Judge: Olivia Rosales, Case: 21NWCV00754, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21NWCV00754    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: SEC

SAUCEDO v. BANK UNITED, FSB, et al.

CASE NO.:  21NWCV00754

HEARING:  10/18/22 @ 9:30 AM

#2

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant Adame’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is GRANTED.  As there is no opposition, the motion is granted without leave to amend.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

Defendant Adame moves for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the claims are time-barred.

This Complaint is filed by Plaintiff Gerardo Saucedo, alleging that the 2004 Deed from “Gerardo Saucedo, a single man” to “Irma Adame, an unmarried woman” recorded on February 2, 2005 is a forgery and fraud.  (Complaint, ¶ 15.)  Based thereon, the Complaint asserts causes of action for:

1.    Quiet Title

2.    Fraud

3.    Conversion

Fraud claims are subject to the three-year statute of limitations pursuant to CCP § 338(d).  A suit to set aside and cancel a void instrument is governed by the four-year statute of limitations in CCP § 343.

By statute, notice may be actual or constructive. Actual notice is defined as "express information of a fact," while constructive notice is that "which is imputed by law."  (CC § 18.) "Constructive notice is a knowledge of such facts, that the party possessing such knowledge is conclusively presumed to know other things besides the facts which have been proven to have come to his knowledge. The information or knowledge of facts possessed by a party must be such that he is conclusively presumed to have notice of the main fact to which the constructive notice is invoked." (Wilkerson v. Thorp (1900) 128 Cal. 221, 224.) "A person
generally has 'notice' of a particular fact if that person has knowledge of circumstances which, upon reasonable inquiry, would lead to that particular fact." (First Fidelity Thrift & Loan Assn. v. Alliance Bank (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1443; CC § 19.)

Here, the Quitclaim Deed conveying title to Defendant was recorded in 2005, and therefore, Plaintiff was on constructive notice of its existence as of 2005.

Plaintiff failed to file any opposition.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.  As there is no opposition, the motion is granted without leave to amend.