What is quiet title?

Useful Resources for Quiet Title

Recent Rulings on Quiet Title

CALIFORNIA STATE GRANGE V. LOS OLIVOS COMMUNITY ORG

This doctrine would apply to the declaratory relief (1st) and quiet title (2nd) causes of action. The doctrine of equitable estoppel is founded on notions of equity and fair dealing and provides that a person may not deny the existence of a state of facts if that person has intentionally led others to believe a particular circumstance to be true and to rely upon such belief to their detriment.

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

GUILLERMO CALIXTRO VS THE CWALT INC., ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2006-OA17, ET AL.

The court finds that this action, pleading claims for quiet title and various wrongful foreclosure claims, affects title to real property, and pleads a real property claim. However, Plaintiff has submitted no evidence establishing that he will prevail on his claims. At best, it seems that Plaintiff is asserting that he has submitted or attempted to submit a withdrawal of the lis pendens to the Count Clerk’s Office, or a Release of Notice of Pendency of Action. (Calixtro Decl., ¶ 5.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

BETH S. FIELD VS. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL

Fourth Cause of Action – Quiet Title Quiet title requires: (1) a description of the property; (2) plaintiff's title or interest and the basis; (3) defendant’s asserting adverse claim or antagonistic property interest; (3) date as of which the determination is sought; and (5) a prayer for determination of title. (Code Civ. Proc., §761.020; Lucas v. Sweet (1956) 47 Cal. 2d 20, 22.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 26, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

DAVID ROSS, ET AL. VS JUSTIN MONEMPOUR, AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS TRUSTEE MARTEL TRUST,

Quiet Title Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for quiet title because their only interest in the Property is based on a contract barred by the statute of frauds.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

ANNA IMOGEN ARROWSMITH VS PETER MARTOCCHIO, ET AL.

The Supreme Court in Prentice considered a case where a trial court had awarded attorney’s fees to plaintiffs against an escrow company which had negligently handled an escrow, requiring plaintiffs to prosecute a quiet title action against third parties with respect to the subject property.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ROBERT FISHER, ET AL VS, ROBERT D. ENTWISLE, ET AL

Second Cause of Action for Quiet Title Plaintiffs allege no additional facts to support the cause of action for quiet title, which is only available if they prevail on the deed of trust is cancelled under the first cause of action, For the reasons stated above, the allegations in the Complaint also fail to state a cause of action for quiet title, D. Demurrer to Complaint for Failure to Name Indispensable Parties The demurrer cites Code Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

VEHANOOSH GRIGORIAN VS. ALEX MEGEREDCHIAN ET AL

Plaintiff also alleges that in breach of their duties and ethical obligations to plaintiff, their client, and plaintiff’s spouse, also their client, defendants have filed a civil suit against plaintiff and her spouse on behalf of the other two partners, seeking to quiet title to the property in favor of the other partners according to their purported 50% interest.

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2021

CRISTINA MAGANA VS SN SERVICING CORPORATION

Bank National Association, as trustee of the Lodge Series III Trust, Rushmore Loan Management Services, LLC, JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association fka Washington Mutual Bank, the Law Offices of Ghidotti/Berger LLP, and Prestige Default Services, alleging: (1) slander of title; (2) accounting; (3) quiet title; (4) cancel trustee’s deed; (5) wrongful foreclosure; and (6) California Business and Professions Code section 17200.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

DAVIS VS. FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY

., Plaintiff’s FAC is based upon Defendants’ cross-complaints to quiet title on the subject easement in the 2016 case. However, as discussed above, the FAC is also based on other allegedly wrongful acts by the Defendants. (See FAC, ¶¶ 30, 33, 36, 44, 46, 51, 54 and 57.) Thus, the demurrer on this ground is OVERRULED. Demurrer to FAC – Statute of Limitations: Defendants also contend all of Plaintiff’s claims are time-barred.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

THUAN D LE, ET AL. VS TRANS ATLANTIC INTL. INC. A NEVADA CORPORATION, ET AL.

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on January 1, 2020, alleging: (1) lack of title and standing – Civil Code section 2924(a)(6); (2) cancellation of instruments; (3) violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200; (4) quiet title; (5) wrongful foreclosure; (6) negligent misrepresentation; and (7) promissory estoppel. On July 31, 2020, the Court sustained Bayview and New York Mellon’s (here, Defendants) demurrer to Plaintiffs’ FAC and granted their motion to strike.

  • Hearing

    Jan 19, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

WVBAGD, LLC VS GREG GALLETLY, ET AL.

Further, insofar as Borrowers purport to seek other relief through their claims for declaratory relief (first cause of action), an accounting (second cause of action), cancellation of written instrument (third cause of action), and quiet title (fourth cause of action), all such causes of action essentially seek to enjoin a nonjudicial foreclosure or challenge WVBAGD’s ability to foreclose altogether.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Foreclosure

KRISTI COURTOIS, , AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND AS BENEFICIARY AND HEIR OF THE ESTATE OF AUSTEENE G. COOPER VS NEWREZ, LLC., ET AL.

FAULTY 2011 ASSIGNMENT — FIRST, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, AND TENTH CAUSES OF ACTION Defendants challenge Plaintiff’s first, third, fourth, fifth, and tenth causes of action (respectively for wrongful foreclosure, fraud, cancellation of instruments, slander of title, and quiet title), which are grounded on what Plaintiff characterizes as a faulty 2011 assignment of the deed of trust from MERS to BNYM based on an alleged prior sale of the debt from Countrywide to third-party CWALT, Inc. (Complaint ¶ 29.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JOSE AGUIRRE VS LORENA MEZA

Meza filed a cross-complaint for quiet title, declaratory relief, and breach of oral agreement. On September 9, 2019, the court conducted a bench trial. On September 12, 2019, the court issued a statement of decision. The court found in favor of Plaintiff on the declaratory relief cause of action, and in favor of defendant on the fraud claim.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

JACQUELINE HUTTON VS BOSCO CREDIT ET AL.

PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO ALLEGE QUIET TITLE: Plaintiff’s second cause of action is to quiet title. To establish a cause of action to quiet title, Plaintiffs must plead: (a) A description of the property that is the subject of the action. … In the case of real property, the description shall include both its legal description and its street address or common designation, if any. (b) The title of the plaintiff as to which a determination under this chapter is sought and the basis of the title. ….

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Judge Jayne Lee
  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

HALL VS. MALIN

The SAC includes claims such as quiet title, among numerous other claims, which are premised upon allegations that plaintiff has a 50% interest in the Property resulting from an agreement entered into between plaintiff and Leonard Malin (“Dr. Malin”) in 2012, plaintiff’s payment of $35,000 to Dr. Malin, Dr. Malin’s execution of a grant deed dated March 31, 2012 granting plaintiff “an undivided 50% interest” in the Property which he never recorded as plaintiff and Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

JESUS OCAMPO VS PAULOS REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS LLC

Complaint Plaintiff Ocampo commenced this proceeding on October 19, 2020, alleging causes of action for: (1) trespass, (2) private nuisance, (3) quiet title, (4) conversion, (5) ejectment, (6) easement by necessity, (7) equitable easement, and (8) vandalism. The verified Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows. Ocampo is the legal owner of the residential properties located at Lot 47 and Paulos is the owner of Lot 48.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

SERRANO VS NEDDERMEYER

[The demurrer on plaintiff’s quiet title and declaratory relief causes of action alleged in the SAC have been sustained on the ground that Plaintiff has failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.]

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

NORMANDIE COMMUNITY WORSHIP CENTER VS ANTOINETTE BROOKS, ET AL.

On January 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Verified Complaint (“FAC”) for quiet title and declaratory relief. On January 30, 2019, Defendant filed a verified cross-complaint against Plaintiff for fraud, slander of title, intentional infliction of emotional distress, cancellation of deed, and quiet title and recovery of real property. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff fraudulently obtained title to the Property by forging the grant deed transferring the Property to Plaintiff.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GENADIO CORREA VS GUADALUPE RAMOS, ET AL.

On February 13, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Ramos, Roa and Does 1-20 for: Breach of Written Contract Intentional Interference with Contract Unjust Enrichment Quiet Title Declaratory Relief On July 9, 2020, Ramos’ and Roa’s defaults were entered. A Case Management Conference is set for January 12, 2021. Legal Standard Relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 is either discretionary or mandatory.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

MELVIN N.A. AVANZADO VS FAY SERVICING, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY CORPORATION

Complaint Plaintiff Avanzado commenced this proceeding on August 25, 2020 against Defendant Fay[3], alleging causes of action for: (1) fraud and deceit, (2) slander of title, (3) quiet title, (4) declaratory relief, (5) violation of California Homeowner Bill of Rights (“HBOR”), (6) unfair competition, (7) slander of credit, (8) breach of contract, and (9) negligence and seeking the remedies of preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. The Complaint alleges in pertinent part as follows.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

PABLO ARTURO CARDOZA, ET AL. VS. MARTHA MUNOZ MARTINEZ, ET A

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges these causes of action: 1) Quiet title; 2) Breach of fiduciary duty; 3) Intentional misrepresentation; 4) Negligent misrepresentation; 5) Intentional interference with expected inheritance; 6) Rescission; 7) Common count; 8) Negligence; and 9) Declaratory relief. Plaintiffs now move to compel initial responses from defendant Alvino Rodriguez to their form interrogatories, special interrogatories, and request for production of documents.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LYNN ODLAND, ET AL VS. MICHAEL FELD, ET AL

Ct. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 642, 648,) Here, the lis pendens is based on the Cross-Complaint to quiet title to the Feld parcel. There is no real property claim stated in the Cross-Complaint as to the Odland parcel. In analyzing whether a real property claim is stated against the Odland parcel, the court need only examine the allegations contained in the Cross-Complaint, as is not required to look through the pleadings to ascertain the purpose of the party seeking to maintain notice of lis pendens. (43 Cal.

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

REBECCA BRAND V. MIMI BRAND, ET AL.

Plaintiff initially challenges defendant’s first cause of action to quiet title to real property. The demurrer will be overruled.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

TRAN VS NGO

Defendant has pled in his Verified Answer that he is the sole owner of the subject property (hereinafter “the Property”) (Answer Para. 49) and has made a claim for quiet title in his Verified Cross-Complaint. Defendant has denied Plaintiff’s claims in his Verified Answer.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

STONEWALL CONSTRUCTION, INC. VS AME CAPITAL, LLC

On July 24, 2019, AME Capital, LLC filed a verified cross- complaint and on September 23, 2019 filed a first amended verified cross-complaint (“FACC”) for (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory relief; (3) fraud – intentional misrepresentation; (4) fraud – concealment; (5) accounting; (6) cancellation of deed of trust; and (7) quiet title.

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2021

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.