1 2 3 4 5 6

THE HEIRS OF DAVID L. BEDOLLA (760) 941-5924 Petitioners,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

7

FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO NORTH COUNTY DIVISION

8

In Re
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

DAVID L. BEDOLLA LIVING TRUST ESTABLISHED JULY 24, 2007 THE HEIRS OF DAVID L. BEDOLLA Petitioners, vs. DAVID L. BEDOLLA LIVING TRUST ALEJANDRA BEDOLLA,TRUSTEE; ROBERTO BEDOLLA, TRUSTEE; GRACIELA MEZA HEALTHCARE REPRESENTATIVE and DOES 1-50 Respondents,

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE No.: 37-2010-00150342-PR-TR-NC PETITIONERS SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS DATE: SEP. 8, 2011 TIME: 2:30 p.m. JUDGE: Hon. Harry L. Powazek TRIAL DATE: Not set COMPLAINT FILED: July 15, 2010

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure 437(b) and California Rules of Court
20

Rule 3.1350, Petitioners Margarita Frias, Silvia Peters, Jose Luis Bedolla, and Jesus Bedolla
21

submits this separate statement of facts, together with supporting evidence, in opposition to
22

Respondents Alejandra Bedolla, Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza Motion for Summary
23

Judgment on the Pleadings. Under CCP 437c (b)(1) it is mandatory that the supporting papers
24

must include a Separate Statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material facts which the
25

moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be followed by a
26

reference to the supporting evidence. The failure to comply with this requirement of a separate
27

statement may in the court's discretion constitute a sufficient ground for denial of the motion.
28

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -1-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Respondent Alejandra Bedolla; Roberto Bedolla; and Graciela Meza never served Petitioners with a Separate Statement as required by law and no separate statement was filed with this Court (See Petitioners Objections Exhibit 1). The lack of a separate statement not filed by Respondents has prejudiced the Petitioners and deprived them of an opportunity to respond in an more cohesive direct and accurate reply to Respondent's moving Motion for summary Judgment on the Pleadings CCP 437c (b)(3). The separate statement provides the court with a document that plainly and concisely specifies all material facts that a party contends are undisputed facts (Cal Rules of Ct. 3.1350). Facts not set in a separate statement do not exist Fenn v. Sheriff (2003) 109 CA4th 1466, 1480, 1CR3d 185; North Coast Bus. Park v. Nielson Constr. Co. (1993) 17 CA4th 22, 30 21 CR2d 104.. A separate statement is required from a party moving and opposing the summary judgment motion. Whitehead v. Habing (2008) 163 CA4th 896, 901, 77 CR3d 679. The separate statement is not merely a technical requirement, but is an indispensable part of the summary judgment or summary adjudication process 163 CAth at 902. A judge is not obligated to examine evidence outside of a separate statement Wall Street Network LTD v. New York Times Co. (2008) 164 CA4th 1171, 1185, n7 1190-1192, 80 CR3d 6. Even if the Court were to allow Respondents to submit a late separate statement the Petitioners would still be prejudiced. Respondents would be given two separate chances for the exact same summary judgment motion and Petitioners would have to make two separate responses giving the Respondent a great unfair advantage. Respondents have failed to file a crucial separate statement, "the golden rule" of summary judgment motions. See United States Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 CA3d 327, 337, 282, CR 368. The separate statement is an exceeding important document and one that would afford a due process to opposing parties State ex rel Harris v. Price Waterhosue Coopers LLP (2005) 125 CA4th 1219, 1263, n28, 23 CR3d 529, rev'd on other grounds (2006) 39 CA4th 1220, 48 CR3d 144' United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231. CA3d 327, 335, 282, CR 368. CCP 437c (b) (1)), the statute does not authorize the granting the motion for summary judgment without first

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -2-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

determining that the moving party has met is initial burden of production. Thatcher v. Lucky Stores, Inc. (2000) 79 CA4th 1081, 1084, 94, CR2d 575. Therefore, Petitioners submit this Separate Statement based on the information or lack of information, facts and allegations provided to Petitioners and in submission with this Court by Respondents Alejandra Bedolla; Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF ELDER ABUSE ACT; Welf. & Inst. Code, 15657.3 (d).) (Welf. & Inst. Code, 15600; 15657; 15657.5 (b) 15610.63; 15610.57 et seq.)

Respondents Alejandra Bedolla; Roberto Bedolla and Graciela Meza Allegedly Undisputed Material Fact(s) and Supporting Evidence 1. UNDISPUTED

Petitioner Margarita Frias; Silvia Peters; Jose Luis Bedolla and Jesus Bedolla Material Facts and Supporting Evidence

David L. Bedolla was a victims of elder and financial abuse, isolation and neglect for years. Petitioners Exhibits: Exhibit No 21: Exhibit No 27: Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB 162: Petitioners Respondent's cause decedent an early death. Exhibit No. 16 Page (s) 16.1 through 16.2; Exhibit No 17: Page (s) through 17.2; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 16; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 20; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No 9: Respondents wrongfully took advantage of descendent when they took decedent to draft living trusts to gift themselves properties descendant David L. Bedolla jointly owned with his wife without the knowledge of his wife and children. Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147-AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No. AB 157-AB158: Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192; Exhibit No. AB196-AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F:

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -3-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Respondents appointed themselves as "Trustees and Healthcare Representatives." Roberto as Alternative Trustee (as "Successor Trustee in the David Lemus Bedolla Living Trust), Graciela as Healthcare Representative and Alejandra as Successor Trustee. Exhibit No 7; Exhibit No 8; Exhibit No 15; Exhibit No 6; Exhibit No 11: Respondent's Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F: 2. UNDISPUTED Alejandra (a). drove David L. Bedolla to the law office of Achetel Law APC, (b). wrote the checks equal to $ 2, 400 from David L. Bedolla and his wife Maria's Bank of America checking account. (c). Alejandra made herself the, "Successor Trustee" of David Bedolla L. Living Trust Giving herself, (d). "Financial Power," (e). "Power of Attorney" and sole decision making of David L. Bedolla "Power of health and directive" (which she turned over to Graciela Meza) and (f). the, "sole beneficiary of the so-called David L. Bedolla Living Trust." Exhibit No 7; Exhibit No 8; Exhibit No 15; Exhibit No 6; Exhibit No 21: Exhibit No 27: Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No 11: Exhibit No. AB136 through AB 196: Respondent Trustee Roberto also took decedent to make the Mexico will and made himself the, (a). "Successor Trustee", (b). "Power of Attorney and sole decision making" of David Lemus Bedolla Living Trust (d). "Power of Health Directive," (e). "Financial Power," and beneficiary of David Lemus Bedolla's properties he jointly owned with his wife Maria in Mxico. Exhibit No 15: Respondents as "trustees and Healthcare Representative" exploited their relationship with decedent, and through verbal threats and abuse, manipulation, fraud and undue influence bullied decedent to gift Respondents Roberto and Alejandra the properties he jointly owned with his wife Maria. Respondents Trustee Roberto and Trustee Alejandra verbally, financially, and intentionally isolated decedent from his wife, children, grand children and from most of the

3. UNDISPUTED
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4. UNDISPUTED

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -4-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

outside world. Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No. AB 161; Exhibit No. AB 163; Exhibit No 21; Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No 11: Respondents Exhibit D: 5. UNDISPUTED Respondents Trustee Roberto, Healthcare Representative Graciela and Trustee Alejandra did not inform David L. Bedolla, his wife of fifty eight years Maria, and their biological children that David L. Bedolla was terminally ill. Trustee Roberto and Trustee Alejandra handed a notarized Power of Attorney Health Directive to oncologist David Oblon M.D. and instructed his office not to release any information about David L. Bedolla's health to his wife and children on or about July 24, 2007. Dependent, his wife and children were not aware Respondent Alejandra caused to be drafted a Living Will / Healthcare Directive with the law office of Achtel APC. Guidelines for the Cessation of Life-Pronging Procedures" Petitioners father long standing physician Dr.Christopher Bangs did not determine that David L. Bedolla's death was imminent at the moment Respondents decided to determinate his food and water. Decedent was not feed or offered water for months. Decedent's death was neither normal or natural. Nutrition and water were withheld from decedent without his consent. The consent of Dr. Bengs or consent of Petitioners months prior to his death. Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Respondent's Exhibit D; Exhibit No. AB 162: Exhibit No 3; Exhibit No 4; Exhibit No 5; Exhibit No 6; Exhibit No.18:

/// /// /// ///

27 28

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -5-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

DAVID L. BEDOLLA DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSEQUENCES OF HIS ACTIONS. (California Probate Code 811, 812, 813)

6. UNDISPUTED

At the time of the alleged execution of the purported "David L. Bedolla Living Trust," David L. Bedolla was not of sound and disposing mind. David L. Bedolla did not have sufficient mental capacity to (i) understand the nature of his actions in executing the purported David Bedolla Living Trust, (ii) understand and recollect the nature and situation of his property, and (iii) remember and understand his relations to other family members. Exhibit No 1; through Exhibit No. 11; Exhibit No 14; Respondent's Exhibit (s) No. B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit E: David L. Bedolla was terminally ill and the cancer had spread though his brain. David L. Bedolla had non Hodgkin's Exhibit 1; through Exhibit 6: David L. Bedolla was under cancer treatments, and many strong medications. David L. Bedolla's behavior was erratic; fearful, angry, paranoid, very depressed compounded with Respondents Roberto and Alejandra bullying and constant distorted views of his wife and children, and was subjected to social isolation. The David L. Bedolla Living Trust is not and never was the result of Petitioners father and husband freewill and was made at the time of its alleged execution as a result of undue influence exerted by Respondents only beneficiaries Roberto and Alejandra. David L. Bedolla was not aware or had knowledge he was terminally ill at the time the David L. Bedolla Living Trust and the David Lemus Bedolla Living Trust were executed. Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 14; Respondent's Exhibit (s) No. B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit E:

7. UNDISPUTED

8. UNDISPUTED

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -6-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF DAVID L. BEDOLLA WAS UNDULLY INFLUENCED BY TRUSTEE ROBERTO AND TRUSTEE ALEJANDRA BEDOLLA (California Probate Code 6104; California Civil Code 1575 )

9. UNDISPUTED

The execution of the "David L. Bedolla Living Trust" and the "David Lemus Bedolla Living Trust" were both ineffective to the extent the execution was procured by duress, menace, fraud, and undue influence. Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147-AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No 7; Exhibit No 8; Exhibit No 6; Exhibit No 11; Exhibit No 15; Exhibit No. AB 157-AB158: Exhibit No. AB 191AB192; Exhibit No. AB196-AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F: In the "David L. Bedolla Living Trust" Alejandra Bedolla drove David L. Bedolla to the law office of Achetel Law APC, wrote the checks of checks of $ 1, 200.00 x 2 = $ 2,400.00 from the Bank America Account of David L. Bedolla and Trinidad V. Bedolla check one is check No. 548. Alejandra placed herself as the, "Trustee" of the David L. Bedolla Living Trust. Alejandra placed herself as the, "Power of Attorney for Finance" of David L. Bedolla. Alejandra placed herself as the, "Power of Attorney for Heath Directive" of David L. Bedolla. Alejandra placed herself as the, "Executor of the Will" of David L. Bedolla. Exhibit No 7; Exhibit No 8; Exhibit No 15; Exhibit No 6; Exhibit No 21: Exhibit No 27: Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No 11: Exhibit No. AB136 through AB 196:

10. UNDISPUTED
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -7-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

11. UNDISPUTED Alejandra placed herself and her son Enrique as the sole, "Beneficiaries" of David L. Bedolla estate. Property at 918 Emma Drive, Cardiff, California 92007, valued at six hundred and fifty thousand dollars $ 650, 000.00. Alejandra did not disclose in the David L. Bedolla Living Trust the additional properties "jointly owned" by David L. Bedolla and his wife Maria. Further, the David L. Bedolla Living Trust does not disclose the fact that Salvador Bedolla the oldest son purchase the property and his name is placed on the Deed of 918 Emma Drive, Cardiff, California 92007, and the other properties as well as "joint ownership." Exhibit No 8; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No. AB 163; Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192: Exhibit 22 - 23; Respondent's Exhibit A: 12. UNDISPUTED Both The David L. Bedolla Living Trust and The David Lemus Bedolla Living Trust were created under extreme undue influence, threats, intimidation, coercion, bulling and verbal abuse. David L. Bedolla did not have the required testamentary intent because he did not know what he was signing, he had cancer in throughout regions of his head and was not mentally capacitated and under many cancer and other medications at the time he signed the, "David Bedolla Living Trust" and the "David Lemus Bedolla Living Trust." Exhibit No 21: Exhibit No 27: Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No. 16 Page (s) 16.1 through 16.2; Exhibit No 17: Page (s) through 17.2; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 16; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 20; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No 9: Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No. AB 157-AB158: Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192; Exhibit No. AB196-AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -8-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F:

13. UNDISPUTED

Trustees Alejandra and Roberto isolated decedent from his friends and relatives, including David L. Bedolla's wife and children. Healthcare Representative Graciela conspired and guided Alejandra in her wrongful acts and secrecy. By Graciela's own testimony under penalty of perjury in her declaration in submission with this court on page 8 line 24-25. Graciela Meza was the person who advised Alejandra to seek an attorney so that Alejandra could pursue a Living Trust where she would take possession of the properties jointly owned by decedent and Maria. Exhibit No. 31 page 8 line 24-25; Page 10 line 15-18; Page 5 line 27; Page 6 line 8-10; Page 7 line 5-24; Page 8 line 17-19; Page 3 line 22-23; Exhibit No. AB 161- AB163; FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

DAVID L. BEDOLLA NEEDED TO HAVE A WRITTEN CONSENT FROM HIS WIFE IN ORDER TO GIFT THIER JOINTLY OWNED PROPERTIES Violations of California Family Codes 1100, 1102, 1100-1103

14. UNDISPUTED

California regards property acquired by a married person or domestic partner as community property, belonging to the couple as a unit, not to either person separately. Both must jointly make any transfer of community real property . (Fam. Code 1102.) Under California community property laws, the basic rule of transfers from married persons is that both spouses must sign the, "Deed." Whether the property is in both names (held as community property. Joint tendency, in common) or only in the name of one spouse. Respondents Memo in Supp.

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -9-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

for Motion on Pleadings Page 1 line 11- 17; Page 4 line 19 - 27; Page 5 line 1-2;

15. UNDISPUTED

Maria Trinidad Villagomez de Bedolla did not have knowledge of a Living Trust drafted by David L. Bedolla gifting Alejandra Bedolla with marital community property. Maria Trinidad Villagomez de Bedolla did not approve or willingly sign a "Quit Claim Deed" to David L. Bedolla; there is no "Quit Claim Deed" signed to David L. Bedolla by Maria Trinidad de Bedolla registered in the County of San Diego Recorder or Assessor's Office. Exhibit No 7; Exhibit AB 138; Exhibit AB 163 Line 4-5; Exhibit 1 through Exhibit 14; Respondent's Exhibit (s) No. B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit E: Maria found out about the David L. Bedolla Living Trust through a letter sent by the San Diego County Assessor's Office Recorder/County Clerk's Office addressed to the David L. Bedolla Living Trust. The letter was mailed to decedent trust, notifying David L. Bedolla Living Trust regarding a "change or ownership" of 918 Emma Drive, Cardiff Ca. 92007. Maria the only wife of decedent David L. Bedolla and who had been married to decedent for over fifty-eight-years Exhibit No 25 - 26: David L. was under cancer and other medications at the time he signed the, "David Bedolla Living Trust" and the "David Lemus Bedolla Living Trust." The gifting of all the marital properties to Trustees Roberto and Alejandra Bedolla was not of his free will the, "Declaration of Intention" signed by David L. Bedolla and notarized by the law office of Achetel APC of San Diego. Stated, " I love my wife, I love my children equally, I am just making sure that my daughter Alejandra is "protected," signed,

16. UNDISPUTED

17. UNDISPUTED

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -10-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

David Lemus Bedolla July 24, 2007. " The gifting of his joint properties to Roberto and Alejandra was not a "natural" disposition of his estate. David L. Bedolla did not understand the rights, duties, and responsibilities involved in the transfer (Probate C 812). Exhibit No 21: Exhibit No 27: Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No. 16 Page (s) 16.1 through 16.2; Exhibit No 17: Page (s) through 17.2; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 16; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 20; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No 9: Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No. AB 157AB158: Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192; Exhibit No. AB196-AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F: 18. UNDISPUTED David L. Bedolla did not understand the consequences for himself, his wife of over fifty eight years who he loved dearly, his children whom he said he loved equally. David L. Bedolla did not understand the consequences. The gifting the couple's primary residence would place his wife of fifty eight years whom he dearly loved in a very vulnerable situation and possibly homeless. Exhibit No 21: Exhibit No 27: Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No. 16 Page (s) 16.1 through 16.2; Exhibit No 17: Page (s) through 17.2; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 16; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 20; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No 9: Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No. AB 157-

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -11-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

AB158: Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192; Exhibit No. AB196-AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F

19. UNDISPUTED

Maria Trinidad Villagomez de Bedolla is a seventy six year old widow with multiple health problems; diabetes, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, rheumatoid arthritis, dislocated discs on her back, depression, weight problems, and other ailing elements. Maria does not drive, uses a walker and a cane to walk, does not speak English, read or write; she lives on a very small social security check. Alejandra Bedolla is employed by the San Diego County Sheriff's and makes decent wages, she never paid any rent, food, maintenance and other related expenses while she resided at the home of David L. Bedolla (prior to his death) and his wife Maria. Alejandra has had gun training and knows how to defend herself and where and who to contract if she needed, "protection." The statements from David L. Bedolla that he was making sure that "Alejandra is protected" instead of his frail seventy six year old wife, is self evident that something was very unnatural and illogical with this sort of reasoning and thinking. In the David L. Bedolla Living Trust document it states: Exhibit 31 Page 10 line 13- 18; Exhibit No. 27; Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No. AB 163; Exhibit No. AB196AB198:

/// /// /// /// ///

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -12-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE HEIRS OF DAVID L. BEDOLLA HAVE STANDING TO BRING A CIVIL ACTION UNDER THE ELDER & FINANCIAL ABUSE ACT AND PROBATE CODE 259 (Probate Codes 38; 39 (a); 48 (a)); 17200; Welf. & IC 15657.3, (d); Welf. & IC, 15600 et seq. (the Elder Abuse Act) Cal. Welf. & IC 15610.30 The purpose of Probate Code section 259 and Cal. Welf. & IC 15610.30 is to deter the abuse of elders by prohibiting abusers from benefiting from the abuse. Respondents, Trustee Roberto Bedolla, and Alejandra Bedolla should not benefit from their wrongful and abuse acts against David L. Bedolla Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No. AB 157-AB158: Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192; Exhibit No. AB196-AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F: Trustee Alejandra and her son Enrique lived in the Cardiff home with decedent and wife Maria for decades. Trustee Alejandra took financial advantage of decedent and his wife Maria, she never paid rent, food, utilities or any other expenses incurred for herself or her son. To the contrary Alejandra would weekly borrow money from decedent SSI check to go to the local Cardiff bar called Sand Bar, Alejandra never repaid decedent. When Maria asked Trustee Alejandra to help pay bills or buy food for Enrique, Trustee Alejandra became incensed, yelled and verbally attacked Maria. Trustee Alejandra would later go to Trustee Roberto and Healthcare Representative Graciela for support and backup to which they all teamed up against Maria. Maria would kept silent and did without her much needed medications, doctors

20. UNDISPUTED

21. UNDISPUTED

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -13-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

visits, therapy treatments, and dental work because one hundred percent of her SSI check would be spent to pay for the household bills and food. Exhibit 31 Page 10 line 13- 18; Exhibit No. 27; Exhibit No 28: Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No. AB 157-AB158: Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192; Exhibit No. AB196-AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F: 22. UNDISPUTED Respondents Roberto and Alejandra as, "Trustees" owed a fiduciary duty of care to David L. Bedolla. Instead of providing David L. Bedolla with the best of care they chose among other things to isolate, threaten, intimidate, abuse, neglect, deny him medical care at a crucial point in his life. Respondent Trustees Roberto and Alejandra denied decedent the associating with his wife, children and grandchildren, denied spiritual care and they exploited their relationship with David L. Bedolla. Healthcare Representative Graciela conspired and guided Alejandra in her wrongful acts and secrecy. Respondents were guided by greed and violated the family trust by keeping the terminal illness of Petitioners father a secret. Exhibit No 21: Exhibit No 27: Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No. 16 Page (s) 16.1 through 16.2; Exhibit No 17: Page (s) through 17.2; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 16; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 20; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No 9: Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No. AB 157-AB158:

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -14-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192; Exhibit No. AB196-AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F: 23. UNDISPUTED Trustees Roberto, Alejandra and Healthcare Representative looted David L. Bedolla's legal documents, Deeds to properties and various Living Trusts, Wills created by David L. Bedolla, his collection of pocket knives, jewelry and any and all valuable possessions. David L. Bedolla was desperate, worried, with a respiratory infection, urinary infection, dehydrated, with a large decubitus ulcer in his tail bone and unable to walk or speak. Exhibit No 21: Exhibit No 27: Exhibit No 28; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No. 16 Page (s) 16.1 - 16.2; Exhibit No 17: Page (s) - 17.2; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 16; Exhibit No 18; Exhibit No 20; Exhibit No. AB 162; Exhibit No 9: Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143; Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No. AB 157-AB158: Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192; Exhibit No. AB196-AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F: The David L. Bedolla Living Trust is invalid and unenforceable, Respondents cannot be unjustly enriched from their wrongful course of conduct and criminal acts. Petitioners have standing to invalidate the David L. Bedolla Living Trust, those who partook in the abuse, neglect, and conspiracy should not profit from their manipulation, fraud, exploitation and undue influenced relationship with decedent. . Exhibit No. AB136-AB137; Exhibit No. AB138; Exhibit No. AB140; Exhibit No. AB141- AB142; Exhibit No. AB143;

24. UNDISPUTED
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -15-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit No. AB146; Exhibit No. AB147AB148; Exhibit No. AB153-AB154; Exhibit No. AB 155; Exhibit No 7; Exhibit No 8; Exhibit No 6; Exhibit No 11; Exhibit No 15; Exhibit No. AB 157-AB158: Exhibit No. AB 191-AB192; Exhibit No. AB196AB198; Exhibit No 11; Respondents Exhibit B; Exhibit C; Exhibit D; Exhibit E; Exhibit F:

Dated: August 24, 2011

_______________________________

_______________________________

________________________________

________________________________

Petitioners Separate Statement Of Facts in Opposition To Respondents Motion For Summary Judgment on the Pleadings -16-