Hill v. Superior Court
244 Cal. App. 4th 1281
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Petitioners Deirdre Hill and Vincent Hughes, co-executors of their mother’s estate, sued decedent Frank Staggers Sr. seeking recovery of estate property and, under Probate Code §859, an award of twice the value of property recovered (double damages) for bad‑faith concealment/elder‑financial abuse.
- Staggers Sr. died during the probate proceeding; his son, Frank Staggers Jr., was substituted as successor in interest and moved for summary adjudication arguing double damages under §859 are punitive and therefore unavailable against a successor under Code Civ. Proc. §377.42.
- The superior court granted summary adjudication, concluding §859 double damages are punitive and thus excluded by §377.42; petitioners sought writ review.
- The Court of Appeal issued an alternative writ, concluding the superior court erred in holding §859 punitive for purposes of §377.42, and directed the superior court to vacate its order and deny the motion.
- The appellate court analyzed statutory text and distinctions between statutory (penal) remedies and punitive damages under Civ. Code §3294, concluding §859’s double damages are a statutory penalty/remedial enhancement distinct from punitive damages.
- The court reversed the superior court’s order and remanded with instructions to deny the successor’s motion for summary adjudication; petitioners recover costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hill/Hughes) | Defendant's Argument (Staggers Jr.) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double damages under Prob. Code §859 are "punitive or exemplary damages" excluded from recovery against a successor under CCP §377.42 | §859 creates a remedial statutory penalty (not punitive damages); therefore successor may be liable for double damages | §859 double damages are punitive in nature and thus excluded by §377.42 so successor cannot be held liable for them | Held: §859 double damages are a statutory penalty/remedial enhancement, not punitive damages under Civ. Code §3294; §377.42 does not bar recovery against a successor |
| Whether Estate of Young and related authority establish §859 awards are punitive damages that trigger §377.42 exclusion | Jahns and historical precedent support that statutory doubledamage remedies are remedial, not punitive; Young’s language calling §859 “punitive in nature” was dicta and not controlling | Relied on Estate of Young and other authorities characterizing §859 as punitive in nature; courts have sometimes described similar statutory penalties as punitive | Held: Young’s statements were dicta; Young and Kraus do not treat §859 as punitive damages under Civ. Code §3294; those cases do not defeat petitioners’ position |
Key Cases Cited
- Estate of Young, 160 Cal.App.4th 62 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (discussed bifurcation and used dicta describing §859 as “punitive in nature,” but did not hold §859 creates punitive damages under §3294)
- Jahns v. Nolting, 29 Cal. 507 (Cal. 1866) (historical precedent treating statutory doubledamage remedy as remedial rather than punitive)
- Estate of Kraus, 184 Cal.App.4th 103 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (clarifies §859 imposes a statutory penalty distinct from punitive damages and rejects characterizing §859 awards as exemplary damages)
- PPG Indus. v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 20 Cal.4th 310 (Cal. 1999) (explains punitive damages purpose and standards under Civ. Code §3294)
- Greenberg v. Western Turf Assn., 140 Cal. 357 (Cal. 1903) (illustrates that statutory penalties and punitive damages may both be imposed and are distinct)