Judge: Gary Y. Tanaka, Case: 21TRCV00212, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21TRCV00212    Hearing Date: October 31, 2022    Dept: B

PROCEEDINGS

Juan Luis Hernandez v. Margarita Chicas, et al.

21TRCV00212

1. Juan Luis Hernandez’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication of Issues    

    

   TENTATIVE RULING

        

               Juan Luis Hernandez’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Adjudication of Issues is denied, in part, and is moot, in part.

    

               Background

    

               Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 22, 2021. Due to legal troubles, in 2007, Plaintiff was required to leave the country. During this time, Plaintiff and Defendant Margarita Chicas had an agreement that Defendant would manage the real property owned by Plaintiff located at 10234 S. 10th Ave. Inglewood, CA 90303. However, instead, Defendant obtained title to Plaintiff’s real property through fraud and forgery of the deed. Plaintiff alleges the following causes of action: 1. Quiet Title; 2. Slander of Title; 3. Cancellation of Instrument; 4. Fraud; 5. Breach of Oral Contract.

    

               On October 29, 2021, Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint alleging the following causes of action: 1. Quiet Title; 2. Breach of Implied in Fact Contract; 3. Adverse Possession; 4. Partition of Real Property. Cross-Complainant alleges that she and Cross-Defendant had an agreement whereby the property was transferred to Cross-Complainant. Cross-Complainant also alleges that Cross-Defendant abandoned the property. Cross-Defendant’s demurrer was sustained with 20 days leave to amend. Cross-Complainant filed a First Amended Cross-Complaint on June 27, 2022, alleging the same four causes of action. On September 20, 2022, the parties stipulated to allow Cross-Complainant to file a Second Amended Cross-Complaint which was deemed filed and served that date.

    

               Objections

    

               Defendant’s objections

    

               Defendant’s objections 1 and 2 are sustained.

    

               Plaintiff’s objections

    

               Declaration of Margarita Chicas

    

               Objections 1 to 5 are sustained. Objections 6 to 8 are overruled.

    

               Declaration of Celso Hernandez

    

               Objections 9 to 13 are overruled. Objection 14 is sustained.

    

               Declaration of Mark Martinez

    

               Objection 15 is overruled.

    

               Objections 16 to 17

    

               Objections 16 to 17 are overruled as these are not objections to evidence but instead to arguments and statements.

    

               Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication

    

               The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “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.)  “Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”  (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal. App. 4th 1110, 1119.)

    

               “On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.”  (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal. App. 4th 1510, 1519.)  A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “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 . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.”  CCP § 437c(p)(2).  “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” CCP § 437c(p)(2).  “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.”  Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Medical Center (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 463, 467.

    

               “A plaintiff or cross-complainant has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action. Once the plaintiff or cross-complainant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the defendant or cross-defendant to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1).

    

               “When deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection), as well as all reasonable inferences that may be drawn from that evidence, in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.”  (Avivi, 159 Cal.App.4th at 467; CCP § 437c(c).)

    

                   “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages, as specified in Section 3294 of the Civil Code, or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs. A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(f)(1). “If made in the alternative, a motion for summary adjudication may make reference to and depend on the same evidence submitted in support of the summary judgment motion. If summary adjudication is sought, whether separately or as an alternative to the motion for summary judgment, the specific cause of action, affirmative defense, claims for damages, or issues of duty must be stated specifically in the notice of motion and be repeated, verbatim, in the separate statement of undisputed material facts.” Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1350(b).

    

               Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant moves for summary judgment as to his Complaint and against the “operative cross-complaint or alternatively for summary adjudication of claims pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 473c(a), (f).”  (Notice of Motion, page 1, line 28, to page 2, line 3.)  The Court notes that the motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication directed to the “operative cross-complaint” is moot because Cross-Complainant filed a Second Amended Cross-Complaint after this motion was filed. Therefore, at the time the motion was filed, it was not directed to the currently operative pleading, but, instead, to a superseded pleading. Therefore, the Court will proceed solely as a motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s own Complaint.

    

               Plaintiff has met his initial burden of showing that there is no defense to each of his causes of action. However, Defendant has met her burden to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the causes of action or a defense thereto.” Code Civ. Proc., § 437c(p)(1).

    

               As to each of the causes of action, 1. Quiet Title; 2. Slander of Title; 3. Cancellation of Instrument; 4. Fraud; 5. Breach of Oral Contract, Plaintiff relies on the same nine facts, and, essentially, relies on the primary fact that Plaintiff did not sign the grant deed transferring title to Defendant, and, by implication, the grant deed must have been forged and signed by Defendant herself.  Defendant has, however, presented evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to the causes of action.  (Defendant’s Response to Separate Statement of Facts and Supporting Evidence, 3-6; Defendant’s Additional Separate Statement of Facts and Supporting Evidence, 3-5.)

    

               Defendant submitted evidence which would show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to whether the signature on the grant deed was or was not forged, or whether it was signed by Plaintiff pursuant to an agreement entered into by the parties. (Id.) Defendant submitted evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of fact as to whether the parties, first, entered into a partnership agreement by which the parties would share proceeds in the sale of the subject property.  (Id.)  Defendant provides evidence to show that she performed under the agreement by bringing the property current on mortgage payments. (Decl., Chicas, ¶¶ 13-14).  Defendant submitted evidence to show the existence of a triable issue of material fact as to whether Defendant, then, facing his eminent deportation and mounting attorneys’ fees, agreed to abandon the property in exchange for a share of the refinancing proceeds in order to pay his attorneys’ fees.  (Defendant’s Additional Material Facts and Supporting Evidence, 3-5.)  Therefore, based on these facts, Defendant has presented sufficient evidence to present a triable issue of material fact as to the credibility of the parties, including Plaintiff’s credibility when he testifies that his signature is not present on the grant deed.  Defendant contends that the signature was not forged, but, instead, made by Plaintiff pursuant to his obligations under the partnership agreement.  One of the key factors in determining the merits of this action will be the credibility of the parties, and more specifically, the genuineness of the signature transferring title to Defendant.  Defendant urges the Court to simply examine the various signatures and definitively find in favor of Plaintiff by stating that the signature if not Plaintiff’s signature.  However, even Plaintiff acknowledges that this is a task for the trier of fact.  “Evidence Code section 1417 states the genuineness of a writing may be proved by a handwriting comparison made by the trier of fact.”  (Reply, page 2, lines 21-22 (emphasis added).)

    

               Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s evidence is contradicted by her own prior deposition testimony.  However, in reviewing the prior deposition testimony of Defendant submitted by Plaintiff, Defendant’s theory of a partnership agreement is not directly contradicted by prior deposition testimony.  Plaintiff also argues that an oral agreement to transfer title to real property is barred by the statute of frauds. However, an oral agreement to create a partnership or joint venture is not subject to the statute of frauds.  An oral agreement to form a partnership may be enforceable even though the effect may be to transfer an interest in real property by the owner to the other partner. James v. Herbert (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 741.

    

               Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s Complaint is denied.  Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication directed to the “operative Cross-Complaint” is deemed moot for the reasons already explained above.

    

               Defendant is ordered to give notice of this ruling.