Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV10773, Date: 2023-04-06 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10773 Hearing Date: April 6, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Carpenter vs. Miner, et. al.,
Case No. 22STCV10773
Tentative
Ruling re: Plaintiff’s Motion for
Summary Judgment
Plaintiff David Carpenter (Plaintiff) moves for summary
judgment against Defendant Ronald D.
Miner, individually and as Administrator of Estate of Josephine Duggan
(Defendant) on his claim to quiet title based on adverse possession. The motion
is denied.
The function of a motion for summary judgment or
adjudication is to allow a determination as to whether an opposing party can
show evidentiary support for a pleading or claim and if not to enable an order
of summary dismissal without the need for trial. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843 (Atlantic
Richfield).) Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c, subdivision (c)
“requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence
submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and
uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable
issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor
Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.)
As to each claim as framed by the complaint, the
defendant moving for summary judgment must satisfy the initial burden of proof
by presenting facts to negate an essential element, or to establish a defense.
(Code Civ. Proc, § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) Courts “liberally construe the evidence
in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning
the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006)
39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)
Once the moving party has met that burden, the
burden shifts to the opposing party to show that a triable issue of one or more
material facts exists as to that cause of action or a defense thereto. To
establish a triable issue of material fact, the party opposing the motion must
produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster
v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.)
The
Court’s “role on summary judgment is simply to decide whether the parties
possess evidence requiring the fact-weighing procedures of a trial. (Soto v.
County of Riverside (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 492, 496.) “The purpose of the
summary judgment procedure is not to try the issues, but merely to
determine whether there are issues to be tried.” (Orser v. George
(1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 660, 668.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint seeks to quiet title to the real
property located at 215 S. Burlington Ave., Los Angeles, CA, (the Property)
based on Plaintiff’s alleged adverse possession of the Property from 2005 to
the present. The Property was first held in joint tenancy by Kenneth and
Josephine Duggan under a Grant Deed dated March 10, 1971. (Defendant’s
Undisputed Material Facts (DUMF) 28; Miner Decl ¶ 2.) Kenneth passed away on
November 18, 1986, after which his interest in the Property passed to
Josephine. (DUMF 29.) Josephine passed away on July 4, 1987, leaving her son,
Shaun Duggan, as her sole heir. (DUMF 30.) On February 16, 2021, Shaun, prior
to his death, executed his Last Will and Testament, bequeathing his personal
and real property to his longtime companion, Kathy De La Rosa, as well as a
notarized Assignment of all of his interests. (DUMF 31.) Defendant Ronald D.
Miner was appointed by De La Rosa as the administrator of the Estate of
Josephine Duggan on March 2, 2022. (DUMF 32.) Defendant, through counsel,
served a Demand for Surrender on Plaintiff on March 23, 2022. (DUMF 33; Comp.,
Ex. 1.)
Plaintiff moved into the Property in November 2005.
(Carpenter Decl. ¶ 9.) From November 2005 through 2007, Plaintiff engaged in
various cleaning work on the Property, including landscaping , removing junked
vehicles form the back yard, painting the interior and exterior, and removing
garbage and abandoned belongings. (UMF 4-6; Carpenter Decl. ¶¶ 10-15.)
Photographs taken before and after this period show noticeable improvement to
the Property’s exterior and interior. (Thompson Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10; Exs. E, H.) In
addition to the repairs, Plaintiff replaced the old phone lines, set up new
phone lines, and paid for water, electricity, sanitation, and cable on the
Property. (Carpenter Decl. ¶¶ 24-28; Thompson Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. I.) Plaintiff
states that he has occupied the Property continuously from November 2005 to the
present. (Carpenter Decl. ¶ 42.) Plaintiff was not contacted by any purported
owner of the Property until he received the Demand for Surrender letter on
March 23, 2022. (Carpenter Decl. ¶ 37; Comp., Ex. 1.)
To warrant summary judgment, Plaintiff must prove each
element of his claim for adverse possession; if he meets that burden, the
burden then shifts to Defendant to show that a triable issue of material fact
exists as to the claim or to a defense. (Code Civ. Proc. § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)
“To establish adverse possession,
the claimant must prove: (1) possession
under claim of right or color of title; (2)
actual, open,
and notorious occupation of the premises constituting reasonable
notice to the true owner; (3) possession
which is adverse
and hostile to the true owner;
(4) continuous
possession for at least five years; and (5) payment of all taxes assessed
against the property during the five-year period.” (Main Street Plaza v.
Cartwright & Main, LLC (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1054; Code Civ. Proc. § 325.)
The fifth element of Plaintiff’s adverse possession claim
requires that he “timely paid all state, county, or municipal taxes that
have been levied and assessed upon the land for the period of five years during
which the land has been occupied and claimed.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 325, subd.
(b).) A party’s payment of the requisite taxes “shall be established by
certified records of the county tax collector.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff
has not presented certified records of the county tax collector showing that he
timely paid all taxes assessed against the Property during any five-year period
of possession and occupancy. (See Nellie Gail
Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4
Cal.App.5th 982, 1000.) While Plaintiff submits a number of documents showing
property tax payments and tax bills, these records are not certified, and also do
not show timely payment of taxes for any continuous five-year period. (Thompson
Decl., Ex. J.) Plaintiff concedes in this motion that he made tax payments only
in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, and 2016, which would be insufficient to
support adverse possession. (Motion, p. 12.) Consequently, Plaintiff has not
met his initial burden to prove each element of his adverse possession claim.
Plaintiff’s failure to timely pay taxes on the Property for
a five-year period is confirmed by records from the County of Los Angeles
Treasurer and Tax Collector presented by Defendant. (Candelas Decl. ¶ 2,
Ex. A [7].) The records, covering 2014 to the present, show that Plaintiff paid
two untimely installments for 2014 property taxes in November 2014 and April
2015; paid no taxes in 2016; paid defaulted taxes in October 2017 and March
2018; and paid one untimely installment of 2017 taxes in March 2018. (Ibid.)
Because Plaintiff has not shown payment of all taxes
assessed against the Property during a five-year period of possession, summary
judgment is denied on Plaintiff’s claims for quiet title and adverse possession.