1035-00005 · Marguerite Delp · Pleadings & Court Filings

response-to-amended-objection.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

28 / 35 ← → ✕

Contract analysis Extract to table

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

In re the Estate of

TEODORO R. FONSECA,

Deceased.

Case No. 22STPB09714

PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA'S RESPONSE TO CONTESTANTS' AMENDED OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION

Filed: February 6, 2023

Hearing Date: To be set by the Court Department: Probate Division

Howard Quinn (CA Bar No. 198743) Elliot Nguyen (CA Bar No. 267512) Grace Nakamura (CA Bar No. 301894) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-4200 Facsimile: (213) 555-4201

Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca

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, Ortega & Saldívar LLP.

The Amended Objection fundamentally alters the posture of this proceeding. In their initial Objection, filed November 14, 2022, Contestants challenged certain aspects of asset characterization and Ms. Fonseca's fitness to serve as administrator. Notably absent from that initial filing was any mention of a premarital agreement. Now, nearly two months later, the Amended Objection adds a new and central claim: that a premarital agreement allegedly executed on or about May 30, 2008 — approximately two weeks before the parties' June 14, 2008 wedding — governs the characterization of assets in the Decedent's estate and, by extension, would strip Ms. Fonseca of her community property rights in the majority of the estate's assets.

Ms. Fonseca denies executing any premarital agreement — whether on May 30, 2008, or at any other time. She and the Decedent never entered into any such agreement, and no valid premarital agreement exists. The sole document produced by Contestants in support of this claim is an unauthenticated, incomplete photocopy that critically lacks Ms. Fonseca's signature, fails to satisfy the statutory requirements for a valid premarital agreement under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act as adopted in California Family Code Sections 1610 through 1617, and shows forensic indicia of alteration as identified by a qualified forensic document examiner retained by Ms. Fonseca's counsel.

The sudden emergence of this document — produced not from the Decedent's files or from any attorney's office, but from the Decedent's first wife, Claudette Marchetti — raises profound questions of authenticity, reliability, and motive. No original has been produced despite demand. No witness to its alleged execution has been identified. And the document itself, even on its face, is incomplete: it bears what purports to be the Decedent's signature on its second page, but contains no signature of Ms. Fonseca anywhere within its two pages, no notarial acknowledgment, no witness attestation, and no accompanying financial disclosure schedules or exhibits of any kind.

The Amended Objection should be overruled in its entirety. Ms. Fonseca remains entitled to appointment as administrator of the estate pursuant to California Probate Code Section 8461 and to her full statutory rights as surviving spouse under California's intestacy statutes. The premarital agreement claim fails as a matter of law and evidentiary sufficiency. The Contestants have not met, and cannot meet, their burden of proving the existence and validity of the alleged agreement.

This Response addresses the premarital agreement claim in detail and additionally responds to the Contestants' continued challenges to the characterization of certain estate assets, which were carried forward from the initial Objection filed November 14, 2022, including the characterization of the Malibu Beach House, the Decedent's interests in Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC and Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC, and certain financial accounts and intellectual property. This Response also addresses the individual claims of Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer and Nicolás R. Fonseca.

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 parties resided together in Los Angeles County, principally at the Beverly Hills Residence described below.

The marriage to Ms. Fonseca was the Decedent's second marriage. It was Ms. Fonseca's first marriage. Prior to marrying Ms. Fonseca, the Decedent was married to Claudette Marchetti (née Marchetti) from 1988 to 2005. That first marriage, which lasted approximately seventeen years, produced three children: Rafael T. Fonseca, now age 33; Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, now age 30; and Nicolás R. Fonseca, now age 26. These three adult children are the Contestants in this proceeding.

The Decedent's first marriage was dissolved by a final judgment of dissolution entered in 2005. Pursuant to the terms of that dissolution, Claudette Marchetti received a final divorce settlement of Four Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,800,000.00), which represented a comprehensive resolution of all claims to marital property arising from the first marriage. In addition, Ms. Marchetti received a spousal support buyout payment of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00), made in 2007, which extinguished all ongoing spousal support obligations. The total consideration paid to Ms. Marchetti in connection with the dissolution of the first marriage was therefore Six Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,300,000.00). These payments resolved all property and support claims between the Decedent and Ms. Marchetti, and Ms. Marchetti retained no residual interest in any of the Decedent's assets following the completion of those payments.

B. The Decedent's Death and This Proceeding

The Decedent died on September 3, 2022, at the age of 62, of cardiac arrest due to natural causes. His death was unexpected. At the time of his death, the Decedent was a resident of Los Angeles County, California.

Following the Decedent's death, Ms. Fonseca, her counsel, and the Decedent's personal representatives conducted an extensive and thorough search for any will, trust, or other testamentary instrument that the Decedent may have executed during his lifetime. This search encompassed the Decedent's personal files maintained at the Beverly Hills Residence and the Malibu Beach House; records held at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., including safe deposit box contents; records maintained by the Decedent's long-time personal attorney, Graham S. Whitfield, Esq. (now retired); records at the offices of Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC and Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC; and inquiries to the Decedent's financial and business advisors. Despite these extensive efforts, no valid will, trust, or other testamentary instrument was located. The Decedent died intestate.

Ms. Fonseca filed her Petition for Letters of Administration on October 5, 2022, seeking appointment as administrator of the Decedent's estate pursuant to California Probate Code Section 8461, which grants priority to the surviving spouse. The Petition set forth the estate's assets, the Decedent's heirs, and Ms. Fonseca's entitlement to serve as administrator.

Contestants filed their initial Objection to the Petition on November 14, 2022. That initial Objection challenged certain aspects of asset characterization and raised questions about Ms. Fonseca's suitability to serve as administrator, but it did not reference any premarital agreement. No mention of a premarital agreement was made in the initial Objection, in any accompanying declaration, or in any communication between counsel prior to January 2023.

On January 9, 2023, nearly two months after the initial Objection, Contestants filed their Amended Objection. For the first time, the Amended Objection asserted the existence of a premarital agreement purportedly executed on or about May 30, 2008, and attached a photocopy of a two-page document that Contestants contend constitutes that agreement. The belated assertion of this claim — introduced only after the initial Objection had been filed and responded to — is itself telling. If a premarital agreement existed that purportedly governed the characterization of millions of dollars in estate assets, one would expect it to be among the first documents cited in any objection to the Petition, not an afterthought introduced months later.

C. The Estate Assets

During the course of the approximately fourteen-year marriage between the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca, the couple accumulated significant community assets. The principal assets of the estate, and their estimated fair market values as of the date of the Decedent's death, are set forth below.

Real Property. The estate includes two parcels of real property:

(a) The Beverly Hills Residence. The marital home located at 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210, with an estimated fair market value of Eight Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($8,450,000.00). This property was acquired during the marriage and is presumptively community property under California Family Code Section 760.

(b) The Malibu Beach House. A residential property located at 27100 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California 90265, with an estimated fair market value of Six Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,200,000.00). This property 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). However, during the marriage, substantial community property contributions were made to this property, including One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000.00) in renovations completed in 2016 and approximately Two Million Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($2,016,400.00) in mortgage payments made from joint accounts — consisting of 142 monthly payments of Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($14,200.00) per month, covering the period from June 2008 through payoff of the mortgage in March 2020. The total community property contribution to the Malibu Beach House was therefore approximately Three Million Eight Hundred Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($3,816,400.00).

Business Interests. The estate includes membership interests in two limited liability companies:

(a) Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. The Decedent held a 50% membership interest in Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC, a film and television production company co-founded by the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca on March 18, 2009, during the marriage. The estimated value of the Decedent's 50% interest is Fifteen Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($15,800,000.00), based on an enterprise valuation of Thirty-One Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($31,600,000.00) as of December 31, 2021. Ms. Fonseca holds the remaining 50% membership interest in her own right, separate and apart from the estate.

(b) Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC. The Decedent held a 35% membership interest in Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC ("PRNP"), a media investment fund formed in 2015 during the marriage, with Seventy-Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($78,500,000.00) in assets under management. The estimated value of the Decedent's 35% interest is Twenty-Seven Million Four Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($27,475,000.00).

Financial Accounts. The estate includes the following accounts held at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A.:

(a) A brokerage account (account ending -4782) with a balance of approximately Five Million One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($5,120,000.00);

(b) A personal checking account (account ending -3091) with a balance of approximately Three Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Dollars ($342,000.00); and

(c) A money market account (account ending -6155) with a balance of approximately One Million Eight Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($1,875,000.00).

intellectual Property. The estate includes an intellectual property portfolio comprising fourteen (14) feature films and six (6) television series, with a net present value estimated at Four Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,600,000.00). These works were developed primarily during the marriage, through the joint creative efforts and labor of both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca.

Personal Property. The estate includes personal property consisting of art, vehicles, and furnishings with an aggregate estimated value of One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00).

Based on the foregoing, Ms. Fonseca estimates the total probate estate to be approximately Seventy-One Million One Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($71,112,000.00).

In addition, there are non-probate assets consisting of life insurance proceeds totaling Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00): a Three Million Dollar ($3,000,000.00) term life insurance policy issued by Meridian Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Policy No. GH-TL-2019-05582) and a Two Million Dollar ($2,000,000.00) whole life insurance policy issued by Commonwealth Fidelity Assurance Corp. (Policy No. GH-WL-2014-01247). Both policies name Ms. Fonseca as the sole beneficiary. The Contestants do not contest the disposition of these non-probate assets.

D. The Alleged Premarital Agreement

The Amended Objection's central claim — and the reason it was filed at all — is the assertion that the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca executed a premarital agreement on or about May 30, 2008, approximately two weeks before their June 14, 2008 wedding. According to Contestants, this purported agreement would classify certain of the Decedent's assets as separate property, thereby reducing the community estate and diminishing Ms. Fonseca's share of the estate under intestacy.

The sole evidence produced in support of this claim is a photocopy of a two-page document. Ms. Fonseca addresses the deficiencies of this document in detail in Section III below, but summarizes the salient facts here.

The photocopy bears what appears to be the Decedent's signature on the second page. However, the document critically lacks any signature of Ms. Fonseca on the second page or anywhere else in the document. There is no signature line for Ms. Fonseca that has been left blank — there is simply no provision for her signature on the pages that have been produced. This absence is entirely inconsistent with a valid, executed bilateral agreement. The document purports to classify all media-related assets "originated or conceived prior to the marriage" as the Decedent's separate property, though the precise scope and definition of this term is vague and ambiguous in the document itself.

Ms. Fonseca denies ever having executed this or any premarital agreement with the Decedent. She has no recollection of ever seeing this document prior to its attachment to the Amended Objection. She never discussed or negotiated a premarital agreement with the Decedent, and no attorney ever represented her in connection with the preparation or review of such an agreement.

No original document has been produced, despite demand. On December 1, 2022, Calderwood & Harkness LLP transmitted a letter to Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP demanding production of the original of any purported premarital agreement. No original was produced in response. No adequate explanation for the absence of the original has been provided by Contestants or their counsel.

The photocopy was purportedly provided to Contestants by Claudette Marchetti, the Decedent's first wife. Ms. Marchetti submitted a declaration in connection with the Amended Objection stating that she believed such an agreement existed and that the Decedent had at some point shown her a document that he described as a premarital agreement. Ms. Marchetti was not a party to the alleged agreement, was not present at its alleged execution, and has no personal knowledge of whether it was in fact signed by both parties or delivered.

E. Forensic Document Analysis

In light of the questions surrounding the alleged premarital agreement, Calderwood & Harkness LLP retained Dr. Elaine Prescott of Brindoval Forensic Document Services LLC, located at 921 North La Brea Avenue, Suite 200, Los Angeles, California 90038, to conduct a forensic analysis of the photocopy produced by Contestants. Dr. Prescott is a qualified forensic document examiner with over twenty years of experience in the examination of questioned documents, including the detection of forgery, alteration, and document manipulation. She has been qualified as an expert witness in the Superior Courts of the State of California on numerous occasions.

Dr. Prescott's preliminary report, dated February 22, 2023, and attached hereto as Exhibit A, reached the following conclusions:

(a) The photocopy shows signs of alteration, including inconsistencies in formatting and text alignment between the two pages. Specifically, the font size, spacing, and margin alignment on the first page differ from those on the second page, suggesting that the two pages may not have originated from the same document or that one or both pages may have been modified after the original document was created.

(b) The absence of Ms. Fonseca's signature on the second page is consistent with an incomplete or draft document that was never finalized or executed. Documents of this nature are commonly circulated during the negotiation or drafting phase and are not indicative of a final, binding agreement.

(c) Without examination of the original document, the authenticity of the Decedent's purported signature on the second page cannot be verified. A photocopy does not permit the level of analysis required for definitive signature authentication, including analysis of pen pressure, ink characteristics, and stroke patterns.

(d) The document does not bear any notarial acknowledgment, witness attestation, or other indicia of formal execution. While California law does not require notarization of a premarital agreement, the absence of any indicia of formal execution further supports the conclusion that the document was never finalized.

Dr. Prescott has indicated that a definitive conclusion regarding the document's authenticity can only be reached upon examination of the original, which Contestants have been unable or unwilling to produce.

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 the burden of establishing it by a preponderance of the evidence, and is reinforced by the specific statutory framework governing premarital agreements in California.

California Family Code Section 1615 governs the enforceability of premarital agreements and places specific burdens on the party seeking to enforce such an agreement. The California Supreme Court has confirmed this allocation of burdens in In re Marriage of Bonds (2000) 24 Cal.4th 1, a seminal case addressing the enforceability of premarital agreements under California law. The Court of Appeal has likewise applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Cadwell-Faso & Faso (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 945, 956 ("The party seeking to enforce the premarital agreement must first establish the agreement's existence and valid execution."); In re Marriage of Howell (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072.

To meet their burden, Contestants must establish each of the following elements:

(1) That the alleged premarital agreement was in fact executed by both parties — that is, that both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca signed the document;

(2) That the agreement satisfies the formal requirements of California Family Code Section 1611, which mandates that a premarital agreement be "in writing and signed by both parties";

(3) That the agreement was voluntarily entered into by both parties, as required by California Family Code Section 1615(a)(1);

(4) That the agreement complies with all substantive and procedural requirements of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act as adopted in California Family Code Sections 1610 through 1617, including the requirements for adequate financial disclosure or written waiver thereof; and

(5) That the document produced is authentic and admissible as evidence under the California Evidence Code.

As demonstrated below, Contestants have failed to meet this burden on every element. The alleged premarital agreement fails as a matter of law, and the Amended Objection should be overruled.

B. The Alleged Agreement Fails as a Matter of Law Under California Family Code Sections 1610–1617

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 a valid premarital agreement. Without the signatures of both parties, there is no agreement at all.

The photocopy produced by Contestants does not satisfy this fundamental requirement. The document bears what purports to be the Decedent's signature on its second page. However, Ms. Fonseca's signature does not appear anywhere in the document — not on the second page, not on the first page, and not on any other page or attachment. The document as produced contains no signature of Ms. Fonseca whatsoever.

This deficiency is fatal. A document bearing only one party's signature is, by definition, not an agreement "signed by both parties" within the meaning of Section 1611. It is at most a unilateral proposal, a draft, or an incomplete document that was never executed. The statutory language is clear and admits of no ambiguity: both parties must sign. See In re Marriage of Bonds, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 22 (discussing the statutory requirements for valid premarital agreements); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 134 (a writing must be signed by the party to be charged).

Ms. Fonseca affirmatively denies ever having signed such a document. Her declaration, filed concurrently herewith, attests under penalty of perjury that she never signed a premarital agreement with the Decedent, never negotiated a premarital agreement, and never authorized any person to sign such a document on her behalf. The burden falls squarely on Contestants to produce a signed original or authenticated copy bearing the signatures of both parties, and they have not done so.

The absence of the original document is itself profoundly significant and warrants close scrutiny by the Court. Despite a written demand served on Contestants' counsel on December 1, 2022, no original has been produced. Contestants have offered no explanation for why only a photocopy exists, for who had custody of the original, for how the original came to be lost or destroyed, or for the chain of custody of the photocopy that was ultimately provided to Contestants by Ms. Marchetti. In the absence of the original, and in the absence of any adequate explanation for the original's non-production, the photocopy is entitled to no evidentiary weight. The Court should draw an adverse inference from Contestants' failure to produce the original document. See Cal. Evid. Code § 413 (trier of fact may draw negative inference from party's failure to produce evidence within its control).

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 requires "the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is." (Evid. Code § 1400.) The proponent of the writing bears the burden of authentication.

Contestants have not offered competent evidence authenticating the photocopy. The only evidence of authentication they have provided is the declaration of Claudette Marchetti, the Decedent's first wife. Ms. Marchetti's declaration attests to her belief that a premarital agreement existed between the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca and states that the Decedent showed her a document that he described as such. However, Ms. Marchetti was not a party to the alleged agreement. She was not present at its alleged execution. She has no personal knowledge of whether the document was in fact signed by both parties, of the circumstances under which it was purportedly executed, or of the chain of custody of the photocopy she provided to Contestants. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to authenticate the document under Evidence Code Section 1400. See People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 267 ("The foundation requires that there be sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to find that the writing is what its proponent claims.").

Moreover, the preliminary forensic report of Dr. Elaine Prescott raises affirmative questions about the integrity of the document. The formatting inconsistencies and text alignment discrepancies between the two pages identified by Dr. Prescott are inconsistent with a document that was prepared as a single, unified instrument. These findings affirmatively undermine any claim of authenticity and further demonstrate that the photocopy cannot satisfy the authentication threshold under the Evidence Code.

A photocopy of an incomplete, unsigned document, provided by a third party with no direct knowledge of its execution, and showing forensic signs of alteration, cannot satisfy the authentication requirements of the California Evidence Code. The document should be excluded from evidence.

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 sought proves that: "(1) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily." While the burden of proving involuntariness ordinarily rests on the party resisting enforcement, the party seeking enforcement must first establish a prima facie case that the agreement was validly executed, at which point the burden shifts. See In re Marriage of Bonds, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 27–32.

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 represented by independent legal counsel at the time of signing the agreement, or, alternatively, must have been advised to seek independent legal counsel and must have expressly waived, in a separate writing, the right to such counsel after being so advised. (Fam. Code § 1615(c)(1).) Contestants have produced no evidence that Ms. Fonseca was represented by independent legal counsel in connection with the alleged agreement. No attorney has been identified as having represented Ms. Fonseca in the review or negotiation of any premarital agreement. No separate written waiver of the right to counsel has been produced or alleged. This failure alone is sufficient to render the alleged agreement unenforceable under Section 1615(c)(1).

(b) Absence of Duress, Fraud, and Undue Influence. The agreement must not have been executed under duress, fraud, or undue influence. (Fam. Code § 1615(c)(2).) The alleged agreement is dated May 30, 2008, just fifteen days before the parties' scheduled wedding on June 14, 2008. The temporal proximity of the alleged signing date to the wedding date raises significant concerns about duress and coercion. As the California Supreme Court recognized in In re Marriage of Bonds, the presentation of a premarital agreement close in time to the wedding date is a significant factor in evaluating voluntariness, because the prospective spouse may feel compelled to sign in order to avoid the humiliation and disruption of canceling a wedding. Id. at pp. 31–33. Even if the document were otherwise valid, the close proximity to the wedding, coupled with the complete absence of evidence that Ms. Fonseca had time to consult with counsel or to consider the agreement's terms, would support a finding that the agreement was not executed voluntarily.

(c) Seven-Day Waiting Period. Under Section 1615(c)(3), the party against whom enforcement is sought must have had not less than seven (7) calendar days between the time the agreement was first presented to that party and the time of signing. There is no evidence in the record establishing when Ms. Fonseca was purportedly first presented with the alleged agreement. Contestants have produced no evidence on this point. The absence of such evidence precludes a finding that the seven-day waiting period was satisfied.

Contestants have produced no evidence whatsoever establishing that the alleged agreement was executed voluntarily. They have not addressed any of the voluntariness factors set forth in Section 1615(c). Their Amended Objection is entirely silent on this point. This omission is not merely a gap in their pleading — it is a failure to satisfy a statutory condition precedent to the enforcement of any premarital agreement.

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 obligations of the other party.

(B) That party did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided.

(C) That party did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party."

No financial disclosure schedule, attachment, exhibit, or other documentation of the Decedent's property or financial obligations has been produced in connection with the alleged premarital agreement. The photocopy is a bare two-page document with no accompanying schedules, asset lists, income statements, or financial disclosure of any kind. No written waiver of the right to financial disclosure has been produced.

At the time of the alleged agreement in May 2008, the Decedent was a successful media industry professional with substantial assets, including the Malibu Beach House (purchased in 2007 for $4,750,000), existing media ventures and intellectual property, and significant financial accounts. A fair, reasonable, and full disclosure of these assets was a statutory prerequisite to the enforceability of any premarital agreement. The absence of any evidence of such disclosure provides a separate and independent basis for finding the alleged agreement unenforceable.

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 estate.

The alleged agreement, as reflected in the photocopy produced by Contestants, purports to classify as the Decedent's separate property only those media-related assets "originated or conceived prior to the marriage." By its own terms, the agreement's scope is limited to assets that existed or were conceived before the June 14, 2008 wedding. The most significant contested assets in this estate were created well after the marriage and therefore fall outside the scope of the alleged agreement even on its own terms:

(a) Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. This company was formed on March 18, 2009, approximately nine months after the marriage. It was co-founded by both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca. It did not exist prior to the marriage and was not "originated or conceived" before the marriage. The Decedent's 50% membership interest, valued at $15,800,000, is therefore not an asset "originated or conceived prior to the marriage" under the alleged agreement's own terms.

(b) Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC. This entity was formed in 2015, approximately seven years into the marriage. The Decedent's 35% membership interest, valued at $27,475,000, was acquired entirely during the marriage and has no pre-marital origin.

(c) The intellectual Property Portfolio. The portfolio of fourteen feature films and six television series was developed primarily during the marriage, through the joint creative efforts and labor of both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca operating through Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. While certain creative concepts may have had antecedents in work the Decedent performed prior to the marriage, the specific works in the portfolio were produced, financed, and distributed during the marriage.

In sum, even under the most favorable reading of the alleged agreement's terms, assets representing in excess of $48,000,000 of the estate's value — including the Lumiére Canyon Studios interest, the Pacific Rim Narrative Partners interest, and the intellectual property portfolio — are plainly community property that would not be affected by the alleged agreement. The premarital agreement claim, even if it had merit (which it does not), would fail to achieve Contestants' stated objective of reclassifying the majority of estate assets as the Decedent's separate property.

C. Contestants' Separate Property Claims Are Without Merit

Separate and apart from the premarital agreement claim, Contestants have carried forward from their initial Objection the assertion that certain assets are the Decedent's separate property rather than community property. These claims are without merit.

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 building the company's value. Ms. Fonseca served as Chief Creative Officer and was instrumental in the development and production of the company's film and television projects. The enterprise valuation of Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC as of December 31, 2021, was Thirty-One Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($31,600,000.00), reflecting the substantial value created through the joint efforts of both spouses over the course of nearly thirteen years.

Under California Family Code Section 760, all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be community property. This presumption applies with full force to Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC, which was formed during the marriage, funded during the marriage, and operated through the joint efforts of both spouses during the marriage.

Contestants' assertion that the company was "funded substantially with separate property capital" is conclusory and unsupported by any evidence. Contestants have produced no bank records, account statements, wire transfer confirmations, or other documentary evidence tracing any alleged separate property contribution to the formation or capitalization of Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. The burden of overcoming the community property presumption rests on the party asserting separate property characterization, and that burden requires clear and convincing evidence of tracing. See In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 612; In re Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 277, 291 ("The party asserting that property is separate has the burden of proving that characterization by a preponderance of the evidence."). Contestants have not met this burden and cannot meet it on the record before the Court.

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 acquired entirely during the marriage. No evidence has been produced that separate property funds were used to acquire this interest, and no tracing analysis has been offered by Contestants. The community property presumption under Family Code Section 760 applies. The Decedent's 35% membership interest in PRNP is community property.

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 during the marriage.

During the marriage, community funds were used to make mortgage payments totaling approximately Two Million Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($2,016,400.00), consisting of 142 monthly payments of Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($14,200.00) each, paid from joint accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., from June 2008 through payoff of the mortgage in March 2020. In addition, community funds in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000.00) were used to fund a comprehensive renovation of the property, completed in 2016. The total community property contribution to the Malibu Beach House was therefore approximately Three Million Eight Hundred Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($3,816,400.00).

Under the Moore/Marsden community property tracing principles established by the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 Cal.3d 366 and In re Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426, when community funds are used to make mortgage payments or improvements on a property that is otherwise separate, the community acquires a proportional interest in the property. Applying these principles, the community's proportional interest in the Malibu Beach House is, at minimum, approximately 61.6% — calculated as Three Million Eight Hundred Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($3,816,400.00) in community contributions divided by the current fair market value of Six Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,200,000.00). This calculation is conservative, as it does not account for the appreciation in property value attributable to the community-funded renovations, which a formal Moore/Marsden apportioning would take into account.

Title records maintained by Coastline Title & Escrow Co. and bank account records from Veltara Basin Bank, N.A. will confirm the community source of the mortgage payments and renovation expenditures. Ms. Fonseca reserves the right to present a formal community property tracing analysis at the appropriate stage of this proceeding.

D. Ms. Fonseca's Rights as Surviving Spouse Under California Intestacy Law Are Not Displaced

Even if Contestants could establish the existence and validity of a premarital agreement — which they cannot — Ms. Fonseca's rights as surviving spouse under California's intestacy statutes would not be displaced.

Under California Probate Code Section 6401(a), as to community property, the intestate share of the surviving spouse is "the one-half of the community property that belongs to the decedent under Section 100." Because Ms. Fonseca already owns her own one-half of community property by operation of law (Fam. Code § 751), and because she inherits the Decedent's one-half under Section 6401(a), the result is that one hundred percent (100%) of all community property passes to Ms. Fonseca.

Under California Probate Code Section 6401(c)(3), as to any separate property of the Decedent, the surviving spouse receives one-third of the Decedent's separate property estate when the decedent is survived by more than one child. Here, the Decedent is survived by three children (the Contestants). Even assuming, arguendo, that certain assets were properly characterized as the Decedent's separate property — which Ms. Fonseca denies — Ms. Fonseca would retain a one-third statutory share of those assets under the intestacy statutes.

It is important to recognize the limited role that a premarital agreement, even a valid one, would play in this context. A premarital agreement can alter the characterization of assets between community and separate property. It cannot, however, override the intestacy statutes governing how property is distributed upon death when the decedent dies without a will. The alleged premarital agreement does not contain a waiver of intestacy rights, does not constitute a will or a will substitute, and cannot function as a testamentary instrument. Even if the Court were to find (contrary to the evidence) that a valid premarital agreement existed, Ms. Fonseca would retain her statutory entitlements under the Probate Code.

E. The Contestants' Reliance on Claudette Marchetti's Declaration Is Insufficient

Contestants rely heavily on a declaration submitted by Claudette Marchetti, the Decedent's first wife, in support of their premarital agreement claim and their asset characterization arguments. Ms. Marchetti's declaration is insufficient to establish any contested issue for the following reasons.

First, Ms. Marchetti was not a party to the alleged premarital agreement between the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca. She has no personal knowledge of the agreement's execution, its terms, or the circumstances under which it was purportedly signed. Her testimony is based on hearsay — specifically, on statements purportedly made to her by the Decedent regarding the existence of such an agreement. These hearsay statements are inadmissible under Evidence Code Section 1200 and do not fall within any recognized exception.

Second, Ms. Marchetti's testimony regarding "certain media assets originated during the first marriage" is irrelevant to the validity of the alleged premarital agreement. Whether or not the Decedent retained certain media assets from the first marriage has no bearing on whether a valid premarital agreement was executed with Ms. Fonseca. Moreover, Ms. Marchetti's testimony on this point is rebutted by the comprehensive financial resolution of the first marriage: Ms. Marchetti received a divorce settlement of Four Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,800,000.00) in 2005 and a spousal support buyout of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) in 2007, for a total of Six Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,300,000.00). These payments resolved all claims to marital property from the first marriage. Any media assets retained by the Decedent following the dissolution were his separate property at the time of his second marriage — but the existence of such separate property does not establish the existence or validity of a premarital agreement with Ms. Fonseca.

Third, Ms. Marchetti's motives are open to question. As the mother of the three Contestants, she has a direct familial interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Her declaration should be viewed in that context.

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 Authentication. The photocopy has not been authenticated as required by California Evidence Code Sections 1400 through 1421. No competent witness with personal knowledge of the document's creation, execution, or chain of custody has testified to its authenticity. The declaration of Claudette Marchetti does not satisfy the authentication requirement, as she was not a party to the alleged agreement and was not present at its purported execution.

(b) Best Evidence Rule / Secondary Evidence Rule. Under California Evidence Code Sections 1500 through 1510, the original of a writing must be produced when the content of the writing is sought to be proved. The photocopy is secondary evidence. No adequate explanation for the absence of the original has been provided by Contestants. Section 1501 requires that before secondary evidence of the content of a writing is admissible, the proponent must demonstrate that the original is lost or destroyed, or otherwise unavailable through no fault of the proponent, and must account for the original's non-production. Contestants have not met this threshold.

(c) Hearsay. To the extent the document is offered to prove the truth of its contents — i.e., that the parties agreed to certain property characterizations — the document constitutes hearsay under Evidence Code Section 1200 unless a proper foundation is laid and an applicable exception demonstrated. No such foundation has been laid.

(d) Incomplete Document. The photocopy is missing Ms. Fonseca's signature page and may be missing additional pages, schedules, or exhibits. An incomplete document cannot be admitted as a complete, integrated agreement.

Objection No. 2: Portions of the Marchetti Declaration. Ms. Fonseca objects to portions of the declaration of Claudette Marchetti submitted in connection with the Amended Objection on the following grounds:

(a) Lack of Personal Knowledge. Ms. Marchetti's statements regarding the existence and execution of the alleged premarital agreement are not based on personal knowledge, as required by California Evidence Code Section 702. Ms. Marchetti was not a party to the alleged agreement, was not present at its alleged execution, and has no firsthand knowledge of whether it was signed by both parties.

(b) Speculation. Ms. Marchetti's statements regarding the intentions and understandings of the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca are speculative and lack any evidentiary foundation.

(c) Hearsay. Ms. Marchetti's testimony regarding statements purportedly made to her by the Decedent about the premarital agreement constitutes inadmissible hearsay under Evidence Code Section 1200. While the Contestants may seek to invoke the hearsay exception for statements of a declarant who is unavailable (Evid. Code § 1230 et seq.), the statements attributed to the Decedent do not fall within any recognized exception, as they are self-serving statements regarding the existence of an agreement that the Decedent purportedly entered into for his own benefit.

Ms. Fonseca respectfully requests that the Court sustain each of these objections and exclude the challenged evidence.

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 the principal amount of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00), payable to Amber Light Documentary Films LLC, a company owned by Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, bearing annual interest at a rate of 3.5%, with accrued interest of One Hundred Ten Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Dollars ($110,460.00) through the date of the Decedent's death on September 3, 2022.

Ms. Fonseca contends that the One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollar ($1,200,000.00) transfer from the Decedent to Amber Light Documentary Films LLC was a gift, not a loan. The Decedent was a generous father who frequently supported his children's professional ventures. At no time during the Decedent's lifetime was any repayment demanded, any payment made against the alleged principal or interest, or any collection effort initiated. The characterization of this transfer as a "promissory note" is disputed. Ms. Fonseca reserves the right to challenge the validity, authenticity, and enforceability of the alleged promissory note and will address this claim more fully in separate briefing to be filed with the Court.

B. Nicolás's Educational Expense Claim ($387,500)

Contestant Nicolás R. Fonseca asserts a claim against the estate in the amount of Three Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($387,500.00) for educational expense reimbursement. According to the Amended Objection, this claim is based on an alleged oral promise made by the Decedent to pay for Nicolás's graduate education, including tuition, housing, and living expenses.

An oral promise to pay educational expenses extending over multiple academic years is unenforceable under the California Statute of Frauds, Civil Code Section 1624, to the extent it could not be performed within one year from the making of the agreement. Moreover, even if such a promise were enforceable, Nicolás bears the burden of proving its existence, its terms, and the amount of damages with reasonable certainty. Ms. Fonseca will address this claim more fully in separate briefing to be filed with the Court.

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 Sections 1610 through 1617. The Contestants have not met their burden of proof, and no amount of supplemental evidence can cure the fundamental deficiency that Ms. Fonseca never signed the document. The separate property claims are likewise without merit, as the Contestants have failed to overcome the community property presumption with respect to any of the contested assets.

Ms. Fonseca respectfully requests that the Court:

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 stated on information and belief are true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February 6, 2023, in Los Angeles, California.

________________________________________

MARGUERITE D. FONSECA Petitioner

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 document described as PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA'S RESPONSE TO CONTESTANTS' AMENDED OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION on all interested parties in this action as follows:

BY MAIL: I caused each such envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with Calderwood & Harkness LLP's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused each document to be sent via electronic mail to the email addresses of the parties and/or their counsel of record as set forth below.

The documents were served on the following persons at the following addresses:

Damian R. Ortega, Esq. Lydia Kwan, Esq. Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Counsel for Contestants Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca

Rafael T. Fonseca 502 Olive Avenue, Unit 3 Burbank, California 91502

Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer 78 Eucalyptus Lane Santa Monica, California 90402

Nicolás R. Fonseca 1190 Elm Street, Apt. 4B Palo Alto, California 94301

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February 6, 2023, in Los Angeles, California.

________________________________________

Jennifer M. Vasquez

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
In re the Estate of
TEODORO R. FONSECA,
Deceased.
Case No. 22STPB09714
PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA'S RESPONSE TO CONTESTANTS' AMENDED OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
Filed: February 6, 2023
Hearing Date: To be set by the Court Department: Probate Division
Howard Quinn (CA Bar No. 198743) Elliot Nguyen (CA Bar No. 267512) Grace Nakamura (CA Bar No. 301894) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 555-4200 Facsimile: (213) 555-4201
Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca
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, Ortega & Saldívar LLP.
The Amended Objection fundamentally alters the posture of this proceeding. In their initial Objection, filed November 14, 2022, Contestants challenged certain aspects of asset characterization and Ms. Fonseca's fitness to serve as administrator. Notably absent from that initial filing was any mention of a premarital agreement. Now, nearly two months later, the Amended Objection adds a new and central claim: that a premarital agreement allegedly executed on or about May 30, 2008 — approximately two weeks before the parties' June 14, 2008 wedding — governs the characterization of assets in the Decedent's estate and, by extension, would strip Ms. Fonseca of her community property rights in the majority of the estate's assets.
Ms. Fonseca denies executing any premarital agreement — whether on May 30, 2008, or at any other time. She and the Decedent never entered into any such agreement, and no valid premarital agreement exists. The sole document produced by Contestants in support of this claim is an unauthenticated, incomplete photocopy that critically lacks Ms. Fonseca's signature, fails to satisfy the statutory requirements for a valid premarital agreement under the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act as adopted in California Family Code Sections 1610 through 1617, and shows forensic indicia of alteration as identified by a qualified forensic document examiner retained by Ms. Fonseca's counsel.
The sudden emergence of this document — produced not from the Decedent's files or from any attorney's office, but from the Decedent's first wife, Claudette Marchetti — raises profound questions of authenticity, reliability, and motive. No original has been produced despite demand. No witness to its alleged execution has been identified. And the document itself, even on its face, is incomplete: it bears what purports to be the Decedent's signature on its second page, but contains no signature of Ms. Fonseca anywhere within its two pages, no notarial acknowledgment, no witness attestation, and no accompanying financial disclosure schedules or exhibits of any kind.
The Amended Objection should be overruled in its entirety. Ms. Fonseca remains entitled to appointment as administrator of the estate pursuant to California Probate Code Section 8461 and to her full statutory rights as surviving spouse under California's intestacy statutes. The premarital agreement claim fails as a matter of law and evidentiary sufficiency. The Contestants have not met, and cannot meet, their burden of proving the existence and validity of the alleged agreement.
This Response addresses the premarital agreement claim in detail and additionally responds to the Contestants' continued challenges to the characterization of certain estate assets, which were carried forward from the initial Objection filed November 14, 2022, including the characterization of the Malibu Beach House, the Decedent's interests in Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC and Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC, and certain financial accounts and intellectual property. This Response also addresses the individual claims of Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer and Nicolás R. Fonseca.
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 parties resided together in Los Angeles County, principally at the Beverly Hills Residence described below.
The marriage to Ms. Fonseca was the Decedent's second marriage. It was Ms. Fonseca's first marriage. Prior to marrying Ms. Fonseca, the Decedent was married to Claudette Marchetti (née Marchetti) from 1988 to 2005. That first marriage, which lasted approximately seventeen years, produced three children: Rafael T. Fonseca, now age 33; Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, now age 30; and Nicolás R. Fonseca, now age 26. These three adult children are the Contestants in this proceeding.
The Decedent's first marriage was dissolved by a final judgment of dissolution entered in 2005. Pursuant to the terms of that dissolution, Claudette Marchetti received a final divorce settlement of Four Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,800,000.00), which represented a comprehensive resolution of all claims to marital property arising from the first marriage. In addition, Ms. Marchetti received a spousal support buyout payment of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00), made in 2007, which extinguished all ongoing spousal support obligations. The total consideration paid to Ms. Marchetti in connection with the dissolution of the first marriage was therefore Six Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,300,000.00). These payments resolved all property and support claims between the Decedent and Ms. Marchetti, and Ms. Marchetti retained no residual interest in any of the Decedent's assets following the completion of those payments.
B. The Decedent's Death and This Proceeding
The Decedent died on September 3, 2022, at the age of 62, of cardiac arrest due to natural causes. His death was unexpected. At the time of his death, the Decedent was a resident of Los Angeles County, California.
Following the Decedent's death, Ms. Fonseca, her counsel, and the Decedent's personal representatives conducted an extensive and thorough search for any will, trust, or other testamentary instrument that the Decedent may have executed during his lifetime. This search encompassed the Decedent's personal files maintained at the Beverly Hills Residence and the Malibu Beach House; records held at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., including safe deposit box contents; records maintained by the Decedent's long-time personal attorney, Graham S. Whitfield, Esq. (now retired); records at the offices of Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC and Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC; and inquiries to the Decedent's financial and business advisors. Despite these extensive efforts, no valid will, trust, or other testamentary instrument was located. The Decedent died intestate.
Ms. Fonseca filed her Petition for Letters of Administration on October 5, 2022, seeking appointment as administrator of the Decedent's estate pursuant to California Probate Code Section 8461, which grants priority to the surviving spouse. The Petition set forth the estate's assets, the Decedent's heirs, and Ms. Fonseca's entitlement to serve as administrator.
Contestants filed their initial Objection to the Petition on November 14, 2022. That initial Objection challenged certain aspects of asset characterization and raised questions about Ms. Fonseca's suitability to serve as administrator, but it did not reference any premarital agreement. No mention of a premarital agreement was made in the initial Objection, in any accompanying declaration, or in any communication between counsel prior to January 2023.
On January 9, 2023, nearly two months after the initial Objection, Contestants filed their Amended Objection. For the first time, the Amended Objection asserted the existence of a premarital agreement purportedly executed on or about May 30, 2008, and attached a photocopy of a two-page document that Contestants contend constitutes that agreement. The belated assertion of this claim — introduced only after the initial Objection had been filed and responded to — is itself telling. If a premarital agreement existed that purportedly governed the characterization of millions of dollars in estate assets, one would expect it to be among the first documents cited in any objection to the Petition, not an afterthought introduced months later.
C. The Estate Assets
During the course of the approximately fourteen-year marriage between the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca, the couple accumulated significant community assets. The principal assets of the estate, and their estimated fair market values as of the date of the Decedent's death, are set forth below.
Real Property. The estate includes two parcels of real property:
(a) The Beverly Hills Residence. The marital home located at 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210, with an estimated fair market value of Eight Million Four Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($8,450,000.00). This property was acquired during the marriage and is presumptively community property under California Family Code Section 760.
(b) The Malibu Beach House. A residential property located at 27100 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California 90265, with an estimated fair market value of Six Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,200,000.00). This property 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). However, during the marriage, substantial community property contributions were made to this property, including One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000.00) in renovations completed in 2016 and approximately Two Million Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($2,016,400.00) in mortgage payments made from joint accounts — consisting of 142 monthly payments of Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($14,200.00) per month, covering the period from June 2008 through payoff of the mortgage in March 2020. The total community property contribution to the Malibu Beach House was therefore approximately Three Million Eight Hundred Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($3,816,400.00).
Business Interests. The estate includes membership interests in two limited liability companies:
(a) Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. The Decedent held a 50% membership interest in Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC, a film and television production company co-founded by the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca on March 18, 2009, during the marriage. The estimated value of the Decedent's 50% interest is Fifteen Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($15,800,000.00), based on an enterprise valuation of Thirty-One Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($31,600,000.00) as of December 31, 2021. Ms. Fonseca holds the remaining 50% membership interest in her own right, separate and apart from the estate.
(b) Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC. The Decedent held a 35% membership interest in Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC ("PRNP"), a media investment fund formed in 2015 during the marriage, with Seventy-Eight Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($78,500,000.00) in assets under management. The estimated value of the Decedent's 35% interest is Twenty-Seven Million Four Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($27,475,000.00).
Financial Accounts. The estate includes the following accounts held at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A.:
(a) A brokerage account (account ending -4782) with a balance of approximately Five Million One Hundred Twenty Thousand Dollars ($5,120,000.00);
(b) A personal checking account (account ending -3091) with a balance of approximately Three Hundred Forty-Two Thousand Dollars ($342,000.00); and
(c) A money market account (account ending -6155) with a balance of approximately One Million Eight Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($1,875,000.00).
intellectual Property. The estate includes an intellectual property portfolio comprising fourteen (14) feature films and six (6) television series, with a net present value estimated at Four Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,600,000.00). These works were developed primarily during the marriage, through the joint creative efforts and labor of both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca.
Personal Property. The estate includes personal property consisting of art, vehicles, and furnishings with an aggregate estimated value of One Million Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000.00).
Based on the foregoing, Ms. Fonseca estimates the total probate estate to be approximately Seventy-One Million One Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($71,112,000.00).
In addition, there are non-probate assets consisting of life insurance proceeds totaling Five Million Dollars ($5,000,000.00): a Three Million Dollar ($3,000,000.00) term life insurance policy issued by Meridian Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Policy No. GH-TL-2019-05582) and a Two Million Dollar ($2,000,000.00) whole life insurance policy issued by Commonwealth Fidelity Assurance Corp. (Policy No. GH-WL-2014-01247). Both policies name Ms. Fonseca as the sole beneficiary. The Contestants do not contest the disposition of these non-probate assets.
D. The Alleged Premarital Agreement
The Amended Objection's central claim — and the reason it was filed at all — is the assertion that the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca executed a premarital agreement on or about May 30, 2008, approximately two weeks before their June 14, 2008 wedding. According to Contestants, this purported agreement would classify certain of the Decedent's assets as separate property, thereby reducing the community estate and diminishing Ms. Fonseca's share of the estate under intestacy.
The sole evidence produced in support of this claim is a photocopy of a two-page document. Ms. Fonseca addresses the deficiencies of this document in detail in Section III below, but summarizes the salient facts here.
The photocopy bears what appears to be the Decedent's signature on the second page. However, the document critically lacks any signature of Ms. Fonseca on the second page or anywhere else in the document. There is no signature line for Ms. Fonseca that has been left blank — there is simply no provision for her signature on the pages that have been produced. This absence is entirely inconsistent with a valid, executed bilateral agreement. The document purports to classify all media-related assets "originated or conceived prior to the marriage" as the Decedent's separate property, though the precise scope and definition of this term is vague and ambiguous in the document itself.
Ms. Fonseca denies ever having executed this or any premarital agreement with the Decedent. She has no recollection of ever seeing this document prior to its attachment to the Amended Objection. She never discussed or negotiated a premarital agreement with the Decedent, and no attorney ever represented her in connection with the preparation or review of such an agreement.
No original document has been produced, despite demand. On December 1, 2022, Calderwood & Harkness LLP transmitted a letter to Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP demanding production of the original of any purported premarital agreement. No original was produced in response. No adequate explanation for the absence of the original has been provided by Contestants or their counsel.
The photocopy was purportedly provided to Contestants by Claudette Marchetti, the Decedent's first wife. Ms. Marchetti submitted a declaration in connection with the Amended Objection stating that she believed such an agreement existed and that the Decedent had at some point shown her a document that he described as a premarital agreement. Ms. Marchetti was not a party to the alleged agreement, was not present at its alleged execution, and has no personal knowledge of whether it was in fact signed by both parties or delivered.
E. Forensic Document Analysis
In light of the questions surrounding the alleged premarital agreement, Calderwood & Harkness LLP retained Dr. Elaine Prescott of Brindoval Forensic Document Services LLC, located at 921 North La Brea Avenue, Suite 200, Los Angeles, California 90038, to conduct a forensic analysis of the photocopy produced by Contestants. Dr. Prescott is a qualified forensic document examiner with over twenty years of experience in the examination of questioned documents, including the detection of forgery, alteration, and document manipulation. She has been qualified as an expert witness in the Superior Courts of the State of California on numerous occasions.
Dr. Prescott's preliminary report, dated February 22, 2023, and attached hereto as Exhibit A, reached the following conclusions:
(a) The photocopy shows signs of alteration, including inconsistencies in formatting and text alignment between the two pages. Specifically, the font size, spacing, and margin alignment on the first page differ from those on the second page, suggesting that the two pages may not have originated from the same document or that one or both pages may have been modified after the original document was created.
(b) The absence of Ms. Fonseca's signature on the second page is consistent with an incomplete or draft document that was never finalized or executed. Documents of this nature are commonly circulated during the negotiation or drafting phase and are not indicative of a final, binding agreement.
(c) Without examination of the original document, the authenticity of the Decedent's purported signature on the second page cannot be verified. A photocopy does not permit the level of analysis required for definitive signature authentication, including analysis of pen pressure, ink characteristics, and stroke patterns.
(d) The document does not bear any notarial acknowledgment, witness attestation, or other indicia of formal execution. While California law does not require notarization of a premarital agreement, the absence of any indicia of formal execution further supports the conclusion that the document was never finalized.
Dr. Prescott has indicated that a definitive conclusion regarding the document's authenticity can only be reached upon examination of the original, which Contestants have been unable or unwilling to produce.
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 the burden of establishing it by a preponderance of the evidence, and is reinforced by the specific statutory framework governing premarital agreements in California.
California Family Code Section 1615 governs the enforceability of premarital agreements and places specific burdens on the party seeking to enforce such an agreement. The California Supreme Court has confirmed this allocation of burdens in In re Marriage of Bonds (2000) 24 Cal.4th 1, a seminal case addressing the enforceability of premarital agreements under California law. The Court of Appeal has likewise applied these principles consistently. See, e.g., In re Marriage of Cadwell-Faso & Faso (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 945, 956 ("The party seeking to enforce the premarital agreement must first establish the agreement's existence and valid execution."); In re Marriage of Howell (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 1062, 1072.
To meet their burden, Contestants must establish each of the following elements:
(1) That the alleged premarital agreement was in fact executed by both parties — that is, that both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca signed the document;
(2) That the agreement satisfies the formal requirements of California Family Code Section 1611, which mandates that a premarital agreement be "in writing and signed by both parties";
(3) That the agreement was voluntarily entered into by both parties, as required by California Family Code Section 1615(a)(1);
(4) That the agreement complies with all substantive and procedural requirements of the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act as adopted in California Family Code Sections 1610 through 1617, including the requirements for adequate financial disclosure or written waiver thereof; and
(5) That the document produced is authentic and admissible as evidence under the California Evidence Code.
As demonstrated below, Contestants have failed to meet this burden on every element. The alleged premarital agreement fails as a matter of law, and the Amended Objection should be overruled.
B. The Alleged Agreement Fails as a Matter of Law Under California Family Code Sections 1610–1617
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 a valid premarital agreement. Without the signatures of both parties, there is no agreement at all.
The photocopy produced by Contestants does not satisfy this fundamental requirement. The document bears what purports to be the Decedent's signature on its second page. However, Ms. Fonseca's signature does not appear anywhere in the document — not on the second page, not on the first page, and not on any other page or attachment. The document as produced contains no signature of Ms. Fonseca whatsoever.
This deficiency is fatal. A document bearing only one party's signature is, by definition, not an agreement "signed by both parties" within the meaning of Section 1611. It is at most a unilateral proposal, a draft, or an incomplete document that was never executed. The statutory language is clear and admits of no ambiguity: both parties must sign. See In re Marriage of Bonds, supra, 24 Cal.4th at p. 22 (discussing the statutory requirements for valid premarital agreements); see also Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 134 (a writing must be signed by the party to be charged).
Ms. Fonseca affirmatively denies ever having signed such a document. Her declaration, filed concurrently herewith, attests under penalty of perjury that she never signed a premarital agreement with the Decedent, never negotiated a premarital agreement, and never authorized any person to sign such a document on her behalf. The burden falls squarely on Contestants to produce a signed original or authenticated copy bearing the signatures of both parties, and they have not done so.
The absence of the original document is itself profoundly significant and warrants close scrutiny by the Court. Despite a written demand served on Contestants' counsel on December 1, 2022, no original has been produced. Contestants have offered no explanation for why only a photocopy exists, for who had custody of the original, for how the original came to be lost or destroyed, or for the chain of custody of the photocopy that was ultimately provided to Contestants by Ms. Marchetti. In the absence of the original, and in the absence of any adequate explanation for the original's non-production, the photocopy is entitled to no evidentiary weight. The Court should draw an adverse inference from Contestants' failure to produce the original document. See Cal. Evid. Code § 413 (trier of fact may draw negative inference from party's failure to produce evidence within its control).
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 requires "the introduction of evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that it is the writing that the proponent of the evidence claims it is." (Evid. Code § 1400.) The proponent of the writing bears the burden of authentication.
Contestants have not offered competent evidence authenticating the photocopy. The only evidence of authentication they have provided is the declaration of Claudette Marchetti, the Decedent's first wife. Ms. Marchetti's declaration attests to her belief that a premarital agreement existed between the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca and states that the Decedent showed her a document that he described as such. However, Ms. Marchetti was not a party to the alleged agreement. She was not present at its alleged execution. She has no personal knowledge of whether the document was in fact signed by both parties, of the circumstances under which it was purportedly executed, or of the chain of custody of the photocopy she provided to Contestants. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to authenticate the document under Evidence Code Section 1400. See People v. Goldsmith (2014) 59 Cal.4th 258, 267 ("The foundation requires that there be sufficient evidence for a trier of fact to find that the writing is what its proponent claims.").
Moreover, the preliminary forensic report of Dr. Elaine Prescott raises affirmative questions about the integrity of the document. The formatting inconsistencies and text alignment discrepancies between the two pages identified by Dr. Prescott are inconsistent with a document that was prepared as a single, unified instrument. These findings affirmatively undermine any claim of authenticity and further demonstrate that the photocopy cannot satisfy the authentication threshold under the Evidence Code.
A photocopy of an incomplete, unsigned document, provided by a third party with no direct knowledge of its execution, and showing forensic signs of alteration, cannot satisfy the authentication requirements of the California Evidence Code. The document should be excluded from evidence.
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 sought proves that: "(1) That party did not execute the agreement voluntarily." While the burden of proving involuntariness ordinarily rests on the party resisting enforcement, the party seeking enforcement must first establish a prima facie case that the agreement was validly executed, at which point the burden shifts. See In re Marriage of Bonds, supra, 24 Cal.4th at pp. 27–32.
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 represented by independent legal counsel at the time of signing the agreement, or, alternatively, must have been advised to seek independent legal counsel and must have expressly waived, in a separate writing, the right to such counsel after being so advised. (Fam. Code § 1615(c)(1).) Contestants have produced no evidence that Ms. Fonseca was represented by independent legal counsel in connection with the alleged agreement. No attorney has been identified as having represented Ms. Fonseca in the review or negotiation of any premarital agreement. No separate written waiver of the right to counsel has been produced or alleged. This failure alone is sufficient to render the alleged agreement unenforceable under Section 1615(c)(1).
(b) Absence of Duress, Fraud, and Undue Influence. The agreement must not have been executed under duress, fraud, or undue influence. (Fam. Code § 1615(c)(2).) The alleged agreement is dated May 30, 2008, just fifteen days before the parties' scheduled wedding on June 14, 2008. The temporal proximity of the alleged signing date to the wedding date raises significant concerns about duress and coercion. As the California Supreme Court recognized in In re Marriage of Bonds, the presentation of a premarital agreement close in time to the wedding date is a significant factor in evaluating voluntariness, because the prospective spouse may feel compelled to sign in order to avoid the humiliation and disruption of canceling a wedding. Id. at pp. 31–33. Even if the document were otherwise valid, the close proximity to the wedding, coupled with the complete absence of evidence that Ms. Fonseca had time to consult with counsel or to consider the agreement's terms, would support a finding that the agreement was not executed voluntarily.
(c) Seven-Day Waiting Period. Under Section 1615(c)(3), the party against whom enforcement is sought must have had not less than seven (7) calendar days between the time the agreement was first presented to that party and the time of signing. There is no evidence in the record establishing when Ms. Fonseca was purportedly first presented with the alleged agreement. Contestants have produced no evidence on this point. The absence of such evidence precludes a finding that the seven-day waiting period was satisfied.
Contestants have produced no evidence whatsoever establishing that the alleged agreement was executed voluntarily. They have not addressed any of the voluntariness factors set forth in Section 1615(c). Their Amended Objection is entirely silent on this point. This omission is not merely a gap in their pleading — it is a failure to satisfy a statutory condition precedent to the enforcement of any premarital agreement.
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 obligations of the other party.
(B) That party did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure provided.
(C) That party did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party."
No financial disclosure schedule, attachment, exhibit, or other documentation of the Decedent's property or financial obligations has been produced in connection with the alleged premarital agreement. The photocopy is a bare two-page document with no accompanying schedules, asset lists, income statements, or financial disclosure of any kind. No written waiver of the right to financial disclosure has been produced.
At the time of the alleged agreement in May 2008, the Decedent was a successful media industry professional with substantial assets, including the Malibu Beach House (purchased in 2007 for $4,750,000), existing media ventures and intellectual property, and significant financial accounts. A fair, reasonable, and full disclosure of these assets was a statutory prerequisite to the enforceability of any premarital agreement. The absence of any evidence of such disclosure provides a separate and independent basis for finding the alleged agreement unenforceable.
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 estate.
The alleged agreement, as reflected in the photocopy produced by Contestants, purports to classify as the Decedent's separate property only those media-related assets "originated or conceived prior to the marriage." By its own terms, the agreement's scope is limited to assets that existed or were conceived before the June 14, 2008 wedding. The most significant contested assets in this estate were created well after the marriage and therefore fall outside the scope of the alleged agreement even on its own terms:
(a) Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. This company was formed on March 18, 2009, approximately nine months after the marriage. It was co-founded by both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca. It did not exist prior to the marriage and was not "originated or conceived" before the marriage. The Decedent's 50% membership interest, valued at $15,800,000, is therefore not an asset "originated or conceived prior to the marriage" under the alleged agreement's own terms.
(b) Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC. This entity was formed in 2015, approximately seven years into the marriage. The Decedent's 35% membership interest, valued at $27,475,000, was acquired entirely during the marriage and has no pre-marital origin.
(c) The intellectual Property Portfolio. The portfolio of fourteen feature films and six television series was developed primarily during the marriage, through the joint creative efforts and labor of both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca operating through Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. While certain creative concepts may have had antecedents in work the Decedent performed prior to the marriage, the specific works in the portfolio were produced, financed, and distributed during the marriage.
In sum, even under the most favorable reading of the alleged agreement's terms, assets representing in excess of $48,000,000 of the estate's value — including the Lumiére Canyon Studios interest, the Pacific Rim Narrative Partners interest, and the intellectual property portfolio — are plainly community property that would not be affected by the alleged agreement. The premarital agreement claim, even if it had merit (which it does not), would fail to achieve Contestants' stated objective of reclassifying the majority of estate assets as the Decedent's separate property.
C. Contestants' Separate Property Claims Are Without Merit
Separate and apart from the premarital agreement claim, Contestants have carried forward from their initial Objection the assertion that certain assets are the Decedent's separate property rather than community property. These claims are without merit.
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 building the company's value. Ms. Fonseca served as Chief Creative Officer and was instrumental in the development and production of the company's film and television projects. The enterprise valuation of Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC as of December 31, 2021, was Thirty-One Million Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($31,600,000.00), reflecting the substantial value created through the joint efforts of both spouses over the course of nearly thirteen years.
Under California Family Code Section 760, all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage is presumed to be community property. This presumption applies with full force to Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC, which was formed during the marriage, funded during the marriage, and operated through the joint efforts of both spouses during the marriage.
Contestants' assertion that the company was "funded substantially with separate property capital" is conclusory and unsupported by any evidence. Contestants have produced no bank records, account statements, wire transfer confirmations, or other documentary evidence tracing any alleged separate property contribution to the formation or capitalization of Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. The burden of overcoming the community property presumption rests on the party asserting separate property characterization, and that burden requires clear and convincing evidence of tracing. See In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 612; In re Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 277, 291 ("The party asserting that property is separate has the burden of proving that characterization by a preponderance of the evidence."). Contestants have not met this burden and cannot meet it on the record before the Court.
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 acquired entirely during the marriage. No evidence has been produced that separate property funds were used to acquire this interest, and no tracing analysis has been offered by Contestants. The community property presumption under Family Code Section 760 applies. The Decedent's 35% membership interest in PRNP is community property.
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 during the marriage.
During the marriage, community funds were used to make mortgage payments totaling approximately Two Million Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($2,016,400.00), consisting of 142 monthly payments of Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($14,200.00) each, paid from joint accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., from June 2008 through payoff of the mortgage in March 2020. In addition, community funds in the amount of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000.00) were used to fund a comprehensive renovation of the property, completed in 2016. The total community property contribution to the Malibu Beach House was therefore approximately Three Million Eight Hundred Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($3,816,400.00).
Under the Moore/Marsden community property tracing principles established by the California Supreme Court in In re Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 Cal.3d 366 and In re Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426, when community funds are used to make mortgage payments or improvements on a property that is otherwise separate, the community acquires a proportional interest in the property. Applying these principles, the community's proportional interest in the Malibu Beach House is, at minimum, approximately 61.6% — calculated as Three Million Eight Hundred Sixteen Thousand Four Hundred Dollars ($3,816,400.00) in community contributions divided by the current fair market value of Six Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,200,000.00). This calculation is conservative, as it does not account for the appreciation in property value attributable to the community-funded renovations, which a formal Moore/Marsden apportioning would take into account.
Title records maintained by Coastline Title & Escrow Co. and bank account records from Veltara Basin Bank, N.A. will confirm the community source of the mortgage payments and renovation expenditures. Ms. Fonseca reserves the right to present a formal community property tracing analysis at the appropriate stage of this proceeding.
D. Ms. Fonseca's Rights as Surviving Spouse Under California Intestacy Law Are Not Displaced
Even if Contestants could establish the existence and validity of a premarital agreement — which they cannot — Ms. Fonseca's rights as surviving spouse under California's intestacy statutes would not be displaced.
Under California Probate Code Section 6401(a), as to community property, the intestate share of the surviving spouse is "the one-half of the community property that belongs to the decedent under Section 100." Because Ms. Fonseca already owns her own one-half of community property by operation of law (Fam. Code § 751), and because she inherits the Decedent's one-half under Section 6401(a), the result is that one hundred percent (100%) of all community property passes to Ms. Fonseca.
Under California Probate Code Section 6401(c)(3), as to any separate property of the Decedent, the surviving spouse receives one-third of the Decedent's separate property estate when the decedent is survived by more than one child. Here, the Decedent is survived by three children (the Contestants). Even assuming, arguendo, that certain assets were properly characterized as the Decedent's separate property — which Ms. Fonseca denies — Ms. Fonseca would retain a one-third statutory share of those assets under the intestacy statutes.
It is important to recognize the limited role that a premarital agreement, even a valid one, would play in this context. A premarital agreement can alter the characterization of assets between community and separate property. It cannot, however, override the intestacy statutes governing how property is distributed upon death when the decedent dies without a will. The alleged premarital agreement does not contain a waiver of intestacy rights, does not constitute a will or a will substitute, and cannot function as a testamentary instrument. Even if the Court were to find (contrary to the evidence) that a valid premarital agreement existed, Ms. Fonseca would retain her statutory entitlements under the Probate Code.
E. The Contestants' Reliance on Claudette Marchetti's Declaration Is Insufficient
Contestants rely heavily on a declaration submitted by Claudette Marchetti, the Decedent's first wife, in support of their premarital agreement claim and their asset characterization arguments. Ms. Marchetti's declaration is insufficient to establish any contested issue for the following reasons.
First, Ms. Marchetti was not a party to the alleged premarital agreement between the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca. She has no personal knowledge of the agreement's execution, its terms, or the circumstances under which it was purportedly signed. Her testimony is based on hearsay — specifically, on statements purportedly made to her by the Decedent regarding the existence of such an agreement. These hearsay statements are inadmissible under Evidence Code Section 1200 and do not fall within any recognized exception.
Second, Ms. Marchetti's testimony regarding "certain media assets originated during the first marriage" is irrelevant to the validity of the alleged premarital agreement. Whether or not the Decedent retained certain media assets from the first marriage has no bearing on whether a valid premarital agreement was executed with Ms. Fonseca. Moreover, Ms. Marchetti's testimony on this point is rebutted by the comprehensive financial resolution of the first marriage: Ms. Marchetti received a divorce settlement of Four Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($4,800,000.00) in 2005 and a spousal support buyout of One Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000.00) in 2007, for a total of Six Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,300,000.00). These payments resolved all claims to marital property from the first marriage. Any media assets retained by the Decedent following the dissolution were his separate property at the time of his second marriage — but the existence of such separate property does not establish the existence or validity of a premarital agreement with Ms. Fonseca.
Third, Ms. Marchetti's motives are open to question. As the mother of the three Contestants, she has a direct familial interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Her declaration should be viewed in that context.
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 Authentication. The photocopy has not been authenticated as required by California Evidence Code Sections 1400 through 1421. No competent witness with personal knowledge of the document's creation, execution, or chain of custody has testified to its authenticity. The declaration of Claudette Marchetti does not satisfy the authentication requirement, as she was not a party to the alleged agreement and was not present at its purported execution.
(b) Best Evidence Rule / Secondary Evidence Rule. Under California Evidence Code Sections 1500 through 1510, the original of a writing must be produced when the content of the writing is sought to be proved. The photocopy is secondary evidence. No adequate explanation for the absence of the original has been provided by Contestants. Section 1501 requires that before secondary evidence of the content of a writing is admissible, the proponent must demonstrate that the original is lost or destroyed, or otherwise unavailable through no fault of the proponent, and must account for the original's non-production. Contestants have not met this threshold.
(c) Hearsay. To the extent the document is offered to prove the truth of its contents — i.e., that the parties agreed to certain property characterizations — the document constitutes hearsay under Evidence Code Section 1200 unless a proper foundation is laid and an applicable exception demonstrated. No such foundation has been laid.
(d) Incomplete Document. The photocopy is missing Ms. Fonseca's signature page and may be missing additional pages, schedules, or exhibits. An incomplete document cannot be admitted as a complete, integrated agreement.
Objection No. 2: Portions of the Marchetti Declaration. Ms. Fonseca objects to portions of the declaration of Claudette Marchetti submitted in connection with the Amended Objection on the following grounds:
(a) Lack of Personal Knowledge. Ms. Marchetti's statements regarding the existence and execution of the alleged premarital agreement are not based on personal knowledge, as required by California Evidence Code Section 702. Ms. Marchetti was not a party to the alleged agreement, was not present at its alleged execution, and has no firsthand knowledge of whether it was signed by both parties.
(b) Speculation. Ms. Marchetti's statements regarding the intentions and understandings of the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca are speculative and lack any evidentiary foundation.
(c) Hearsay. Ms. Marchetti's testimony regarding statements purportedly made to her by the Decedent about the premarital agreement constitutes inadmissible hearsay under Evidence Code Section 1200. While the Contestants may seek to invoke the hearsay exception for statements of a declarant who is unavailable (Evid. Code § 1230 et seq.), the statements attributed to the Decedent do not fall within any recognized exception, as they are self-serving statements regarding the existence of an agreement that the Decedent purportedly entered into for his own benefit.
Ms. Fonseca respectfully requests that the Court sustain each of these objections and exclude the challenged evidence.
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 the principal amount of One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,200,000.00), payable to Amber Light Documentary Films LLC, a company owned by Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, bearing annual interest at a rate of 3.5%, with accrued interest of One Hundred Ten Thousand Four Hundred Sixty Dollars ($110,460.00) through the date of the Decedent's death on September 3, 2022.
Ms. Fonseca contends that the One Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollar ($1,200,000.00) transfer from the Decedent to Amber Light Documentary Films LLC was a gift, not a loan. The Decedent was a generous father who frequently supported his children's professional ventures. At no time during the Decedent's lifetime was any repayment demanded, any payment made against the alleged principal or interest, or any collection effort initiated. The characterization of this transfer as a "promissory note" is disputed. Ms. Fonseca reserves the right to challenge the validity, authenticity, and enforceability of the alleged promissory note and will address this claim more fully in separate briefing to be filed with the Court.
B. Nicolás's Educational Expense Claim ($387,500)
Contestant Nicolás R. Fonseca asserts a claim against the estate in the amount of Three Hundred Eighty-Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($387,500.00) for educational expense reimbursement. According to the Amended Objection, this claim is based on an alleged oral promise made by the Decedent to pay for Nicolás's graduate education, including tuition, housing, and living expenses.
An oral promise to pay educational expenses extending over multiple academic years is unenforceable under the California Statute of Frauds, Civil Code Section 1624, to the extent it could not be performed within one year from the making of the agreement. Moreover, even if such a promise were enforceable, Nicolás bears the burden of proving its existence, its terms, and the amount of damages with reasonable certainty. Ms. Fonseca will address this claim more fully in separate briefing to be filed with the Court.
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 Sections 1610 through 1617. The Contestants have not met their burden of proof, and no amount of supplemental evidence can cure the fundamental deficiency that Ms. Fonseca never signed the document. The separate property claims are likewise without merit, as the Contestants have failed to overcome the community property presumption with respect to any of the contested assets.
Ms. Fonseca respectfully requests that the Court:
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 stated on information and belief are true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on February 6, 2023, in Los Angeles, California.
________________________________________
MARGUERITE D. FONSECA Petitioner
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 document described as PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA'S RESPONSE TO CONTESTANTS' AMENDED OBJECTION TO PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION on all interested parties in this action as follows:
BY MAIL: I caused each such envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California. I am readily familiar with Calderwood & Harkness LLP's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business.
BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: I caused each document to be sent via electronic mail to the email addresses of the parties and/or their counsel of record as set forth below.
The documents were served on the following persons at the following addresses:
Damian R. Ortega, Esq. Lydia Kwan, Esq. Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Counsel for Contestants Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca
Rafael T. Fonseca 502 Olive Avenue, Unit 3 Burbank, California 91502
Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer 78 Eucalyptus Lane Santa Monica, California 90402
Nicolás R. Fonseca 1190 Elm Street, Apt. 4B Palo Alto, California 94301
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on February 6, 2023, in Los Angeles, California.
________________________________________
Jennifer M. Vasquez

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

TEODORO R. FONSECA,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT

IV. EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

VII. VERIFICATION

VIII. ATTORNEY SIGNATURE BLOCK

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

IX. PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts