Bounds v. Superior Court
229 Cal. App. 4th 468
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Bounds, an 88-year-old with Alzheimer’s, seeks mandamus to overturn a demurrer ruling on two financial elder abuse claims under the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act.
- The Trust owns property; Bounds’ affiliates (Bounds, Ltd. and Bounds, Ltd.’s operations) rely on the Torrance property for business.
- Mayer, Sojka, KMA Group, LLC, and Kopykake Enterprises allegedly procured Bounds’ signature on an LOI and escrow instructions for sale below market value.
- Escrow and a lease were executed before formal purchase agreements, impairing Bounds’ property use and sale ability.
- The trial court sustained without leave to amend the elder abuse demurrer; petitioners challenge that ruling as to the sufficiency of pleading a “taking” under §15610.30, including the notion that an executory agreement can deprive a property right.
- Court grants writ, vacates demurrer, and requires new order overruling the demurrer; issues clarified the scope of “taking” under the Act and the sufficiency of pleadings under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an executory agreement can suffice as a taking under §15610.30(c). | Bounds alleges the escrow/LOI deprived property rights. | A taking requires a completed transfer under the statute. | Yes; an executory agreement can deprive a property right under §15610.30(c). |
| Whether the SACC adequately pleads a taking by means of an agreement. | The SACC alleges significant impairment of use/sale rights. | Impairment alone isn’t a taking without a transfer. | Adequate pleading; impairment via an agreement constitutes a taking. |
| Whether the court could consider discovery materials to defeat the elder abuse claim at demurrer. | Discovery cannot contradict pleaded facts at demurrer. | Discovery evidence can negate allegations at demurrer. | Disallowed; cannot convert demurrer into evidentiary hearing using discovery materials. |
| Whether the action is barred by the litigation privilege. | Allegations rely on questioning defendants’ conduct, not privileged publications. | Privilege shields privileged communications. | Not barred; claims rest on deceptive actions, not protected litigation communications. |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Sigourney, 93 Cal.App.4th 593 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (property rights include use and sale rights; broad interpretation of rights under the Act)
- Curcini v. County of Alameda, 164 Cal.App.4th 629 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (assumes truth of pleadings and supporting exhibits for demurrer review)
- Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., 21 Cal.4th 71 (Cal. 1999) (permissible judicial notice of discovery responses in demurrer context)
- Williams v. Southern California Gas Co., 176 Cal.App.4th 591 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (judicial notice cannot create evidentiary disputes at demurrer stage)
- Continental Ins. Co. v. Lexington Ins. Co., 55 Cal.App.4th 637 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (pleading context; cannot rely on privileged actions to plead elder abuse)