“A quiet title action seeks to declare the rights of the parties in realty.... The object of the action is to finally settle and determine, as between the parties, all conflicting claims to the property in controversy, and to decree to each such interest or estate therein as he may be entitled to.” (Western Aggregates, Inc. v. County of Yuba (2002) 101 CA4th 278, 305.)

“[T]he current quiet title statutes, enacted in 1980, were designed to create a purely in rem quiet title action, which would enable a quiet title plaintiff to obtain clear title against the world.” (Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. v. McGurk (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 201, 215 (“Deutsche Bank”).)

Legal Standard

A plaintiff may bring a quiet title cause of action to establish title against adverse claims to real or personal property or any interest therein. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 760.020.) “[T]he plaintiff must show he has a substantive right to relief before he can be granted any relief at all.” (Leeper v. Beltrami (1959) 53 Cal.2d 195, 216.)

A quiet title action is commenced by filing a complaint with the Court. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 761.010(a).) Immediately upon commencement of the action, Plaintiff shall file a notice of pendency of the action in the office of the county recorder of each county in which any real property described in the complaint is located. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 761.010(b).) The quiet title statutes also require the plaintiff to record a lis pendens against the property for the duration of the action (Code of Civ. Proc., § 762.010) and name as defendants all known parties which have or may claim to have an interest in the property. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 762.010; Gerhard v. Stephens (1968) 68 Cal.2d 864, 908.)

The elements of a cause of action for quiet title are set forth in section 761.020 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A complaint must contain:

1. a description of the property;
2. the basis for the plaintiffs’ title in the property;
3. the adverse claims of the defendants against the plaintiff’s title;
4. the date as of which the title determination is sought; and
5. a prayer for determination of title in favor of the plaintiff and against the adverse claims.

(Code of Civ. Proc., § 761.020; Strauss v. Summerhays (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 806, 812, fn. 3.)

“[A] quiet title judgment requires a hearing in open court. Although section 764.010 does not mandate oral argument—and we do not hold oral argument is necessary, though it may be helpful—the statute requires examining plaintiff's title and hearing defendant's evidence ‘in all cases.’” (Harbour Vista v. HSBC Mortgage Services, Inc. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1507—1508, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 424.) “[B]efore entering any judgment on a quiet title cause of action the court must ‘in all cases’ ‘hear such evidence as may be offered respecting the claims of any of the defendants.’” (Harbour Vista, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1502, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 424.)

“The court clearly acts as a fact finder and adjudicates issues when it determines whether to quiet title in the plaintiff.... [T]he statute does not explicitly permit evidentiary objections, [but] we believe this feature is implicit in the portion of the statute that ‘require[s] evidence of plaintiff's title’ and requires the court to hear defendant's evidence. If evidence is to be received, the court must fulfill its gatekeeper function, and that would require considering objections. The court must decide whether the evidence is sufficient in any event, because it must render judgment ‘in accordance with the evidence....’ Allowing objections from each side assists the court in making this determination. Finally, a quiet title judgment clearly involves a matter of considerable significance to the parties. If quiet title is the sole cause of action, the hearing is, in effect, the trial of the entire matter.... [I]t warrants an open-court hearing.” (Harbour Vista, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1507–1508, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 424.)

In actions to determine plaintiff's title to property, the court “shall not enter judgment by default but shall in all cases require evidence of plaintiff's title and hear such evidence as may be offered respecting claims of any of the defendants.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 764.010.)

A “judgment by default” is flatly prohibited in every quiet title action. (Harbour Vista, at pp. 1502, 1504–1505, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 424.) “In quiet title actions, default proceedings must be conducted by means of evidentiary hearings.... In [such] actions, judgment may not be entered by the normal default prove-up methods; the court must require evidence of the plaintiff's title.... ‘If properly served defendants have not appeared, their default may be entered by the clerk, and judgment entered after a default prove-up hearing.... All proof that plaintiff would have had to present at trial, however, must be presented at that hearing; a declaration or other summary procedure will not be permitted. Live witnesses must testify, and complete authentication of the underlying real property records is essential.’” (Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 576, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 502, 581 (Yeung).) In other words, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to judgment in its favor but must prove its case in an evidentiary hearing with live witnesses and any other admissible evidence (Id. at p. 581 & fn. 4, 14 Cal.Rptr.3d 502; Harbour Vista, supra, 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 1503, fn. 6, 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 424.)

Burden of Proof

“The quiet title claimant has the burden of proof to show every element of the right claimed.” (City of Santa Maria v. Adam (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 266, 298.)

At trial, the plaintiff must prove “either legal title or actual possession.” (Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Cal.2d 702, 706-707 [title by mutually agreed boundary].) “Where the [quiet title] plaintiff relies on a paper title alone he must trace his title

1. to the government; or
2. to grantor in possession at the time of the conveyance to the plaintiff; or
3. to a source common to the chains of title of plaintiff and defendant.”

(Cf. Thompson v. Ioane (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1180, 1195; Ernie v. Trinity Lutheran Church (1959) 51 Cal.2d 702, 706-707.)

Statute of Limitations

There is no uniform statute of limitations for quiet title actions; the statute of limitations depends on the underlying theory of recovery. (Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558, 560.) A quiet title action based on breach of contract is barred after 4 years. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 337(1).) A quiet title action based on negligence is barred after 2 years. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 335.1.) And a quiet title action based on fraud is barred after 3 years. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 338(d).)

“[T]he most likely time limits for a quiet title action are the five-year limitations period for adverse possession, the four-year limitations period for the cancellation of an instrument, or the three-year limitations period for claims based on fraud and mistake.” (Salazar v. Thomas (2015) 236 Cal.App.4th 467, 476-77.)