TENTATIVE 

This quiet title and financial elder abuse action concerns real property located at 1532 West 110 Street, Los Angeles, California 90047 (the “Property”).  

The complaint alleges that Plaintiff Thelma Patrick (“Plaintiff”) is an elderly individual over the age of 65 years, and who has been the sole owner of the Property since April 25, 1988 when her husband/joint tenant Benny Lee Patrick passed away on July 28, 1986. (Compl. ¶¶ 3, 10.) In late 2012, Plaintiff decided to have her property refinanced, and was informed that she would need the help of agents to procure the loan. (Id. ¶¶12-13.) On December 9, 2012, Plaintiff executed a Trust Transfer Grant Deed to “Thelma Patrick and Melanie Hurtado as Co-Trustees of the 1532 West 110th Street Trust” under the belief that this was a formality to accomplish the refinance, and that defendants/and or her agents would transfer the title back to Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff alleges she made all mortgage payments to the mortgage holder of the Property, and that Melanie Hurtado (“Defendant”) has not “signed off” on any or all interest she may potentially claim in and to the Property. (Id. ¶¶ 15-16.) 

Plaintiff prays for an order quieting title to Plaintiff as the sole owner of the Property. 

Plaintiff obtained entry of default against Defendant on April 10, 2024, and has dismissed all unnamed Doe defendants on June 10, 2024. On default judgment, aside from seeking an order quieting title of the Property and costs, Plaintiff also seeks (1) $10,000 in general damages for elder abuse, and (2) an order that Plaintiff is not liable for any loans, liens, or attachments to the purported “The 1532 West 110th Trust”. 

Code of Civil Procedure section 764.010 provides that “[t]he court shall examine into and determine the plaintiff's title against the claims of all the defendants. The court shall not enter judgment by default but 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.” 

“[S]ection 764.010 is frequently referred to as a prohibition against default judgments in quiet title actions. However, the provision against default judgments [in quiet title actions] appears to be a misnomer; i.e., it seems only to require a higher standard of evidence at the ‘prove-up’ hearing []. Competent evidence is required at the hearing of a quiet title action after default…[S]ection 764.010 simply provides that a plaintiff does not have a right to entry of judgment in his or her favor as a matter of course following entry of the defendant's default in a quiet title action. The statute does not preclude entry of a defendant's default. In fact, the statute was expressly intended to be consistent with...section 583, subdivision (c), which concerns default judgments where service is by publication.” (Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576, 580-581.) 

Thus, to prevail on a quiet title claim, a plaintiff must establish title to the property in dispute. (Code Civ. Proc., § 761.020; Hoeller v. Lloyd (1959) 173 Cal.App.2d 777, 778.) 

The Court has reviewed the chain of title as provided as part of Plaintiff’s default prove-up, and is convinced that Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence her claim as the sole owner of the Property. Accordingly, judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 764.010 on Plaintiff’s quiet title action is GRANTED. 

The request for damages related to the second cause of action for financial elder abuse is denied because it fails to state sufficient facts to support a cognizable claim. A defaulting defendant admits only the well pled facts concerning liability. (Johnson v. Stanhiser (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 357, 361 [“Generally speaking, the party who makes default thereby confesses the material allegations of the complaint.”].) “[I]it is the duty of the court to act as gatekeeper, ensuring that only the appropriate claims get through.” (Heidary v. Yadollahi (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 857, 868.) To establish financial elder abuse, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant took or retained the plaintiff’s property; that the plaintiff was 65 years of age or older at the time of the conduct; that the defendant took or retained the property for a wrongful use or with the intent to defraud; that the plaintiff was harmed; and that the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in cause the plaintiff’s harm. (See¿CACI, § 3100.) 

Here, the complaint’s mere allegation that Plaintiff is over 65 years old and that the property has been clouded by showing less than 100% belonging to Plaintiff is insufficient to support a cause of action for financial elder abuse. As such, awarding any damages related to a defective cause of action would be improper. The request for $10,000 in general damages for elder abuse is therefore DENIED. 

Plaintiff’s request that there be an order that Plaintiff is not liable for any loans, liens, or attachments to the purported “The 1532 West 110th Trust” is DENIED. Plaintiff’s remedies are necessarily constrained to those alleged and prayed for in the complaint. Nowhere in Plaintiff’s complaint is this specific request for relief contemplated for this Court to have any jurisdiction over the matter. 

Plaintiff seeks costs in the amount of $1,344.50 for clerk’s filing fees, process server’s fees, publication fee, and “USPO and SCRA Reports.” The clerk’s filing fees and process server’s fees are allowable pursuant to CCP § 1032(a)(1) and (a)(4). The publication fee to effectuate service on Defendant is allowable pursuant to CCP § 1032(a)(4)(C). However, the “USPO and SCRA Reports” costs for $55.00 appear to be investigation expenses, which are not allowable as costs. Therefore, $55.00 will be taxed from the cost memorandum. 

Plaintiff is awarded $1,289.50 in costs.  

Judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 764.010 on Plaintiff’s quiet title action is GRANTED, in addition to costs in the sum of $1,289.50. The remainder is denied.