Judge: Armen Tamzarian, Case: 24STCV01608, Date: 2024-04-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV01608    Hearing Date: April 9, 2024    Dept: 52

Defendant Qi Zhu’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s Complaint

            Defendant Qi Zhu demurs to the entire complaint by plaintiff Keren Zhang.  Defendant’s demurrer is defective because there is no valid proof of service.  The only proof of service defendant filed is an incomplete template.  All signature lines are blank.  The proof of service also never identifies the name of the person who purportedly served the papers. 

Assuming defendant properly served the demurrer on plaintiff, the court would overrule it on the merits.

Plaintiff’s Complaint

            Plaintiff Keren Zhang’s complaint alleges, in its entirety: “Keren Zhang bought a condo four years ago, and I am the only who borrow the loan and he is not, we both name on title, however, he never paid the mortgage payments, HOA fee and property tax fee until now.  So I would like to sue him to remove his name on title and I also require him to pay past four years mortgage payment, HOA fee and property tax fee.”  

Uncertainty

            Defendant demurs to the complaint based on uncertainty.  “Demurrers for uncertainty are disfavored, and are granted only if the pleading is so incomprehensible that a defendant cannot reasonably respond.”  (A.J. Fistes Corp. v. GDL Best Contractors, Inc. (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 677, 695, internal quotes and alterations omitted.)  The complaint must sufficiently apprise defendants of the claims against them.  (Ibid.) 

            The complaint is not uncertain.  Defendant argues it is uncertain because it “contains only one handwritten paragraph, with an unintelligible calligraphy and jumbled sentence construction, which makes it barely understandable to the point that Defendant cannot reasonably respond.”  (Memo., p. 6.)  That the complaint is written by hand or grammatically incorrect does not make it uncertain.  Though not written perfectly, the complaint is legible enough and includes a plain statement of factual allegations.  The complaint states plaintiff wants “to remove [defendant’s] name on title” and wants to “require him to pay” for mortgage payments, HOA fees, and property taxes because Zhu co-owns the property but has not paid for any of those expenses.  The nature of plaintiff’s claims against defendant is clear.        

Defendant also argues the complaint is uncertain because it does not identify or label any causes of action.  Courts must overrule a demurrer “[i]f the complaint states a cause of action under any theory, regardless of the title under which the factual basis for relief is stated.”  (Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 38.)  The complaint does not include any titles of causes of action, but as discussed below, it alleges a factual basis for a cause of action on one legal theory.  

Sufficiency of Allegations

Plaintiff alleges sufficient facts for a cause of action for contribution by a cotenant of real property.  “[A] cotenant who pays taxes, trust deed payments or other charges against the property or expends money for the preservation of the property … is entitled to contribution from the cotenant.”  (Milian v. De Leon (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 1185, 1194.)  “As an incident to cotenancy relationship, either cotenant has a right to demand of the other an accounting as to rents and profits of the cotenancy, which, of course, involves the right of one cotenant to have refunded to him by the other his proportion of any expenditures made for the benefit of the common property.”  (Willmon v. Koyer (1914) 168 Cal. 369, 372.)

            The complaint alleges both Zhang and Zhu are “on title” to real property, “a condo.”  It alleges Zhu “never paid the mortgage payments, HOA fee and property tax fee.”  When liberally construed, the complaint sufficiently alleges Zhang and Zhu are co-tenants who each own a 50% interest in real property, Zhang has paid 100% of the common expenses, and therefore she is entitled to contribution of 50% of those expenses from Zhu.

Defendant’s demurrer argues, “Plaintiff has not specified which parcel of real estate she is claiming quiet title to, its precise location, the date when it was acquired, the terms of the loan she is referring to, the amount and dates of the mortgage payments for which she is seeking reimbursement.”  (Memo, p. 8.)  Those details are not necessary to allege a claim for contribution by a cotenant.  “The plaintiff is required to plead only ultimate facts, not evidentiary facts.”  (C. W. Johnson & Sons, Inc. v. Carpenter (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 165, 169.) 

            The complaint does not, however, allege sufficient facts to “remove [defendant’s] name on title.”  A cotenant not paying his share of the mortgage, HOA fees, and property tax is not a basis for removing him from the title to the property.  Moreover, removing someone from legal title to real property requires an action to quiet title under Code of Civil Procedure section 760.010 et seq.  A complaint for quiet title must be verified under oath and must include other information specified in Code of Civil Procedure section 761.020.  Plaintiff’s complaint is not verified and does not include all the required information. 

Disposition

            Defendant Qi Zhu’s demurrer is overruled.  Defendant shall answer plaintiff’s complaint within 20 days.