Filed 8/20/21 Ferra v. Gilmore CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE MARIA FERRA as Trustee, B303592 etc., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. BC722537) v. CHRISTINA FERRA GILMORE et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Elaine Lu, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part. Murphy Rosen and David E. Rosen; Weinstock Manion and Blake A. Rummel; Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland, Cynthia E. Tobisman and Alana H. Rotter, for Plaintiff and Appellant. Stevenson Law Office, W. Todd Stevenson, Hannah G. Elisha; Klapach & Klapach and Joseph S. Klapach for Defendant and Respondent Christina Ferra Gilmore. Halavais & Associates and Coby Halavais for Defendants and Respondents Canary Asset Management, Inc., C&H Trust Deed Service, and Coby Halavais. _____________________________ I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Maria Ferra,1 the trustee of the Anthony Ferra Exempt Marital Trust Established Under Instrument dated April 24, 1995 (the Trust), appeals from a judgment of dismissal following the sustaining of demurrers without leave to amend. We reverse as to the causes of action for conversion, violation of Penal Code section 496, subdivision (c), and violation of Civil Code section 1712 against defendant Christina Ferra Gilmore. We otherwise affirm. II. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background “On demurrer review, we accept the truth of material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. We may also consider matters subject to judicial notice.” (State Dept. of State Hospitals v. Superior Court (2015) 1 Because several individuals share the same last name, we will refer to them by their first name for ease of reference. 2 61 Cal.4th 339, 346.) We summarize the facts alleged by plaintiff in the first amended complaint as follows. 1. Note and Deed of Trust Mary Lou and Anthony were married and had two daughters, Christina and Sandra. Christina is the special administrator and executor for Mary Lou’s estate. Mary Lou and Anthony divorced in 1973 and entered into a dissolution settlement agreement (dissolution agreement). As part of that agreement, Anthony executed a note in the amount of $90,900, payable to Mary Lou. The note was secured by a deed of trust on the property located at 6349 Colfax Avenue in North Hollywood (the Property). Under the terms of the dissolution agreement, Anthony promised to satisfy the note by making monthly payments, with the last payment due in May 1983. Paragraph 6(c)(4) of the dissolution agreement provided that “‘[i]nterest is to accrue on the unpaid balance at the rate of 7 [percent] per annum commencing November 1, 1978.’” On December 19, 1975, Mary Lou filed an Application for Issuance …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals