Case Number: BC614508 Hearing Date: January 03, 2019 Dept: 1

Defendant/Objector Hugh Douglas Bek and Defendant Garrett Bek jointly filed a Motion to Deem Cases Related on November 16, 2018 which seeks to relate case BC614508 and probate case 16STPB01383.

On August 18, 2017, this court denied Hugh Douglas Bek and Defendant Garrett Bek’s previous request to relate the two cases.

The court shall construe the motion as an Amended Notice of Related Case based upon the alleged amendments to the underlying pleadings.

Leigh E. Payne, Successor-in-interest to Petitioner Robert Erle Payne filed an opposition to the motion on December 19, 2018. Siobhan Drewry and Michael Drewry filed their opposition on December 20, 2018. Hugh Douglas Bek and Garrett Bek filed a joint reply on December 26, 2018.

Whether a pending civil law case is related to a pending or dismissed probate or family law matter 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:

· Drewry, et al. v. Bek, et al. (BC614508) – filed March 22, 2016. In the operative pleading, the Third Amended Complaint filed September 20, 2017, Douglas Drewry and Michael Bek Drewry sue Hugh Douglas Beck and Garrett Bek for breach of contract and financial elder abuse. [Hereafter, for the sake of clarity and meaning no disrespect, the court will at times refer to the family members by their first names.] Plaintiffs are brothers, two of the four grandchildren of Barbara Bek Payne (“Decedent”) who died on March 2, 2016 and had owned substantial real and personal property inside and outside of trusts. Defendant Hugh Douglas Bek is the last surviving child of Decedent as well as Plaintiffs’ uncle, and defendant Garret Bek is the son of Hugh as well as Plaintiffs’ cousin. Plaintiffs allege that during her lifetime Decedent told Plaintiffs and others that she intended to leave all her real and personal property, held in whatever form, divided equally between (1) Hugh and (2) the children of her deceased daughter Linda Bek Drewry (i.e., Plaintiffs and their sister Katherine Drewry Peters). Plaintiffs allege that based on Hugh’s promise to uphold this equal distribution, Decedent orally agreed to appoint Hugh as trustee of her trust – the Barbara Bek Payne Family Trust (“Trust”), amended in 2008 – and as the executor of her estate. However, Hugh has refused to distribute any, much less half, of the property held in the Trust or Decedent’s estate to Plaintiffs: he instead argues he is not bound by his repeated promises to Decedent, and he has distributed significant assets alternately. Plaintiffs also allege that Garrett moved in with Decedent and her surviving spouse in January 2016 and during this time gained access to her confidential passwords for online access to bank and brokerage accounts, gave this information to Hugh, and the two of them used the information to transfer funds and liquidate Decedent’s assets both before and after her death without her consent. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages of $3 million as the value of their expected half of Decedent’s Trust and her estate, as well as compensatory damages for the elder abuse. On October 28, 2016 Judge Patricia Nieto in personal injury court Department 91 determined the case was not a personal injury case and, at the direction of Department 1, transferred the case for all purposes to Judge Ramona G. See in Department M of the Torrance courthouse.

The Third Amended Complaint is not materially different from the Second Amended Complaint, which was operative when the court previously declined to relate the two cases.

· In re the Barbara Bek Payne Family Trust dated November 3, 2008 (16STPB01383) – filed June 16, 2016 (amended September 1, 2016 and October 11, 2018) when Robert Erle Payne filed a Probate Code § 850 petition to establish surviving spouse’s community property share in real property and for an order of conveyance to him, as surviving spouse, of 50% of certain assets, including bank accounts and the real property located at 528, 530, and 532 The Strand in Hermosa Beach, which is currently titled to his deceased spouse Barbara Bek Payne (“Decedent”) as trustee of the Barbara Bek Payne Family Trust (“Trust”). Leigh E. Payne is the successor in interest to Robert Erle Payne. Petitioner alleges that Robert Payne and Decedent were married for over 50 years prior to her March 2, 2016 death, and that for 20 years they lived at that subject real property as a married couple and used Robert Payne’s income, i.e., community earnings, to pay the mortgages on the property. Title to the real property reverted numerous times between Robert Payne and Decedent as joint tenants and Decedent as trustee of the Trust. Leigh Payne asks the court to find the real property is community property that was not transmuted, and also that the bank accounts are community property, and to order 50% to Petitioner. Leigh Payne asserts a claim for elder abuse against Decedent’s estate to recover 100% of the Hermosa beach home due to alleged undue influence exerted by Decedent. The October 11, 2018 petition is the first to assert claims for elder abuse in the probate action.

Hugh Douglas Bek filed a demurrer and motion to strike the second amended petition on November 29, 2018 and December 3, 2018, respectively, challenging the new allegation of elder abuse.

As seen above, only Hugh Douglas Bek is common to both cases. Thus, the cases do not involve the same parties. The civil case and the probate action do not arise out of the same transactions or events. In the civil law case, two grandchildren of Decedent seek compensatory damages of half of the value of Decedent’s property (unspecified real property, as well as personal property including a Fidelity Investments brokerage account and one or more bank accounts at Chase Bank and Wells Fargo), based on the allegation that their uncle breached promises he made to Decedent that he would uphold her stated intended distribution of her property after her death. Whereas in the probate case Decedent’s surviving spouse – now through his successor-in-interest – seeks to establish his community property interests in property owned by Decedent. The elder abuse claim in the Civil action is based upon allegations that Hugh Bek and Garrett Beck liquidated Decedent’s bank accounts and brokerage accounts. The elder abuse claim in the Probate action is based upon the contention that Decedent committed financial elder abuse against Robert Payne by convincing him to execute deeds to transfer his interests in property to the Decedent’s trust. Thus, the cases require resolution of different factual and legal issues.

Furthermore, the cases do not involve claims against, title to, possession of, or damages to the same property. While the probate action now seeks to affirm Robert Payne’s 100% interest in the sale proceeds of the Hermosa Beach home, this addition does not alter the court’s prior finding that the cases are not related. The civil action seeks to enforce a contract for half of the Decedent’s estate, whereas the probate action seeks to affirm that Robert Payne is the sole owner of the Hermosa property. There will not be substantial duplication of judicial resources if the probate law case proceeds before a different judicial officer. To the extent that there is any potential for overlap between the cases, formally relating the two cases is not the best resolution. Rather, the parties may apply for a stay in the respective cases, if necessary, as suggested by defendants.

Accordingly, the court declines to relate probate law case 16STPB01383 with civil case BC614508 and the motion is DENIED.

Clerk to give notice.