheritance. Essentially, the lawsuit made the same claim Lanny had made in the probate court, i.e., Gonzalez robbed him of his right to inherit Paul's estate under the default intestate laws. The probate court eventually concluded the will contest was timely, but Lanny did not dismiss his duplicative lawsuit.

After the probate court rejected Lanny's will contest and appointed Gonzalez as the administrator of Paul's estate, Gonzalez moved for summary judgment in this case. Lanny opposed the motion and requested leave to amend his complaint and allege a new cause of action for negligent elder abuse on the basis that Gonzalez caused Paul's death by withholding needed dialysis treatment. The trial court found no good cause, denied Lanny's request, and thereafter granted summary judgment for Gonzalez.

Lanny appeals from the judgment against him. However, he failed to designate some of the most pertinent portions of the record, such as Gonzalez's motion for summary judgment and his memorandum of points and authorities in opposition thereto.We subsequently granted Lanny's and Gonzalez's motions to augment the record on appeal, but even those augmentations have not completely rectified Lanny's oversight. And Lanny did not file a reply brief or oppose Gonzalez's request to dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

Although we agree with Gonzalez that this appeal lacks merit, we decline to dismiss it. Lanny's cause of action for financial elder abuse was essentially duplicative of the claims he made in the will contest. This court affirmed the judgment in the will contest in toto, and that opinion is now final. (Estate of Wilson (Mar. 5, 2020, E070066) [nonpub. opn.].) We now conclude Lanny's cause of action is barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Although the trial court granted Gonzalez's motion for summary judgment on a different ground, the result was correct.

Moreover, although generally a party may amend their complaint at any time, and courts must liberally allow amendments to pleadings, the trial court correctly denied Lanny's eleventh-hour bid to defeat summary judgment, finding that the proposed cause of action for negligent elder abuse was time-barred. On this record, we find no abuse of discretion.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Paul was admitted to the hospital on the morning of November 6, 2013, and he was scheduled for surgery that afternoon. With his attending nurse and Gonzalez as his witnesses, Paul dictated to Gonzalez the terms of his will. He left his entire estate toGonzalez. The same day, Paul executed a durable power of attorney for health care decisions and an all-purpose power of attorney, granting Gonzalez power of attorney over him. (Estate of Wilson, supra, E070066.)² Paul died in mid-January 2014. He had been divorced and had no issue. Thereafter, Gonzalez petitioned the probate court to be appointed as administrator of Paul's estate. (Ibid.)

Lanny filed a will contest on May 23, 2016, in which he: (1) objected to Gonzalez's appointment as administrator; (2) petitioned to have himself appointed as administrator; and (3) requested a declaration that the purported will was invalid, Paul died intestate, and his estate should pass according to the intestate laws (i.e., to Lanny). Lanny alleged Paul was a dependent adult, Gonzalez was Paul's caregiver, and Gonzalez promised Paul she would train to administer his dialysis treatment, so she could curry favor with and influence him. According to Lanny, Gonzalez's conduct and status as Paul's caregiver gave rise to multiple presumptions of undue influence in the execution of the will. Moreover, Lanny alleged Paul lacked legal capacity to execute the purported will, and the document did not actually express testamentary intent.

Eight days later, Lanny filed the complaint in this case alleging causes of action for financial elder abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.30) and tortious interference with an inheritance. Like the will contest, the complaint alleged that Gonzalez took advantageof her caregiver relationship to fraudulently procure a will, which "was not the genuine product of the decedent's intent." Specifically, with respect to the cause of action for financial elder abuse, Lanny alleged Gonzalez: (1) wrongly transferred to herself the title to four or five valuable classic cars (and perhaps a small plane too) belonging to Paul that otherwise would have been part of the estate; (2) forged Paul's signature on checks made out to herself; (3) wrongfully, fraudulent, and through undue influence convinced Paul to execute a will giving Gonzalez his entire estate; and (4) breached her fiduciary duty to Paul by procuring gifts for herself while holding herself out as a trusted caregiver and confidant. In short, Lanny alleged Gonzalez robbed him of his rightful inheritance.

Apparently, Lanny filed his complaint in the first place because there was some doubt whether the will contest was timely filed. At a hearing conducted on August 24, 2016, the probate court overruled Gonzalez's demurrer to the will contest and expressly ruled the contest was timely filed. However, Lanny did not dismiss his duplicative complaint.

"After a '[bench] trial [that] took about a year,' during which several witnesses testified, the probate court denied Lanny's will contest, granted Gonzalez's petition, found Paul's will was valid . . . and appointed Gonzalez as administrator of Paul's estate."³ (Estate of Wilson, supra, E070066.) Relevant here, the probate court concludedGonzalez had rebutted by clear and convincing evidence presumptions of fraud and undue influence in the execution of Paul's will.

While Lanny's appeal from the judgment in the will contest was pending before this court, Gonzalez moved for summary judgment on Lanny's cause of action for elder abuse.⁴ Gonzalez argued there was no genuine dispute of material fact that she was entitled to judgment in her favor because: (1) Lanny lacked standing to bring a cause of action for financial elder abuse; and (2) he was collaterally estopped from bringing his claim because the probate court had already decided the exact same issues and found no merit to Lanny's assertion that Gonzalez had used undue influence, fraud, menace. or oppression to procure Paul's will.

Lanny's initial response to the motion was to request leave to file a first amended complaint (FAC). In addition to the existing claim for financial elder abuse, the FAC purported to state a new cause of action for negligent elder abuse (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15610.57, subd. (a)) based on Gonzalez's failure to provide Paul with needed dialysis treatment. In his memorandum of points and authorities, Lanny claimed his lawsuit had remained largely stagnant as the will contest proceeded and, while prosecuting the contest, he learned some "disturbing" facts, to wit: Gonzalez had promised to train to administer dialysis as a condition of the Veteran's Administration discharging Paul from the hospital; and, although Gonzalez began such training, she did not administer dialysisto Paul, and he died two months later of septic shock. In addition, Lanny argued the judgment in the will contest did not bar him from pursuing his claims because the probate court proceeding involved a different primary right.

Gonzalez opposed the motion, arguing Lanny did not act diligently in requesting leave to amend, he did not explain why he waited so long to seek leave to amend, his purported cause of action for negligent elder abuse was barred under the applicable two-year statute of limitations, and leave to amend would be prejudicial to Gonzalez.

The trial court denied Lanny's request for leave to file a FAC because: (1) the motion did not comply with rule 3.1324 of the California Rules of Court, because, inter alia, he did not identify by page and line number the additions and deletions to the complaint; (2) he lacked standing to bring a cause of action for negligent elder abuse; and (3) it appeared the purported cause of action for negligent elder abuse was time-barred, Lanny had "not pleaded the application of the discovery rule," and it appeared the new cause of action did not relate back to the original complaint.

Lanny filed a separate statement of undisputed material facts and an appendix of exhibits in opposition to Gonzalez's motion for summary judgment, but the register of actions does not reflect he filed a memorandum of points and authorities. Gonzalez filed a reply, which tends to indicate she was served with an opposition memorandum. But Lanny did not...