Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 18STCV08878, Date: 2023-04-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV08878    Hearing Date: April 10, 2023    Dept: 58

Judge Bruce Iwasaki

Hearing Date:             April 10, 2023

Case Name:                Mariam S. Mena aka Mariam Abdel Malak v. United No. 1, LLC

Case No.:                    18STCV08878

Matter:                        Motion for Summary Judgment

Moving Party:             Defendant United No. 1, LLC

Tentative Ruling:      The Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. 

This is a quiet title action in which the Plaintiff alleges she holds title to certain real property, located at 1303 S. Western Ave., Los Angeles, California (the “Property”), as community property in connection with the dissolution of her marriage to her former husband, Atef Abdou, in LASC Case No. BD559444 (the “Dissolution Action”). Plaintiff’s sole cause of action is for quiet title.

Defendant’s Requests for Judicial Notice

The Court denies Defendant’s requests for judicial notice as to Exhibits D, G, I, K, L, and V, and grants the remainder of Defendant’s requests for judicial notice. To the extent Defendant seeks for the Court consider pleadings such as the First Amended Complaint and Defendant’s Answer, the Court may take judicial notice of its own records. (Evid. Code § 452.)

Plaintiff’s Requests for Judicial Notice

The Court denies Plaintiff’s requests for judicial notice, as Plaintiff requested the Court take judicial notice of many of the same documents in Defendant’s request for judicial notice. Plaintiff also requested the Court take judicial notice of what seems to be virtually every pleading filed in connection with various motions in this action and in the Dissolution Action, when such documents are not dispositive of this motion. Plaintiff further requested the Court take judicial notice of various facts that are similarly of little consequence to this motion.

Preliminary Issues

Defendant contends the Court should strike Plaintiff’s second opposition filed on December 8, 2022 because: (1) she already filed an opposition on October 31, 2022, when she sought a continuance of the hearing on this motion; and (2) the second opposition was untimely, as the hearing on this motion was then scheduled for December 18, 2022, which is less than the 14-day deadline for oppositions to motions for summary judgment per Code of Civil Procedure section 437c(b)(2). The Court declines to so strike Plaintiff’s second opposition filed on December 8, 2022. It does not make sense that the opposing party would be required to file an opposition at the same time they are requesting a continuance to conduct more discovery or obtain evidence so they can respond to the motion for summary judgment. Additionally, since the hearing on this motion was continued multiple times, eventually to April 10, 2023, even if Plaintiff’s second opposition was untimely, it was no longer untimely once the hearing date was continued beyond the 14-day opposition deadline. Accordingly, the Court will consider Plaintiff’s second opposition filed on December 8, 2022.

Motion for Summary Judgment

Defendant seeks summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s sole cause of action for quiet title.

To establish a claim for quiet title, the plaintiff must allege: (1) description of the property; (2) plaintiff's title or interest and the basis; (3) defendant’s asserting adverse claim or antagonistic property interest; (4)date as of which the determination is sought; and (5) prayer for determination of title. (CCP § 761.020.)

“Remedies for breach of the fiduciary duty by one spouse… shall include, but not be limited to, an award to the other spouse of 50 percent, or an amount equal to 50 percent, of any asset undisclosed or transferred in breach of the fiduciary duty plus attorney's fees and court costs.” (Fam. Code § 1101(g).) “[I]f the claimant spouse obtains an award equal to 50 percent of an undisclosed asset… then the claimant spouse would necessarily abandon the community interest in the asset, as subdivision (g) clearly provides that the claimant spouse either receive his or her 50 percent interest in the asset or an amount equal to that interest, but not both. Under that scenario, the breaching spouse would retain the asset as separate property, the claimant spouse would receive an award equivalent to his or her community interest in the asset, and there would be no community asset to divide upon dissolution.” (In re Schleich (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 267, 287) [emphasis in original].

Plaintiff’s claim for quiet title is based on rulings made in the Dissolution Action, (First Amended Complaint, ¶ 2(f)), which involved disposition of the Property as between Plaintiff and her ex-husband. Plaintiff contends that she has a community property interest in the Property based on rulings made in the Dissolution Action, wherein the court in that case found that Plaintiff’s ex-husband had breached his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by not disclosing the sales of his membership interests in Defendant business United No. 1, LLC. (Ex. J, 9:22-23.) The Property was originally acquired in 2004 in Defendant’s name during the marriage and was Defendant’s sole asset when Plaintiff’s ex-husband sold his membership interests in Defendant company. By selling his membership interests, Plaintiff’s ex-husband effectively sold all of the community’s interest in the Property. (RFJN, Ex. J, 6:23-10:27.) Accordingly, the court in that case ruled in Plaintiff’s favor on her claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and awarded her $637,000, i.e., 50% of the Property’s value at the time. (RFJN, Ex. J, 10:26-27.) The court of appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment. (RFJN, Ex. R.)

Defendant moves for summary judgment on four bases, namely: (1) Plaintiff has no interest in Defendant company United No. 1, LLC, or in the Property; (2) Plaintiff’s claim is time barred; (3) Plaintiff is judicially estopped from asserting a community property interest in the Property; and (4) Plaintiff is collaterally estopped from asserting a community property interest in the Property.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff has no interest in Defendant company or in the Property it owns because the Dissolution Action already awarded Plaintiff a judgment of $637,000 to compensate her for the loss of her community property interest in Defendant United No. 1, which owns the real property asset. Defendant contends that the judgment for $637,000 is an alternative remedy Plaintiff received under Family Code section 1101(g), which extinguished her community property interests in Defendant and in the Property. Defendant cites In re Schleich, which holds that if the claimant spouse elects to receive the value of the community interest in the property in lieu of the interest itself, the claimant spouse’s community property interest is extinguished. (In re Schleich, supra, 8 Cal.App.5th at 287.) The Court agrees and finds that In re Schleich controls here. Defendant has presented evidence that Plaintiff obtained a $637,000 judgment in connection with her ex-husband’s improper sale of his interests in Defendant, and the Property by extension.

The Court further notes that the Family Court in the Dissolution Action recently denied Plaintiff’s request for order seeking division of Defendant the Property per Family Code section 2556, finding that the court already adjudicated the issue regarding Plaintiff’s interest in Defendant and the Property and that the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the judgment. (Notice of Lodgment of Minute Order and Order on Submitted Matter in LASC Case No. BD559444 (3/23/2023); see also RFJN, Ex. J, 19:24 [“There are no longer any real property assets.”]) Defendant has thus met its moving burden in establishing the absence of a trial issue of material fact. The burden now shifts to Plaintiff to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

Plaintiff’s oppositions provide no substantive arguments to rebut Defendant’s contentions. Plaintiff’s contentions regarding the rulings of the court in the Dissolution Action are without merit. There is nothing in those rulings that show Plaintiff has a continuing community property interest in Defendant and the Property; in fact, the rulings are to the contrary. (RFJN, Ex. J, 19:24 [“There are no longer any real property assets.”]) Moreover, the language in In re Schleich makes clear that the claimant spouse is entitled to either the interest in the undisclosed asset or its value, but not both. (8 Cal.App.5th, supra, at p. 287) [“subdivision (g) clearly provides that the claimant spouse either receive his or her 50 percent interest in the asset or an amount equal to that interest, but not both.”] [emphasis in original].) The law makes clear that Plaintiff extinguished her community property interest in Defendant and the Property when she was awarded 50% of the value of the Property as part of her judgment award against her ex-husband. Plaintiff cannot claim she has both a judgment for $637,000 and a community property interest in Defendant or the Property. Plaintiff has thus failed to establish the existence of a triable issue of material fact.

Accordingly, the Court declines to consider Defendant’s remaining arguments for this motion, and will grant Defendant’s motion.

Conclusion

The Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.