Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23CMCV00440, Date: 2023-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV00440    Hearing Date: October 27, 2023    Dept: A

23CMCV00440 PHH Mortgage Corporation v. Elenoa Tufuga, et al.

Friday, October 27, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

QUIET TITLE ACTION – HEARING REQUIRED

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR COURT JUDGMENT

I.        BACKGROUND

      The complaint alleges claims for quiet title, cancellation of instruments, declaratory relief, and equitable subrogation/equitable lien. Plaintiff seeks a judgment by default against Defendants, Peleclare L. Arp and the City of Lynwood, whose defaults were entered on May 8, 2023. Default was entered against Defendant, Elenoa Tufuga, on May 23, 2023.

      Plaintiff seeks judgment (1) to quiet title in its favor and a declaration that it has an enforceable lien of $240,000 secured by a deed of trust; (2) to quiet title that Defendants have no right, title, lien or interest in the property adverse to plaintiff’s; (3) cancel the March 2, 2021 deed securing a debt owed to City of Lynwood which was paid off, but no reconveyance recorded; (4) and for a declaration that Plaintiff holds a valid and enforceable priority deed of trust on the entire property as of July 20, 2022, and holds a senior lien priority position.

II.      LEGAL STANDARDS

      Upon entry of default against a defendant, the plaintiff may apply to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint. The court shall hear the evidence offered by the plaintiff and render judgment in the plaintiff's favor for that relief, not exceeding the amount stated in the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 585 (b).)

      Before entering judgment on a quiet title claim by default, the court “shall examine into and determine the plaintiff's title against the claims of all the defendants. … [The court] “shall in all cases require evidence of plaintiff's title and hear such evidence as may be offered respecting the claims of any of the defendants, other than claims the validity of which is admitted by the plaintiff in the complaint. The court shall render judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 764.010.) A quiet title action determines the adverse claims to the title of the Plaintiff against which determination is sought. (Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc.) (2016) 244 Cal.App.4^th 982, 1010.)

III.    DISCUSSION

CHAIN OF TITLE

Plaintiff did not record the last deed of trust for the $240K refinance and has not been able to locate the original. However, Plaintiff has the promissory note signed by Tufuga for $240K. (Decl of Cedric Bankson, Ex. 1.)  Plaintiff has the unrecorded deed of trust securing the note. Bankson Decl, Ex. 2.)

      There is evidence that a part of the $240K loan funded by Plaintiff was used to pay off the City of Lynwood loan, but a full reconveyance was never recorded. A Disbursement Summary Report dated 7/20/22 shows a disbursement from the PHH loan to City of Lynwood for $58,825.00. (Bankson Decl, Ex. 3.)

      Plaintiff seeks cancellation of the Lynwood deed of trust as of July 20, 2022, as it clouds title to the property. Plaintiff asks for a declaration that Plaintiff’s deed of trust for $240K is valid and enforceable as of July 2022, it is senior to all encumbrances, and Defendants have no interest therein.

Defendants, Elenoa Tufuga (homeowner) and Peleclare L. Arp.

      Among the elements Plaintiff must establish in a claim for quiet title are the adverse claims of the Defendants as against the Plaintiff. (Code Civ. Proc., 761.020). The complaint alleges that Tufuga is the homeowner, and that she signed the $240,000 promissory note funded by Plaintiff by and signed by her attorney in fact, Peleclare L. Arp. The facts do not demonstrate how Tufuga’s interest in the property is adverse to Plaintiff’s. Her property was used to secure the loan owing to Plaintiff. The facts and evidence do not establish that Arp has any ownership interest in the real property to be quieted.

      Defaulting defendants confess the material facts alleged. Defendants’ failure to answer admits all matters well pleaded in the complaint. (Kim v. Westmoore Partners, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 267, 281 ["the defendant's failure to answer has the same effect as an express admission of the matters well pleaded in the complaint.” [italics in original].

      The facts do not establish why Tufuga’s and Arp’s interests (assuming Arp has one, which is not proved) are adverse to Plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks cancellation of the City of Lynwood debt as it remains a cloud on title and hampers Plaintiff’s ability to sell the real property.

IV.    CONCLUSION

      Based on the foregoing, and subject to a hearing and examination of all the evidence, the Court is inclined to grant the Request for Court Judgment against Defendant, City of Lynwood, plus costs of $1,137.41 for filing fees and service of process. Plaintiff has not established why it is entitled judgment against Tufuga or Arp.