Contract analysis

I. INTRODUCTION Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca ("Petitioner" or "Ms. Fonseca"), the surviving spouse of decedent Teodoro R. Fonseca ("Decedent"), who died intestate on September 3, 2022, respectfully submits this Response to the Amended Objection filed January 9, 2023, by contestants Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca (collectively, "Contestants"), through their counsel Brennan, Ort

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS A. The Marriage and Family History Decedent Teodoro R. Fonseca and Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca were married on June 14, 2008, in a ceremony held in Los Angeles County, California. The couple remained continuously married from that date until the Decedent's death on September 3, 2022 — a marriage of approximately fourteen years and nearly three months. Throughout that period, the p

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Contestants Bear the Burden of Proving the Existence and Validity of the Alleged Premarital Agreement Under well-settled California law, the party asserting the existence and validity of a premarital agreement bears the burden of proving that such an agreement was in fact executed and is enforceable. This principle flows from the fundamental evidentiary rule that the proponent of a claim bears

1. No Valid Written Agreement Signed by Both Parties (Section 1611) California Family Code Section 1611 provides, in its entirety: "A premarital agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. It is enforceable without consideration." (Emphasis added.) The statute's requirement that the agreement be "signed by both parties" is not merely a formality — it is a jurisdictional prerequisite to the existence of

2. The Document Is Unauthenticated and Inadmissible Even setting aside the absence of Ms. Fonseca's signature, the photocopy fails to satisfy basic evidentiary requirements for admission into evidence. California Evidence Code Sections 1400 through 1421 govern the authentication of writings. Section 1401 provides that authentication of a writing is required before it may be received in evidence. Authentication requir

3. Failure to Establish Voluntariness (Section 1615) Even assuming, arguendo, that the document were authenticated and bore the signatures of both parties — which it does not — the alleged premarital agreement would still be unenforceable for failure to establish voluntariness. California Family Code Section 1615(a) provides that a premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sough

Section 1615(c), as amended effective January 1, 2002 (and applicable to all premarital agreements executed on or after that date, including the alleged agreement here), sets forth specific conditions that must be satisfied for a premarital agreement to be deemed to have been executed voluntarily. These conditions include: (a) Independent Legal Counsel. The party against whom enforcement is sought must have been repr

4. Failure to Provide Adequate Financial Disclosure (Section 1615(a)(2)) California Family Code Section 1615(a)(2) provides an independent ground for invalidating a premarital agreement. Under that section, a premarital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves: "(2)(A) That party was not provided a fair, reasonable, and full disclosure of the property or financial obligation

5. The Document, Even If Valid, Would Not Encompass Assets Created During the Marriage Even if this Court were to conclude that the alleged premarital agreement was validly executed, authenticated, voluntary, and supported by adequate financial disclosure — none of which Ms. Fonseca concedes, and all of which she vigorously denies — the document's own terms would not reach the majority of the contested assets in this

1. Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC Is Community Property As established above, Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC was formed during the marriage on March 18, 2009. It was co-founded by both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca. The operating agreement dated March 18, 2009, reflects a 50/50 membership allocation between the spouses. Throughout the marriage, both spouses contributed their labor, skill, creative talent, and effort to buildi

2. Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC Interest Is Community Property Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC was formed in 2015, well within the marriage. The Decedent's 35% membership interest in that entity, valued at Twenty-Seven Million Four Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($27,475,000.00) based on the fund's Seventy-Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($78,500,000.00) in assets under management, was acq

3. The Malibu Beach House Has Substantial Community Property Character The Malibu Beach House was purchased on August 22, 2007, prior to the marriage, for a purchase price of Four Million Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($4,750,000.00). Contestants contend that the property is entirely the Decedent's separate property. This contention ignores the substantial community property contributions made to the property

IV. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS Ms. Fonseca hereby interposes the following evidentiary objections to the evidence submitted in connection with the Amended Objection: Objection No. 1: The Photocopy of the Alleged Premarital Agreement. Ms. Fonseca objects to the admission of the photocopy of the alleged premarital agreement, attached as Exhibit 1 to the Amended Objection, on the following grounds: (a) Lack of Authenticatio

V. RESPONSE TO INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS OF ISABELA C. FONSECA-GREER AND NICOLÁS R. FONSECA A. Isabela's Promissory Note Claim ($1,310,460) Contestant Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer asserts that the estate owes One Million Three Hundred Ten Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Dollars ($1,310,460.00) based on a promissory note allegedly executed by the Decedent on January 15, 2020. According to the Amended Objection, the note was made in t

VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF For all of the foregoing reasons, the Contestants' Amended Objection is without merit and should be overruled in its entirety. The premarital agreement claim fails at every level — the document is unauthenticated, incomplete, unsigned by Ms. Fonseca, and fails to satisfy any of the statutory requirements for a valid and enforceable premarital agreement under California Family Code

1. Overrule the Contestants' Amended Objection in its entirety;

2. Find that the Contestants have failed to establish the existence or validity of any premarital agreement between the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca;

3. Find that the photocopy of the alleged premarital agreement is unauthenticated, incomplete, and inadmissible;

4. Sustain Ms. Fonseca's evidentiary objections as set forth in Section IV above;

5. Confirm Ms. Fonseca's rights as surviving spouse under California Probate Code Sections 6400 through 6414, including her right to inherit one hundred percent (100%) of the community property and her statutory share of any separate property;

6. Grant Ms. Fonseca's Petition for Letters of Administration and appoint her as administrator of the Decedent's estate;

7. Award such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

VII. VERIFICATION I, Marguerite D. Fonseca, am the Petitioner in this matter. I have read the foregoing Response to Contestants' Amended Objection to Petition for Letters of Administration and know the contents thereof. The factual statements set forth in this Response are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I am informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the matters state

VIII. ATTORNEY SIGNATURE BLOCK Dated: February 6, 2023 CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP By: ________ Howard Quinn (CA Bar No. 198743) Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-4200 Facsimile: (213) 555-4201

IX. PROOF OF SERVICE PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I, Jennifer M. Vasquez, declare as follows: I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and am not a party to the within action. My business address is Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800, Los Angeles, California 90071. On February 6, 2023, I served the foregoing docu