RAJAREI D. SUMERA VS. THE ESTATE OF GEORGE R. ALSTON ET AL

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, June 24, 2025, Line 5. DEFENDANT DOUGLAS ALSTON ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF GEORGE R. ALSTON, DOUGLAS ALSTON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Or In The Alternative Summary Adjudication. (PART ONE OF TWO)

Defendant Douglas Alston sued in two different capacities as trustee of the Elbert S. Alston Living Trust and as administrator of the estate of George Alston's motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication is denied in its entirety.

Much of Mr. Alston's motion fails to show (and thus does not satisfy its summary motion burden) that what is alleged by plaintiff Rajarei Sumera lacks merit as a matter of law or is directed to issues not alleged by plaintiff.

Plaintiff's core allegation is that he is entitled to the Gold Mine property (Property) because George Alston promised to convey that property to him. Based on that core allegation, plaintiff's third amended complaint (TAC), the operative complaint, alleges a single claim per Probate Code 850.

As to defendant in his capacity as trustee, plaintiff alleges that defendant is in possession of or holds title to the Property that plaintiff claims the Property belongs to him (TAC 34; Probate Code 850(a)(3)(A)).

As to defendant in his capacity as administrator, plaintiff alleges that George Alston agreed to convey the Property to him and died before making the conveyance and agreed to convey the Property upon or after his death and George died in possession of or holding title to the Property and the Property is claimed to belong to plaintiff. (TAC 31-32; Probate Code 850(a) (2)(B) and (C).

Defendant makes three arguments why he is entitled to judgment in his favor in his capacity as trustee. All of them lack merit.

The first argument is that Elbert Alston never bound himself in writing to convey the Property to plaintiff or any other person. But this argument is immaterial since, even if true, the argument does not show that plaintiff is unable to prove his allegation that defendant in his capacity as trustee is in possession of the property or holds title to it and plaintiff claims the Property belongs to him.

The second argument is that plaintiff cannot present any evidence of a claim to the Property held by defendant as trustee. However, none of the five facts supporting this argument show that plaintiff is unable to prove his allegation that defendant in his capacity as trustee is in possession of the property or holds title to it and plaintiff claims the Property belongs to him.

The third argument is that plaintiff's claim against defendant as trustee is barred by CCP 366.2. Judge Ulmer previously ruled that "CCP 366.2 does not bar the instant action" and I adopt his reasoning and decision in full. Significantly, the relevant death for that code section is not Elbert's, but George's.