Case Number: BC599848 Hearing Date: May 05, 2016 Dept: 1

#3 – Rolison v. Dennis (BC 599 848); In re Evelyn Johanna Plummer Revocable Trust (BP 165 523); In re Evelyn Johanna Plummer Living Trust, dated 11/2/2009 (BP 167 652)

Plaintiff/Petitioner Johnel Rolison filed a Notice of Related Case on March 22, 2016, indicating that two already-consolidated probate cases are related to an unlimited jurisdiction civil law case because they involve the same parties and same claims, arise from the same transactions requiring determination of the same questions of law or fact, and involve claims against the same property. No additional information is provided in support of these contentions.

No opposition has been received.

The court notes that the Notice was only filed in the civil law case and probate case BP 165 523, and not also in probate case BP 167 652, although filing in all pending cases listed is required by CRC 3.300(d). However, as all parties in all cases have been served as is required by CRC 3.300(d), the court finds the filing error to be de minimus and does not prevent the court from considering it at this time.

Whether cases that involve either a probate or family law matter are related is a question determined by Department 1. LASC Local Rule 3.3(f)(2). Cases are related when they (1) involve the same parties and are based on the same or similar claims, (2) arise from the same or substantially identical transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same or substantially identical questions of law or fact, (3) involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property, or (4) are likely for other reasons to require substantial duplication of judicial resources if heard by different judges. CRC 3.300(a).

In order of filing, the cases sought to be related are:

• In re Evelyn Johanna Plummer Revocable Trust (BP 165 523) – filed August 6, 2015 when Johnel Rolison filed a petition to remove trustee, appoint successor trustee, compel accounting, and for surcharge. Petitioner is the son of the settlor, who established the Trust on November 2, 2009. He alleges that Eddie Lee Dennis, serving as successor trustee since sometime prior to the February 27, 2015 death of the settlor, has never formally given notice of his assumption of that office; has allowed the real property located at 1929 Hillcrest Drive in Los Angeles (an asset of the trust) to fall into foreclosure and has allowed trust property to lose value due to vandalism and waste (including allowing trust property to be occupied by himself and his relatives without paying rent); has illegally rented out a garage as a residence; and has failed to initiate administration of the trust in the six months since the settlor’s death. Petitioner asks the court to remove Dennis as trustee and instead appoint himself as successor trustee (although the trust documents instead designate Mary Sanford to be next in line). On January 21, 2016 the court ordered probate case BP 167 652 consolidated with this case. The case is assigned to probate law Department 11, where the petition is currently set for hearing September 15, 2016.

• In re Evelyn Johanna Plummer Living Trust, dated 11/2/2009 (BP 167 652) – filed October 21, 2015 when trustee Eddie Dennis Jr. filed a petition to request a court order transferring title of two pieces of real property (3905 LaSalle Avenue and 1929-1931 Hillcrest Avenue in Los Angeles) from Evelyn J. Plummer into the Trust, in that the settlor inadvertently failed to execute a new deed as to these properties although listing them in the trust documents as assets of her Trust. As noted above, this case was consolidated with the above case on January 21, 2016, and is proceeding in probate law Department 11. The petition was denied without prejudice on April 14, 2016 and no future hearings are currently set.

• Rolison v. Dennis (BC 599 848) – filed November 3, 2015 when Johnel Rolison sued Eddie Lee Dennis, individually and as trustee of the Johanna Plummer Revocable Trust, for elder abuse, fraud, and for an accounting. Plaintiff alleges that his mother Evelyn Johanna Plummer, now deceased, owned properties and Defendant became a tenant in one of the properties in 2002 but never paid rent (he was supposed to pay $800/month after a three-month period) and in fact used Decedent’s money to pay his own utilities and expenses without consent. Plaintiff alleges Defendant made calculated efforts to gain Decedent’s trust and proceeded to use her resources for his own interests and to isolate Decedent from family members. Plaintiff alleges Defendant moved his relatives into Decedent’s properties rent-free beginning in 2004; in 2007 caused Decedent to mortgage her property located at 3905 La Salle in Los Angeles and used the $362,000 in funds for his own purposes; caused the property at 3900-3902½ La Salle in Los Angeles to fall into foreclosure; in 2010 caused Decedent to mortgage her property located at 1929 S. Hillcrest Avenue in Los Angeles, used the $532,500 in funds for his own purposes, and caused the property to fall into foreclosure; and allowed a family to reside in the garage of the property located at 3900 La Salle in Los Angeles although this is illegal and subjects the estate to $20,000+ in fines and penalties. The case is assigned to Department 32 of the Stanley Mosk courthouse, where a case management conference is currently set for June 16, 2016.

As seen above, the civil law case involves exactly the same two parties as the consolidated probate cases: Decedent’s son Johnel Rolison and Decedent’s friend/trustee Eddie Lee Dennis. The cases also involve identical or substantially similar factual and legal questions, in that the cases require determination of whether Dennis improperly exercised control over the Decedent and the assets of her Trust (e.g., in allowing his relatives to live rent-free in the Decedent’s properties, in allowing a family to live in the garage of one of the properties, and in allowing Trust property to fall into foreclosure). Based on this, it would promote judicial economy to relate the cases.

It is further appropriate to relate the civil law case into a probate courtroom because the underlying issues in the civil law case allege that the successor trustee of the Decedent’s trust acted improperly in relation to Decedent and Trust assets not only before but also after becoming trustee, and therefore they fall within the probate law courts’ exclusive jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a trust. See, e.g., Probate Code §§ 17000, 17200; see also Saks v. Damon Raike & Co. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 419, 430.

Accordingly, the court relates BC 599 848 with already-consolidated cases BP 165 523 and BP 167 652 and orders it reassigned to probate law Department 11. All future hearings currently set in BC 599 848 are hereby advanced and vacated.