Judge: Frank M. Tavelman, Case: 21STCV29739, Date: 2023-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29739    Hearing Date: January 4, 2023    Dept: A

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH CENTRAL DISTRICT - BURBANK

DEPARTMENT A

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS

MP:  Nelson Hernandez (Defendant)

RP:  Zoltan Vnoucsek and Nora Vnoucsek (Plaintiffs)

Requested Relief

MP seeks to quash service of the summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Case Summary

This case is primarily a quiet title action.  On or about October 22, 2996, Bertila Monroy (a/k/a Bertila Monroy Ramos) (“Monroy”) purchased a home with her daughter, Nora Vnoucsek. (FAC ¶12).  Both were on title to the property. (Id.).  Around February 28, 2006,  Monroy refinanced the subject property, and in doing so advised Plaintiff N. Vnoucsek that it was best for the refinancing if only Monroy was on title.  This would result in a better interest rate.  (FAC ¶13). Plaintiff N. Vnoucsek agreed to “sign of the title.”  (Id.)  Plaintiff N. Vnoucsek received no compensation.  (Id).  

Later, Monroy was unable to pay the monthly mortgage payments so Plaintiffs loaned Monroy money to make payments or would pay the mortgage payments themselves.  (FAC ¶14)  Monroy continued in arrears an eventually a Notice of Trustee Sale for $294,369.14 was posted.  (FAC ¶16).  Monroy, having no money to pay the arrears, advised the Plaintiffs they could have the house.  Plaintiffs paid off the arrears stopping the trustee sale and moved into the house.   (FAC ¶18).  Since 2010, Plaintiffs have paid “all mortgages, utilities, insurance, taxes, and upkeep on the property.  Monroy and Defendant lived in the home rent free. (FAC ¶19).  In 2011, Monroy and Defendant moved to Nevada.  Upon moving, Monroy advised Plaintiffs that the house was there’s, and that Monroy would write a will to bequesth the house to her daughter, Plaintiff N. Vnoucsek.  (FAC ¶24).  Based on these representations, Plaintiffs remodeled the home and continued to pay all mortgage payments and other expenses.  (FAC ¶25)

After Monroy died on or about August 17, 2020, there was no will located bequeathing the property to Plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs believe that the will existed, but that Defendant, or someone acting on Defendant’s behalf destroyed the will.  (FAC ¶ 26). Defendant was Monroy’s husband, but Plaintiffs assert that it was a sham marriage for immigration purposes, and that Defendant was already married.  A probate court case has been opened in Los Angeles County for Monroy, but no personal representative has been appointed yet. 

Plaintiff First Amended Complaint asserts the following causes of actions: (1) Promissory Estoppel, Unjust Enrichment, (2) Quiet Title, (3) Equitable Conversion, (4) Declaratory Relief, (5) Partition of Real Property.

Proof of Personal service on Hernandez in Nevada was filed on October 31, 2022 showing a service date of September 20, 2022.  Hernandez contests the Court’s jurisdiction and the service in Nevada.

Summary of Arguments

MP argues that Defendant does not have sufficient ties to California to be subject to personal jurisdiction.   Furthermore, MP asserts that Defendant is simply an heir and is not the personal representative.   The subject property is an asset of the estate and the appropriate defendant is the estate.

RP argues that under California’s Quiet Title Act (CCP §760.01 et seq) requires that all parties must be named prior to a quiet title judgment being entered.  Furthermore, the Court has quasi in rem jurisdiction to resolve the matter concerning real property in this state.

MP argues that RP failed to timely file their opposition, and the Court should treat the motion as unopposed.   Although the Court has discretion under the California Rules of Court to do so, RP explained the good cause reasoning for the delay, and the Court will consider the opposition. (CRC Rule 8.54(c)). 

RP, in its opposition states, “Plaintiff would not oppose the court granting Hernandez’s motion as long as res judicata and collateral estoppel would attach, preventing Hernandez from coming back to this forum in a later or other litigation an claiming ownership interest in the same property.”  (Opp. P 4:15-18)

Law and Analysis

In this instance, the RP has filed suite against the MP as well as Monroy’s Estate.  RP argues that as a potential heir to the estate, RP must list them in the quiet title action for fear that any ruling would not be binding upon them.  However, MP is correct when he asserts that he has not been named the personal representative of the estate, in whose name the subject property is held.  Plaintiff / RP has asserted in the FAC that there was a sham marriage, any current will or codicil was executed under duress or without capacity and that the true controlling document was either destroyed or has not been submitted to the court.  The subject property is in the decedent’s name and therefore part of decedent’s estate currently. (Probate code §9650(a)(1) - estate’s personal representative takes possession or control of all property pending administration of the estate).

Generally, an executor or other personal representative is the person authorized to maintain or defend an action on behalf of a probate estate.  (Probate Code §9820; Civil Code §369(a)).  While in a quiet title action, the heirs may bring a quiet title action pursuant to Probate Code §9654, they are not obligated to do so, and may rely on a personal representative to do so.   

A quiet title decree is necessarily binding not only as against the administrator or executor of an estate against whom it was rendered, but also against the decedent’s heirs or privies.  Estate of Hanson (1954) 126 Cal. App. 2d 71, 76, see also Estate of Baumann (1988) 201 Cal. App. 3d 927, 935. (Citing Estate of Hanson, supra 126 Cal. App. 2d 71).

Given that a quiet title decree is binding against the estate and heirs or privies, the RP’s concession concerning quashing the summons in light of the MP’s argument that the estate’s personal representative should be the party defending the lawsuit, the Court need not determine whether the MP is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. 

The motion to quash the summons is granted due to the concession of the RP and the binding effect on MP/Defendant through the estate’s personal representative.

Conclusion

The Motion to Quash is granted.   RP/Plaintiff does not oppose the motion if any quiet title judgment is binding on the RP/Defendant.  Pursuant to Estate of Hanson and Estate of Baumann such a decree would be binding.

---

RULING:

In the event the parties submit on this tentative ruling, or a party requests a signed order or the court in its discretion elects to sign a formal order, the following form will be either electronically signed or signed in hard copy and entered into the court’s records.

ORDER

Defendant/Moving Party’s Motion to Quash service of Summons came on regularly for hearing on January 4, 2023, with appearances/submissions as noted in the minute order for said hearing, and the court, being fully advised in the premises, did then and there rule as follows:

THE MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS IS GRANTED.

DEFENDANT / MOVING PARTY TO GIVE NOTICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE:  January 4, 2023                                _______________________________

                                                                        F.M. TAVELMAN, Judge

                                                                        Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles