Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 22NWCV00487 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 22NWCV00487, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22NWCV00487 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: C

WASHINGTON v. REID

CASE NO.: 22NWCV00487

HEARING: 04/27/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

Plaintiff Anitra Washington’s motion for judgment on the pleadings to defendant Ersel Valerie Reid’s answer is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

This action concerning real property was filed by Plaintiff ANITRA WASHINGTON (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant ERSELL REID (“Defendant”) on June 20, 2022. The relevant facts, as alleged, are as follows: “Plaintiff… because [sic] fee simple owner of the subject property located at 201 Reposado Drive, La Habra Heights, CA 90631 (‘Subject Property’) by virtue of the grant deed recorded 9/21/21 bearing instrument number 20211438000…. Subsequently thereto, she agreed to rent the property to [Defendant], whereby [Defendant] agreed to make the monthly mortgage payments and to purchase the subject property from Plaintiff when she was qualified to do so. There was no formal agreement in place.” (Complaint ¶6.) “Defendant Reid defaulted in her rental obligations and Plaintiff has sought to evict Reid. Due to Reid’s failure to pay the rent, Plaintiff risks losing the subject property to foreclosure and must prepare for a quick sale in a recently deteriorating real estate market.” (Complaint ¶7.) “Plaintiff recently discovered a fraudulent quitclaim deed that was recorded against the subject property on 2/03/2022 that bears Plaintiff’s forged signature, a seal of notary public that does not exist, and a fraudulent transfer to Reid, which Plaintiff did not authorize…. The deed of trust executed by Plaintiff on 12/15/2021 bears her genuine signature, in stark contrast to the signature in the Quitclaim Deed.” (Complaint ¶8.)

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Cancellation of Instruments; and (2) Violation of Business and Professions Code §17200.

On February 9, 2023, the Court denied Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in its entirety.

On February 22, 2023, Defendant filed her answer to the Complaint and concurrently filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff, Alora de la Vara, and Diane Luongo-Gazich, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Fraud; (2) Breach of Fiduciary Duty; (3) Breach of Contract; and (4) Violation of California Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.

Now, Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings against Defendant’s answer on the ground that she is unable to maintain a defense to the cause of action for cancellation of instruments.

Judicial Notice

Plaintiff requests the Court to take judicial notice of the following documents: (1) the Grant Deed pertaining to the subject property recorded and filed on September 21, 2021 (Instrument No. 20211438000); (2) the Quitclaim Deed pertaining to the subject property recorded and filed on February 3, 2022 (Instrument No. 20220140774); (3) the Deed of Trust pertaining to the subject property recorded and filed on September 21, 2021 (Instrument No. 20211438001); (4) the unlawful detainer complaint (22NWCV00400) filed on May 20, 2022 by Plaintiff against Defendant; (5) a copy of the State of California Secretary of State Commission Certificate for Vicky Saenz’s term as a Notary Public, Commission Number 1884662 commenced April 29, 2010 and ended April 28, 2014; (6) the Judgment entered in the unlawful detainer action; (7) the demurrer filed by the Defendant in this action; (8) the Complaint filed in this action; and (9) Defendant’s answer filed in this action.

With regard to items 1 through 3, the Court grants judicial notice of these recorded documents pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(d) and (h). (See Ordlock v. Franchise Tax Bd. (2006) 38 Cal.4th 897, 911 fn. 8.) As for items 4, 7, 8, and 9, the Court takes judicial notice of the existence of these documents but not as to the truth of the matter asserted therein. (6 Witkin, California Procedure, 4th Edition, 2000, Proceedings Without Trial, § 210, p.622. [“A Court may take judicial notice of the existence of each document in a court file, but can only take judicial notice of the truth of facts asserted in such documents as orders, findings of fact and conclusions of law, and judgments.”]) Consequently, the Court takes judicial notice of the existence and the truth of the matter asserted in item 5. Lastly, the Court takes judicial notice of item 6 pursuant to Evidence Code § 452(c), (h).)

Discussion

Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 438(c)(1)(A), a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made by a plaintiff on the grounds that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint. “A motion for judgment on the pleadings is the equivalent of a general demurrer but is made after the time for demurrer has expired. The rules governing demurrers apply.” (Evans v. Cal. Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal. App. 4th 540, 548.)

Meet and Confer

Based on the declaration submitted by Plaintiff’s counsel, the Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied the meet and confer requirement pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 439(a)(3). (Graham Decl. ¶ 2(b).)

Merits

Code of Civil Procedure § 431.30 (b) provides that an answer to a complaint must contain “(1) [t]he general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant,” and “(2) [a] statement of any new matter constituting a defense.” When considering a demurrer to answer, the “determination of the sufficiency of the answer requires an examination of the complaint because its adequacy is with reference to the complaint it purports to answer.” (South Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 733) “[T]he demurrer to the answer admits all issuable facts pleaded therein and eliminates all allegations of the complaint denied by the answer.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff moves for judgment on the pleadings against Defendant’s answer because the answer fails to present a viable defense to the cause of action for Cancellation of Instruments. (Motion at pp. 4-5.) Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant is unable to prove that Plaintiff actually signed the quitclaim deed or that the quitclaim deed possessed a valid notary public seal. (Motion at pg. 5.) Thus, Plaintiff reasons that she will be injured by being unable to “deliver marketable title upon the sale of the subject property to avoid foreclose.” (Ibid.)

As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff contends that Defendant recorded a fraudulent quitclaim deed bearing Plaintiff’s forged signature, and therefore the quitclaim deed is void. (See Complaint ¶8.) As a result, Defendant’s answer would need to present facts supporting defense against the allegation that the quiteclaim deed recorded on February 3, 2022 was fraudulent. Upon review of the answer, the Court finds that Defendant’s answer is devoid of any facts to support such a defense, let alone the twenty-three affirmative defenses raised therein. (See answer generally.)

Moreover, the documents that the Court has taken judicial notice of evidence that Defendant is unable to provide a defense against Plaintiff’s first cause of action. For instance, based on the judgment entered in the unlawful detainer case Plaintiff pursued against Defendant, it was found that Plaintiff is the legal owner of the subject property. (RJN, Exh. 6.) Also, the quitclaim deed at issue does not possess a valid notary public seal. In reviewing the quitclaim deed, it associates the notary public commission number 1884662 with an “Eric L. Rose.” (RJN, Exh. 2.) However, when compared with the certificate provided by the California Secretary of State, it is evident that the commission number had actually belonged to Vicky Saenz, which expired on April 28, 2014. (RJN, Exh. 5.) Pursuant to Government Code § 27287, instruments such as a quitclaim deed must be properly notarized prior to being recorded. Thus, because the quitclaim deed possessed an expired notary public commission number, the quitclaim deed was improperly recorded.

Notably, Defendant’s opposition fails to address these issues. Instead, Defendant focuses on the argument that the underlying grant deed was to conveyed to Plaintiff and Defendant together. (Opposition at pg. 9.) However, this argument is unavailing because the grant deed and coinciding deed of trust only lists Plaintiff’s name. (RJN, Exh. 1, 3.) She then argues that the Complaint fails to allege that Defendant participated or facilitated the alleged act. (Opposition at pg. 9.) This argument is also unpersuasive because the Complaint alleges that Defendant was responsible for the alleged act. (Compl. ¶ 5, 21.) Lastly, Defendant contends that the instant motion should be denied because the Complaint does not raise a claim for forgery or fraud. (Opposition at pg. 12.) The Court finds that this argument is simply a red herring because a clear reading of the Complaint shows that the cause of action for Cancellation of Instrument is based on the allegation that the quitclaim deed was fraudulently recorded. (Compl. ¶¶ 10-16.)

While Defendant requests leave to amend, it is noted that Defendant fails to present any facts to suggest that the quitclaim deed was not fraudulently recorded. Therefore, because Defendant failed to meet this burden, leave to amend is not appropriate under the circumstances. (See Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.)

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED without leave to amend.