Haacke v. Shea CA4/2 ( 2022 )

Filed 6/24/22 Haacke v. Shea CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
CHA HAACKE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E076015
v. (Super.Ct.No. MCC1900422)
ROBIN J. SHEA, as Trustee etc., OPINION
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Angel M. Bermudez,
Judge. Reversed.
Law Office of Evan D. Williams and Evan D. Williams for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Stream Kim Hicks Wrage & Alfaro, Eugene Kim and Todd R. Kinnear for
Defendant and Respondent.
1
Plaintiff and appellant Cha Haacke (Employee) sued defendants and respondents
(1) Robin Shea (Trustee), in her capacity as trustee of the Haacke Family Trust (the
Trust); and (2) the estate of Veva V. Haacke (the Estate). The causes of action
pertained to failure to pay minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages; meal and rest
break violations; failure to reimburse business expenses; paystub violations; waiting
time penalties; and a violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200.
The trial court granted Trustee’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that
the lawsuit was time-barred because Employee alleged she was employed by Veva V.
Haacke (Decedent) and the lawsuit was not filed within one year of Decedent’s death.
(Code Civ. Proc., § 366.2, subd. (a).)1 This court ordered the parties to submit
supplemental briefing identifying who Employee is alleging to be her employer and
whether section 366.2 would apply if the employer is not Decedent. We reverse with
directions.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. PARTIES
Decedent suffered from dementia.2 Desrie Haacke (Daughter) is the daughter of
Decedent. Rodney Haacke (Son) is Decedent’s son. Son and Daughter were the Trust’s
cotrustees. Son filed a petition to remove Daughter as a cotrustee of the Trust. On
1 All subsequent statutory references will be to the Code of Civil Procedure
unless otherwise indicated.
2 Decedent had a conservator of her estate and her person, although the exact
date of the conservatorship is unclear.
2
October 31, 2017, the probate court appointed Trustee as the Trust’s sole successor
trustee. Employee was unmarried when she was hired, but she is now married to Son.
B. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
On September 23, 2016, Son and Decedent interviewed Employee for the
position of in-home caretaker of Decedent. Employee accepted the job offer, which was
made during the interview. On October 1, 2016, Employee moved into Decedent’s
home and began caring for her. Employee worked seven days per week and was “ ‘on
call’ 24/7.” “[I]f [Decedent] was awake [Employee] was required to be by [Decedent’s]
side or performing some type of chore to help [Decedent] survive.” Decedent typically
woke at 7:00 a.m., went to sleep around 11:00 p.m., and woke at least once during the
night. Employee received free room and board and earned $500 per month when she
started the job. On November 30, 2016, Employee received a raise to $750 per month.
Employee stopped being paid in August 2017.
After the probate court appointed Trustee as the Trust’s sole successor trustee,
Employee informed Trustee that she had last been paid in July 2017. Although
Employee was not being paid, “[Trustee] continued to employee [Employee] and
[Employee] continued providing 24/7 caregiver support to [Decedent].” Decedent died
on January 16, 2018. Employee was not paid from August 2017 through January 2018.
Employee alleged that she did not have a written employment agreement, but
that she was a non-exempt hourly employee. Employee asserted she was paid in cash
and thus not given proper paystubs; she was not given meal and rest breaks; she was not
3
paid minimum wage or overtime; and she was not given a means to record the number
of hours she worked. Employee’s original complaint was filed on April 12, 2019.
In regard to identifying Employee’s employer, allegations in the second amended
complaint include:
• “During the interview [Decedent] and [Son] offered [Employee] the
position of in-home caregiver and [Employee] accepted the position.
[Son] explained that he and [Daughter] were co-trustees of [the Trust].”
• “Although at various times [Daughter] expressed her desire to terminate
[Employee], [Son] disagreed . . . . As a result, [Employee] continued to
work for [Decedent] and the Trust.”
• “[Employee] informed [Trustee] that she had not been paid since July
2017 and that the Trust owed her wages.”
• “As the court appointed trustee of the Trust, [Trustee] continued to
employ [Employee].”
• “At all relevant times, [Employee] was hired by [Decedent] as an
employee and not as an independent contractor.”
• “[Employee] was a non-exempt hourly employee from the time she was
originally hired by [Decedent].”
• “[Employee] never signed any employment agreement and/or minimum
wage offset with [Trustee and the Estate].”
4
• “Furthermore, the entire time that [Employee] was employed by [Trustee
and the Estate] . . . .”
• “At no time during [Employee’s] employment with [Trustee and the
Estate] . . . . .”
• “At all times while she was an employee of [Trustee and the Estate] . . . .”
C. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Trustee moved for summary judgment asserting that the lawsuit was barred by
the statute of limitations. Trustee cited section 366.2, subdivision (a), which provides
that any lawsuit based upon the liability of a person who has died must be filed within
one year of the person’s death.
Trustee contended, “There can be no dispute that [Employee] has alleged
[Decedent] was her employer.” Trustee asserted that Decedent died on January 16,
2018, and Employee filed her lawsuit on April 12, 2019, which was more than one year
after Decedent’s death. Thus, Trustee concluded that Employee’s lawsuit was time
barred.
In Trustee’s separate statement of undisputed material facts, in regard to the
identity of Employee’s employer, Trustee wrote, “[Employee] alleges she worked for
[Decedent] and her estate owes her for unpaid wages, reimbursement and penalties.” In
support of that fact, Trustee cited the second amended complaint.
5
D. OPPOSITION
In Employee’s opposition to the motion, Employee asserted, “[Trustee] does not
dispute that [Employee] was hired by the . . . Trust to provide in-home care services to
[Decedent]. [Trustee] does not dispute that she continued to employ [Employee] after
[Trustee] was appointed as successor trustee of the . . . Trust until [Decedent’s] death on
January 16, 2018.”
In Employee’s opposition to the separate statement of undisputed material facts,
Employee admitted that “[Employee] alleges she worked for [Decedent] and
[Decedent’s] estate owes [Employee] for unpaid wages, reimbursement and penalties.”
However, Employee added the following fact: “As the court appointed trustee of the
Trust, [Trustee] continued to employ [Employee].” In declarations, Employee and Son
declared, “As the court appointed trustee of the Trust, [Trustee] continued to employ
[Employee].”
F. RULING
The order granting summary judgment was drafted by Trustee’s counsel. The
order reads, “[Employee] alleged she worked for [Decedent], now deceased, and that
[Decedent’s] estate owed [Employee] for unpaid wages, reimbursement[,] and penalties.
. . . [Decedent] died on January 16, 2018. [Citation.] [Employee] filed this lawsuit on
April 12, 2019.” The trial court concluded the lawsuit was time-barred.
6
DISCUSSION
A. STANDARD OF REVIEW
“We review a trial court’s decision granting summary judgment de novo, and
liberally construe the evidence in favor of the party opposing the motion, [i.e.,
Employee]. [Citation.] To decide whether summary judgment was properly granted,
we engage in the same analysis that was required of the trial court. [Citation.] Since
[Trustee] moved for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense of the statute
of limitations, [Trustee has] the ‘burden of persuasion’ on that point, meaning [she]
must convince the court that no reasonable trier of fact could find in [Employee’s] favor
on the statute of limitations issue. [Citation.] To accomplish that, [Trustee] must first
present evidence establishing that [Employee’s] claims are time barred. It then falls to
[Employee] to counter with evidence creating a dispute about a fact relevant to that
defense. [Citation.] If [Trustee] presented evidence establishing the defense and
[Employee] did not effectively dispute any of the relevant facts, summary judgment was
properly granted.” (The Police Retirement System of St. Louis v. Page (2018) 22
Cal.App.5th 336, 340.)
B. TRIABLE ISSUE OF MATERIAL FACT
Section 366.2, subdivision (a), provides, “If a person against whom an action
may be brought on a liability of the person, whether arising in contract, tort, or
otherwise, and whether accrued or not accrued, dies before the expiration of the
applicable limitations period, and the cause of action survives, an action may be
7
commenced within one year after the date of death, and the limitations period that
would have been applicable does not apply.”
This is an employment case. Thus, the “person against whom [the] action [is
being] brought on [the] liability of the person” (§ 366.2, subd. (a)) is Employee’s
employer. We examine whether Trustee has established there is no triable issue of
material fact as to the identity of Employee’s employer. Trustee contends, “[Employee]
judicially admitted in pleadings that her employer was the Estate of [Decedent],” and
therefore “the Trust was never [Employee’s] employer. [Employee’s] employer was
[Decedent], individually.”3 (Boldface omitted.)
“In moving for summary judgment, a party may rely on the doctrine of judicial
admission by utilizing allegations in the opposing party’s pleadings to eliminate triable
issues of material fact.” (Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 735,
747.) However, “ ‘[a]n unclear or equivocal statement does not create a binding judicial
admission.’ [Citation.] A court may disregard fragmentary and equivocal statements,
especially when contradicted by other credible evidence.” (Howard v. American
National Fire Ins. Co. (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 498, 515-516; see also Kirby v. Albert D.
Seeno Construction Co. (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1059, 1066-1067.)
3 Trustee concedes in her supplemental brief, “[Employee] was undoubtedly
employed by [Trustee] ‘as Successor Trustee of the [Trust]’ when she was appointed by
the court as successor trustee.” Thus, Trustee concedes that she was Employee’s
employer. However, Trustee contradicts this concession by asserting that Decedent
employed Employee. Given the contradiction, we will disregard the concession and
focus on the portions of Trustee’s argument that assert Employee alleged Decedent was
her employer.
8
Trustee contends that in the second amended complaint, Employee judicially
admitted that Decedent was Employee’s employer. That contention fails because the
second amended complaint also alleges that Trustee was Employee’s employer.
Specifically, the second amended complaint reads, “As the court appointed trustee of
the Trust, [Trustee] continued to employ [Employee].” Further, when looking at the
evidence, Employee and Son declared, “As the court appointed trustee of the Trust,
[Trustee] continued to employ [Employee].” Given the allegation and evidence
reflecting that Employee was employed by Trustee, we do not read the second amended
complaint as containing a judicial admission that Employee was employed by Decedent.
(See Howard v. American National Fire Ins. Co., supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at pp. 515-
516 [“A court may disregard fragmentary and equivocal statements, especially when
contradicted by other credible evidence”].)
Trustee asserts that in the separate statement of undisputed facts, Employee
judicially admitted that Decedent was her employee because Employee “admitted” that
she “allege[d] she worked for [Decedent] and [Decedent’s] estate owes [Employee] for
unpaid wages, reimbursement and penalties.” There are two problems with this
argument. First, although Employee “admitted” the foregoing fact, Employee also
added a conflicting fact: “As the court appointed trustee of the Trust, [Trustee]
continued to employ [Employee].” Second, “neither a motion for summary judgment
nor its accompanying statement of undisputed facts constitutes pleadings” for purposes
of a judicial admission. (Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., supra, 178 Cal.App.4th at p.
9
747.) Thus, we are not persuaded that Employee judicially admitted that Decedent was
her employer.
In sum, Trustee failed to demonstrate that there is not a triable issue of material
fact concerning the identity of Employee’s employer. As a result, Trustee failed to
demonstrate that there is not a triable issue of material fact concerning whether
Employee’s lawsuit was “brought on [the] liability of” Decedent. (§ 366.2, subd. (a).)
C. APPLICATION OF SECTION 366.2 TO TRUSTS
Trustee contends that it is irrelevant whether the lawsuit is based upon the
liability of Decedent or Trustee because in either scenario the one-year statute of
limitations (§ 366.2, subd. (a)) applies. In other words, Trustee asserts that the one-year
statute of limitations extends to lawsuits in which a trustee allegedly caused harm to a
plaintiff, and, before the lawsuit was filed, a beneficiary of the trust died.
Contrary to Trustee’s position, the one-year statute of limitations (§ 366.2, subd.
(a)) applies to lawsuits in which the person who allegedly caused the harm is the person
who died. In the instant case, there is a triable issue of fact as to who allegedly caused
the harm, so it is unclear if the one-year statute of limitations would apply. For
example, if Trustee allegedly caused the harm, then the one-year statute of limitations
would not apply because Decedent is the person who died. This point is illustrated by
Stoltenberg v. Newman (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 287 (Stoltenberg), which is a case relied
upon by Trustee.
In that case, Newman and Anne were trustees of the Newman Family Trust.
Newman died. (Stoltenberg, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 293.) When Newman died,
10
Anne became the sole successor trustee. A lawsuit arose from “Newman’s
communications,” which “were made as trustee of [the] Newman Family Trust and on
its behalf.” (Ibid.) The plaintiffs in that case asserted that their claims were not time
barred by section 366.2 because their claims were “not against Newman, but against
[the] Newman Trust.” (Ibid.)
The appellate court reasoned, “Had Newman been alive, any tort action arising
out of the acts alleged by plaintiffs would have been against him, either individually or
as trustee, or both; and trust assets as well as his personal assets might have been
reached for his liability.” (Stoltenberg, supra, 179 Cal.App.4th at p. 295.) The
appellate court continued, “[T]he substance of the claims in this case is for the personal
misconduct of the settlor/trustee . . . that was completed entirely before the
settlor/trustee died, and for which the settlor/trustee could have been held personally
liable. The action is one that could have been ‘brought on a liability of the person’
(§ 366.2, subd. (a)).” (Id. at p. 296.) Thus, the appellate court concluded that section
366.2, subdivision (a)), applied to the case because the person who died is the person
who allegedly caused the harm. (Stoltenberg, at p. 297.)
Trustee asserts, “[Employee] was hired by [Decedent],” and “[Decedent] would
have been personally liable to [Employee] if she had been alive.” As explained ante,
there is a triable issue of fact as to the identity of Employee’s employer. It is possible
that Trustee was Employee’s employer. If Trustee were Employee’s employer, then
section 366.2, subdivision (a)), would not apply in this case because that law only
applies when the alleged wrongdoer is the person who died.
11
D. POLICY
In Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey (2000) 24 Cal.4th 301, the Supreme
Court explained, “The overall intent of the Legislature in enacting Code of Civil
Procedure former section 353 [(now section 366.2)] was to protect decedents’ estates
from creditors’ stale claims. [Citations.] ‘[T]he drafters of former . . . section 353 and
current . . . section 366.2 believed the limitation period the statute imposes serves “the
strong public policies of expeditious estate administration and security of title for
distributees, and is consistent with the concept that a creditor has some obligation to
keep informed of the status of the debtor.” ’ ” (Id. at p. 308.)
Trustee contends that the legislative intent behind section 366.2 “is to promote
‘expeditious estate administration and security of title for distr[i]butees.’ ” We
understand Trustee’s contention to be that section 366.2, subdivision (a), should be
interpreted as applying to any lawsuit pertaining to property that is subject to
distribution following a person’s death, regardless of who is alleged to be liable in the
lawsuit, because to hold otherwise could cause a “delay in settling estates. Trustees and
administrators, not knowing whether it was safe to finalize distribution, could withhold
assets as a reserve against the assertion of unknown claims.” (Levine v. Levine (2002)
102 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1263.)
The plain language of section 366.2 provides for a one-year statute of limitations
when the claim is based upon the liability of the deceased person. (§ 366.2, subd. (a).)
In particular, the statute provides, “If a person against whom an action may be brought
on a liability of the person . . . dies . . . an action may be commenced within one year
12
after the date of death.” (§ 366.2, subd. (a).) “Person” is singular. The statute is
discussing liability of a person and the death of that same person. We cannot ignore the
plain language of statute. (Torres v. Parkhouse Tire Service, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th
995, 1003 [“In interpreting a statute where the language is clear, courts must follow its
plain meaning”].)
If the Legislature’s goal is to create a one-year statute of limitations applicable to
all claims that might be satisfied by property that is subject to distribution following a
death, regardless of whether probate proceedings are commenced, then it is the
Legislature’s role to create such a law; we do not have that authority. (City of Montclair
v. Cohen (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 238, 250 [“Legislatures, not courts, consider competing
policies and make laws”].)
E. WAGNER v. WAGNER
Next, we address Trustee’s reliance on Wagner v. Wagner (2008) 162
Cal.App.4th 249 (Wagner). In Wagner, Genevieve executed a living trust in 1989. “In
1999 Genevieve was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and, by 2000, required full-
time care. Genevieve died in November 2003. Genevieve’s trust named Claire[,
Genevieve’s daughter] as her successor trustee.” (Id. at pp. 252-253.) “In the
accounting submitted with her petition to settle the account of her deceased mother’s
living trust . . . , Claire Wagner sought $200,000 as compensation for caring for her
mother during the four years immediately preceding Genevieve’s death. Claire’s
brother, Kent Wagner, objected to the payment. The probate court sustained Kent’s
13
objection, ruling the proposed compensation, construed as a claim on the Trust, was not
timely under . . . section 366.2.” (Id. at p. 252, fn. omitted.)
The appellate court described the legislative intent behind section 366.2, as set
forth in Collection Bureau of San Jose v. Rumsey, supra. (Wagner, supra, 162
Cal.App.4th at p. 255.) The court then concluded, “[T]here is no question the one-year
limitation period applies to Claire’s claim against the Trust. As we stated in [another
case], ‘This uniform one-year statute of limitations applies to actions on all claims
against the decedent which survive the decedent’s death.’ ” (Id. at p. 256, italics
added.)
Trustee contends that because Claire’s claim was against the trust, and the
appellate court concluded that section 366.2 applied, the same result should occur in the
instant case. Wagner did not explain why section 366.2, which applies to claims
involving the liability of decedents, applied to Claire’s claim against the trust. Further,
Wagner did not indicate upon whom, if anyone, liability was based. (Wagner, supra,
162 Cal.App.4th at pp. 254-258.) Due to the lack of analysis, Wagner does not
persuade us that section 366.2 applies to lawsuits in which a trustee allegedly caused
harm to a plaintiff, and a beneficiary of the trust died before the lawsuit was filed. (See
Satten v. Webb (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 365, 383 [“a case is not authority for a
proposition not considered therein”].)
14
F. CONCLUSION
Trustee failed to disprove that there is a triable issue of material fact concerning
the application of the statute of limitations (§ 366.2, subd. (a)). Accordingly, we
conclude the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The trial court is directed to vacate its order granting
the motion for summary judgment and enter an order denying the motion. Employee is
awarded her costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(1).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER
Acting P. J.
We concur:
SLOUGH
J.
FIELDS
J.
15