Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki

Department 58

Hearing Date: April 30, 2025

Case Name: McFarlane v. Carter

Case No.: 25STCV01950

Matter: Demurrer and Motion to Strike

Moving Party: Defendant LaShaun Carter

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: The Demurrer to the Complaint is sustained. The motion to strike is moot.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant LaShaun Carter forged the signature of Plaintiff Giovani McFarlane’s mother on a deed, transferring her ownership interest in the real property located at 6401 7^th Ave, California 90043. No specific causes of action are alleged.

On March 21, 2025, Defendant demurred to the Complaint. No opposition was filed.

The demurrer is sustained. The motion to strike is moot.

Legal Standard for Demurrers

A demurrer is an objection to a pleading, the grounds for which are apparent from either the face of the complaint or a matter of which the court may take judicial notice. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.30, subd. (a); see also Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The purpose of a demurrer is to challenge the sufficiency of a pleading “by raising questions of law.” (Postley v. Harvey (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 280, 286.) “In the construction of a pleading, for the purpose of determining its effect, its allegations must be liberally construed, with a view to substantial justice between the parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.) The court “ ‘ “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law . . . .” ’ ” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525.) In applying these standards, the court liberally construes the complaint to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Picton v. Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 733.)

Analysis

As a preliminary matter, the Complaint fails to allege any specific causes of action. As such, the Complaint does not comply with the California Rules of Court, Rule 2.112. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 2.112 [requiring the pleadings to state the number and nature of each cause of action in the body of the document and to state as to each separate cause of action the party or parties to whom it was directed].)

Additionally, Plaintiff, as a tenant in common with his mother, does not provide the grounds upon which he has the right to dispute Defendant’s action in forging Plaintiff’s mother’s signature on a deed transferring her interest in the real property.

In California, the ownership of property by several persons is either: (1) of joint interests; (2) of partnership interests; (3) of interests in common; or (4) of community interest. (Civ. Code, § 682.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges he owned the property as a tenant in common with his mother.

“There is no right of survivorship in a tenancy in common. Instead, each tenant may pass his or her interest in the property to heirs and devisees. [¶] Cotenants (both joint tenants and tenants in common) may encumber their separate interest without the consent, and without affecting the interests, of other tenants.” (Dieden v. Schmidt (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 645, 650.)

Based on the foregoing legal authority, the claim appears to be held by Plaintiff’s mother; Plaintiff has not identified the basis for his standing to bring a legal challenge on his mother’s behalf – or, in this case, on behalf of her estate.

The demurrer to the Complaint is sustained. The motion to strike based on the same arguments as the demurrer is now moot.

Conclusion

The demurrer to the Complaint is sustained. The motion to strike is moot. Plaintiff shall have leave to amend. An amended pleading shall be filed and served on or before May 30, 2025.

Website by Triangulus