Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV10773, Date: 2023-07-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV10773 Hearing Date: September 12, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Carpenter vs. Miner, et. al.,
Case No. 22STCV10773
Tentative
Ruling re: Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, or in the alternative, Summary Adjudication of Issues
Defendant Ronald D. Miner, individually and as
Administrator of the Estate of Josephine Duggan (Defendant) moves for summary
judgment or summary adjudication against the Complaint of Plaintiff David
Carpenter (Plaintiff). Summary judgment is granted for Defendant.
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. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the basis that Plaintiff
cannot show timely payment of all taxes assessed against the Property for the
statutory period.
“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.)
Payment Records from the
County of Los Angeles Treasurer and Tax Collector show that Plaintiff did not
timely pay taxes on the Property for any continuous five-year period. (Candelas
Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.) Plaintiff concedes that he made timely tax payments only in
2006, 2007, 2008, 2014, 2015, and 2016. (Undisputed Material Facts (UMF) 9.) Taxes
on the Property defaulted in 2016 and 2018, for unpaid taxes of 2015 and 2017.
(UMF 13-14, 17.)
Under California law, “ ‘annual payment
of taxes [for adverse possession] . . . must be established by certified
records of the county tax collector and show that the taxes were paid continuously
throughout the five year statutory period.’ [Citation.] A single lump sum
payment of delinquent taxes for previous years—even if made during a five-year
period of occupancy . . . —cannot be construed as showing ‘continuous’ payments
‘throughout’ the statutory period.” (McLear-Gary v. Scott (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 145, 155.)
Plaintiff does not
dispute his failure to make the requisite tax payments. Because there is no
triable issue of material fact as to this element of Plaintiff’s claims for
adverse possession, summary judgment is granted for Defendant.