Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00160, Date: 2023-05-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CMCV00160 Hearing Date: May 2, 2023 Dept: A
23CMCV00160 Eliseo Villa Mendoza v. Octaviana Sanchez,
et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff
and his wife (Angelina Villa, now deceased (hereafter “Angelina”) purportedly
signed grant deeds purporting to transfer title to separate parcels of
commercial and residential real property to Defendants (his children) through a
series of grant deeds. The property has since been placed into a living trust
bearing Plaintiff’s and Angelina’s name, although Plaintiff contends he did not
create it and has no knowledge of it. Plaintiff alleges he is not aware if the grant
deeds that he and Angelina signed were either forged or obtained by fraud. Plaintiff
alleges claims to quiet title, cancel instruments, and for financial elder
abuse.
II.
ARGUMENTS
Plaintiff
requests an order enjoining Defendants from collecting rent from Plaintiff’s
real property consisting of three residential units and one commercial real
property. Plaintiff alleges Defendants took control of their father’s property
and have now begun collecting rents on which Plaintiff depends for his
livelihood.
Defendants
contend that Plaintiff knowingly transferred the real property to Defendants in
order to qualify for Medicaid at a time when Angelina was undergoing cancer
treatment. Plaintiff instructed Defendants to meet with the notary, Maria
Louisa Marin-Field, a Spanish speaking, family friend to complete the
transactions. Since then, Plaintiff suffered a stroke which caused behavioral
changes that concerned Defendants. Defendants tried to present their plan to
administer the property and pay the rental profits to Plaintiff, however,
Plaintiff ceased communicating with Defendants and filed six restraining orders
against them.
In reply,
Plaintiff contends the opposition does not specifically identify the real
property at issue. The deed transferring the commercial real property (2635 E.
125th St) was notarized by Ms. Marin-Field. Defendants do not make
any argument as to the residential real property. Defendants speculate that
Plaintiff is collecting rents from other real property owned by Plaintiff.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
The purpose of a preliminary
injunction is to preserve the status quo pending a decision on the merits. (MaJor v. Miraverde Homeowners Assn. (1992) 7
Cal.App.4th 618, 623.) A cause of
action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted. Id. If a complaint
fails to state a cause of action, an order granting a preliminary injunction
must be reversed. (Id.)
In determining whether or not to
grant a preliminary injunction, the court looks to two factors, including “(1) the likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the
merits, and (2) the relative balance of harms that is likely to result from the
granting or denial of interim injunctive relief.” (White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528, 554.) The factors are interrelated; “the greater the … showing on one,
the less must be shown on the other to support an injunction.” consider
(Dodge, Warren & Peters Ins. Services, Inc. v. Riley (2003)
105 Cal.App.4th 1414, 1420.)
As the moving party, Plaintiff
must demonstrate at least a reasonable probability of success on the merits. (IT Corp. v. County of Imperial (1983) 35 Cal.3d 63,
72.] The second factor to be established is the occurrence of
irreparable harm before a final judgment could be entered. (Savage v. Trammell Crow Co. (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d
1562, 1571.) Irreparable harm may exist if the
plaintiff can show that “pecuniary compensation would not afford adequate
relief.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 526.)
IV.
DISCUSSION
A
claim for quiet title is an equitable remedy akin to an action for declaratory
relief in that the plaintiff seeks judgment declaring his rights in relation to
a piece of property. (Caira
v. Offner (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 12, 25.)
A written instrument may be
cancelled if there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding, it
may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable. (Civ. Code, § 3412.)
Cancellation is essentially a request
for rescission that places the parties where they were before the instrument
was made. (Deutsche Bank National
Trust Co. v. Pyle (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 513, 523 [220 Cal.Rptr.3d
691].)
Plaintiff seeks both remedies
based on the claim that he was removed from title by way of “fraud and
misrepresentation of various family members.” (Complaint, ¶ 45.). The claim
appears speculative in that Plaintiff alleges that he is unaware if the
original transfers were forged or if he and his wife signed the transfers based
on misrepresentations since he contends he never intended to transfer
ownership. (Complaint, ¶ 15-16.)
Specifically,
the residential real property with three units was transferred from Plaintiff
and Angelina to Angelina’s revocable trust. Upon her death, Defendant Eliseo
Jr. as trustee, transferred the property to himself and a sibling Reyna, and then
transferred the property to the Angelina and Eliseo Family Trust in September
2022. (Complaint ¶ 27-29).
With respect to the commercial
real property, Plaintiff alleges he purportedly signed the transfer deed in
June of 2012 gifting the property to Defendants, Maria Angelina and Octaviana.
Complaint ¶ 15. That property was ultimately transferred to other siblings, and
then to the Angelina and Eliseo Family Trust in September 2022. (Complaint ¶
18-19.)
Plaintiff has not met his burden
of showing that he is likely to prevail on the merits, or that the relative balance of harm weighs in favor of granting relief. A claim for
fraud or misrepresentation requires that Plaintiff show: (1) a
misrepresentation, (2) made with knowledge of its falsity, (3) that Defendants intended
to defraud Plaintiff, i.e., induce Plaintiff’s reliance, (4) and that Plaintiff
justifiably relied on the misrepresentations resulting in damage. (Nagy v. Nagy (1989) 210
Cal.App.3d 1262, 1268).
Plaintiff’s declaration reiterates
the allegations of the complaint without identifying who made representations,
what the misrepresentations consisted of, or any Defendant’s intent to defraud.
Plaintiff does not appear certain what actually occurred and suggests
alternative hypothetical situations of what might have occurred. (Plaintiff’s
decl., ¶ 17, 22.) Whatever occurred, the children, as individuals, do not currently
hold title to the property as both parcels of property are currently held in
the name of Plaintiff’s trust. Plaintiff disavows knowledge of the trust
although he also avers that with respect to the residential real property, he
agreed to establish a family trust and hired AMJ Probate and Fiduciary Services
for that purpose. (Plaintiff’s decl., ¶ 21).
There is no evidence to support
Plaintiff’s claim that irreparable harm will occur if he is denied the rental
earnings from the property. Plaintiff asserts that he is unable to pay his
monthly expenses, that he is “barely getting by,” and that his credit is being adversely
affected. There is no documentary evidence to support it. (Plaintiff’s decl., ¶
24.)
V.
CONCLUSION
Based
on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.