1035-00005 · Marguerite Delp · Pleadings & Court Filings

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

29 / 35 ← → ✕

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — PROBATE DIVISION

Filed: December 12, 2022

Howard Quinn (State Bar No. 208741) Elliot Nguyen (State Bar No. 321485) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-8800 Facsimile: (213) 629-8801

Email: hquinn@calderwoodharkness.com

Email: enguyen@calderwoodharkness.com

Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca ("Petitioner" or "Ms. Fonseca"), the surviving spouse of Teodoro R. Fonseca ("Decedent"), who died intestate on September 3, 2022, in Los Angeles County, California, respectfully submits this Response to the Objection filed on November 14, 2022, by Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca (collectively, "Contestants" or "Objectors"), through their counsel of record, Damian R. Ortega and Lydia Kwan of Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP.

On October 5, 2022, Ms. Fonseca filed her Petition for Letters of Administration in this Court, seeking appointment as administrator of the Decedent's estate pursuant to the priority scheme established by the California Probate Code. The Petition identified all known heirs at law, provided a comprehensive inventory of the Decedent's assets, and set forth Ms. Fonseca's qualifications to serve as administrator. The Contestants are the Decedent's three adult children from his prior marriage to Claudette Marchetti, which ended in a final judgment of dissolution entered in 2005. While Ms. Fonseca respects and acknowledges the Contestants' status as heirs at law, their Objection to her appointment as administrator is without merit and should be overruled in its entirety.

The Objection should be overruled for the following reasons:

First, Ms. Fonseca, as the surviving spouse of the Decedent, has the highest statutory priority for appointment as administrator of his estate under California Probate Code sections 8461 and 8462. The Contestants, as adult children of the Decedent, occupy a subordinate position in the statutory priority scheme.

Second, the Contestants' challenges to the characterization of certain estate assets as community or separate property are premature and legally unfounded in the context of a petition for letters of administration. The characterization of estate assets is a substantive issue that will be determined during the course of estate administration, not at the threshold appointment stage. Moreover, even a preliminary examination of the relevant facts demonstrates that the community property presumption under California Family Code section 760 strongly favors Ms. Fonseca's position.

Third, the Contestants have failed to identify any statutory basis for denying Ms. Fonseca's petition. California Probate Code section 8402 sets forth the specific grounds upon which a court may deny appointment of an administrator, and the Contestants have not alleged that any of those grounds exist.

Fourth, the individual creditor claims asserted by Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer and Nicolás R. Fonseca are not properly before the Court in the context of this petition and do not constitute a basis for objecting to Ms. Fonseca's appointment.

For these reasons, and as set forth more fully below, Ms. Fonseca respectfully requests that this Court overrule the Objection and grant her Petition for Letters of Administration.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Marriage and the Decedent's Family

Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, age 54, married Teodoro Raúl Fonseca on June 14, 2008, in a ceremony held in Los Angeles County, California. The marriage was Ms. Fonseca's first and the Decedent's second. The couple remained continuously married from the date of their wedding until the Decedent's death on September 3, 2022 — a period of more than fourteen years.

Prior to his marriage to Ms. Fonseca, the Decedent was married to Claudette Marchetti (née Marchetti) from 1988 until the entry of a final judgment of dissolution in 2005. The dissolution proceeding resulted in a marital settlement agreement providing for a property settlement payment to Ms. Marchetti in the amount of $4,800,000. In 2007, the Decedent further resolved his financial obligations to Ms. Marchetti through a spousal support buyout in the amount of $1,500,000, bringing the total divorce-related payments to $6,300,000. By the time the Decedent married Ms. Fonseca in June 2008, all financial matters arising from the prior marriage had been fully resolved.

The Decedent and Claudette Marchetti had three children, all of whom are adults and all of whom are Contestants in this proceeding:

1. Rafael T. Fonseca, age 33, who currently resides in Los Angeles County and serves as Vice President of Development at Crestline Media Group Inc., a media company located in Burbank, California. Rafael is the designated lead contestant in this proceeding.

2. Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, age 30, who resides at 78 Eucalyptus Lane, Santa Monica, California 90402. Isabela operates Amber Light Documentary Films LLC, a documentary film production company.

3. Nicolás R. Fonseca, age 26, who resides at 1190 Elm Street, Apt. 4B, Palo Alto, California 94301. Nicolás is a recent graduate who has been pursuing academic studies.

Throughout their marriage, Ms. Fonseca and the Decedent worked closely together as both life partners and professional collaborators. In 2009, the couple co-founded Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC, a film and television production company. Ms. Fonseca served as the company's Chief Creative Officer, overseeing creative development and production of the company's film and television slate, while the Decedent managed business development, financing, and distribution. Together, they built Lumiére Canyon Studios into a significant enterprise in the entertainment industry, with an enterprise value estimated at $31,600,000 as of December 31, 2021. Ms. Fonseca's contributions to the company's success were integral, spanning more than thirteen years of dedicated creative and business leadership.

Ms. Fonseca continues to reside at the marital residence located at 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210, which served as the couple's primary home during their marriage.

B. The Decedent's Death and Intestacy

The Decedent died on September 3, 2022, at the age of 62, of cardiac arrest due to natural causes. His death was sudden and unexpected. At the time of his passing, the Decedent was in the midst of an active career in film and television production and had made no indication to Ms. Fonseca or to any known associate that he anticipated his death or had made testamentary arrangements.

The Decedent died without a valid will, trust, or any other testamentary instrument. Despite a thorough and diligent search conducted by Ms. Fonseca — which included examination of the Decedent's personal files at both the Beverly Hills residence and the Malibu Beach House, inquiries to the Decedent's personal attorney of record (who confirmed that no estate planning documents had been prepared or executed), inquiries to the Decedent's business associates and accountants, and review of safe deposit box contents at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A. — no testamentary instrument has been located. The Decedent's personal and business associates have confirmed that they are unaware of any will, trust, or other estate planning document executed by the Decedent.

As a result, the Decedent's estate is subject to the intestacy provisions of the California Probate Code. The Decedent's heirs at law, who will take under the intestacy statutes, are: (1) Ms. Fonseca, as the Decedent's surviving spouse; and (2) his three adult children — Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca. No other person has come forward or been identified as a potential heir at law.

C. The Petition for Letters of Administration

On October 5, 2022, Ms. Fonseca filed the Petition for Letters of Administration in this Court, seeking appointment as administrator of the Decedent's estate pursuant to California Probate Code section 8461. The Petition was filed promptly and in good faith, within approximately one month of the Decedent's death, reflecting Ms. Fonseca's commitment to the orderly and responsible administration of the estate.

The Petition identified the Decedent's principal assets, which comprise a substantial probate estate. The assets identified in the Petition include the following:

1. Beverly Hills Residence. The marital residence located at 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210, with an estimated fair market value of $8,450,000. This property was acquired during the marriage and served as the couple's primary residence.

2. Malibu Beach House. The property located at 27100 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California 90265, with an estimated fair market value of $6,200,000. This property was originally purchased by the Decedent on August 22, 2007, approximately ten months before the marriage, but was subject to significant community property contributions during the marriage, as discussed in detail below.

3. Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. The Decedent's 50% membership interest in Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC (California Secretary of State Filing No. 200906410337), estimated at $15,800,000 based on an enterprise value of $31,600,000 as of December 31, 2021. The company was co-founded by the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca in 2009, during the marriage.

4. Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC. The Decedent's 35% membership interest in Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC (California Secretary of State Filing No. 201518720492), estimated at $27,475,000 based on $78,500,000 in assets under management. This entity was formed in 2015, during the marriage.

5. Financial Accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A. The Decedent maintained three accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A.: (a) a brokerage account ending in -4782, valued at approximately $5,120,000; (b) a personal checking account ending in -3091, with a balance of approximately $342,000; and (c) a money market account ending in -6155, with a balance of approximately $1,875,000. The aggregate value of these accounts is approximately $7,337,000.

6. intellectual Property Portfolio. A portfolio comprising interests in 14 feature films and 6 television series produced through Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC, with a net present value estimated at $4,600,000. These creative works were produced during the marriage.

7. Personal Property. Art, vehicles, furnishings, and other tangible personal property, with an aggregate estimated value of approximately $1,250,000. These items were acquired during the marriage and are located primarily at the Beverly Hills residence and the Malibu Beach House.

The total estimated value of the probate estate, as identified in the Petition, is approximately $71,112,000.

In addition to the probate estate, Ms. Fonseca identified two life insurance policies that constitute non-probate assets:

(a) A $3,000,000 term life insurance policy issued by Meridian Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Policy No. GH-TL-2019-05582), naming Ms. Fonseca as the designated beneficiary; and

(b) A $2,000,000 whole life insurance policy issued by Commonwealth Fidelity Assurance Corp. (Policy No. GH-WL-2014-01247), naming Ms. Fonseca as the designated beneficiary.

The combined value of these non-probate life insurance proceeds is $5,000,000. As non-probate assets payable directly to a named beneficiary, these policies pass outside the estate and are not subject to administration. Ms. Fonseca disclosed these assets in the Petition in the interest of full transparency.

D. The Contestants' Objection

On November 14, 2022, the Contestants, through their counsel of record at Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP (lead counsel Damian R. Ortega, assisted by Lydia Kwan, at 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067), filed an Objection to Ms. Fonseca's Petition for Letters of Administration. The Objection raises the following contentions:

First, the Contestants argue that Ms. Fonseca should not be appointed as administrator because she allegedly has an "adverse interest" in the characterization of estate assets, which, they contend, would prevent her from administering the estate impartially.

Second, the Contestants challenge the characterization of certain assets identified in the Petition, arguing that several assets Ms. Fonseca characterizes as community property are in fact the Decedent's separate property. Specifically, the Contestants contend that: (a) the Malibu Beach House is entirely the Decedent's separate property because it was purchased on August 22, 2007, prior to the marriage; (b) the Decedent's interest in Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC is separate property because it was allegedly "funded with pre-marital capital"; and (c) the Decedent's interest in Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC is, on unspecified grounds, the Decedent's separate property.

Third, the Contestants contend that the Court should appoint an independent third-party administrator in lieu of Ms. Fonseca, though they do not identify a specific candidate or cite a statutory basis for such appointment over the surviving spouse's objection.

Fourth, the Contestants assert, without specificity, that certain financial accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., contain commingled separate and community funds.

In addition to these primary contentions, the Objection references, in passing, two individual claims asserted by specific Contestants. Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer references a $1,200,000 promissory note dated January 15, 2020, purportedly payable to Amber Light Documentary Films LLC (California Secretary of State Filing No. 201912360185), bearing interest at 3.5% per annum, with a stated maturity date of January 15, 2025. Nicolás R. Fonseca asserts a claim for $387,500 in educational expense reimbursement, allegedly based on an oral promise made by the Decedent.

Ms. Fonseca addresses each of these contentions and claims in the legal argument that follows.

III. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. Ms. Fonseca Has Statutory Priority for Appointment as Administrator

1. The Surviving Spouse's Priority Under California Probate Code Section 8461. The California Probate Code establishes a clear statutory priority scheme for the appointment of an administrator in intestacy proceedings. This priority scheme reflects the Legislature's considered judgment regarding which persons are most appropriate to serve as administrator based on their relationship to the decedent and their interest in the estate.

California Probate Code section 8461 provides, in pertinent part:

"Administration of the estate of a decedent who dies intestate shall be granted in the following order of priority:

(a) Surviving spouse or domestic partner, or the nominee of the surviving spouse or domestic partner.

(b) Children.

(d) Other issue . . ."

The statute is unambiguous: the surviving spouse holds the highest priority for appointment as administrator. This priority is not conditional upon the absence of disputes among heirs, nor is it contingent upon the consent of lower-priority claimants. It is a statutory right conferred by the Legislature upon the surviving spouse by virtue of the marital relationship.

Ms. Fonseca is the undisputed surviving spouse of the Decedent. She and the Decedent were married on June 14, 2008, and remained continuously married through the date of the Decedent's death on September 3, 2022 — a marriage of more than fourteen years. No party has contested the validity of the marriage, and no proceeding for dissolution, legal separation, or annulment was pending at the time of the Decedent's death. Ms. Fonseca therefore has the highest statutory priority for appointment as administrator under section 8461(a).

The Contestants, as the Decedent's adult children, occupy a subordinate position under section 8461(b). While the Probate Code affords children the second-highest priority for appointment, that priority is, by the statute's express terms, below the priority of the surviving spouse. The Contestants are entitled to appointment only if the surviving spouse declines to serve, is disqualified, or fails to petition. None of those circumstances applies here.

California Probate Code section 8462 further reinforces this priority scheme by providing that a person in a higher-priority category "is entitled to appointment as administrator in preference to any person in a lower category." The Court's discretion is limited: absent a statutory disqualification, the Court should appoint the person with the highest priority who petitions for appointment. See In re Estate of Bauer (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 282, 285 (recognizing that the statutory priority scheme is mandatory and that the court should appoint the highest-priority petitioner absent disqualifying circumstances).

2. The Contestants' "Adverse Interest" Argument Lacks Legal Basis. The centerpiece of the Contestants' Objection is the argument that Ms. Fonseca should be denied appointment as administrator because she purportedly has an "adverse interest" in the characterization of estate assets as community or separate property. This argument finds no support in the California Probate Code, in case law, or in the policy considerations underlying the statutory priority scheme.

As a threshold matter, the California Probate Code does not require that an administrator be a disinterested party. To the contrary, the statutory priority scheme set forth in section 8461 specifically contemplates that interested parties — including the surviving spouse, children, and other heirs — will serve as administrators. If the Legislature had intended to require disinterested administrators, it would have established a different priority scheme or imposed a disinterestedness requirement. It did neither.

The mere existence of a dispute over the community versus separate property characterization of estate assets does not constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest. Such disputes are endemic to intestacy proceedings involving surviving spouses and children from prior marriages. If the Contestants' theory were adopted — that the existence of any characterization dispute disqualifies a surviving spouse from serving as administrator — the statutory priority granted to surviving spouses under section 8461(a) would be rendered a nullity in virtually every contested intestacy case. The Legislature cannot be presumed to have enacted a meaningless provision. See Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268, 272 (courts must avoid interpretations that would render statutory provisions superfluous or meaningless).

California Probate Code section 8402 sets forth the specific grounds upon which a court may deny appointment of a nominated administrator. Those grounds include:

(a) The nominee has been convicted of a felony;

(b) The nominee is not legally competent to serve;

(d) The court determines that the nominee is otherwise unsuitable.

The Contestants have not alleged that Ms. Fonseca has been convicted of a felony, that she lacks legal competence, or that she is a nonresident of the United States. Nor have they made any particularized showing that Ms. Fonseca is "otherwise unsuitable" within the meaning of section 8402(d). The Contestants' bald assertion that Ms. Fonseca holds views about asset characterization different from their own does not rise to the level of unsuitability.

California courts have consistently held that a surviving spouse's interest in estate assets — including an interest in the characterization of those assets — does not constitute a disqualifying conflict warranting denial of the surviving spouse's petition for letters of administration. See Estate of Buchman (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 546, 551 (affirming appointment of surviving spouse as administrator notwithstanding characterization disputes with decedent's children); Estate of Farnum (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 796, 800 (holding that disagreements among heirs regarding asset characterization do not constitute grounds for denying appointment to the highest-priority petitioner).

The appropriate remedy for concerns about impartial administration is not the denial of a surviving spouse's statutory right to serve as administrator. Rather, the Probate Code provides a range of safeguards — including bond requirements under section 8480, periodic accountings under section 10900, and the appointment of a special administrator under section 8540 — that can protect the interests of all parties while respecting the statutory priority scheme. The Contestants' request to bypass the statutory priority scheme entirely, in favor of an unspecified "independent third-party administrator," is an extraordinary remedy that is neither warranted by the facts nor supported by the law.

3. Alternative: The Court May Impose Appropriate Safeguards. While Ms. Fonseca maintains that she is entitled to appointment as administrator without conditions beyond those ordinarily imposed, she recognizes the Court's authority to impose reasonable safeguards to protect the interests of all parties. If the Court has any concern regarding the impartiality of estate administration — however unfounded Ms. Fonseca believes such concerns to be — Petitioner is amenable to appropriate safeguards, including but not limited to:

(a) Posting a bond in an amount to be determined by the Court, pursuant to California Probate Code section 8480;

(b) Filing periodic accountings on a schedule directed by the Court, including interim accountings in addition to the statutory accounting requirements;

(c) Appointment of a neutral fiduciary or co-administrator to oversee specific aspects of estate administration, such as the management of business interests or the resolution of characterization disputes; and

(d) Any other conditions the Court deems necessary to ensure transparent and impartial administration.

In this regard, Petitioner notes that the parties may be able to reach a stipulation regarding the appointment of a neutral professional fiduciary to administer the estate, which would preserve Ms. Fonseca's statutory rights as surviving spouse while addressing any concerns about potential conflicts. Ms. Fonseca is open to discussions with the Contestants and their counsel regarding such an arrangement, and she anticipates that a professional fiduciary with relevant experience — such as Ashford Fiduciary Services Inc., under the direction of its principal officer, Gerald Whitmore — may be well-suited to serve in such a capacity, should the parties agree.

Ms. Fonseca offers these alternatives not because she concedes any merit to the Contestants' Objection, but because she is committed to the cooperative and efficient administration of the Decedent's estate for the benefit of all interested parties.

B. The Contestants' Challenges to Asset Characterization Are Premature and Without Merit

1. Asset Characterization Is Not Properly Before the Court on This Petition. The Petition for Letters of Administration seeks a single form of relief: the appointment of an administrator to manage and administer the Decedent's estate. The Petition does not seek — nor could it properly seek — a judicial determination of the community or separate property character of specific estate assets. Asset characterization is a substantive question that is addressed during the course of estate administration, through formal discovery, expert analysis, and, if necessary, an evidentiary hearing before this Court.

The Contestants' Objection devotes the bulk of its argument to disputes about whether particular assets are community property or separate property. While these disputes may ultimately require resolution, they are premature in the context of the present Petition. The question before the Court is whether Ms. Fonseca is entitled to appointment as administrator — not whether the Malibu Beach House is community or separate property, not whether Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC was funded with pre-marital capital, and not whether particular bank accounts contain commingled funds. Those questions will be addressed at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, with the benefit of a complete evidentiary record.

The Contestants cannot be permitted to transform a straightforward petition for appointment of an administrator into a premature adjudication of property characterization issues. To do so would be procedurally improper, would prejudice the parties' ability to develop a full evidentiary record, and would impose unnecessary delay on the administration of the estate. The Court should decline the Contestants' invitation to reach the merits of asset characterization at this juncture.

2. In Any Event, the Community Property Presumption Favors Ms. Fonseca. Even though asset characterization is not properly before the Court at this stage, the Contestants' arguments regarding the character of estate assets are, in any event, legally unfounded. Under California's well-established community property regime, the presumption heavily favors Ms. Fonseca's position.

California Family Code section 760 provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during marriage while domiciled in this state is community property." This presumption applies to all property acquired during the marriage, and the burden of overcoming it rests squarely on the party asserting that an asset is separate property. See In re Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 277, 289-290; In re Marriage of Ettefagh (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1591.

The Fonseca marriage commenced on June 14, 2008, and endured until the Decedent's death on September 3, 2022 — a period of more than fourteen years. During this substantial marriage, the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca built a shared life and a shared business enterprise. The vast majority of the estate assets were acquired, created, or substantially enhanced during the marriage, and are therefore presumptively community property.

Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC was formed on March 18, 2009, during the marriage, as evidenced by its filing with the California Secretary of State (Filing No. 200906410337). The operating agreement dated March 18, 2009, establishes a 50%/50% membership split between the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca. The entity was co-founded by both spouses as a joint creative and business enterprise. Ms. Fonseca served as Chief Creative Officer, overseeing the development and production of all creative content, while the Decedent managed the business operations. The enterprise grew substantially during the marriage, reaching an estimated enterprise value of $31,600,000 as of December 31, 2021, with the Decedent's 50% interest valued at $15,800,000.

The Contestants' assertion that Lumiére Canyon Studios was "funded with pre-marital capital" is conclusory and unsupported by any documentary evidence in their Objection. The Contestants do not identify the amount of pre-marital capital allegedly contributed, the source of such capital, or any tracing analysis demonstrating that any particular portion of the company's current value is attributable to a pre-marital separate property investment. Even if pre-marital funds were used in part to capitalize the company, that fact alone would not transform the entire entity into separate property. Under the Pereira/Van Camp line of cases, the community would retain an interest in the entity based on the community labor — including the extensive labor of both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca — that generated the company's growth and value over thirteen years of marriage. See Pereira v. Pereira (1909) 156 Cal. 1; Van Camp v. Van Camp (1921) 53 Cal.App. 17.

Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC. Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC was formed in 2015, during the marriage (California Secretary of State Filing No. 201518720492). The Decedent acquired his 35% membership interest during the marriage, and the assets under management — totaling $78,500,000 — were accumulated during the marriage. The Decedent's 35% interest is valued at $27,475,000. The managing member of Pacific Rim Narrative Partners is Victor Sandoval, whose offices are located at 8455 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 310, Los Angeles, California 90048. The Contestants offer no basis whatsoever for their assertion that this interest — acquired and developed entirely during the marriage — is the Decedent's separate property. This interest is presumptively community property under Family Code section 760, and the Contestants have offered nothing to rebut that presumption.

Veltara Basin Bank Accounts. The Decedent maintained three accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A.: a brokerage account ending in -4782 ($5,120,000), a personal checking account ending in -3091 ($342,000), and a money market account ending in -6155 ($1,875,000). These accounts were maintained during the marriage, and funds were deposited into and withdrawn from these accounts throughout the course of the marriage. The Contestants' assertion that these accounts contain "commingled separate and community funds" is unsupported by any tracing analysis, accounting evidence, or documentation of any kind. The party asserting that community property funds have been commingled with separate property bears the burden of tracing the separate property component. See In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 612. The Contestants have made no effort to carry this burden, and their bare assertion is insufficient to rebut the community property presumption.

intellectual Property Portfolio. The portfolio of 14 feature films and 6 television series was produced during the marriage through Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. These creative works were the product of the community labor of both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca, who served as the company's Chief Creative Officer. The net present value of this portfolio is estimated at $4,600,000. The Contestants do not challenge the community character of this portfolio, and it is presumptively community property.

Personal Property. Art, vehicles, furnishings, and other tangible personal property valued at approximately $1,250,000 were acquired during the marriage and are presumptively community property. The Contestants have offered no basis for asserting that any portion of this property is separate.

3. The Malibu Beach House Includes Substantial Community Property Interest. The Contestants assert that the Malibu Beach House at 27100 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California 90265, is entirely the Decedent's separate property because it was purchased on August 22, 2007, approximately ten months before the marriage. This assertion, even if it were relevant at this stage of the proceedings, fundamentally overstates the Contestants' position and ignores the substantial community property contributions made to the property during the marriage.

Ms. Fonseca acknowledges that the original purchase of the Malibu property, at a price of $4,750,000, occurred before the marriage and was funded from the Decedent's pre-marital funds. However, it does not follow that the property is entirely separate. During the fourteen years of the marriage, the community made substantial contributions to the property that give rise to a significant community property interest:

(a) Renovation. In 2016, the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca undertook a comprehensive renovation of the Malibu property, at a cost of $1,800,000. This renovation was funded entirely from community funds, including earnings from Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC and deposits in the joint accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A.

(b) Mortgage Payments. From the commencement of the marriage in June 2008 through the final payoff of the mortgage in March 2020, the community made approximately 142 monthly mortgage payments of approximately $14,200 each, totaling approximately $2,016,400. These payments were made from joint accounts maintained at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., and included both principal reduction and interest payments.

The total community property contributions to the Malibu property amount to approximately $3,816,400 ($1,800,000 in renovation costs plus $2,016,400 in mortgage payments).

Under the well-established Moore/Marsden line of cases, when community funds are used to pay down the mortgage on a separate property asset or to make improvements to that asset, the community acquires a proportional interest in the property. See In re Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 Cal.3d 366; In re Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426. Applying this principle to the Malibu property, the community's proportional interest is at minimum approximately $3,816,400 of the property's current fair market value of $6,200,000, or approximately 61.6%.

Title records and mortgage payment documentation maintained by Coastline Title & Escrow Co. (contact: Andrea Solis, 9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 720, Beverly Hills, California 90212) will confirm the history of community contributions to the property. These records will be produced during the course of estate administration.

The Contestants' characterization of the Malibu Beach House as entirely separate property is, at best, a significant overstatement and, at worst, a misrepresentation of the property's character. In either case, it does not constitute a basis for denying Ms. Fonseca's Petition for Letters of Administration.

4. The Beverly Hills Residence Is Community Property. The Beverly Hills residence at 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210, with an estimated fair market value of $8,450,000, was acquired during the marriage. Under the community property presumption established by California Family Code section 760, property acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property. The Beverly Hills residence is therefore presumptively community property.

The Contestants' Objection includes a passing reference to a claim that the Beverly Hills residence has a partially separate character based on a "down payment from pre-marital funds." This assertion is unsupported by any documentary evidence in the Objection. The Contestants do not identify the amount of the alleged pre-marital down payment, the source of those funds, or any tracing analysis demonstrating the separate character of any portion of the property. A bare, conclusory assertion, unaccompanied by any evidentiary support, is insufficient to rebut the community property presumption. See In re Marriage of Ettefagh, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at 1591 (party claiming separate property character bears burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and conclusory assertions are insufficient).

C. The Contestants' Individual Claims Are Not Properly Before the Court

1. Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer's Promissory Note Claim. The Objection references a purported $1,200,000 promissory note dated January 15, 2020, executed by the Decedent in favor of Amber Light Documentary Films LLC (California Secretary of State Filing No. 201912360185), a company owned and operated by Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer. The Objection asserts that this note bears interest at 3.5% per annum and has a maturity date of January 15, 2025.

This claim, assuming it has any validity, is a creditor's claim against the estate. It is not a basis for objecting to the appointment of an administrator. The Probate Code establishes a specific procedural mechanism for the filing and adjudication of creditor's claims, set forth in California Probate Code sections 9000 et seq. If Isabela or Amber Light Documentary Films LLC wishes to assert a claim against the estate based on the alleged promissory note, the proper mechanism is to file a creditor's claim with the administrator once one is appointed, or to petition the Court directly. Raising this claim in the context of an objection to a petition for letters of administration is procedurally improper and serves only to inject unnecessary complexity into the appointment process.

In any event, Ms. Fonseca contests the validity of this claim. Ms. Fonseca contends that the $1,200,000 transfer from the Decedent to Amber Light Documentary Films LLC was a gift — consistent with the Decedent's established pattern of providing financial support to his adult children — and not a loan. During the Decedent's lifetime, no repayment was ever demanded, no interest payments were ever made, no amortization schedule was established, and the Decedent never referenced an outstanding promissory note in any financial disclosure known to Ms. Fonseca. The circumstances surrounding the transfer strongly suggest a gratuitous transfer, not a bona fide loan. These factual disputes underscore the inappropriateness of attempting to resolve this claim at the present stage.

This issue is not ripe for adjudication in the context of the present Petition and should be addressed through the creditor's claims process established by the Probate Code.

2. Nicolás R. Fonseca's Educational Expense Claim. The Objection also references a claim by Nicolás R. Fonseca for $387,500 in educational expense reimbursement, allegedly based on an oral promise made by the Decedent during his lifetime. According to the Objection, the Decedent promised to reimburse Nicolás for educational expenses, and Nicolás now seeks to enforce that promise as a claim against the estate.

As with Isabela's promissory note claim, Nicolás's educational expense claim is, at most, a creditor's claim against the estate. It is not a basis for objecting to the appointment of an administrator, and it should be addressed through the creditor's claims process established by California Probate Code sections 9000 et seq., once an administrator has been appointed.

Moreover, Nicolás's claim raises significant legal concerns that are wholly inappropriate for resolution at this stage of the proceedings. An oral promise to pay educational expenses implicates the Statute of Frauds under California Civil Code section 1624, which requires certain agreements — including those that by their terms cannot be performed within one year — to be in writing. Nicolás has not identified any written agreement memorializing the Decedent's alleged promise. Additionally, an oral promise, by its nature, presents significant evidentiary challenges, including the absence of written terms, the inability to cross-examine the Decedent, and the risk of fabrication or misremembering. These challenges further demonstrate the inappropriateness of attempting to resolve this claim in the context of an objection to a petition for letters of administration.

D. The Contestants Have Failed to Identify Any Statutory Disqualification

As set forth above, California Probate Code section 8402 establishes the specific, limited grounds upon which a court may deny appointment of a nominated administrator. Those grounds include conviction of a felony, lack of legal capacity, nonresident status without appointment of an agent for service of process, and a determination that the nominee is otherwise unsuitable.

The Contestants have not alleged — much less demonstrated — that any of these grounds applies to Ms. Fonseca. The Contestants do not contend that Ms. Fonseca has been convicted of a felony. They do not challenge her legal competence. They do not assert that she is a nonresident of the United States. And they have made no particularized showing that she is "otherwise unsuitable" within the meaning of the statute.

The Contestants' dissatisfaction with Ms. Fonseca's positions regarding the characterization of estate assets does not constitute a ground for statutory disqualification. As discussed above, the statutory priority scheme expressly contemplates that interested parties — including surviving spouses who hold views about the character of estate assets — will serve as administrators. The Contestants' Objection identifies no legal basis for overriding Ms. Fonseca's statutory priority, and the Objection should be overruled.

IV. MS. FONSECA'S INTESTATE SUCCESSION RIGHTS FURTHER SUPPORT HER APPOINTMENT

Ms. Fonseca's substantial beneficial interest in the estate under the intestate succession statutes further supports her appointment as administrator. As the party with the largest stake in the estate, Ms. Fonseca's interests are most closely aligned with the responsible administration and preservation of estate assets — the very objectives the Probate Code is designed to advance.

Under California Probate Code section 6401(a), the surviving spouse is entitled to the Decedent's one-half of the community property. Given the substantial community property estate identified in the Petition, Ms. Fonseca's share of the community property alone represents a significant interest.

Under California Probate Code section 6401(c), the surviving spouse is also entitled to all of the Decedent's quasi-community property, to the extent any exists.

Under California Probate Code section 6402(a), where the decedent is survived by more than one child (as is the case here, where the Decedent is survived by three adult children), the surviving spouse takes one-third of the Decedent's separate property, with the remaining two-thirds divided equally among the children.

Thus, Ms. Fonseca is entitled to: (1) her own one-half of the community property (which she owns outright and which does not pass through the estate); (2) the Decedent's one-half of the community property; and (3) one-third of the Decedent's separate property. By any calculation, Ms. Fonseca holds the largest beneficial interest among all heirs at law. Her incentive to administer the estate responsibly, to preserve estate assets, and to ensure accurate valuations is at least as strong as — and arguably stronger than — that of any other party.

Ms. Fonseca has already demonstrated her commitment to responsible administration by promptly filing the Petition within approximately one month of the Decedent's death, identifying all known heirs at law (including the three Contestants), and providing a comprehensive and transparent disclosure of estate assets in excess of $71,000,000. These actions are consistent with a fiduciary mindset and demonstrate Ms. Fonseca's fitness to serve as administrator.

V. PETITIONER'S WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE IN GOOD FAITH

Ms. Fonseca recognizes the Contestants' legitimate interest as heirs at law and is committed to transparent, cooperative, and efficient administration of the Decedent's estate. Notwithstanding the adversarial posture of the present proceeding, Ms. Fonseca remains willing to work constructively with the Contestants and their counsel to resolve disputes and advance the administration of the estate.

In furtherance of this commitment, Ms. Fonseca has already taken several concrete steps to preserve estate assets and prepare for orderly administration:

First, Ms. Fonseca has requested a freeze on the Decedent's accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., to prevent any unauthorized transactions or dissipation of estate assets pending appointment of an administrator. This request was communicated to the bank's relationship manager, Franklin Ybarra, at the bank's offices at 700 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California 90017. The accounts have been frozen pending further direction from the Court or the appointed administrator.

Second, Ms. Fonseca has engaged the services of Ridgeway Accounting Partners LLP, a reputable accounting firm, to prepare the estate inventory, tax filings, and financial reconciliation for the benefit of all interested parties. The engagement is supervised by Dennis Chua, CPA, at the firm's offices located at 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3600, Los Angeles, California 90071. Ridgeway Accounting Partners will provide independent accounting services to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the estate's financial records.

Third, Ms. Fonseca has retained Pinnacle West Appraisal Group LLC to provide independent valuations of the Decedent's business interests and intellectual property portfolio. The engagement is supervised by Dr. Sandra Fujimoto, ASA, CVA, at the firm's offices located at 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200, Newport Beach, California 92660. Dr. Fujimoto is accredited by the American Society of Appraisers and holds the Certified Valuation Analyst designation, ensuring that her valuations will meet the highest professional standards. The Contestants are, of course, free to retain their own appraiser to provide independent valuations, and Ms. Fonseca will cooperate fully in providing access to relevant financial information and records for that purpose.

Ms. Fonseca remains open to informal resolution of disputes and, if appropriate, mediation. She recognizes that the efficient resolution of asset characterization and creditor's claims issues will benefit all parties, and she is committed to pursuing such resolution through cooperative means to the greatest extent possible. Ms. Fonseca believes that the interests of all heirs are best served by a prompt appointment of an administrator who can begin the work of administering this substantial estate, rather than by protracted litigation over the threshold question of who should serve.

VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF

For the foregoing reasons, the Objection filed by Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca on November 14, 2022, fails to identify any legal basis for denying Ms. Fonseca's Petition for Letters of Administration. Ms. Fonseca, as the surviving spouse of the Decedent, has the highest statutory priority for appointment as administrator under California Probate Code section 8461. The Contestants' challenges to the characterization of estate assets are premature and do not constitute grounds for denying the Petition. The individual creditor claims asserted by Isabela and Nicolás are not properly before the Court in the context of this Petition and should be addressed through the creditor's claims process. The Contestants have failed to identify any statutory disqualification that would bar Ms. Fonseca's appointment.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Overrule the Objection filed by Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca on November 14, 2022;

2. Grant the Petition for Letters of Administration and appoint Marguerite D. Fonseca as administrator of the Estate of Teodoro R. Fonseca, deceased;

3. In the alternative, if the Court determines that additional safeguards are warranted, appoint Ms. Fonseca as administrator subject to such conditions as the Court deems appropriate, including but not limited to the posting of a bond, the filing of periodic accountings, or the appointment of limited neutral oversight over specific aspects of estate administration;

4. Award Petitioner her reasonable costs incurred in responding to the Objection; and

5. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: December 12, 2022

CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP

By: ________

Howard Quinn, Responsible Partner Elliot Nguyen, Lead Associate 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-8800 Facsimile: (213) 629-8801

Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca

VERIFICATION

I, Marguerite D. Fonseca, declare as follows:

I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled matter. I have read the foregoing Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca's Response to Objection of Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca to Petition for Letters of Administration and am familiar with its contents. The factual statements set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. As to those matters stated on information and belief, I believe them to be true.

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

Executed on December 12, 2022, at Beverly Hills, California.

________________________________________

Marguerite D. Fonseca 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210

PROOF OF SERVICE

PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND ELECTRONIC SERVICE

I, Christina M. Valerio, declare as follows:

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800, Los Angeles, California 90071. I am a paralegal employed by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, attorneys of record for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca.

On December 12, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as:

PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA'S RESPONSE TO OBJECTION OF RAFAEL T. FONSECA, ISABELA C. FONSECA-GREER, AND NICOLÁS R. FONSECA TO PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION

on the following persons by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows, and by transmitting a true copy thereof via electronic mail to the email addresses indicated below:

Damian R. Ortega, Esq. Lydia Kwan, Esq. Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067

Email: dortega@boslawfirm.com

Email: lkwan@boslawfirm.com

Attorneys for Contestants Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca

I am readily familiar with Calderwood & Harkness LLP's practices for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under those practices, correspondence placed in the designated area for outgoing mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.

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

Executed on December 12, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.

________________________________________

Christina M. Valerio Paralegal, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

In the Matter of the Estate of	Case No. 22STPB09714
TEODORO R. FONSECA,	PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA'S RESPONSE TO OBJECTION OF RAFAEL T. FONSECA, ISABELA C. FONSECA-GREER, AND NICOLÁS R. FONSECA TO PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
Deceased.	Date: January 23, 2023

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Dept.: 5

Judge: Hon. Patricia L. Greenfield

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES — PROBATE DIVISION
Filed: December 12, 2022
Howard Quinn (State Bar No. 208741) Elliot Nguyen (State Bar No. 321485) CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-8800 Facsimile: (213) 629-8801
Email: hquinn@calderwoodharkness.com
Email: enguyen@calderwoodharkness.com
Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca
I. INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca ("Petitioner" or "Ms. Fonseca"), the surviving spouse of Teodoro R. Fonseca ("Decedent"), who died intestate on September 3, 2022, in Los Angeles County, California, respectfully submits this Response to the Objection filed on November 14, 2022, by Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca (collectively, "Contestants" or "Objectors"), through their counsel of record, Damian R. Ortega and Lydia Kwan of Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP.
On October 5, 2022, Ms. Fonseca filed her Petition for Letters of Administration in this Court, seeking appointment as administrator of the Decedent's estate pursuant to the priority scheme established by the California Probate Code. The Petition identified all known heirs at law, provided a comprehensive inventory of the Decedent's assets, and set forth Ms. Fonseca's qualifications to serve as administrator. The Contestants are the Decedent's three adult children from his prior marriage to Claudette Marchetti, which ended in a final judgment of dissolution entered in 2005. While Ms. Fonseca respects and acknowledges the Contestants' status as heirs at law, their Objection to her appointment as administrator is without merit and should be overruled in its entirety.
The Objection should be overruled for the following reasons:
First, Ms. Fonseca, as the surviving spouse of the Decedent, has the highest statutory priority for appointment as administrator of his estate under California Probate Code sections 8461 and 8462. The Contestants, as adult children of the Decedent, occupy a subordinate position in the statutory priority scheme.
Second, the Contestants' challenges to the characterization of certain estate assets as community or separate property are premature and legally unfounded in the context of a petition for letters of administration. The characterization of estate assets is a substantive issue that will be determined during the course of estate administration, not at the threshold appointment stage. Moreover, even a preliminary examination of the relevant facts demonstrates that the community property presumption under California Family Code section 760 strongly favors Ms. Fonseca's position.
Third, the Contestants have failed to identify any statutory basis for denying Ms. Fonseca's petition. California Probate Code section 8402 sets forth the specific grounds upon which a court may deny appointment of an administrator, and the Contestants have not alleged that any of those grounds exist.
Fourth, the individual creditor claims asserted by Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer and Nicolás R. Fonseca are not properly before the Court in the context of this petition and do not constitute a basis for objecting to Ms. Fonseca's appointment.
For these reasons, and as set forth more fully below, Ms. Fonseca respectfully requests that this Court overrule the Objection and grant her Petition for Letters of Administration.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Marriage and the Decedent's Family
Marguerite Delphine Fonseca, age 54, married Teodoro Raúl Fonseca on June 14, 2008, in a ceremony held in Los Angeles County, California. The marriage was Ms. Fonseca's first and the Decedent's second. The couple remained continuously married from the date of their wedding until the Decedent's death on September 3, 2022 — a period of more than fourteen years.
Prior to his marriage to Ms. Fonseca, the Decedent was married to Claudette Marchetti (née Marchetti) from 1988 until the entry of a final judgment of dissolution in 2005. The dissolution proceeding resulted in a marital settlement agreement providing for a property settlement payment to Ms. Marchetti in the amount of $4,800,000. In 2007, the Decedent further resolved his financial obligations to Ms. Marchetti through a spousal support buyout in the amount of $1,500,000, bringing the total divorce-related payments to $6,300,000. By the time the Decedent married Ms. Fonseca in June 2008, all financial matters arising from the prior marriage had been fully resolved.
The Decedent and Claudette Marchetti had three children, all of whom are adults and all of whom are Contestants in this proceeding:
1. Rafael T. Fonseca, age 33, who currently resides in Los Angeles County and serves as Vice President of Development at Crestline Media Group Inc., a media company located in Burbank, California. Rafael is the designated lead contestant in this proceeding.
2. Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, age 30, who resides at 78 Eucalyptus Lane, Santa Monica, California 90402. Isabela operates Amber Light Documentary Films LLC, a documentary film production company.
3. Nicolás R. Fonseca, age 26, who resides at 1190 Elm Street, Apt. 4B, Palo Alto, California 94301. Nicolás is a recent graduate who has been pursuing academic studies.
Throughout their marriage, Ms. Fonseca and the Decedent worked closely together as both life partners and professional collaborators. In 2009, the couple co-founded Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC, a film and television production company. Ms. Fonseca served as the company's Chief Creative Officer, overseeing creative development and production of the company's film and television slate, while the Decedent managed business development, financing, and distribution. Together, they built Lumiére Canyon Studios into a significant enterprise in the entertainment industry, with an enterprise value estimated at $31,600,000 as of December 31, 2021. Ms. Fonseca's contributions to the company's success were integral, spanning more than thirteen years of dedicated creative and business leadership.
Ms. Fonseca continues to reside at the marital residence located at 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210, which served as the couple's primary home during their marriage.
B. The Decedent's Death and Intestacy
The Decedent died on September 3, 2022, at the age of 62, of cardiac arrest due to natural causes. His death was sudden and unexpected. At the time of his passing, the Decedent was in the midst of an active career in film and television production and had made no indication to Ms. Fonseca or to any known associate that he anticipated his death or had made testamentary arrangements.
The Decedent died without a valid will, trust, or any other testamentary instrument. Despite a thorough and diligent search conducted by Ms. Fonseca — which included examination of the Decedent's personal files at both the Beverly Hills residence and the Malibu Beach House, inquiries to the Decedent's personal attorney of record (who confirmed that no estate planning documents had been prepared or executed), inquiries to the Decedent's business associates and accountants, and review of safe deposit box contents at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A. — no testamentary instrument has been located. The Decedent's personal and business associates have confirmed that they are unaware of any will, trust, or other estate planning document executed by the Decedent.
As a result, the Decedent's estate is subject to the intestacy provisions of the California Probate Code. The Decedent's heirs at law, who will take under the intestacy statutes, are: (1) Ms. Fonseca, as the Decedent's surviving spouse; and (2) his three adult children — Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca. No other person has come forward or been identified as a potential heir at law.
C. The Petition for Letters of Administration
On October 5, 2022, Ms. Fonseca filed the Petition for Letters of Administration in this Court, seeking appointment as administrator of the Decedent's estate pursuant to California Probate Code section 8461. The Petition was filed promptly and in good faith, within approximately one month of the Decedent's death, reflecting Ms. Fonseca's commitment to the orderly and responsible administration of the estate.
The Petition identified the Decedent's principal assets, which comprise a substantial probate estate. The assets identified in the Petition include the following:
1. Beverly Hills Residence. The marital residence located at 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210, with an estimated fair market value of $8,450,000. This property was acquired during the marriage and served as the couple's primary residence.
2. Malibu Beach House. The property located at 27100 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California 90265, with an estimated fair market value of $6,200,000. This property was originally purchased by the Decedent on August 22, 2007, approximately ten months before the marriage, but was subject to significant community property contributions during the marriage, as discussed in detail below.
3. Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. The Decedent's 50% membership interest in Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC (California Secretary of State Filing No. 200906410337), estimated at $15,800,000 based on an enterprise value of $31,600,000 as of December 31, 2021. The company was co-founded by the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca in 2009, during the marriage.
4. Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC. The Decedent's 35% membership interest in Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC (California Secretary of State Filing No. 201518720492), estimated at $27,475,000 based on $78,500,000 in assets under management. This entity was formed in 2015, during the marriage.
5. Financial Accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A. The Decedent maintained three accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A.: (a) a brokerage account ending in -4782, valued at approximately $5,120,000; (b) a personal checking account ending in -3091, with a balance of approximately $342,000; and (c) a money market account ending in -6155, with a balance of approximately $1,875,000. The aggregate value of these accounts is approximately $7,337,000.
6. intellectual Property Portfolio. A portfolio comprising interests in 14 feature films and 6 television series produced through Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC, with a net present value estimated at $4,600,000. These creative works were produced during the marriage.
7. Personal Property. Art, vehicles, furnishings, and other tangible personal property, with an aggregate estimated value of approximately $1,250,000. These items were acquired during the marriage and are located primarily at the Beverly Hills residence and the Malibu Beach House.
The total estimated value of the probate estate, as identified in the Petition, is approximately $71,112,000.
In addition to the probate estate, Ms. Fonseca identified two life insurance policies that constitute non-probate assets:
(a) A $3,000,000 term life insurance policy issued by Meridian Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Policy No. GH-TL-2019-05582), naming Ms. Fonseca as the designated beneficiary; and
(b) A $2,000,000 whole life insurance policy issued by Commonwealth Fidelity Assurance Corp. (Policy No. GH-WL-2014-01247), naming Ms. Fonseca as the designated beneficiary.
The combined value of these non-probate life insurance proceeds is $5,000,000. As non-probate assets payable directly to a named beneficiary, these policies pass outside the estate and are not subject to administration. Ms. Fonseca disclosed these assets in the Petition in the interest of full transparency.
D. The Contestants' Objection
On November 14, 2022, the Contestants, through their counsel of record at Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP (lead counsel Damian R. Ortega, assisted by Lydia Kwan, at 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067), filed an Objection to Ms. Fonseca's Petition for Letters of Administration. The Objection raises the following contentions:
First, the Contestants argue that Ms. Fonseca should not be appointed as administrator because she allegedly has an "adverse interest" in the characterization of estate assets, which, they contend, would prevent her from administering the estate impartially.
Second, the Contestants challenge the characterization of certain assets identified in the Petition, arguing that several assets Ms. Fonseca characterizes as community property are in fact the Decedent's separate property. Specifically, the Contestants contend that: (a) the Malibu Beach House is entirely the Decedent's separate property because it was purchased on August 22, 2007, prior to the marriage; (b) the Decedent's interest in Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC is separate property because it was allegedly "funded with pre-marital capital"; and (c) the Decedent's interest in Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC is, on unspecified grounds, the Decedent's separate property.
Third, the Contestants contend that the Court should appoint an independent third-party administrator in lieu of Ms. Fonseca, though they do not identify a specific candidate or cite a statutory basis for such appointment over the surviving spouse's objection.
Fourth, the Contestants assert, without specificity, that certain financial accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., contain commingled separate and community funds.
In addition to these primary contentions, the Objection references, in passing, two individual claims asserted by specific Contestants. Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer references a $1,200,000 promissory note dated January 15, 2020, purportedly payable to Amber Light Documentary Films LLC (California Secretary of State Filing No. 201912360185), bearing interest at 3.5% per annum, with a stated maturity date of January 15, 2025. Nicolás R. Fonseca asserts a claim for $387,500 in educational expense reimbursement, allegedly based on an oral promise made by the Decedent.
Ms. Fonseca addresses each of these contentions and claims in the legal argument that follows.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Ms. Fonseca Has Statutory Priority for Appointment as Administrator
1. The Surviving Spouse's Priority Under California Probate Code Section 8461. The California Probate Code establishes a clear statutory priority scheme for the appointment of an administrator in intestacy proceedings. This priority scheme reflects the Legislature's considered judgment regarding which persons are most appropriate to serve as administrator based on their relationship to the decedent and their interest in the estate.
California Probate Code section 8461 provides, in pertinent part:
"Administration of the estate of a decedent who dies intestate shall be granted in the following order of priority:
(a) Surviving spouse or domestic partner, or the nominee of the surviving spouse or domestic partner.
(b) Children.
(c) Grandchildren.
(d) Other issue . . ."
The statute is unambiguous: the surviving spouse holds the highest priority for appointment as administrator. This priority is not conditional upon the absence of disputes among heirs, nor is it contingent upon the consent of lower-priority claimants. It is a statutory right conferred by the Legislature upon the surviving spouse by virtue of the marital relationship.
Ms. Fonseca is the undisputed surviving spouse of the Decedent. She and the Decedent were married on June 14, 2008, and remained continuously married through the date of the Decedent's death on September 3, 2022 — a marriage of more than fourteen years. No party has contested the validity of the marriage, and no proceeding for dissolution, legal separation, or annulment was pending at the time of the Decedent's death. Ms. Fonseca therefore has the highest statutory priority for appointment as administrator under section 8461(a).
The Contestants, as the Decedent's adult children, occupy a subordinate position under section 8461(b). While the Probate Code affords children the second-highest priority for appointment, that priority is, by the statute's express terms, below the priority of the surviving spouse. The Contestants are entitled to appointment only if the surviving spouse declines to serve, is disqualified, or fails to petition. None of those circumstances applies here.
California Probate Code section 8462 further reinforces this priority scheme by providing that a person in a higher-priority category "is entitled to appointment as administrator in preference to any person in a lower category." The Court's discretion is limited: absent a statutory disqualification, the Court should appoint the person with the highest priority who petitions for appointment. See In re Estate of Bauer (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 282, 285 (recognizing that the statutory priority scheme is mandatory and that the court should appoint the highest-priority petitioner absent disqualifying circumstances).
2. The Contestants' "Adverse Interest" Argument Lacks Legal Basis. The centerpiece of the Contestants' Objection is the argument that Ms. Fonseca should be denied appointment as administrator because she purportedly has an "adverse interest" in the characterization of estate assets as community or separate property. This argument finds no support in the California Probate Code, in case law, or in the policy considerations underlying the statutory priority scheme.
As a threshold matter, the California Probate Code does not require that an administrator be a disinterested party. To the contrary, the statutory priority scheme set forth in section 8461 specifically contemplates that interested parties — including the surviving spouse, children, and other heirs — will serve as administrators. If the Legislature had intended to require disinterested administrators, it would have established a different priority scheme or imposed a disinterestedness requirement. It did neither.
The mere existence of a dispute over the community versus separate property characterization of estate assets does not constitute a disqualifying conflict of interest. Such disputes are endemic to intestacy proceedings involving surviving spouses and children from prior marriages. If the Contestants' theory were adopted — that the existence of any characterization dispute disqualifies a surviving spouse from serving as administrator — the statutory priority granted to surviving spouses under section 8461(a) would be rendered a nullity in virtually every contested intestacy case. The Legislature cannot be presumed to have enacted a meaningless provision. See Day v. City of Fontana (2001) 25 Cal.4th 268, 272 (courts must avoid interpretations that would render statutory provisions superfluous or meaningless).
California Probate Code section 8402 sets forth the specific grounds upon which a court may deny appointment of a nominated administrator. Those grounds include:
(a) The nominee has been convicted of a felony;
(b) The nominee is not legally competent to serve;
(c) The nominee is a nonresident of the United States who has not appointed an agent for service of process;
(d) The court determines that the nominee is otherwise unsuitable.
The Contestants have not alleged that Ms. Fonseca has been convicted of a felony, that she lacks legal competence, or that she is a nonresident of the United States. Nor have they made any particularized showing that Ms. Fonseca is "otherwise unsuitable" within the meaning of section 8402(d). The Contestants' bald assertion that Ms. Fonseca holds views about asset characterization different from their own does not rise to the level of unsuitability.
California courts have consistently held that a surviving spouse's interest in estate assets — including an interest in the characterization of those assets — does not constitute a disqualifying conflict warranting denial of the surviving spouse's petition for letters of administration. See Estate of Buchman (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 546, 551 (affirming appointment of surviving spouse as administrator notwithstanding characterization disputes with decedent's children); Estate of Farnum (1968) 265 Cal.App.2d 796, 800 (holding that disagreements among heirs regarding asset characterization do not constitute grounds for denying appointment to the highest-priority petitioner).
The appropriate remedy for concerns about impartial administration is not the denial of a surviving spouse's statutory right to serve as administrator. Rather, the Probate Code provides a range of safeguards — including bond requirements under section 8480, periodic accountings under section 10900, and the appointment of a special administrator under section 8540 — that can protect the interests of all parties while respecting the statutory priority scheme. The Contestants' request to bypass the statutory priority scheme entirely, in favor of an unspecified "independent third-party administrator," is an extraordinary remedy that is neither warranted by the facts nor supported by the law.
3. Alternative: The Court May Impose Appropriate Safeguards. While Ms. Fonseca maintains that she is entitled to appointment as administrator without conditions beyond those ordinarily imposed, she recognizes the Court's authority to impose reasonable safeguards to protect the interests of all parties. If the Court has any concern regarding the impartiality of estate administration — however unfounded Ms. Fonseca believes such concerns to be — Petitioner is amenable to appropriate safeguards, including but not limited to:
(a) Posting a bond in an amount to be determined by the Court, pursuant to California Probate Code section 8480;
(b) Filing periodic accountings on a schedule directed by the Court, including interim accountings in addition to the statutory accounting requirements;
(c) Appointment of a neutral fiduciary or co-administrator to oversee specific aspects of estate administration, such as the management of business interests or the resolution of characterization disputes; and
(d) Any other conditions the Court deems necessary to ensure transparent and impartial administration.
In this regard, Petitioner notes that the parties may be able to reach a stipulation regarding the appointment of a neutral professional fiduciary to administer the estate, which would preserve Ms. Fonseca's statutory rights as surviving spouse while addressing any concerns about potential conflicts. Ms. Fonseca is open to discussions with the Contestants and their counsel regarding such an arrangement, and she anticipates that a professional fiduciary with relevant experience — such as Ashford Fiduciary Services Inc., under the direction of its principal officer, Gerald Whitmore — may be well-suited to serve in such a capacity, should the parties agree.
Ms. Fonseca offers these alternatives not because she concedes any merit to the Contestants' Objection, but because she is committed to the cooperative and efficient administration of the Decedent's estate for the benefit of all interested parties.
B. The Contestants' Challenges to Asset Characterization Are Premature and Without Merit
1. Asset Characterization Is Not Properly Before the Court on This Petition. The Petition for Letters of Administration seeks a single form of relief: the appointment of an administrator to manage and administer the Decedent's estate. The Petition does not seek — nor could it properly seek — a judicial determination of the community or separate property character of specific estate assets. Asset characterization is a substantive question that is addressed during the course of estate administration, through formal discovery, expert analysis, and, if necessary, an evidentiary hearing before this Court.
The Contestants' Objection devotes the bulk of its argument to disputes about whether particular assets are community property or separate property. While these disputes may ultimately require resolution, they are premature in the context of the present Petition. The question before the Court is whether Ms. Fonseca is entitled to appointment as administrator — not whether the Malibu Beach House is community or separate property, not whether Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC was funded with pre-marital capital, and not whether particular bank accounts contain commingled funds. Those questions will be addressed at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, with the benefit of a complete evidentiary record.
The Contestants cannot be permitted to transform a straightforward petition for appointment of an administrator into a premature adjudication of property characterization issues. To do so would be procedurally improper, would prejudice the parties' ability to develop a full evidentiary record, and would impose unnecessary delay on the administration of the estate. The Court should decline the Contestants' invitation to reach the merits of asset characterization at this juncture.
2. In Any Event, the Community Property Presumption Favors Ms. Fonseca. Even though asset characterization is not properly before the Court at this stage, the Contestants' arguments regarding the character of estate assets are, in any event, legally unfounded. Under California's well-established community property regime, the presumption heavily favors Ms. Fonseca's position.
California Family Code section 760 provides: "Except as otherwise provided by statute, all property, real or personal, wherever situated, acquired by a married person during marriage while domiciled in this state is community property." This presumption applies to all property acquired during the marriage, and the burden of overcoming it rests squarely on the party asserting that an asset is separate property. See In re Marriage of Haines (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 277, 289-290; In re Marriage of Ettefagh (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 1578, 1591.
The Fonseca marriage commenced on June 14, 2008, and endured until the Decedent's death on September 3, 2022 — a period of more than fourteen years. During this substantial marriage, the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca built a shared life and a shared business enterprise. The vast majority of the estate assets were acquired, created, or substantially enhanced during the marriage, and are therefore presumptively community property.
Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC was formed on March 18, 2009, during the marriage, as evidenced by its filing with the California Secretary of State (Filing No. 200906410337). The operating agreement dated March 18, 2009, establishes a 50%/50% membership split between the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca. The entity was co-founded by both spouses as a joint creative and business enterprise. Ms. Fonseca served as Chief Creative Officer, overseeing the development and production of all creative content, while the Decedent managed the business operations. The enterprise grew substantially during the marriage, reaching an estimated enterprise value of $31,600,000 as of December 31, 2021, with the Decedent's 50% interest valued at $15,800,000.
The Contestants' assertion that Lumiére Canyon Studios was "funded with pre-marital capital" is conclusory and unsupported by any documentary evidence in their Objection. The Contestants do not identify the amount of pre-marital capital allegedly contributed, the source of such capital, or any tracing analysis demonstrating that any particular portion of the company's current value is attributable to a pre-marital separate property investment. Even if pre-marital funds were used in part to capitalize the company, that fact alone would not transform the entire entity into separate property. Under the Pereira/Van Camp line of cases, the community would retain an interest in the entity based on the community labor — including the extensive labor of both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca — that generated the company's growth and value over thirteen years of marriage. See Pereira v. Pereira (1909) 156 Cal. 1; Van Camp v. Van Camp (1921) 53 Cal.App. 17.
Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC. Pacific Rim Narrative Partners LLC was formed in 2015, during the marriage (California Secretary of State Filing No. 201518720492). The Decedent acquired his 35% membership interest during the marriage, and the assets under management — totaling $78,500,000 — were accumulated during the marriage. The Decedent's 35% interest is valued at $27,475,000. The managing member of Pacific Rim Narrative Partners is Victor Sandoval, whose offices are located at 8455 Beverly Boulevard, Suite 310, Los Angeles, California 90048. The Contestants offer no basis whatsoever for their assertion that this interest — acquired and developed entirely during the marriage — is the Decedent's separate property. This interest is presumptively community property under Family Code section 760, and the Contestants have offered nothing to rebut that presumption.
Veltara Basin Bank Accounts. The Decedent maintained three accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A.: a brokerage account ending in -4782 ($5,120,000), a personal checking account ending in -3091 ($342,000), and a money market account ending in -6155 ($1,875,000). These accounts were maintained during the marriage, and funds were deposited into and withdrawn from these accounts throughout the course of the marriage. The Contestants' assertion that these accounts contain "commingled separate and community funds" is unsupported by any tracing analysis, accounting evidence, or documentation of any kind. The party asserting that community property funds have been commingled with separate property bears the burden of tracing the separate property component. See In re Marriage of Mix (1975) 14 Cal.3d 604, 612. The Contestants have made no effort to carry this burden, and their bare assertion is insufficient to rebut the community property presumption.
intellectual Property Portfolio. The portfolio of 14 feature films and 6 television series was produced during the marriage through Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC. These creative works were the product of the community labor of both the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca, who served as the company's Chief Creative Officer. The net present value of this portfolio is estimated at $4,600,000. The Contestants do not challenge the community character of this portfolio, and it is presumptively community property.
Personal Property. Art, vehicles, furnishings, and other tangible personal property valued at approximately $1,250,000 were acquired during the marriage and are presumptively community property. The Contestants have offered no basis for asserting that any portion of this property is separate.
3. The Malibu Beach House Includes Substantial Community Property Interest. The Contestants assert that the Malibu Beach House at 27100 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California 90265, is entirely the Decedent's separate property because it was purchased on August 22, 2007, approximately ten months before the marriage. This assertion, even if it were relevant at this stage of the proceedings, fundamentally overstates the Contestants' position and ignores the substantial community property contributions made to the property during the marriage.
Ms. Fonseca acknowledges that the original purchase of the Malibu property, at a price of $4,750,000, occurred before the marriage and was funded from the Decedent's pre-marital funds. However, it does not follow that the property is entirely separate. During the fourteen years of the marriage, the community made substantial contributions to the property that give rise to a significant community property interest:
(a) Renovation. In 2016, the Decedent and Ms. Fonseca undertook a comprehensive renovation of the Malibu property, at a cost of $1,800,000. This renovation was funded entirely from community funds, including earnings from Lumiére Canyon Studios LLC and deposits in the joint accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A.
(b) Mortgage Payments. From the commencement of the marriage in June 2008 through the final payoff of the mortgage in March 2020, the community made approximately 142 monthly mortgage payments of approximately $14,200 each, totaling approximately $2,016,400. These payments were made from joint accounts maintained at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., and included both principal reduction and interest payments.
The total community property contributions to the Malibu property amount to approximately $3,816,400 ($1,800,000 in renovation costs plus $2,016,400 in mortgage payments).
Under the well-established Moore/Marsden line of cases, when community funds are used to pay down the mortgage on a separate property asset or to make improvements to that asset, the community acquires a proportional interest in the property. See In re Marriage of Moore (1980) 28 Cal.3d 366; In re Marriage of Marsden (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 426. Applying this principle to the Malibu property, the community's proportional interest is at minimum approximately $3,816,400 of the property's current fair market value of $6,200,000, or approximately 61.6%.
Title records and mortgage payment documentation maintained by Coastline Title & Escrow Co. (contact: Andrea Solis, 9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 720, Beverly Hills, California 90212) will confirm the history of community contributions to the property. These records will be produced during the course of estate administration.
The Contestants' characterization of the Malibu Beach House as entirely separate property is, at best, a significant overstatement and, at worst, a misrepresentation of the property's character. In either case, it does not constitute a basis for denying Ms. Fonseca's Petition for Letters of Administration.
4. The Beverly Hills Residence Is Community Property. The Beverly Hills residence at 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210, with an estimated fair market value of $8,450,000, was acquired during the marriage. Under the community property presumption established by California Family Code section 760, property acquired during marriage is presumed to be community property. The Beverly Hills residence is therefore presumptively community property.
The Contestants' Objection includes a passing reference to a claim that the Beverly Hills residence has a partially separate character based on a "down payment from pre-marital funds." This assertion is unsupported by any documentary evidence in the Objection. The Contestants do not identify the amount of the alleged pre-marital down payment, the source of those funds, or any tracing analysis demonstrating the separate character of any portion of the property. A bare, conclusory assertion, unaccompanied by any evidentiary support, is insufficient to rebut the community property presumption. See In re Marriage of Ettefagh, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th at 1591 (party claiming separate property character bears burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and conclusory assertions are insufficient).
C. The Contestants' Individual Claims Are Not Properly Before the Court
1. Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer's Promissory Note Claim. The Objection references a purported $1,200,000 promissory note dated January 15, 2020, executed by the Decedent in favor of Amber Light Documentary Films LLC (California Secretary of State Filing No. 201912360185), a company owned and operated by Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer. The Objection asserts that this note bears interest at 3.5% per annum and has a maturity date of January 15, 2025.
This claim, assuming it has any validity, is a creditor's claim against the estate. It is not a basis for objecting to the appointment of an administrator. The Probate Code establishes a specific procedural mechanism for the filing and adjudication of creditor's claims, set forth in California Probate Code sections 9000 et seq. If Isabela or Amber Light Documentary Films LLC wishes to assert a claim against the estate based on the alleged promissory note, the proper mechanism is to file a creditor's claim with the administrator once one is appointed, or to petition the Court directly. Raising this claim in the context of an objection to a petition for letters of administration is procedurally improper and serves only to inject unnecessary complexity into the appointment process.
In any event, Ms. Fonseca contests the validity of this claim. Ms. Fonseca contends that the $1,200,000 transfer from the Decedent to Amber Light Documentary Films LLC was a gift — consistent with the Decedent's established pattern of providing financial support to his adult children — and not a loan. During the Decedent's lifetime, no repayment was ever demanded, no interest payments were ever made, no amortization schedule was established, and the Decedent never referenced an outstanding promissory note in any financial disclosure known to Ms. Fonseca. The circumstances surrounding the transfer strongly suggest a gratuitous transfer, not a bona fide loan. These factual disputes underscore the inappropriateness of attempting to resolve this claim at the present stage.
This issue is not ripe for adjudication in the context of the present Petition and should be addressed through the creditor's claims process established by the Probate Code.
2. Nicolás R. Fonseca's Educational Expense Claim. The Objection also references a claim by Nicolás R. Fonseca for $387,500 in educational expense reimbursement, allegedly based on an oral promise made by the Decedent during his lifetime. According to the Objection, the Decedent promised to reimburse Nicolás for educational expenses, and Nicolás now seeks to enforce that promise as a claim against the estate.
As with Isabela's promissory note claim, Nicolás's educational expense claim is, at most, a creditor's claim against the estate. It is not a basis for objecting to the appointment of an administrator, and it should be addressed through the creditor's claims process established by California Probate Code sections 9000 et seq., once an administrator has been appointed.
Moreover, Nicolás's claim raises significant legal concerns that are wholly inappropriate for resolution at this stage of the proceedings. An oral promise to pay educational expenses implicates the Statute of Frauds under California Civil Code section 1624, which requires certain agreements — including those that by their terms cannot be performed within one year — to be in writing. Nicolás has not identified any written agreement memorializing the Decedent's alleged promise. Additionally, an oral promise, by its nature, presents significant evidentiary challenges, including the absence of written terms, the inability to cross-examine the Decedent, and the risk of fabrication or misremembering. These challenges further demonstrate the inappropriateness of attempting to resolve this claim in the context of an objection to a petition for letters of administration.
D. The Contestants Have Failed to Identify Any Statutory Disqualification
As set forth above, California Probate Code section 8402 establishes the specific, limited grounds upon which a court may deny appointment of a nominated administrator. Those grounds include conviction of a felony, lack of legal capacity, nonresident status without appointment of an agent for service of process, and a determination that the nominee is otherwise unsuitable.
The Contestants have not alleged — much less demonstrated — that any of these grounds applies to Ms. Fonseca. The Contestants do not contend that Ms. Fonseca has been convicted of a felony. They do not challenge her legal competence. They do not assert that she is a nonresident of the United States. And they have made no particularized showing that she is "otherwise unsuitable" within the meaning of the statute.
The Contestants' dissatisfaction with Ms. Fonseca's positions regarding the characterization of estate assets does not constitute a ground for statutory disqualification. As discussed above, the statutory priority scheme expressly contemplates that interested parties — including surviving spouses who hold views about the character of estate assets — will serve as administrators. The Contestants' Objection identifies no legal basis for overriding Ms. Fonseca's statutory priority, and the Objection should be overruled.
IV. MS. FONSECA'S INTESTATE SUCCESSION RIGHTS FURTHER SUPPORT HER APPOINTMENT
Ms. Fonseca's substantial beneficial interest in the estate under the intestate succession statutes further supports her appointment as administrator. As the party with the largest stake in the estate, Ms. Fonseca's interests are most closely aligned with the responsible administration and preservation of estate assets — the very objectives the Probate Code is designed to advance.
Under California Probate Code section 6401(a), the surviving spouse is entitled to the Decedent's one-half of the community property. Given the substantial community property estate identified in the Petition, Ms. Fonseca's share of the community property alone represents a significant interest.
Under California Probate Code section 6401(c), the surviving spouse is also entitled to all of the Decedent's quasi-community property, to the extent any exists.
Under California Probate Code section 6402(a), where the decedent is survived by more than one child (as is the case here, where the Decedent is survived by three adult children), the surviving spouse takes one-third of the Decedent's separate property, with the remaining two-thirds divided equally among the children.
Thus, Ms. Fonseca is entitled to: (1) her own one-half of the community property (which she owns outright and which does not pass through the estate); (2) the Decedent's one-half of the community property; and (3) one-third of the Decedent's separate property. By any calculation, Ms. Fonseca holds the largest beneficial interest among all heirs at law. Her incentive to administer the estate responsibly, to preserve estate assets, and to ensure accurate valuations is at least as strong as — and arguably stronger than — that of any other party.
Ms. Fonseca has already demonstrated her commitment to responsible administration by promptly filing the Petition within approximately one month of the Decedent's death, identifying all known heirs at law (including the three Contestants), and providing a comprehensive and transparent disclosure of estate assets in excess of $71,000,000. These actions are consistent with a fiduciary mindset and demonstrate Ms. Fonseca's fitness to serve as administrator.
V. PETITIONER'S WILLINGNESS TO COOPERATE IN GOOD FAITH
Ms. Fonseca recognizes the Contestants' legitimate interest as heirs at law and is committed to transparent, cooperative, and efficient administration of the Decedent's estate. Notwithstanding the adversarial posture of the present proceeding, Ms. Fonseca remains willing to work constructively with the Contestants and their counsel to resolve disputes and advance the administration of the estate.
In furtherance of this commitment, Ms. Fonseca has already taken several concrete steps to preserve estate assets and prepare for orderly administration:
First, Ms. Fonseca has requested a freeze on the Decedent's accounts at Veltara Basin Bank, N.A., to prevent any unauthorized transactions or dissipation of estate assets pending appointment of an administrator. This request was communicated to the bank's relationship manager, Franklin Ybarra, at the bank's offices at 700 South Hope Street, Los Angeles, California 90017. The accounts have been frozen pending further direction from the Court or the appointed administrator.
Second, Ms. Fonseca has engaged the services of Ridgeway Accounting Partners LLP, a reputable accounting firm, to prepare the estate inventory, tax filings, and financial reconciliation for the benefit of all interested parties. The engagement is supervised by Dennis Chua, CPA, at the firm's offices located at 515 South Flower Street, Suite 3600, Los Angeles, California 90071. Ridgeway Accounting Partners will provide independent accounting services to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the estate's financial records.
Third, Ms. Fonseca has retained Pinnacle West Appraisal Group LLC to provide independent valuations of the Decedent's business interests and intellectual property portfolio. The engagement is supervised by Dr. Sandra Fujimoto, ASA, CVA, at the firm's offices located at 4100 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 200, Newport Beach, California 92660. Dr. Fujimoto is accredited by the American Society of Appraisers and holds the Certified Valuation Analyst designation, ensuring that her valuations will meet the highest professional standards. The Contestants are, of course, free to retain their own appraiser to provide independent valuations, and Ms. Fonseca will cooperate fully in providing access to relevant financial information and records for that purpose.
Ms. Fonseca remains open to informal resolution of disputes and, if appropriate, mediation. She recognizes that the efficient resolution of asset characterization and creditor's claims issues will benefit all parties, and she is committed to pursuing such resolution through cooperative means to the greatest extent possible. Ms. Fonseca believes that the interests of all heirs are best served by a prompt appointment of an administrator who can begin the work of administering this substantial estate, rather than by protracted litigation over the threshold question of who should serve.
VI. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For the foregoing reasons, the Objection filed by Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca on November 14, 2022, fails to identify any legal basis for denying Ms. Fonseca's Petition for Letters of Administration. Ms. Fonseca, as the surviving spouse of the Decedent, has the highest statutory priority for appointment as administrator under California Probate Code section 8461. The Contestants' challenges to the characterization of estate assets are premature and do not constitute grounds for denying the Petition. The individual creditor claims asserted by Isabela and Nicolás are not properly before the Court in the context of this Petition and should be addressed through the creditor's claims process. The Contestants have failed to identify any statutory disqualification that would bar Ms. Fonseca's appointment.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Overrule the Objection filed by Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca on November 14, 2022;
2. Grant the Petition for Letters of Administration and appoint Marguerite D. Fonseca as administrator of the Estate of Teodoro R. Fonseca, deceased;
3. In the alternative, if the Court determines that additional safeguards are warranted, appoint Ms. Fonseca as administrator subject to such conditions as the Court deems appropriate, including but not limited to the posting of a bond, the filing of periodic accountings, or the appointment of limited neutral oversight over specific aspects of estate administration;
4. Award Petitioner her reasonable costs incurred in responding to the Objection; and
5. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: December 12, 2022
CALDERWOOD & HARKNESS LLP
By: ________
Howard Quinn, Responsible Partner Elliot Nguyen, Lead Associate 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: (213) 629-8800 Facsimile: (213) 629-8801
Attorneys for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca
VERIFICATION
I, Marguerite D. Fonseca, declare as follows:
I am the Petitioner in the above-entitled matter. I have read the foregoing Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca's Response to Objection of Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca to Petition for Letters of Administration and am familiar with its contents. The factual statements set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. As to those matters stated on information and belief, I believe them to be true.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on December 12, 2022, at Beverly Hills, California.
________________________________________
Marguerite D. Fonseca 1847 Coldwater Canyon Drive Beverly Hills, California 90210
PROOF OF SERVICE
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL AND ELECTRONIC SERVICE
I, Christina M. Valerio, declare as follows:
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is Calderwood & Harkness LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4800, Los Angeles, California 90071. I am a paralegal employed by Calderwood & Harkness LLP, attorneys of record for Petitioner Marguerite D. Fonseca.
On December 12, 2022, I served the foregoing document described as:
PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA'S RESPONSE TO OBJECTION OF RAFAEL T. FONSECA, ISABELA C. FONSECA-GREER, AND NICOLÁS R. FONSECA TO PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
on the following persons by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows, and by transmitting a true copy thereof via electronic mail to the email addresses indicated below:
Damian R. Ortega, Esq. Lydia Kwan, Esq. Brennan, Ortega & Saldívar LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, California 90067
Email: dortega@boslawfirm.com
Email: lkwan@boslawfirm.com
Attorneys for Contestants Rafael T. Fonseca, Isabela C. Fonseca-Greer, and Nicolás R. Fonseca
I am readily familiar with Calderwood & Harkness LLP's practices for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under those practices, correspondence placed in the designated area for outgoing mail is deposited with the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on December 12, 2022, at Los Angeles, California.
________________________________________
Christina M. Valerio Paralegal, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
In the Matter of the Estate of | Case No. 22STPB09714
TEODORO R. FONSECA, | PETITIONER MARGUERITE D. FONSECA'S RESPONSE TO OBJECTION OF RAFAEL T. FONSECA, ISABELA C. FONSECA-GREER, AND NICOLÁS R. FONSECA TO PETITION FOR LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION
Deceased. | Date: January 23, 2023
Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept.: 5
Judge: Hon. Patricia L. Greenfield