Judge: Curtis A. Kin, Case: 22STCV28729, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV28729    Hearing Date: April 27, 2023    Dept: 72

DEMURRER

Date:             4/27/23 (9:30 AM)                 

Case:            Maria Estela Carreno v. Maria Guadalupe Lopez et al. (22STCV28729)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant Maria Espinoza’s Demurrer to Complaint is OVERRULED.

As a preliminary matter, defendant Maria Espinoza did not file any declaration with the demurrer indicating an attempt to meet and confer with plaintiff Maria Estela Carreno before filing the demurrer, as required by CCP § 430.41(a)(3). Defendant Espinoza is admonished to comply with the meet and confer requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court, however, recognizes that Espinoza filed a declaration with her Reply indicating that a telephonic meet and confer regarding the basis for demurrer took place on October 20, 2022. (Apollo Decl. ¶ 3.) The Court rules on the merits of the demurrer.

With respect to the second cause of action for cancellation of deed and quiet title, defendant Maria Espinoza is alleged to be a lender who has no title interest in the subject property. (Compl. ¶ 23.) According to Espinoza, regardless of whether defendant Maria Guadalupe Lopez justifiably recorded a quitclaim deed, there is no allegation indicating that the deed of trust recorded in favor of defendant Espinoza was improperly recorded.

However, in a quiet title cause of action, plaintiff Maria Estela Carreno is required to name all persons having adverse claims to title of the subject property. (CCP §§ 762.010 [“The plaintiff shall name as defendants in the action the persons having adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought.”]; 762.060(b) [“In an action under this section, the plaintiff shall name as defendants the persons having adverse claims that are of record or known to the plaintiff or reasonably apparent from an inspection of the property”].) This includes Espinoza, the alleged lender and beneficiary on a deed of trust recorded against the subject property. (Paterra v. Hansen (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 507, 538 [beneficiary with “authority to enforce rights under a deed of trust” must be named a defendant in quiet title action to resolve enforceability of deed of trust].)

Espinoza concedes that she is an indispensable party. (Reply at 3:10-11.) Nevertheless, Espinoza maintains that she should only be a nominal party and that plaintiff improperly prayed for monetary damages in the second cause of action against Espinoza. However, a demurrer only lies as to an entire cause of action. (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont Gen. Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 119.) Because Espinoza allegedly holds a deed of trust encumbering the subject property, she is properly named as a defendant.

The demurrer to the second cause of action is OVERRULED.

With respect to the third cause of action for declaratory relief, a general demurrer to a cause of action for declaratory relief must be overruled as long as an actual controversy is alleged; the pleader need not establish any entitlement to a favorable judgment. (Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 592, 606.) Here, plaintiff alleges that, because defendant Lopez improperly recorded the quitclaim deed, Lopez’s subsequent taking of loans from Espinoza and resulting deed of trust are void. (Compl. ¶ 27.) Because the deed of trust is currently encumbering the property that plaintiff allegedly owns, plaintiff sufficiently alleges the existence of an actual controversy regarding her ownership rights in the subject property. As Espinoza may seek to foreclose on the deed of trust, the third cause of action “operates to declare future rights, not to address past wrongs.” (Monterey Coastkeeper v. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 1, 13.)

The demurrer to the third cause of action is OVERRULED.

Ten (10) days to answer.