Judge: Gail Killefer, Case: 22STCV24299, Date: 2023-05-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV24299 Hearing Date: May 17, 2023 Dept: 37
HEARING DATE: May 17, 2023
CASE NUMBER: 22STCV24299
CASE NAME: CNP 56, LP, et al. v. Ivett
Rodriguez, et al.
TRIAL DATE: Not Set.
PROOF OF SERVICE: OK
MOTION: Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the
alternative, Summary Adjudication
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff CNP 56, LP, formerly
known as CNP 56, LLC.
OPPOSING PARTIES: Defendants, Ivett Rodriguez, Diane Taylor,
and all Persons unknown claiming legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien,
or interest in the Property
OPPOSITION: None filed as of May 15,
2022
REPLY: No Opposition filed.
TENTATIVE: Plaintiff’s motion is
granted. Plaintiff is to give notice and prepare a proposed judgment. An OSC re Proposed Judgment is set for June 2,
2023, at 8:30 a.m.
Background
This is an action for quiet title arising in connection
with property located at 854 E. 32nd Street, Los Angeles, California 90011 (the
“Property”). Plaintiff CNP 56, LP, fka
CNP 56, LLC (“CNP”) alleges that Diana Taylor (“Taylor”), Ivett Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”)
and all other unknown persons claim an interest in the Property (collectively
“Defendants”). According to the Complaint, CNP acquired title to the Property
pursuant to a Grant Deed dated July 18, 2018, and recorded July 31, 2018.
However, according to the Complaint, Taylor signed a Quitclaim Deed dated
February 2, 2021, purporting to convey the Property from “Community Property”
to herself. Further, Taylor asserted further ownership in the Property by
signing a Quitclaim Deed dated June 23, 2021, purportedly conveying the
Property from “Diane Taylor of Chp 56” to Rodriguez. Taylor and Rodriguez
recorded the Quitclaim Deed on August 19, 2021. CNP alleges Defendants have
refused to vacate the Property, even though they do not have legal title to the
Property.
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the sole cause of action for quiet
title. Default was entered against
Defendants Rodriguez and Taylor on September 16, 2022.
On
December 30, 2022, CNP filed its Motion for Summary Judgment. No opposition has
been filed.
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CNP
moves for summary judgment, or, in the alternative, summary adjudication as
follows:
1. Plaintiff
is entitled to summary adjudication as to the Complaint’s only cause of action
for quiet title.
Request for
Judicial Notice
CNP requests
judicial notice of the following in support of its motion:
1. Exhibit
A: Certificates of Status and Certificate of Conversion for CNP.
2. Exhibit
B: Grant Deed for Property to CNP dated July 18, 2018.
3. Exhibit
D: Tax Receipts for payment of Property taxes for Property.
4. Exhibit
F: Quitclaim Deed, 8/19/21, Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office Instr. No. 2021126844,
transf. APN 5120-027-014 from “Diane Taylor of Chp 56” to Ivett Rodriguez.
5. Exhibit
G: Notice of Lis Pendens regarding the Property.
6. Exhibit
H: Notice of Proposed Action regarding the Property.
7. Exhibit
I: Defendants’ Answer in Unlawful Detainer Action, County of Los Angeles
Superior Court, Case No. 21STUD02642.
8. Exhibit
J: Order for Entry of Judgement, dated March 3, 2022, in the Unlawful Detainer
Action.
CNP’s request is granted. The existence and legal
significance of these documents are proper matters for judicial notice. (Evid. Code
§ 452(h).) However, the
court may not take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of the
documents. (Herrera v. Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1366, 1375.) Documents are only judicially noticeable to
show their existence and what orders were made.
The truth of the facts and findings within the documents are not
judicially noticeable. (Lockley v.
Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91
Cal.App.4th 875, 885.)
Discussion
I.
Legal Authority
“The
purpose of the law of summary judgment is to provide courts with a mechanism to
cut through the parties' pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their
allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar
v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) CCP § 437c(a) provides:
A party
may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended
that the action has no merit or that there is no defense to the action or
proceeding. The motion may be made at
any time after 60 days have elapsed since the general appearance in the action
or proceeding of each party against whom the motion is directed or at any
earlier time after the general appearance that the court, with or without
notice and upon good cause shown, may direct….
The motion shall be heard no later than 30 days before the date of
trial, unless the court for good cause orders otherwise. The filing of the motion shall not extend the
time within which a party must otherwise file a responsive pleading.
A
motion for summary judgment may be granted “if all the papers submitted show
that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving
party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (CCP § 437c(c).)
“The
motion shall be supported by affidavits, declarations, admissions, answers to
interrogatories, depositions, and matters of which judicial notice shall or may
be taken. The supporting papers shall
include a separate statement setting forth plainly and concisely all material
facts that the moving party contends are undisputed. Each of the material facts stated shall be
followed by a reference to the supporting evidence. The failure to comply with this requirement
of a separate statement may in the court’s discretion constitute a sufficient
ground for denial of the motion.” (CCP §
437c(b)(1); see also Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 3.1350(c)(2) & (d).)
In
analyzing motions for summary judgment, courts must apply a three-step
analysis: “(1) identify the issues framed by the pleadings; (2) determine
whether the moving party has negated the opponent's claims; and (3) determine
whether the opposition has demonstrated the existence of a triable, material
factual issue.” (Hinesley v. Oakshade Town Center (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 289, 294 (Hinesley).) CCP § 437c(p)(2) provides:
A
defendant or cross-defendant has met his or her burden of showing that a cause
of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the
cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that
there is a complete defense to the cause of action. Once the defendant or cross-defendant has met
that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff or cross-complainant to show
that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of
action or a defense thereto. The
plaintiff or cross-complainant shall not rely upon the allegations or denials
of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but,
instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of
material fact exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.
The
court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the opposing party
and accept all inferences reasonably drawn therefrom.” (Hinesley, 135 Cal.App.4th at p. 294; Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39
Cal.4th 384, 389 [Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the
party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in
favor of that party.”].) A motion for
summary judgment must be denied where the moving party’s evidence does not
prove all material facts, even in the absence of any opposition (Leyva v. Sup. Ct. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d
462, 475) or where the opposition is weak (Salasguevara
v. Wyeth Labs., Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 379, 384, 387).
II.
Factual Summary
A. Background
Plaintiff
acquired the Property through Grant Deed, recorded on July 31, 2018. (Separate
Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) ¶ 2.) CNP acquired the Property
through Probate Case No. 17STPB07453, from the Estate of Alice Motley. (UMF ¶ 4.)
CNP acquired further title policy insurance during the acquisition which showed
free and clear title to the Property, and CNP has continued to pay all property
taxes owed for the Property since acquisition. (UMF ¶¶ 3-5.)
Two Quitclaim
Deeds have been signed by Defendants, and the June 23, 2021 Quitclaim Deed was
recorded conveying the Property from Taylor to Rodriguez. (UMF ¶¶ 6-12.)
Defendants have continued to assert and misrepresent an ownership stake in the
Property following CNP’s acquisition. (UMF ¶¶ 11-13.)
III.
Analysis
A claim for
quiet title should state (1) the legal description of the property and its
street address or common designation, (2) the title of the plaintiff and the
basis of the title, (3) the adverse claims to plaintiff’s title, (4) the date
as of which the determination is sought, and (5) a prayer for determination of
plaintiff against adverse claims. (CCP § 760.020.) “Such an
action is brought, as authorized by the statute, for the purpose of
determining any adverse claim that may be asserted therein by a defendant to
the land in controversy; and this does not mean that the court is simply to
ascertain, as against a plaintiff shown to have a legal interest, whether or
not such defendant has some interest, but also that the court shall declare and
define the interest held by the defendant, if any, so that the plaintiff may
have a decree finally adjudicating the extent of his own interest in the
property in controversy.” (Lechuza Villas West v. California
Coastal Com’n (1997) 60
Cal.App.4th 218, 242.)“The object of the action is to finally settle and
determine, as between the parties, all conflicting claims to the property in
controversy, and to decree to each such interest or estate therein as he may be
entitled to.” (Id.) “Of course, if the plaintiff fails to
show any legal interest in the property in controversy, and as to which he
asserts title, he must fail altogether, and could not complain of a judgment of
nonsuit, but where he shows any legal interest, he is entitled to have that
interest declared by the court.” (Id.)
California courts
have recognized that “[t]he existence of an ‘actual controversy relating to the
legal rights and duties of the respective parties,’ suffices to maintain an
action for declaratory relief.”¿ (Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.¿(2000)
82 Cal.App.4th 592, 605 (Ludgate).)¿ “Any person interested under a
written instrument, ... or under a contract, or who desires a declaration of
his or her rights or duties with respect to another, or in respect to, in, over
or upon property,¿ ... may, in cases of actual controversy relating to the
legal rights and duties of the respective parties, bring an original action or
cross-complaint in the superior court ... for a declaration of his or her
rights and duties in the premises, including a determination of any question of
construction or validity arising under the instrument or contract."¿ (Ibid.,
quoting CCP § 1060.)¿¿¿
The elements of a bona fide purchaser are “payment of
value, in good faith, and without actual or constructive notice of another’s
rights.” (Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th
1238, 1251.) “ ‘[A] bona fide purchaser for value who acquires his interest in
real property without notice of another’s asserted rights in the property takes
the property free of such unknown rights.’ ” (Deutsche Bank National Trust
Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 521.) Actual notice is “express
information of a fact.” (612 South LLC v. Laconic Limited Partnership
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1278 (citing Civil Code § 18). Conversely,
constructive notice is a “legal fiction.” (First Bank v. East West Bank
(First Bank) (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1309, 1314-15.) “To have constructive
notice, a person must have notice or knowledge of the circumstances, ‘which,
upon reasonable inquiry, would lead to that particular fact.’ ” (612 South
LLC, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at 1278.) “The act of recording creates a
conclusive presumption that a subsequent purchaser has constructive notice of
the contents of the previously recorded document.” (Ibid.) The recording
prescribed by law requires the instrument to be indexed for the obvious reason
that “a subsequent purchaser should be charged only with notice of those
documents which are locatable by a search of the proper indexes.” (Lewis v.
Superior Court (Lewis) (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1867; see also Citizens
for Covenant Compliance v. Anderson (1995) 12 Cal.4th 345, 355 (noting that
“[r]ecording consists of copying the instrument in the record book and indexing
it under the names of the parties”).
Here, CNP asserts
summary judgment is merited as to the lone cause of action, as the Complaint
specifically identifies the Property at issue by street address and legal
description, specified the title of which determination is sought, has
described the adverse claims of Defendants to the title of Plaintiff, and has
sought to quiet title as of the date of the filing of this Complaint, July 27,
2022. (Motion, 5-6.)
CNP further
contends it has established “lawful title to the Property by and through its
duly recorded and valid Grant Deed, which was recorded in 2018” and that at the
time “Plaintiff acquired the Property, neither Defendants nor any other parties
claimed an ownership interest in the Property.” (Motion, 6. RJN Exh. B.)
Further, CNP correctly contends
“Plaintiff’s clearly superior paper title alone demonstrates that it is
entitled to a presumption of ownership. Moreover, that presumption cannot be overcome
because all other evidence also supports Plaintiff’s ownership
claim”—referencing CNP’s continued payments of all owed and due property taxes,
an embrace of the responsibilities as part of the ownership right to the
Property. (Motion, 6-7.)
A deed that has
not been delivered or accepted is void and completely ineffective to transfer
title. (See Civil Code §1054; Green v. Skinner (1921) 185 Cal. 435,
439-440; Rothney v. Rothney (1940) 41 Cal.App.2d. 566, 570[“Delivery is
a question of fact which is to be determined from the circumstances surrounding
the particular transaction.”]) “The delivery and acceptance are of necessity
simultaneous and correlative acts. The law does not force a man to take title
to real property against his will.” (Reina v. Erassarret (1949) 90
Cal.App.2d. 418, 426.) Acceptance by the grantee requires that the grantee have
an intention to take legal title to the property, manifested by his or her
conduct or declaration. (Henneberry v. Henneberry (1958) 164 Cal.App.2d
125, 129.)
Viewing the
evidence submitted in the light most favorable to Defendants, the court finds
that no triable issues exist regarding CNP’s claims.
The court finds
CNP has established no triable issues exist as to: (1) the description and
identification of the property at issue; (2) that Plaintiff clearly and plainly
acquired title to the Property free and clear of other title rights; (3) that
the adverse claims of ownership by Defendants are without proof or evidentiary
inference in their favor, given the clear lack of ownership stake for the
conveying Defendants; (4) that determination of these claims is now sought with
the filing of this Complaint; and (5) a prayer for determination has been made
of this court. There is a clear lack of triable issues of material fact
regarding Plaintiff’s ownership of the Property, especially given Plaintiff’s
acquisition through probate proceedings from the Estate of Alice Motley. This
is made even more resolute by the lack of Defendant’s opposition and no attempt
to dispute any of the contended facts.
The court
therefore finds summary adjudication and/or judgment is merited as to the lone
cause of action.
For these
reasons, CNP’s motion is granted.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s
motion is granted. Plaintiff is to give notice, and prepare a proposed judgment.