Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 23STCV28661, Date: 2024-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Luz Aida Escoto (“Plaintiff” or “Escoto”) was the owner of the real property located at 1619 W. 70^th Street, Los Angeles, CA, 90047 (the “Subject Property”). In 2008, Escoto was experiencing financial issues and was close to losing the Subject Property. At the time, Escoto was in a committed relationship with Defendant Cesar Enrique Villafuerte (“Defendant” or “Villafuerte”). Villafuerte offered to help. Escoto eventually agreed to transfer the Subject Property to Villafuerte on a short sale basis through a quit claim deed. Villafuerte understood and agreed that the Subject Property would be transferred to him in name only, and on a temporary basis. Villafuerte also agreed to, and did, submit upon Escoto’s request, a new quitclaim deed to transfer the Subject Property to Escoto’s mother. In exchange, Escoto agreed to pay off a $10,000 debt that Villafuerte owed to third parties. Based on the foregoing agreement, Escoto transferred title to the Subject Property to Villafuerte on July 14, 2009. On July 23, 2009, the deed granting the Subject Property from Villafuerte to Escoto’s mother was recorded. Villafuerte never made any payments for the benefit of the Subject Property and never resided there.

In 2014, Escoto ended the relationship with Villafuerte. In retaliation, Villafuerte filed suit against Escoto and others to cancel the deed recorded on July 23, 2009, claiming that he did not have knowledge of the parties’ agreement. Defendant obtained a Court Judgment in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC486408 which, in relevant part, canceled the deed recorded on July 23, 2009.

On November 11, 2023, Escoto filed a Verified Complaint against Villafuerte in this court, alleging causes of action for Quiet Title by Adverse Possession and Breach of Oral Contract.

On February 28, 2024, Villafuerte filed this Demurrer to the Breach of Oral Contract cause of action.

A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and will be sustained only where the pleading is defective on its face.¿ (City of Atascadero v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 445, 459.)¿ “We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.¿ We accept the factual allegations of the complaint as true and also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.¿ [Citation.]”¿ (Mitchell v. California Department of Public Health (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1000, 1007; Del E. Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 593, 604 [“the facts alleged in the pleading are deemed to be true, however improbable they may be”].) Allegations are to be liberally construed.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 452.)¿ In construing the allegations, the court is to give effect to specific factual allegations that may modify or limit inconsistent general or conclusory allegations.¿ (Financial Corporation of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 769.)¿¿

A demurrer may be brought if insufficient facts are stated to support the cause of action asserted.¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).)¿“A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.”¿(Khoury v. Maly’s of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.)¿¿¿

Where the complaint contains substantial factual allegations sufficiently apprising defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty will be overruled or plaintiff will be given leave to amend.¿ (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)¿ Leave to amend must be allowed where there is a reasonable possibility of successful amendment.¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 348.)¿ The burden is on the complainant to show the court that a pleading can be amended successfully. (Ibid.)¿

“Before filing a demurrer pursuant to this chapter, the demurring party shall meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference with the party who filed the pleading that is subject to demurrer for the purpose of determining whether an agreement can be reached that would resolve the objections to be raised in the demurrer.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a).)¿ Here, Defendant has not made a showing of meeting and conferring in person, by telephone, or by video conference prior to filing this Demurrer. (See Declaration of Peter D. Gordon, ¶ 1, Ex. A.) However, “[a] determination by the court that the meet and confer process was insufficient shall not be grounds to overrule or sustain a demurrer.”¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.41, subd. (a)(4).) Accordingly, the court exercises its discretion to consider Defendant’s demurrer.¿¿

Defendant demurs to the the Second Cause of Action for Breach of Oral Agreement on the ground that it is time-barred.

The elements of a breach of contract cause of action are: (1) the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and the defendant, (2) the plaintiff’s performance, (3) the defendant’s unjustified failure to perform, and (4) damages to the plaintiff caused by the defendant’s breach. (CACI No. 303; Careau & Co. v. Security Pacific Business, Inc. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1371, 1388 (Careau); Otworth v. Southern Pac. Transportation (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 452, 458.) “[T]he complaint must indicate on its face whether the contract is written, oral, or implied by conduct.” (Otworth, 166 Cal.App.3d at pp. 458-459.)¿ The elements of a breach of oral contract claim are the same as those for a breach of written contract. (Careau, 222 Cal.App.3d at p. 1388.) A claim for breach of oral contract must be brought within two years of the breach. (Code Civ. Proc., § 339.)

Here, Defendant argues the breach of the oral agreement occurred in 2014. In support, he points to the allegation that he “filed a lawsuit against Plaintiff and others on or about December 16, 2014 bearing Los Angeles Superior Court case no. BC486408” and that “[e]ventually, Defendant obtained a Court Judgment which canceled the deed recorded on July 23, 2009.” (Complaint, ¶ 19.) “The December 16, 2014 Judgment was recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's office on January 9, 2015 bearing recording number 20091121505.” (Id.) Thus, under Defendant’s theory, Plaintiff had until January 9, 2017—two years from the recording of the judgment on January 9, 2015—to bring her breach of oral contract claim.

Defendant’s points are well taken. Filing suit in 2014 on the ground that Defendant “had no knowledge of what he had signed and acted ignorantly to the situation” is certainly inconsistent with “being fully onboard” with the parties oral agreement. (Complaint, ¶ 18.) And, certainly, proceeding to judgment in 2015, is an act inconsistent with the parties’ agreement to make the numerous transfers of title to the Subject Property.

In opposition, Plaintiff makes the point that the Complaint does not state when the breach occurred. Effectively, Plaintiff concedes that the claim is uncertain. Plaintiff further states that she can amend the complaint to allege that “she never demanded return of the title [to the Subject Property] prior to the filing other present Complaint, which was filed November 22, 2023.” (Opposition, p. 2:19-21.) Given this representation, the court will sustain the demurrer and grant leave to amend.

The Demurrer to the Second Cause of Action is SUSTAINED. Leave to amend is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have twenty days from the date of this Order to file a First Amended Complaint.

The parties are further ordered to file a Notice of Related Case in Case No. BC486408. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule Rule 3.300.)

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court