The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust

24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 129

at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.pdf.

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING The motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED as follows.

This matter was continued from April 15, 2026 due to the objection raised to a commissioner hearing this matter.

Petitioner Goerge Bauslaugh (“Petitioner”) filed a petition to determine validity of the purported amendment to the Keith V. Anderson Family Trust based on excess of authority on July 8, 2024. Petitioner later filed a first amended petition, seeking, in part, a finding of fraud and cancellation of instruments.

Petitioner’s request for judicial notice is granted. The Court only takes judicial notice of the existence of the documents and not the truth of their contents. (See Professional Engineers v. Dept. of Transportation (1997) 15 Cal.4th 543, 590.)

When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 438(c)(1)(A).) The grounds for the motion shall appear on the face of the challenged pleading or from any matter of which the court is required to take judicial notice. (Code Civ.

Proc., § 438(d).). A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a general demurrer, and the motion must be denied if the defendant’s pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense.” (Maclsaac v. Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 812-813.) The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how improbable. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.) The court must accept as true the factual allegations of the complaint and must give

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 129

them a liberal interpretation. (Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Lyons (2000) 24 Cal.4th 468, 515-516.) The Court must disregard all controverted allegations in the complaint and accept all facts properly pleaded in the answer. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379-1380.)

Both respondents oppose. Respondent Ronald Melchin (“Respondent”) opposes, in part, on the grounds that the First Amended Petition filed March 18, 2025 supersedes this petition, filed July 8, 2024. The Court’s records indicate three petitions have been filed in this matter: (1) Petition: To Determine Validity of The Purported Amendment to The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust Based on Excess of Authority, filed on July 8, 2024; (2) Petition to Determine Validity of Recorded Instruments; Cancellation of Written Instruments; Quiet Title; Recovery of Estate Property; Constructive Trust; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligence; And Malpractice, filed December 10, 2024, and; (3) Frist [sic] Amended Petition For: 1. Fraud.

2. Uniform Voidable Transfer Act.

3. Intentional Interference with Expected Inheritance.

4. Negligence.

5. Malpractice.

6. Breach Of Fiduciary Duty.

7. Quiet Title.

8. Cancellation Of Instruments.

9. Request For Imposition of Constructive Trust.

10. Request For Instructions, filed March 18, 2025.

While an amended pleading generally supersedes the original pleading (State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Superior Court (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1124, 1129-1131), the Court construes the first petition, filed July 8, 2024, as distinct and separate from the second and third petitions, filed December 10, 2024 and March 18, 2025. The first petition seeks a determination of validity of a trust amendment, while the latter two petitions substantively relate to the validity and cancellation of various recorded instruments, as well as relief for the purported damages resulting from those instruments.

The two later filed petitions do not seek any determination of the validity of a trust amendment. Petitioner is reminded of the requirement to state what deletions and additions are made in the amended pleading. (Local Rule, 4.00(D)(1).) Nonetheless, the Court construes the first amended petition filed March 18, 2025 as an amendment to the petition filed December 10, 2024, not the petition filed July 8, 2024.

Next, Respondent McReynolds argues this motion violates this Court’s previous Breslin order to pursue mediation. (McReynolds Opposition, 2:3-4.) Petitioner asserts that Breslin v. Breslin (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 801, does not bar a party from filing a motion while mediation efforts are pending. (Reply, 3:16-18.) The Court agrees. Breslin does not, without a specific limiting order, prevent the filing of motions or pleadings while mediation efforts are ordered and pending. Rather, Breslin confirms “the parties may not ignore the probate court’s order to participate in the proceedings and then challenge the result. The probate court’s mediation order would be

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24PR001989: The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust 06/17/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 129

useless if a party could skip mediation and challenge the resulting settlement agreement.” (Breslin v. Breslin (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 801, 806.) Because Breslin does not support the assertion that court-ordered mediation bars subsequent filings or motion practice, the Court declines to deny the motion on this basis. The Court further notes that McReynolds has not identified a written order in this case that specifically requires mediation – an issue to be addressed as a matter of case management.

Here, the petition contains the requisite allegations for the first cause of action, to determine validity of the purported amendment to The Keith V. Anderson Family Trust based on excess of authority filed by Petitioner on July 8, 2024. Petitioner alleges Respondent Reynolds admitted that decedent Elizabeth Anderson “did not appoint a co-trustee during her lifetime” and “did not resign as trustee during her lifetime.” (Memorandum of Points and Authorities [“MPA”], 7:22- 25.) Additionally, Petitioner asserts that Respondents do not dispute that the trust in question was irrevocable. (MPA, 7:13-14.)

While Respondents filed objections raising various objections in support of the validity of the amendment, the later admissions take precedence over the contrary allegations in the answer. (Del E. Webb Corp. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604-605 [“The court will take judicial notice of records such as admissions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, and the like, when considering a demurrer, only where they contain statements of the plaintiff or his agent which are inconsistent with the allegations of the pleading before the court.”].)

Thus, because Respondents concede the trust was irrevocable in 2003, the later amendment executed in 2011, is invalid. Respondents have not offered objections that sufficiently state facts to constitute a defense to the Petition.

The motion is granted.

This minute order is effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. §1019.5; CRC, Rule 3.1312.)