Judge Thomas Falls, Case 22PSCV00563 2023-01-11 Tentative Ruling

(1) Defendant Rosendo Flores Gonzalez’s (“Defendant”) DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT

(1) Defendant Rosendo Flores Gonzalez’s DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT is SUSTAINED. Leave to amend is to be determined at the hearing.

This case pertains to property located at 914 Lidford Ave., La Puente, CA 91744 (“Property"): Plaintiff CARLOS MORENO alleges the following against Defendants ROSENDO FLORES GONZALEZ, individually and as Trustee of the Rosendo Flores and Elvia Gonzalez revocable living trust dated June 21, 2018; ELVIA GONZALEZ, individually and as Trustee of the Rosendo Flores and Elvia Gonzalez revocable living trust dated June 21, 2018; and All Persons Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiff’s Title, or Any Cloud on Plaintiff’s Title Thereto: In 2015, Plaintiff paid all acquisition costs for the Property and between then until 2022, Plaintiff has made 100% of the monthly mortgage payments. (First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶7.) Despite Plaintiff’s purchase of the property and payments, Defendants took fee simple title as joint tenants by a grant deed. (FAC ¶8.) As Plaintiff has held exclusive possession of the Property from 2015 to the present, Plaintiff is seeking to quiet title a 100% fee simple interest against the any adverse claims to the Property. (FAC ¶12.)

On August 12, 2022, Defendant Rosendo Flores Gonzalez filed a demurrer, which the court sustained with leave to amend.

On October 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed its FAC, reasserting the same causes of action against the same Defendants.

On November 2, 2022, Defendants filed the instant Demurrer with a Motion to Strike.[1]

On December 19, 2022, default was entered against All Persons Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiffs Title, or Any Cloud on Plaintiff's Title Thereto.

On December 27, 2022, Plaintiff filed its Opposition to the Demurrer and Motion to Strike.

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) 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.[2] Therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (CCP §§ 430.30, 430.70.) 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 of instruments pleaded, or facts impossible in law.” (S. Shore Land Co. v. Petersen (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [internal citations omitted].)

The court previously sustained Defendant’s demurrer on the grounds that Plaintiff showed nothing more than the possessory right to occupancy enjoyed by any tenant when his complaint required a showing of a bona fide interest. Upon a review of the FAC (which the court notes has made but minor, superficial changes), the court finds Plaintiff has again failed to specifically plead adverse possession.

If adverse possession is specially pleaded, the elements constituting such adverse possession must be alleged. (See CCP section 761.020 subd. (b) [“If the title is based upon adverse possession, the complaint shall allege the specific facts constituting the adverse possession.”] (emphasis and underline added). The elements of adverse possession hostile to the true owner; (4) continuous possession for at least are the following: (1) possession under claim of right or color of title; (2) actual, open, and notorious occupation of the premises constituting reasonable notice to the true owner; (3) possession which is adverse and five years; and (5) payment of all taxes assessed against the property during the five-year period.” (Main Street Plaza v. Cartwright & Main, LLC (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1054.)

Here, the only allegations made as to adverse possession are the following:

From January 2015 to present, Plaintiff CARLOS MORENO and his authorized occupants have held exclusive possession of the Property under, and has further paid all mortgage payments, real property taxes, made all repairs and generally maintained the Property. By openly occupying, maintaining and constructing improvements at the Property, Plaintiff held actual, open, exclusive, hostile, and adverse possession of the Property, as against Defendants, for more than five years preceding the commencement of this action and has paid all taxes assessed against the above-described Property for more than five years preceding the commencement of this action.

(FAC ¶¶9, 10.)

In Opposition, Plaintiff merely cites to paragraphs 9, 10, 14, and 16 as its argument that adverse possession has been pled. It is not a court’s duty to make a party’s argument by determining what allegations constitute as what elements of a cause of action. Moreover, it is a party’s responsibility to provide the legal authority that supports its legal contentions.

What’s more, as noted by Defendant, a holder of equitable title (which the facts appear to plead), cannot maintain a quiet title cause of action against a legal owner.[4] (See Demurrer p. 6 and Reply p. 2, citing G.R. Holcomb Estate Co. v. Burke (1935) 4 Cal.2d 289, 297 [“At most the plaintiff claims to be the equitable owner of said lands. It has been repeatedly held in this state that an action to quiet title will not lie in favor of the holder of an equitable title as against the holder of a legal title. [Citation]. Under this doctrine, plaintiff's action to quiet title to said lands must fail.”]; see also Lewis v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1866 [“[T]he holder of equitable title cannot maintain a quiet title action against the legal owner.”].)

Therefore, as is, the complaint again appears to conclusively plead adverse possession when the statute requires specific facts.

Based on the foregoing and for reasons previously articulated, the demurrer is again sustained. The court will hear from Plaintiff whether leave to amend is appropriate considering Plaintiff failed to make the required changes and its opposition failed to address Defendant’s authority. The motion to strike is moot.

[1] The Motion to Strike starts on p. 23 of 36 of the PDF of the filing.

[2] Based on this, the court will disregard Defendant’s explanation that Plaintiff worked for Defendant and was a tenant at the Property.

[3] Additionally, as the court’s previous tentative thoroughly addressed the issues, this tentative will be brief. The parties can reference the previous tentative for rule statements.

[4] And Plaintiff specifically pleads that Defendants hold fee simple interest in the Property.