Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 21PSCV00629, Date: 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 21PSCV00629    Hearing Date: August 17, 2022    Dept: O

Background   

Plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Correia fka Maria Guadalupe Iniquez (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On December 17, 2007, Plaintiff purchased the property located at 812-816 S. Town Avenue, Pomona, CA 91766 (“subject property”) in her former name as joint tenants with Jorge Uribe (“J. Uribe”). On December 10, 2010, the subject property was transferred to Plaintiff, as joint tenants with J. Uribe and Argelia Uribe (“A. Uribe”). Prior to March 24, 2011, Plaintiff  and the other co-owners had financial |issues and were faced with the subject property going into mortgage default. Plaintiff thereafter sought the assistance of a mortgage retention company

who assured Plaintiff they could assist her with foreclosure prevention. On or about February 27, 2011, the mortgage retention company caused Plaintiff and the other then-co-owners to sign various documents, but did not disclose or describe any of them to Plaintiff; one of the documents signed, unbeknownst to Plaintiff without her authorization or consent was a grant deed recorded on March 24, 2011, which purported to transfer a partial ownership interest in the subject property to Leonor Guevara (“Defendant”) for no consideration. The remaining co-owners have since transferred their partial interests in the subject property to Plaintiff.

On August 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-25 for:

1.                  Quiet Title

2.                  Cancellation of Deed

3.                  Declaratory Relief

On March 21, 2022, an “Order for Publication” was filed. On May 10, 2022, proof of publication was filed.

On August 3, 2022, Defendant’s default was entered. A Case Management Conference and an Order to Show Cause Re: Default Judgment are set for August 17, 2022.

Discussion

Plaintiff’s Application for Default Judgment is set for live testimony on October 19, 2022 at 9:30 a.m. “The 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 764.010; Bailey v. Citibank, N.A. (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 335, 347 [“[I]n contrast to the usual rules of default, in a quiet title action the plaintiff is not entitled to entry of judgment as a matter of course, but must affirmatively prove its case in an evidentiary hearing at which the trial court must hear all the evidence offered concerning title, including evidence that may be presented at the hearing by a defaulting defendant”].)

The court notes, as a preliminary matter, that the grant deed recorded March 24, 2011 purports to grant the subject property to A. Uribe, Raquel Perez (“Perez”) and Defendant as joint tenants. Plaintiff’s declaration is devoid of any reference to Perez. It is unclear to the court why Perez was not sued as well. Plaintiff’s declaration references exhibits; however, none are attached. Plaintiff has not provided the court with any documentation evidencing that the chain of title to the subject property. Plaintiff has not provided the court with any documentation evidencing that A. Uribe and J. Uribe have transferred their partial interests in the subject property to Plaintiff.

Additionally, the relief sought in the complaint and that sought in Plaintiff’s proposed order do not match; for instance, the complaint requests, inter alia, that “title to the Property, including the Grant Deed attached hereto as Exhibit A . . . be quieted against Defendant Leonor Guevara and any other person or entity claiming interest in the Grant Deed and/or the Property” (Complaint, ¶ 19) that “Title to the Property should be granted back to Plaintiff as the One Hundred Percent (100%) owner of the Property” (Id.) and that the grant deed be cancelled in its entirety (Id., ¶ 21), whereas the proposed judgment seeks to, inter alia, “quiet[] and/or cancel[] and/or void[, as of March 24, 2011, the alleged partial interest of Leonor Guevara ONLY, as reflected in the Grant Deed recorded on March 24, 2011. . .” The proposed judgment further contains language “confirming” that Plaintiff, “any Escrow Company, any Title Company and any Insurance Company” may transfer, refinance and/or insure the property to Plaintiff and/or any third party buyer/borrower with good, clear and marketable title; this language is not set forth in the complaint.