What is quiet title?

Useful Resources for Quiet Title

Recent Rulings on Quiet Title

101-125 of 4415 results

SABINA VALENCIA VS HECTOR FRIAS ET AL

The FAC asserts causes of action for: Fraud; Negligent Misrepresentation; Quiet Title; and Money Had and Received. On July 13, 2020, Plaintiff dismissed Hector Frias without prejudice.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC VS NEW CENTURY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, A CALIFORNIA COR~ORATION

Plaintiff’s October 31, 2019 complaint contains a cause of action for quiet title. The court must “examine into and determine” the validity of Plaintiff’s claims to title, and “hear” such evidence as may be offered regarding defendant’s claims. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 764.010 [“The court shall examine into and determine the plaintiff's title against the claims of all the defendants.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

DEBEVOISE VS ROBINSON

Plaintiffs sought to quiet title to a portion of the Point, sought a prescriptive easement to access the back of their property and sought an irrevocable license for their drainage. Plaintiffs also sought an injunction to remove the fence and other objects that Defendants put up to block Plaintiffs' view.

  • Hearing

    Dec 03, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

THOMAS JUNG, ET AL. VS OLSON URBAN ? LOS ANGELES 2, LLC, ET AL.

Plaintiffs have instead named the seventh and eighth causes of action for Quiet Title and Declaratory Relief. Per Grappo, the two causes of action are subject to a demurrer for uncertainty. Accordingly, Defendants’ demurrer to the seventh cause of action is also SUSTAINED on this additional ground. Seventh Cause of Action: Unverified Defendants further demurrer to the seventh cause of action for quiet title and declaratory relief on the basis that the complaint is unverified.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

AGNES MA VS LI-CHEN CHEN

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Quiet Title; and Cancellation (Cal. Civ. Code § 3412). On January 30, 2020, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order re: Settlement and Retention of Jurisdiction, dismissing the case and retaining jurisdiction pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 664.6. Plaintiff now moves for an order enforcing the settlement agreement by ordering Defendant to pay $5,994.00, plus attorney fees and costs.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

SHELBY PAGADUAN VS SHARON GROSPE DE GUZMAN, ET AL.

Fourth Cause of Action – Quiet Title In an action to quiet title, the complaint must be verified and must include the following: A description of the property that is the subject of the action. In the case of tangible personal property, the description shall include its usual location. In the case of real property, the description shall include both its legal description and its street address or common designation, if any.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

APRIL LENAI DEAN VS PEOPLE'S CHOICE LENDING, ET AL.

Quiet Title To obtain quiet title of the Property, Plaintiff must provide: (1) the Property’s legal description and common designation; (2) Plaintiff’s title and the basis of that title; (3) specific adverse claims to Plaintiff’s title; (4) the date as of which determination is sought; and (5) a prayer for determination of Plaintiff’s title against adverse claims. (C.C.P § 761.020.) Plaintiff’s cause of action for quiet title fails. Plaintiff does not identify what the adverse claims are.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ARMANDO GAYTAN VS ADAM GREENFIELD

This action was filed by Plaintiff Gaytan for Quiet Title and Fraud. Plaintiff alleges that he is a 20% owner. The complaint alleges a real property claim. Plaintiff has the burden of producing evidence of probable validity of the claim based on a preponderance of evidence. (CCP §§ 405.32 and 405.31; Kirkeby v. Sup. Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648.) Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence in opposition.

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

HENARD V GEISER

Plaintiffs previously brought an action against Defendant Ralph Partners in which the made the same claim which they allege now in their First Amended Complaint for quiet title: tha the sale of Plaintiffs’ former property to Ralph Partners was based on fraud. The claim wa adjudicated against Plaintiffs and a judgment was entered in favor of Ralph Partners on July 9 2018 (RFJN Ex. 11).

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

HENARD V GEISER

Plaintiffs previously brought an action against Defendant Ralph Partners in which the made the same claim which they allege now in their First Amended Complaint for quiet title: tha the sale of Plaintiffs’ former property to Ralph Partners was based on fraud. The claim wa adjudicated against Plaintiffs and a judgment was entered in favor of Ralph Partners on July 9 2018 (RFJN Ex. 11).

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

ALAMEDA SQUARE OWNER LLC VS THE LOS ANGELES WHOLESALE PRODUCE MARKET, LLC

RELATED-CASE PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 14, 2017, LAWPM filed a Verified FAC in the Related Case (BC628018) alleging five causes of action: Declaratory relief Declaratory relief Quiet title Injunctive relief Breach of written contract On August 16, 2017 the Court granted LAWPM’s motions for summary adjudication on the First and Fourth causes of action. On December 22, 2017, after a bench trial, the Court entered judgment for LAWPM on the Second and Third Causes of Action.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

HENARD V GEISER

Plaintiffs previously brought an action against Defendant Ralph Partners in which the made the same claim which they allege now in their First Amended Complaint for quiet title: tha the sale of Plaintiffs’ former property to Ralph Partners was based on fraud. The claim wa adjudicated against Plaintiffs and a judgment was entered in favor of Ralph Partners on July 9 2018 (RFJN Ex. 11).

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

AGUINA VS CRAWFORD

A borrower must allege a credible tender or excuse from tender to maintain a quiet title or wrongful foreclosure action. (Miller v. Provost (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1703, 1707.) One excuse from the tender requirement is where the borrower attacks the validity of the underlying debt. (Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 112–113.) Here, Plaintiff attacks the underlying debt's validity because he complains of the excessive payment demand to escrow. (4AC, ¶ 50.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

RAELENE M. RAMOS ET AL. V. LINDA J. BOWLBY, ET AL.

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges causes of action for: (1) declaratory relief, (2) declaratory relief, (3) cancellation of instrument, (4) financial elder abuse, (5) rescission of instrument, (6) conversion, (7) quiet title, and (8) injunctive relief. Plaintiff Raelene M. Ramos and Defendant Linda J. Bowlby are sisters. Their father was John L. Hindmarsh (John or Decedent), who passed away on February 4, 2020 in San Luis Obispo County. Plaintiff Annastasia C.

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

ARMANDO RAMIREZ VS JESUS PADILLA ET AL.

Thomas (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 467 (Salazar) explains: “In 1965, Chief Justice Traynor discussed the general rule that the statute of limitations for a quiet title action does not run against a party in possession of the land and identified at least part of the rationale for the limited qualification: ‘[N]o statute of limitations runs against a plaintiff seeking to quiet title while he is in possession of the property. [Citations.]

  • Hearing

    Nov 25, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Issues of the propriety of the trustee’s sale must be resolved in the unlawful detainer action, as “subsequent fraud or quiet title suits founded upon allegations of irregularity in a trustee’s sale are barred by the prior unlawful detainer judgment.” (Id. at p. 256.) Likewise, the court in Malkoskie v. Option One Mortgage Corp. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 968 held that “the validity [of the purchaser’s] title had to be resolved in the unlawful detainer action.” (Id. at p. 974.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

MARCEL JORDAN VS WILLIAM CARR, ET AL.

BACKGROUND This operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) arises from a property located at 9023-9025 Baring Cross Street, Los Angeles, California 90044 (the “Subject Property”), alleging causes of action for: (1) declaratory relief (count 1); (2) quiet title (count 1); (3) quiet title (count 2); (4) ejectment; (5) trespass; (6) declaratory relief (count 2); (7) declaratory relief (count 3); and (8) declaratory relief (count 4).

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FINANCIAL SERVICES VEHICLE TRUST, BY AND THROUGH ITS SERVICER BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS ARMEN MELIKYAN, ET AL.

On April 4, 2019, and August 22, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint then verified first amended complaint on for Breach of Contract, Common Count, Claim and Delivery, Conversion, Fraud, Quiet Title, Declaratory Relief, and Injunctive Relief. On September 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Stay as to individual defendant, Armen Melikyan. A Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition was filed on August 25, 2020. RULING: Granted.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. VS. JOSE LUIS TORRES, ET AL

His operative First Amended Cross-Complaint (“J1XC”) was filed on August 30, 2018, and alleges two causes of action for (1) Quiet Title, and (2) Declaratory Relief. PRESENTATION: Leticia filed an ex parte application on September 21, 2020 and Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 22, 2020. No reply has been received by the Court. On September 22, 2020, Torres filed a notice of joinder as to the ex parte application.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

LAGUNA GREENBELT INC VS. COUNTY OF ORANGE

(See, e.g., Opp. at 10:17-19 ["Plaintiffs have a statutory right to quiet title to the County's Parcels and resolve whether the Development Agreements limits use of those properties to institufional uses."].)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

ARMEN MANASSERIAN, ET AL. VS DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., ASSET-BACKED PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICA

The complaint, filed July 16, 2019, alleges causes of action for: (1) quiet title against all Defendants; (2) cancellation of deed and trust against all Defendants; (3) declaratory relief against all Defendants; and (4) breach of warranty of marketable title and lack of encumbrances against Tsilikyan. B.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GHODSIEH "VIDA" ROOZAFZAI, ET AL. VS XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, ET AL.

Statute of Limitations The statute of limitations for a quiet title cause of action based upon fraud or mistake is three years, and four years when based upon cancellation of an instrument. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 338, subd. (d), 343.) Thus, Plaintiffs were required to bring their cause of action by August 2018 if by mistake or fraud, and August 2019 for cancellation of an instrument. The statute of limitations for an elder abuse cause of action is four years. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 15657.7.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

TD AUTO FINANCE LLC VS NEW TECH AUTO CARE, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

The complaint, filed June 24, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) conversion; (3) claim and delivery; (4) quiet title; and (5) TRO, preliminary and permanent injunctions, and damages.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Promisory Note

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Third Cause of Action (Quiet Title) – One who alleges that he is the owner of certain described real property, that defendants claim an interest therein adversely to him, that such claim is without right, and that the defendants have no estate, title or interest whatever in said premises or any part thereof pleads all that the law requires in an action to quiet title and the complaint need not particularly state the facts in regard to the asserted invalidity nor attack the instrument which is claimed to be a

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

LIU V. FAN, ET AL.

Demurrer to the first cause of action for quiet title and second cause of action for cancellation of instrument on the ground of misjoinder Fan demurs to the first cause of action for quiet title and the second cause of action for cancellation of instrument on the ground of misjoinder in that MERS is not joined and is a necessary party. (See Def.’s memo, p.10:21-27, 11:1-20.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  « first    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 177     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.