In the matter of Neil Smith

34-2023-00333493-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Neil Smith 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

Tentative Ruling

RESPONDENT JESSICA REYES'S DEMURRER TO PETITIONER GLEN SAWYER'S PETITION TO DETERMINE CLAIM FOR PRIORITY REIMBURSEMENT AND EQUITABLE INTEREST UNDER PROBATE CODE §850

MOTION FILED: 11/20/25

RE: In re: Estate of Neil Smith

MOVING PARTY: Jessica Reyes, Administrator and Respondent Attorney: Eric Fernandez, (916) 957-1400

RESPONDING PARTY: Glen Sawyer, Petitioner In Pro Per

NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 1.06 (A), the court will make a tentative ruling on the merits of this matter by 2:00 p.m., the court day before the hearing. The complete text of the tentative ruling may be downloaded off the court’s website. If the party does not have online access, they may call the dedicated phone number for the Probate Department at (916) 875-2529 between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing and receive the tentative ruling. If you do not call the court and the opposing party by 4:00 p.m. the court day before the hearing, no hearing will be held.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure §367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 129 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-cagov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept129 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 3352 9231. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website 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-

34-2023-00333493-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Neil Smith 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

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 Respondent Jessica Reyes’ (“Respondent”) demurrer to Petitioner Glen Sawyer (“Petitioner”) 850 Petition is SUSTAINED with leave to amend.

Background

On September 2, 2025, Petitioner brought this petition to determine claim to real property and claim for priority reimbursement and equitable interest under Probate Code section 850. Petitioner seeks a determination that he holds an equitable interest in the real property located at 88 El Camino Ave, Sacramento, CA 95815, legally described APN: 275-0011-008-0000, seeks reimbursements of mortgage payments and improvements, and seeks to enjoin the estate from transferring or disposing of the property until his claim is resolved.

Respondent demurs to the petition in its entirety on the grounds that the petition fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because Petitioner never owned the Property. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).)

A demurrer may be sustained if “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.10(e).)

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.)

A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. §452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141; Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333493-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Neil Smith 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111-1112.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318; William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616, fn. 2.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . . we are not concerned with plaintiff’s possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Respondent’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; Searles Valley Minerals Operations, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 514, 519.)

Petitioner’s sole legal authority for his petition is Probate Code section 850(a)(3)(A), which states, “(a) The following persons may file a petition requesting that the court make an order under this part: (3) The trustee or any interested person in any of the following cases: (A) Where the trustee is in possession of, or holds title to, real or personal property, and the property, or some interest, is claimed to belong to another.”

Respondent demurs to the entire petition on the grounds that Petitioner has not asserted that he is an interested party under Probate Code section 48 and does not have a real property claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 405.4.

In opposition, Petitioner indicates he has a claim against estate property for reimbursement of rent, and that this claim for reimbursement of payments qualifies him as an interested person with standing to file a §850 petition. (Opposition, 2:15-17.) While Petitioner indicates that he is entitled to reimbursement under Probate Code section 11420, Petitioner does not establish how this right to reimbursement is properly brought under his Petition relating to real property interests.

Petitioner’s petition asserts an equitable interest, not an ownership interest, “based on financial

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2023-00333493-PR-LA-FRC: In the matter of Neil Smith 01/21/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other Motion in Department 129

contributions, reliance, and unjust enrichment.” (Petition, 2:14-15.) Petitioner makes no claim that the Property “is claimed to belong to another,” under Probate Code section 850(a)(3)(A). Further, under Probate Code section 48, an interested person can be, but is not limited to, “any other person having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent.” However, Petitioner merely asserts an equitable interest based on financial contributions to the mortgage and improvements to the Property. Again, the Petition does not assert a property right in the Property. Petitioner similarly does not provide facts or law demonstrating that he is an interested party under any subsection of Probate Code section 48.

Additionally, Petitioner’s petition does not allege facts that demonstrate an ownership interest based on any of his payments or actions, nor is that argument supported with citations to legal authority. Thus, the Petition “lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn, supra, 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.)

The demurrer is SUSTAINED with leave to amend. Petitioner is required to file his amended Petition no later than February 11, 2026.

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