Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 22CMCV01075, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CMCV01075 Hearing Date: October 31, 2023 Dept: A
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The
first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges that Defendants agreed to sell a 50
percent share in the real property to Plaintiff. The parties agreed that
Plaintiff would reside on the property and make partial payments for all
mortgage, principal, interest, taxes, and insurance. Defendants allegedly
transferred their 50 percent interest in their trust but designated their
interest as 83.33 percent. Plaintiff alleges claims for breach of contract,
quiet title, and declaratory relief.
Defendants,
Teodoro Salazar and Elva Salgado, Trustees of the Salazar Living Trust
(“Trust”) demur to all causes of action for failure to state claims. Plaintiff
lacks standing to bring this action as she is not presently on title to the
real property.
In
opposition, Plaintiff contends that all claims are supported by the alleged
facts. Alternatively, Plaintiff asks for leave to amend.
Defendants
did not file a reply brief by May 24, 2023 (five court days before the
hearing). (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005(b).)
II.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The
bases for demurrer are limited by statute and may be sustained for failure to
state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10). A
demurrer “tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises
only questions of law.” (Schmidt
v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706). The court must
assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts
that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3)
judicially noticed matters. (Blank
v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318). The court may not consider
contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore
v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.4th 634, 638).
III.
DISCUSSION
A.
Demurrer to the second cause of action for quiet
title is SUSTAINED.
Defendants
have not established that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a quiet title
claim. Absent a legal interest in the property, a party has no standing to ask
the court to quiet title in the property. (Chao
Fu, Inc. v. Chen (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 48, 59.) The FAC includes a
quit claim deed granting Plaintiff a 50 percent interest in the real property. The
Court accepts the allegations as true for purposes of demurrer.
The FAC
includes a description of the property. (FAC ¶ 9.) Plaintiff alleges the basis
for her title pursuant to an oral agreement and quit claim deed. (FAC ¶, Ex.
4.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ claims are adverse to hers given their
transfer of 83.33 percent of the property to their trust. (FAC, ¶ 29, Ex. 2).
However,
Plaintiff has not alleged the date as of which determination is sought, nor is
the FAC verified as required in quiet title actions. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 761.020).
B.
Demurrer to the claim for breach of contract is
OVERRULED.
The
elements of a claim for breach of contract are (1) the existence of a valid and
existing contract between the parties, (2) Plaintiff’s performance or excuse
for non-performance, (3) Defendant’s breach; and (4) resulting damage. (Richman
v. Hartley (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 1182, 1186.) A
contract can be alleged either verbatim or according to its legal intendment
and effect. An oral contract may be pleaded generally as to its effect,
“because it is rarely possible to allege the exact words.” (Scolinos v. Kolts (1995) 37
Cal.App.4th 635, 640.) To plead a contract by its legal
effect, plaintiff must
“allege the substance of its relevant terms.” (Heritage
Pacific Financial, LLC v. Monroy (2013) 215
Cal.App.4th 972, 993.)
Plaintiff
alleges that the parties entered into an oral agreement on January 22, 2003,
whose terms are adequately alleged. (FAC, ¶40.) Plaintiff also alleges that the
parties have been consistently performing all terms of the oral agreement. (FAC
¶ 41.)
C.
Demurrer to the claim for declaratory
relief is OVERRULED.
A claim
for declaratory relief is sufficient if it “sets forth facts showing the
existence of an actual controversy relating to the legal rights and duties of
the respective parties under a contract and requests that the rights and duties
be adjudged. . . . If these requirements are met, the court must declare
the rights of the parties whether or not the facts alleged establish that the
plaintiff is entitled to a favorable declaration."(Condor
Ins. Co. v. Williamsburg Nat. Ins. Co. (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 554,
565.)
The
determination of rights is based on the same facts underlying the claims for
breach of contract and quiet title. It is based on the recorded documents
attached to the complaint. The claim is adequately alleged.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, demurrer OVERRULED
in part as to the claim for breach of contract and declaratory relief. Demurrer
is SUSTAINED in part with 10 days leave to amend as to the second cause of
action for quiet title, as it appears from the complaint that the defects can
be cured. (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. Department
of Industrial Relations (1995) 41
Cal.App.4th 298, 302.)