Quiet Title

This decision holds that the trial court erred in denying defendants' Anti-SLAPP motion to strike this malicious prosecution action.  While the defendants made a bunch of mistakes in conducting the underlying quiet title action, they did not lack probable cause because two instruments describing the same easement signed by the same grantor gave conflicting information about the easement's temporal duration. … Read More

This decision holds that the trial court erred in granting defendant summary judgment against plaintiff's claim to quiet title to a railroad easement across plaintiff's property benefiting defendant's parcel.  Plaintiff claimed the railroad had abandoned the easement.  Abandonment depends on cessation of use of the easement for permitted purposes and the easement owner's intent not to use the easement in… Read More

Most time deadline statutes and rules are now construed as non-jurisdictional unless Congress has clearly stated otherwise.  The 12-year statute of limitations on quiet title actions against the United States (28 U.S.C. §2409a(g)) is a claims processing rule, not a jurisdictional statute.  The time limit appears in a section separate from the Quiet Title Act's jurisdictional provision and does not… Read More

This decision affirms the granting of a defendant law firm's Anti-SLAPP motion to strike a malicious prosecution action against it, finding the firm had probable cause to name a citizens group and some of its individual members as defendants in a quiet title action that sought to confirm the law firm's client's ownership of water rights in a creek.  The… Read More

The trial court abused its discretion in dismissing this action as a sanction under CCP 128.7 on the ground that there was no reasonable ground for thinking it was not barred by the statute of limitations.  The action sought to quiet title to the property that the plaintiff had purchased in 2008 with knowledge of prior agreements purportedly assigning "coverage… Read More

In a quiet title action, if summons is served by publication, the published notice must describe the property at issue, giving either or both of its street address or legal description.  (CCP 763.,020.)  Here, the published notice gave only the assessor's parcel number.  As the notice did not comply with the statute, it was insufficient; so the default of the… Read More

Distinguishing In re Pecan Groves of America (9th Cir. 1991) 951 F.2d 242, this decision holds that a creditor with a security interest in the debtor's real property has standing to quiet title to the property based on the fact that the homeowners association foreclosed on the property while the automatic stay was in effect on the debtor's bankruptcy.  Under… Read More

Borrower filed a quiet title action against the original beneficiary of her deed of trust, but didn't serve that beneficiary properly and did not nam or serve either later assignee of her deed of trust though both assignments had been recorded.  After obtaining judgment and before the original beneficiary obtained an order vacating the quiet title judgment, Tsasu lent the… Read More

Under the rule announced in Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558, the statute of limitations does not start to run on a quiet title action so long as the plaintiff remains in possession of the premises, even if plaintiff is aware of conflicting claims against the property, so long as the conflicting claims are not pressed against him.  In … Read More

When an owner is in possession of a piece of personal property (such as, here, a car), the statute of limitations on the owner's quiet title claim does not begin to run, even if the owner knows that someone else has a conflicting claim to ownership or an interest in the property. Read More

A void default judgment, obtained without proper service on the defendant, cannot be the foundation of a valid claim of title to property, so the secured lender against whom the default judgment was entered prevails over a bona fide purchaser from the plaintiff.   Read More

Trial court properly found defendants liable under the unfair competition law in view of their fraudulent scheme to acquire semi-abandoned properties through a combination of adverse possession and the recordation of wild deeds.  Read More

The relevant limitations period on a quiet title claim is governed by underlying basis of the claim; in this case, the gravamen of the quiet title claim was that defendant induced her erstwhile boyfriend to sign title transfer documents while inebriated, so the three-year limitations period applicable to fraud claims applied.  Read More