Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV01868, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01868    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: K

Defendant Guan Zhong Liu’s Demurrer to First Amended Verified Complaint is OVERRULED in part (i.e., as to the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 6th causes of action) and SUSTAINED in part (i.e., as to the 2nd and 5th causes of action). The court will hear from counsel for Plaintiff as to whether leave to amend is requested, and as to which cause(s) of action, and will require an offer of proof if so.

Background[1]  

Plaintiff Qing Lin (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

Plaintiff and Guan Zhong Liu (“Defendant”) were in a romantic relationship. In 2018, Plaintiff. and Defendant decided to purchase the property commonly known as 534 N Chardonnay Dr., Covina CA 91723 (“subject property”); in doing so, they agreed that Plaintiff would provide $150,000.00 towards the purchase and that they would jointly and equally own the subject property until they either sold same or one of them no longer wanted to be a part of the ownership arrangement, in which case that party could be bought out by the other, or the subject property could be sold with the proceeds divided equally. Plaintiff believed Defendant contributed a like amount towards the acquisition of the subject property and that title was held jointly and equally between them. Plaintiff and Defendant have lived in the subject property from 2018-present.

In the spring of 2023, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant is married and that title to the subject property is in Defendant’s and Defendant’s wife’s names. Plaintiff and Defendant broke up and Plaintiff asked Defendant to either buy out her interest in the subject property or return her original investment with interest. Defendant has not agreed to Plaintiff’s request.

On August 24, 2023, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendant and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Fraud

3.                  Equitable Lien

4.                  Disgorgement

5.                  Partition by Sale

6.                  Declaratory Relief

A Case Management Conference is set for March 8, 2024.

Legal Standard

A demurrer may be made on the grounds that the pleading, inter alia, does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and/or is uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) and (f).)

When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) “A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters. Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905 [citations omitted].) At the pleading stage, a plaintiff need only allege ultimate facts sufficient to apprise the defendant of the factual basis for the claim against him. (Semole v. Sansoucie (1972) 28 Cal. App. 3d 714, 721.) “[A] demurrer does not, however, admit contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the pleading, or the construction placed on an instrument pleaded therein, or facts impossible in law, or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial knowledge.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [citations omitted].)

Discussion

Defendant demurs, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 430.10, subdivision (e), to the first through sixth causes of action in Plaintiff’s FAC, on the basis that they each fail to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Defendant also demurs to the first cause of action on the basis of uncertainty, per subdivision (f).

First Cause of Action (i.e., Breach of Contract)

“[T]he elements of a cause of action for breach of contract are (1) the existence of the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages to the plaintiff.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 821.)

Defendant first contends that Plaintiff has not pled the essential terms of the contract. The court disagrees. Plaintiff has alleged that in or around October 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a contractual agreement to jointly purchase the subject property (FAC, ¶ 12); that Plaintiff and Defendant would each contribute approximately $150,000 towards the purchase of the subject property (Id., ¶ 30); that title to the subject property would be recorded in both of their names with each holding an equal ownership interest (Id.); that they would continue to jointly own the subject property until such time as they agreed to sell the subject property or one party no longer wanted to be part of the joint ownership arrangement (Id.); that if both parties agreed to sell, the subject property would be sold with the proceeds being divided equally between them (Id.); that if one party no longer wanted to be part of the ownership arrangement, that party’s interest could be bought out by the other for fair market value of the subject property could be sold and the proceeds divided equally (Id.) and that either party had the right to cause the sale of the subject property or buyout by the other party by requesting the same (Id., ¶ 31).

Defendant then contends that Plaintiff’s cause of action is barred by the Statute of Frauds. Civil Code § 1624, provides, in relevant part, that “[t]he following contracts are invalid, unless they, or some note or memorandum thereof, are in writing and subscribed by the party to be charged or by the party's agent: (1) An agreement that by its terms is not to be performed within a year from the making thereof     . . . (3) [A]n agreement . . . for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein. . .” (emphasis added).

First, Defendant contends that the contract could not be performed within one year. “[I]f by its terms performance of a contract is possible within one year, the contract does not fall within the statute even though it is probable that it will extend beyond one year.” (Plumlee v. Poag (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 541, 548-549). Defendant, however, has not identified which terms of the parties’ contract precluded its performance within one year.

Next, Plaintiff argues that she has pled estoppel. “The doctrine of estoppel to assert the statute of frauds applies where unconscionable injury would result from denying enforcement of the oral contract after one party has been induced by the other seriously to change his position in reliance on the contract or where there would be unjust enrichment of a party who has received the benefit of the other's performance.” (Isaac v. A & B Loan Co. (1988) 201 Cal.App.3d 307, 313 [italics theirs].) Defendant fails to address the sufficiency of Plaintiff’s estoppel allegations set forth in ¶¶ 35-37 whatsoever.

Defendant’s demurrer to the first cause of action, then, is overruled.

Second Cause of Action (i.e., Fraud)

“To withstand a demurrer, the facts constituting every element of the fraud must be alleged with particularity, and the claim cannot be salvaged by references to the general policy favoring the liberal construction of pleadings.” (Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Ca.App.4th 772, 782 [emphasis theirs]). “This particularity requirement necessitates pleading facts which ‘show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means the representations were tendered.’” (Stansfield v. Starkey (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 59, 73 [citation omitted; emphasis theirs].)

Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s second cause of action has not been pled with the requisite specificity. The court agrees. Defendant’s demurrer to the second cause of action is sustained on this basis.

Third and Fourth Causes of Action (i.e., Equitable Lien and Disgorgement, Respectively)

Defendant cites to no legal authority in support of his demurrer to the third and fourth causes of action; as such, the demurrer thereto is summarily overruled.

Fifth Cause of Action (i.e., Partition by Sale)

To allege a claim for partition, a plaintiff must allege (1) the property’s description, (2) the interest plaintiff has or claims in the property, (3) all interests of record or actually known to the plaintiff that persons other than the plaintiff have or claim in the property and that plaintiff reasonably believes the action will materially affect, (4) the estate for partitioning and a prayer for partitioning those interests and (5) facts justifying any sale sought of the property. (Code Civ. Proc., § 872.230).

Plaintiff has not pled the third element. Defendant’s demurrer to the fifth cause of action is sustained.

Sixth Cause of Action (i.e., Declaratory Relief)

The elements of a cause of action for declaratory relief are: (1) a person interested under a written instrument or a contract; or (2) a person who desires a declaration of his or her rights or duties; (3) with respect to another; or (4) in respect to, in, over or upon property; and (5) an actual controversy. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1060.)

Defendant argues, without more, that “[t]he FAC is unclear as to these elements and thus subject to demurrer.” (Dem., 5:18-19). Defendant’s demurrer to the sixth cause of action, then, is overruled.