Beverly v. Riverside County Public Administrator CA4/2
E077038
| Cal. Ct. App. | Mar 10, 2022Background
- Decedent owned a mobile home in Homeland; Beverly had permission to occupy it, helped with repairs, and made mortgage payments; she later claimed to be a beneficiary or creditor.
- Riverside County Superior Court appointed the Riverside County Public Administrator to administer the estate; Beverly promptly appealed that appointment.
- While the appeal and related probate proceedings were pending, the public administrator evicted Beverly from the mobile home, sold estate property, and rejected three creditor claims Beverly filed in probate.
- Beverly sued the public administrator (named as “Riverside County Public Administrator” / County) and family members including Kathleen Bertulli, asserting constitutional and state-law claims and seeking damages.
- The trial court sustained demurrers to Beverly’s amended complaints multiple times and ultimately sustained demurrers to the third amended complaint without leave to amend; judgments for defendants were entered.
- On appeal the Court of Appeal took judicial notice of probate court filings and Beverly’s related appellate opinion, reviewed the third amended complaint de novo, and affirmed the judgments.
Issues
| Issue | Beverly's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fourth Amendment seizure claim | Public Administrator seized Beverly's property without notice or reasonableness | Administrator had statutory authority to take possession of estate property and to evict; no facts plead showing unreasonableness | Demurrer sustained — no facts alleged to show an unreasonable seizure |
| Fourteenth Amendment (due process) claim | Beverly was deprived of property without notice or opportunity to be heard | Beverly knew of and litigated in probate (filed appeal and opposed special instructions); record shows notice/participation | Demurrer sustained — judicially noticed probate record contradicts alleged lack of notice |
| Use of Civil Code / CCP statutory labels (e.g., Civ. Code §1708, CCP §366.2, §22) as independent causes of action | Those statutes create standalone claims for relief | Statutes either state general principles or procedural rules and do not create independent tort causes of action | Demurrer sustained — labels disregarded; claims treated on substantive legal theories |
| Common count / creditor recovery / CCP §708.210 claim | Pleading styled as common count and creditor/judgment creditor action seeking damages for rejection of claims | Common count cannot recover tort damages; CCP §708.210 requires allegation of a money judgment; 90‑day rule for independent suit after rejection of creditor's claim applies | Demurrer sustained — pleading fails to state common‑count or judgment‑creditor cause of action and would be time‑barred as to estate claims |
| Negligence claim against Bertulli and County | Family members (including Bertulli) owed duties to care for estate; County liable for administrator’s acts | Nonfeasance by private family members does not create a duty; Beverly failed to plead facts showing a duty or to link negligence allegations to the County; governmental immunity applies to discretionary acts | Demurrer sustained — no legal duty or facts pleaded; immunity bars County liability |
| First Amendment claim / relitigation of authority to appoint administrator | Appointment and administration by government in uncontested estate violated Beverly’s rights | Issue already decided against Beverly in her prior appeal; doctrine of collateral estoppel/preclusion applies | Demurrer sustained — claim barred by collateral estoppel (issue already litigated and decided) |
| Trial court’s denial of leave to amend | Beverly argued defects could be cured | Defendants argued defects were incurable and court had discretion | Denial of leave to amend affirmed — Beverly failed to propose amendments or show reasonable possibility of curing defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Katzberg v. Regents of University of California, 29 Cal.4th 300 (Cal. 2002) (general Civil Code provision does not create independent constitutional tort remedy for due process violations)
- Degrassi v. Cook, 29 Cal.4th 333 (Cal. 2002) (same principle that Civil Code §1708 does not support a constitutional tort action)
- Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593 (U.S. 1989) (defining a seizure and requiring unreasonable conduct for Fourth Amendment claim)
- U.S. v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (U.S. 1984) (meaningful interference with possessory interests constitutes a seizure)
- Giacomelos v. Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Sav. Assn., 237 Cal.App.2d 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 1965) (administrator may refuse surrender of property until a reasonable inquiry into claimant’s right)
- People v. Woodell, 17 Cal.4th 448 (Cal. 1998) (court may judicially notice existence of court records but not the truth of hearsay statements in them)
- Key v. Tyler, 34 Cal.App.5th 505 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (collateral estoppel applies to final probate orders)
- Estate of Holdaway, 40 Cal.App.5th 1049 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (90‑day limitations period for an independent action after rejection of a creditor’s claim)