Judge Teresa A. Beaudet, Case 21STCV14743 2022-08-11 Tentative Ruling

On April 19, 2021, Plaintiffs Abran Salvador Herrera (“Abran”) and J. Jesus Perez Gudino (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Rosio Munoz (“Munoz”), and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in this Complaint, which is adverse to Plaintiffs’ title or creates any cloud on Plaintiffs’ title. The Complaint asserts causes of action for (1) quiet title and (2) cancellation of deed.

Plaintiffs now move for summary judgment or alternatively, for summary adjudication

“[A] motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) The moving party bears the initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact. (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.) If the moving party carries this burden, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make a prima facie showing that a triable issue of material fact exists. (Ibid.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.” (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

For purposes of motions for summary judgment and summary adjudication, a plaintiff “has met his or her burden of showing that there is no defense to a cause of action if that party has proved each element of the cause of action entitling the party to judgment on the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(1).)

Plaintiffs allege that they are the owner of 714-716 S. Mott Street, Los Angeles, CA 90023, more particularly described as follows: “LOT 25 OF BLOCK 2 OF TRACT 3113 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 32 PAGE 52 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY” (the “Property”). (Compl., ¶ 3.) The basis of Plaintiffs’ title is a deed granting the Property in fee simple to Plaintiffs, and recorded as instrument number 2021-0028284 in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office on or about January 7, 2021. (Compl., ¶ 7.)

Plaintiffs allege that Munoz claims an interest adverse to Plaintiffs in the Property under a grant deed recorded as instrument number 2021-0292348 in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office on or about February 22, 2022. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Munoz obtained this deed from Salvador Garcia Herrera (“Salvador”) by fraudulently representing to him that it was a document that would prevent her from being evicted from the Property. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs allege that Salvador Garcia Herrera did not intend to execute a grant deed purporting to transfer the Property to Munoz. (Compl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs seek to quiet title to the Property, and request that Munoz’s deed be declared void. (Compl., ¶ 12, p. 4:23.)

Plaintiffs assert that there is no triable issue of material fact as to their first cause of action for quiet title.

“To prevail on a quiet title claim, a plaintiff must establish title to the property in dispute.” ((Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1193.) The elements of an action to quiet title are: (1) a description of the property (in the case of real property, the description shall include both its legal description and its street address or common designation, if any); (2) plaintiff’s title as to which a determination is sought and the basis of the title; (3) the adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought; (4) the date as of which the determination is sought; and (5) a prayer for determination of title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims. ((Code Civ. Proc., § 761.020.)[1]

Plaintiffs submit that they obtained ownership of the real property located at 714-716 S. Mott Street, Los Angeles, CA 90023 (the “Property”) from their mother and prior owner, Rosa Perez Gudino (“Rosa”). (Declaration of Abran Salvador Herrera (“Abran Decl.”) ¶ 2.) The Quit Claim Deed attached as Exhibit 9 to Plaintiffs’ Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), signed on September 11, 2020 and recorded on January 7, 2021, indicates that Rosa quit claims to Plaintiffs certain real estate with the legal description, “LOT 25 OF BLOCK 2 OF TRACT 3113 AS PER MAP RECORDED ON BOOK 32 PAGE 52 OF MAPS. IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY.” (Abran Decl., ¶ 2; RJN, Ex. 9.) In addition, Plaintiffs provide the Declaration of Rosa, who states that on September 11, 2020, she transferred ownership of the Property to Plaintiffs via a Quit Claim Deed. (Declaration of Rosa Perez Gudino (“Rosa Decl.”) ¶ 5.)

As to Rosa’s previous ownership of the Property, Plaintiffs attach as Exhibit 6 to their RJN a Quit Claim Deed executed on June 18, 1998 between Maria Angelica Rivera and Salvador Herrera G. (the “First Party”) and Rosa (the “Second Party”). (RJN, Ex. 6.) The legal description listed on the June 18, 1998 Quit Claim Deed matches the legal description listed on the September 11, 2020 Quit Claim Deed from Rosa to Plaintiffs. (Ibid.) The June 18, 1998 Quit Claim Deed was recorded on June 23, 2021. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs assert that Munoz claims an interest adverse to Plaintiffs in the Property.

Exhibit 10 to Plaintiffs’ RJN consists of a Grant Deed, signed on February 15, 2021 and recorded on February 22, 2021, which provides that Salvador grants to Munoz real property described as “Lot 25 Block 2 of Tract No. 3113 in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 32 Page(s) 52 of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County,” more commonly known as “714-716 South Mott Street, Los Angeles, CA 90023.” (RJN, Ex. 10.)

June 23, 2021, after the Grant Deed from Salvador Garcia Herrera to Munoz, which was recorded on February 22, 2021. (RJN, Exs. 6, 10.)[2] Plaintiffs assert that the 1998 Quit Claim Deed is still valid against Munoz’s deed, because Munoz was not a bona fide purchaser of the subject Property. Plaintiffs note that pursuant to Civil Code section 1217, “[a]n unrecorded instrument is valid as between the parties thereto and those who have notice thereof.” In addition, “a bona fide purchaser for value who acquires his interest in real property without notice of another’s asserted rights in the property takes the property free of such unknown rights. The elements of bona fide purchase are payment of value, in good faith, and without actual or constructive notice of another’s rights.” (Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1238, 1251 (internal quotations, citations, and emphasis omitted.))

Plaintiffs provide evidence that Salvador (the grantor) never received any money from Munoz for any purchase of the Property. (Declaration of Salvador Garcia Herrera (“Salvador Decl.”) ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs also assert that Munoz had notice of Plaintiffs’ ownership of the Property prior to Munoz obtaining the February 15, 2021 Grant Deed from Salvador. Plaintiffs indicate that in September of 2020, Abran told Munoz that Rosa had transferred title to the Property to Plaintiffs. (Abran Decl., ¶ 3.) Rosa also indicates that when she gave the Property to Plaintiffs in September of 2020, she told Munoz that she did so. (Rosa Decl., ¶ 5.) Munoz did not file an opposition to the instant motion, and thus does not present any evidence disputing the foregoing.

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving the elements of their first cause of action for quiet title, and that Munoz has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact thereto.

Next, Plaintiffs assert that there is no triable issue of material fact as to their second cause of action for cancellation of deed.

“Under Civil Code section 3412, ‘[a] written instrument, in respect to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his application, be so adjudged, and ordered to be delivered up or canceled.’ To prevail on a claim to cancel an instrument, a plaintiff must prove (1) the instrument is void or voidable due to, for example, fraud, and (2) there is a reasonable apprehension of serious injury including pecuniary loss or the prejudicial alteration of one’s position.” (Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1193-1194 [internal reference to [Citation.] omitted.)

Plaintiffs assert that the February 15, 2021 Grant Deed from Salvador to Munoz is void, because Salvador did not know that he was signing a deed purporting to transfer the Property to Munoz, and never intend to do so. In support of this assertion, Plaintiffs provide evidence that Abran, Rosa, and Abran’s sisters Catalina Herrera (“Catalina”) and Cynthia Herrera (“Cynthia”) reside in the front duplex of the Property, i.e., 714 S. Mott Street, and that Munoz and her boyfriend Jose Luis Perez (“Jose”) reside in the back duplex, i.e. 716 S. Mott Street. (Abran Decl., ¶ 3; Rosa Decl., ¶ 3.) Since moving into the back duplex, Munoz and Jose harassed Abran, Rosa, Catalina, and Cynthia. (Abran Decl., ¶ 4; Rosa Decl., ¶ 4.) Abran, Rosa, Catalina, and Cynthia obtained restraining orders against Munoz and Jose in April of 2021. (Abran Decl., ¶ 4; Rosa Decl., ¶ 4.) On February 2, 2021, Abran told Munoz and Jose that as the owner of the Property he would be evicting them due to their ongoing violence. (Abran Decl., ¶ 5.) Abran then filed an unlawful detainer action against Munoz and Jose on February 9, 2021, in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STUD00351. (Abran Decl., ¶ 5; RJN, Ex. 1.)

Plaintiffs submit the declaration of Salvador, who indicates that Jose is his stepson. (Salvador Decl., ¶ 4.) On February 15, 2021, Jose arrived at Salvador’s home unannounced, and told Salvador that Abran was trying to evict him and that he needed help staying in his residence located at 716 S. Mott Street, Los Angeles, CA 90023. (Salvador Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6.) Jose presented documents to Salvador and said he needed Salvador’s signature to stay in his residence, but did not explain to Salvador what the documents were or what they meant. (Salvador Decl., ¶ 11.) Salvador signed his name on about ten documents that were presented to him, but did not know what the documents he signed were because he is illiterate and cannot read or write. (Salvador Decl., ¶ 11.) In April of 2021, Abran told Salvador that he had signed a grant deed transferring title to the Property to Munoz. (Salvador Decl., ¶ 14.) Salvador indicates that he did not know he was signing a deed to the Property to Munoz on February 15, 2021, and never intended to transfer any interest in the Property to Munoz. (Salvador Decl., ¶ 14.) Salvador also states that he had no ownership interest in the Property when he signed the grant deed to Munoz on February 15, 2021, as he executed the June 18, 1998 Quit Claim Deed along with Maria Angelica Rivera transferring his interest in the Property to Rosa. (Salvador Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 2.) Lastly, as set forth above, Salvador indicates that at no time has he received any money from Munoz or Jose for any purchase of the Property. (Salvador Decl., ¶ 15.)

Plaintiffs note that “[a] deed is void…if the grantor is unaware of the nature of what he or she is signing.” ((Schiavon v. Arnaudo Bros. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 374, 378.) In Erickson v. Bohne (1955) 130 Cal.App.2d 553, a case similar to this action, “the plaintiff was mentally and physically incapable of understanding and transacting business and was taken advantage of by her daughter and her daughter’s friend, who fraudulently procured the execution and delivery of a deed by the plaintiff to the daughter. The daughter then conveyed the property to her friend, who conveyed it for valuable consideration to a third party, who did not know of the fraud. The plaintiff did not know that she was signing a deed, had no intention to convey property, and received no consideration. The court found that the plaintiff stated a cause of action against the third party purchaser for cancellation of all three deeds on the ground that her original grant deed was void. ‘[P]laintiff’s deed was void because it is alleged . . . that she was wholly without understanding . . . Under such circumstances there was no effective execution or delivery of the deed, . . . it was void ab initio and an action to avoid it could be brought at any time. . . . ‘A void deed passes no title and cannot be made the foundation of a good title even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase.’” (Schiavon v. Arnaudo Bros., supra, 84 Cal.App.4th 374, 379.)

As set forth above, to prevail on a claim to cancel an instrument, Plaintiffs must also prove that there is a reasonable apprehension of serious injury including pecuniary loss or the prejudicial alteration of one’s position. Plaintiffs indicate that the grant deed from Salvador to Munoz has caused a cloud on title and may prevent Abran from evicting Munoz and Jose from the Property. (Abran Decl., ¶ 8.) Abran states that in the pending unlawful detainer action against Munoz and Jose (Case No. 21STUD02659) the Court continued the May 26, 2022 trial until after the hearing on the instant motion for summary judgment so that the title dispute in this case can be determined first. (Abran Decl., ¶ 8.)

In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their burden of proving the elements of their second cause of action for cancellation of deed, and that Munoz has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact thereto.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment is granted.

The Court orders Plaintiffs to file and serve a proposed judgment within 10 days of the date of this order.

[1]The Court notes that Plaintiffs seek to quiet title to the Property, against all adverse claims of all claimants, known and unknown, as of the date Plaintiffs’ Complaint was filed. (Compl., ¶ 12.) In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs seek, inter alia, a judgment that Plaintiffs are the owner in fee simple of the Property, and that no defendant has any interest in the Property adverse to Plaintiffs. (Compl., p. 4:18-19.)

[2]As set forth above, Plaintiffs provide evidence that the September 11, 2020 Quit Claim Deed from Rosa to Plaintiffs was recorded on January 7, 2021. (RJN, Ex. 9.)

ABRAN SALVADOR HERRERA, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. ROSIO MUNOZ, et al., Defendants.	Case No.:	21STCV14743
	Hearing Date:	August 11, 2022
	Hearing Time:	2:00 p.m.
	[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS ABRAN SALVADOR HERRERA AND J. JESUS PEREZ GUDINO FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ALTERNATIVELY, FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50