Judge: Bruce G. Iwasaki, Case: 22STCV11489, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV11489    Hearing Date: January 9, 2023    Dept: 58

JUDGE BRUCE G. IWASAKI

Hearing Date:             January 9, 2023

Case Name:                Sing Jih Liu, individually and as successor-in-interest of Szu Siu Liu v. Valco Properties Inc.

Case No.:                    22STCV11489

Matter:                        Request for Entry of Default Judgment

Moving Party:             Plaintiff Sing Jih Liu, individually and as successor-in-interest of Szu Siu Liu

This is a complaint for declaratory relief as to real property.  In May 1981, Szu Siu Liu and Sing Jih Liu, husband and wife, purchased five units in a condominium building.  Six months later, the couple sold the units to Valco Properties Inc. (Defendant), in return for a Corporation Deed of Trust and Assignment of Rents.  The amount on the Note was for $595,000.00 at a 10% interest rate.

In March 1998, Defendant Valco defaulted on the Note.  Valco then executed a Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure, transferring the Properties back to Szu Siu Liu and Sing Jih Liu.  Three months later, Suz Siu Liu passed away.  The Complaint avers that the Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure was never recorded. 

Plaintiff Sing Jih Liu, in her individual capacity and as successor-in-interest of Szu Siu Liu, requests declaratory relief as to title on the Properties.  She concedes that the recordation of the deed is not necessary for transference of title, but she seeks a judicial declaration “to obtain certainty with respect to the rights of the parties and to avoid multiplicity of litigation.” 

The Court previously requested supplemental briefing on the following issues:

·       What is the “actual, present” controversy? The Complaint mentions “multiplicity of litigation,” but it is unclear what this means.

·       If there are tenants at the property, are any of them challenging Plaintiff’s title?

·       Is there an actual issue with title? Has a title report been completed?

·       Does the Recorder’s office require a court order because one of the grantees is now deceased? Or is there some other impediment to recording?

Plaintiff now submits additional briefing.  As to the actual controversy, she asserts there is a defect in title because Valco is the record owner.  She avers that while nobody is challenging title, she intends to sell the Property in the near future and that this defect will interfere with that right because the title company will not insure the sale.  (Liu Decl., ¶¶ 7-8.)  

            In addition, Plaintiff argues that Valco was allegedly suspended at the time it executed the Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure.  Thus, she argues, the deed from Valco to Plaintiff and her late husband may be voidable.  She seeks a court judgment to preempt any concerns by a title company as to the voidability of that deed once it is recorded.

            The Court finds that this is sufficient to justify declaratory relief and grants Plaintiff’s request for default judgment.   Plaintiff may submit a form of Judgment to Department 58.