Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 21STCV07013, Date: 2023-04-07 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Department 52 via email at smcdept52@lacourt.org and indicate that the parties are submitting on the tentative ruling. Please provide the attorney's name and represented party. Please notify the opposing side via email if submitting on the Court's tentative ruling.

Case Number: 21STCV07013    Hearing Date: April 7, 2023    Dept: 52

Order to Show Cause Re: Entry of Default Judgment

            Plaintiff Santos Frias, as Trustee of the 2014 Frias Separate Property Family Trust Dated March 23, 2014, requests court judgment by default against defendant Gloria M. Frias.

Plaintiff seeks to quiet title to real property located at 4446 Gateside Drive, Los Angeles, California 90032.  “The court shall examine into and determine the plaintiff’s title against the claims of all the defendants.  The court shall not enter judgment by default but shall in all cases require evidence of plaintiff’s title and hear such evidence as may be offered respecting the claims of any of the defendants, other than claims the validity of which is admitted by the plaintiff in the complaint.  The court shall render judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law.”  (CCP § 764.010.) 

The court exercises its discretion to require plaintiff’s live testimony at the hearing. 

The court further notes that plaintiff’s papers in support of the application for default judgment may not show grounds for quieting title against defendant.  In a quiet title action, the “plaintiff must prove a title in himself superior to that of defendant.”  (Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 918.) 

Plaintiff ‘s complaint seeks to cancel a quitclaim deed to himself, his late wife, and defendant as joint tenants.  (Comp., Ex. A.)  The complaint alleges, “Plaintiff and his wife put Defendant on title under the belief that the Quitclaim Deed would serve the purpose of a testamentary instrument, such as a will, that would take effect only upon their deaths.  As such, Plaintiff and his wife believed, and intended, that Defendant, their daughter, would inherit the Subject Property upon both of their deaths.  However, Plaintiff and his wife believed they would be able to remove Defendant from their would-be estate plan whenever they chose to do so.  Plaintiff and his wife were unaware that Defendant would have to consent to have herself removed from title to the Subject Property.”  (Comp., ¶ 9.)

In his supporting declaration, plaintiff states, “If I had known that signing the form itself would have given Defendant an interest in the form of joint tenancy in the Subject Property, I would not have done so.  I relied on the confidence that I placed in my late wife, which is why I signed the form.  I was not aware of this transfer of title until 2014, when I created my living trust.  The living trust contains my interest in the Subject Property.”  (Frias Decl., ¶ 3.)  He further states defendant “resided in the Subject Property when she was a minor, which was more than twenty years ago, but has not resided in the Subject Property since then” (id., ¶ 4) and she “has never paid property taxes or expended any money towards maintenance or repairs on the Subject Property” (id., ¶ 6).

Plaintiff’s supporting papers rely on two cases where the plaintiff relied on misrepresentations or fraud by the defendant himself.  (Gross v. Needham (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 446, 453-454; Steiner v. Steiner (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 665, 667-669.)  Here, the record does not show defendant herself made any misrepresentations about the quitclaim deed.  The record instead shows an alleged misrepresentations by plaintiff’s late wife.  But plaintiff does not seek any relief against his late wife.

The court therefore requests further briefing on the issue of why the quitclaim deed plaintiff seeks to cancel is not valid.  Plaintiff shall file any supplemental brief in support of his request for default judgment by May 8, 2023.

The court hereby continues the order to show cause re: default to May 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m.  Plaintiff Santos Frias must appear in person to testify at the hearing.