Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 22STCV18567, Date: 2022-08-22 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV18567 Hearing Date: August 22, 2022 Dept: 52
Tentative Ruling:
Defendant
Jerry Davidson’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike
Demurrer
Defendant
Jerry Davidson, individually and as Trustee of the Claus Von Couch Living Trust
dated March 22, 2022, demurs to all three causes of action alleged in plaintiff
David Abbasi’s complaint.
The
court will discuss the causes of action out of order because the first two
causes of action rely on the third.
Summary of Allegations and Facts Subject
to Judicial Notice
Plaintiff
David Abbasi alleges that in 2008, he got his brother, defendant Sean Abbasi,
to purchase real property for him.
(Comp., ¶ 11.) Plaintiff “did not
have enough credit to qualify for a loan,” so Sean got a loan and got title to the
property in his name. (Ibid.) Plaintiff made all the payments on the home,
and Sean agreed that plaintiff “would remain the true owner of the home.” (Ibid.)
Plaintiff moved into the property and paid
the mortgage. (Comp., ¶ 14.) In 2020, plaintiff and Sean entered a written
agreement under which plaintiff would assume or refinance the mortgage. (Id., ¶ 16.) Sean Abbasi then signed a quitclaim deed to
put plaintiff on record title. (Ibid.) The quitclaim deed was not, however recorded
until 2022. (Id., ¶ 25, Ex. 3.)
In 2022, “Sean apparently decided to sell
the Property without [plaintiff’s] knowledge or permission.” (Comp., ¶ 19.) “Unbeknownst to [plaintiff], at some point in
2022, Sean and” defendant Jerry Davidson “entered into an agreement regarding
the purported sale of the Property.” (Id.,
¶ 20.) Davidson paid $80,000 for the
property, which was worth significantly more than that. (Ibid.) Plaintiff alleges his brother told Davidson
that plaintiff “was making payments on the mortgage and lived on the
Property.” (Id., ¶ 21.) Plaintiff alleges Davidson “knew that
[plaintiff] was the rightful owner of the Property.” (Id., ¶ 22.)
The grant deed from Sean Abbasi to Davidson
was recorded on April 6, 2022. (RJN, Ex.
1.) The quitclaim deed from Sean Abbasi
to plaintiff David Abbasi was recorded one week later, on April 13, 2022. (Comp., Ex. 3; RJN, Ex. 2.)
Third Cause of Action for Fraudulent
Concealment
Plaintiff
fails to allege sufficient facts for fraudulent concealment against Davidson. Fraudulent concealment requires: (1) the
defendant concealed or suppressed a material fact; (2) defendant had a duty to
disclose the fact to plaintiff; (3) defendant intentionally concealed or
suppressed the fact with intent to defraud plaintiff; (4) plaintiff must have
been unaware of the fact and would have acted otherwise if she had known of the
concealed fact; and (5) plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the
concealment. (Boschma v. Home Loan
Center, Inc. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 230, 248.) Fraud requires more specific pleading than
other causes of action. (Alfaro v.
Community Housing Improvement System & Planning Assn., Inc. (2009)
171 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1384.)
Plaintiff
does not specifically allege facts establishing these elements against
Davidson. In the fraud cause of action,
the complaint alleges:
48. [Plaintiff
David] Abbasi is informed and believes that Sean [Abbasi] and the Davidson
Defendants were aware of the following facts regarding 8364 Tunney Avenue,
Northridge, California 91324:
a. Abbasi and Sean
had an agreement whereby Abbasi would pay off the Chase Home Loan entered into
the for the Property in exchange for title.
b. Abbasi was the
true owner of 8364 Tunney Avenue, Northridge, California 91324.
c. Abbasi was the only
individual making payments on the Property mortgage.
d. Abbasi, Wesley
Fisher, and Scott Fisher lived in the Property at the time Sean and the Davidson
Defendants purported to engage in a real estate transaction for the Property.
49. Sean
intentionally failed to disclose to Abbasi that he was attempting to sell the
Property and Abbasi could not have discovered it.
50. Sean failed to
disclose to Abbasi that Sean purported to engage in a real estate transaction for
the Property with the Davidson Defendants for significantly less than fair
market value.
51. Had the
omitted information been disclosed, Abbasi would have acted differently.
(Comp., ¶¶ 48-51.)
The
complaint thus alleges only that plaintiff’s brother Sean Abbasi failed to
disclose anything to plaintiff. (Comp.,
¶¶ 49-50.) Moreover, Davidson could not
possibly have concealed from plaintiff any of the facts alleged in paragraph 48
because David Abbasi knew all those facts.
Plaintiff David Abbasi necessarily knew of his own agreement with his
brother, that he was the true owner of the property, that he was the only one
paying the mortgage, and that he lived at the property.
Even
if Davidson failed to disclose something he was obligated to disclose, plaintiff
fails to allege he did anything in reliance on Davidson’s omission. He makes only the vague and conclusory
allegation that, “[h]ad the omitted information been disclosed, Abbasi would
have acted differently.” (Comp., ¶ 51.) Plaintiff must specifically allege what he would
have done differently. And he must
specifically allege facts showing he suffered damages as a result of the
actions he took in reliance on defendant’s concealment.
First Cause of Action for Quiet Title
Plaintiff fails
to allege sufficient facts for this cause of action against Davidson. Generally, “the holder of equitable title
cannot maintain a quiet title action against the holder of legal title.” (Liberty National Enterprises, L.P. v.
Chicago Title Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 62, 81 (Liberty).) Plaintiff alleges he is the equitable owner
of the property, while his brother Sean Abbasi owned “record title” and “only
held bare legal title.” (Comp., ¶ 33.) In 2022, Sean Abbasi executed a grant deed
transferring his legal and record title to Davidson. (Comp., ¶ 25; RJN, Ex. 1.)
Plaintiff relies
on the fraud exception to the general rule that an equitable title holder
cannot bring a quiet title action against a legal title holder. “[A]n exception exists ‘when legal title has
been acquired through fraud.’
[Citation.] In that case,
available ‘remedies include quieting title in the defrauded equitable title
holder’s name and making the legal title holder the constructive trustee of the
property for the benefit of the defrauded equitable titleholder.’ ” (Liberty, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p.
81, quoting Warren v. Merrill (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 96, 113-114.)
Plaintiff fails
to allege sufficient facts to invoke the fraud exception. “The general rule that fraud must be
specifically pleaded [citation] applies particularly to quiet title actions.” (Strong v. Strong (1943) 22
Cal.2d 540, 545–546.) “[F]raud must be
pled specifically.” (Lazar v.
Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 645.)
“ ‘This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which show
how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were
tendered.’ ” (Ibid.)
As discussed
above with respect to the third cause of action, plaintiff fails to specifically
allege facts constituting the fraud. In
addition to the allegations of the third cause of action, plaintiff makes
conclusory allegations that he “is informed and believes that Sean and the
Davidson Defendants conspired to defraud Abbasi” (Comp., ¶ 47) and that Davidson
“concealed or suppressed the facts alleged… with the intent to defraud Abbasi”
(Id., ¶ 53). On a demurrer, the
court does not “assume the truth of contentions, deductions, or conclusions of
fact or law.” (Moore v. Regents of
University of California (1990) 51 Cal.3d 120, 125.)
Second Cause of
Action for Declaratory Relief
Plaintiff fails to allege sufficient
facts for declaratory relief against Davidson.
This cause of action relies on the other two causes of action and
therefore fails along with them.
Moreover, this cause of action is
superfluous. When the “issues invoked
in” a cause of action for declaratory relief “already [are] fully engaged by
other causes of action,” “declaratory relief [is] unnecessary and
superfluous.” (Hood v. Superior Court
(1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 319, 324.) Quiet
title is a specific type of declaratory relief for rights in real
property. (See Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13
Cal.App.5th 513, 524 [its purpose is “to finally settle and determine, as
between the parties, all conflicting claims to the property in
controversy”].)
Disposition
Defendant
Jerry Davidson’s demurrer to all three causes of action alleged in plaintiff
David Abbasi’s complaint is sustained with 20 days’ leave to amend.
Motion to Strike
Defendant Jerry Davidson moves to strike three
portions of plaintiff David Abbasi’s complaint.
The motion to strike is moot because the court has sustained Davidson’s
demurrer on the grounds that the complaint fails to state any cause of action
against him.
Tentative Ruling:
Plaintiff
David Abbasi’s Notice of Related Case
Plaintiff David Abbasi filed a
notice of related case for this case and Jerry Davidson v. Wesley Fisher, et
al., No. 22CHUD00349.
The cases
are related. CRC 3.300(a)(3) provides
that cases are related if they “[i]nvolve claims against, title to, possession
of, or damages to the same property.” In
this case, David Abbasi alleges various causes of action including quiet title
against Jerry Davidson regarding real property at 8364
Tunney Ave., Northridge, CA 91324. In
the unlawful detainer action, David Abbasi filed a prejudgment claim of right
to possession. He filed an answer
asserting defenses including some arising from the allegation that he is the
rightful owner of the property. Both cases therefore center on claims against, title to, and
possession of the same property.
The court
finds the cases are related. Case
No. 22CHUD00349 is hereby reassigned to Department 52 at Stanley Mosk
Courthouse.
Plaintiff David Abbasi’s Motion to
Stay Unlawful Detainer Action with Case Number 22CHUD00349
Plaintiff
David Abbasi moves to stay the proceedings in the unlawful detainer action, case
No. 22CHUD00349. Plaintiff relies on Martin-Bragg
v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 367, 385 (Martin-Bragg), which
stated:
When an unlawful
detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property
are simultaneously pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action
is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is
resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions. [Citation.] If it does neither and instead tries the issue
of title under the summary procedures that constrain unlawful detainer
proceedings, the parties’ right to a full trial of the issue of title may be
unfairly expedited and limited. If
complex issues of title are tried in the unlawful detainer proceeding, the
proceeding loses its summary character; defects in the plaintiff's title “are
neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession, nor are they
concluded by the judgment.”
The
issues of title and possession cannot be separated. This is not a case where, for example, the
party in possession claims some third party has title to the property. (See Coyne v. De Leo (2018) 26
Cal.App.5th 801, 818.) Here, David Abbasi
both physically possesses the property and alleges he has title to it. To avoid prejudicing the parties’ right to a
full trial on the issue of title, the court exercises its discretion to stay
the unlawful detainer action.
In
Martin-Bragg, the Court of Appeal noted that “trial courts have
available options to address plaintiffs’ legitimate rights and need for
protection from unjustified delay of the unlawful detainer proceeding, while
still affording reasonable opportunities for discovery and to prepare for trial
of complex issues relating to the property's title. The trial court has discretion, for example,
to sever and separately try the issue of title to the property, while assuring
the availability of fair compensation to the plaintiff for any delay in
acquiring possession.” (Martin-Bragg,
supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 393.)
The
court finds it appropriate and equitable to impose conditions on staying the
unlawful detainer action. To maintain
the stay, David Abbasi must pay defendant Jerry Davidson his monthly mortgage
costs. He must pay Jerry Davidson all
taxes on the property no later than 20 days before the tax payments are
due. Finally, David Abbasi must maintain
the property in its present condition.
The
motion is granted. The court
hereby stays the unlawful detainer action, Jerry Davidson v. Wesley Fisher, et al., No. 22CHUD00349. The non-jury trial in that action set for
August 24, 2022, is hereby vacated.
The court
hereby imposes the following condition on the stay of the unlawful detainer
action:
(1) David
Abbasi must pay defendant Jerry Davidson his monthly mortgage costs;
(2) David Abbasi must pay Jerry Davidson
all taxes on the property no later than 20 days before the tax payments are
due; and
(3) David Abbasi must maintain the
property in its present condition.
Failure
to comply with these conditions will result in lifting the stay of the unlawful
detainer action.
The
court hereby sets a status conference on both actions, No. 22STCV18567 and No.
22CHUD00349, for September 2, 2022, at 8:30 a.m.