What is slander/disparagement of title?

Useful Resources for Slander or Disparagement of Title

Recent Rulings on Slander or Disparagement of Title

1826-1850 of 1890 results

BRIAN RASCHIATORE VS DANNY COPUS ET AL

“A slander that falls within the first four subdivisions of Civil Code section 46 is slander per se and requires no proof of actual damages. [Citation.] A slander that does not fit into those four subdivisions is slander per quod, and special damages are required for there to be any recovery for that slander. [Citation.]” (Regalia v. The Nethercutt Collection (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 361, 367.)

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2011

GREGG WELSH ET AL VS HADDON DILLON ET AL

With respect to Nos. 6-9, plaintiffs responded that the demands were vague, ambiguous, and overly broad as to the term “THIS ACTION” However, “THIS ACTION” was expressly defined in the demand as “Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Slander Pursuant to Conspiracy, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 137260 and consolidated into lead case, Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1337207.” Therefore, there was no ambiguity, and responses should be provided.

  • Hearing

    Aug 15, 2011

GARY E GROTE ET AL VS. DAVID DRIVER ET AL

HEARING REQUIRED TO ADDRESS SLANDER OF TITLE RE LIABILITY, BASED ON ASSESMENT NOTICE CAN NOT BE ESTABLISHED. = (302/REQ)

  • Hearing

    Aug 08, 2011

HARO-MOSLEY V. PRIETO ET AL.,

The court's tentative ruling is to: Sustain with leave to amend as to Causes of Action 1 - Fraud, 2 - Slander of title, 3 - Quiet title, & 4 - Negligence: insufficient facts. Although there is nothing to suggest that Plaintiff can amend to state any cause of action, one opportunity would be given.

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2011

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

ZACK VICO VS BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL

Slander of Title Plaintiff appears to have abandoned his first cause of action for slander of title: “[I]f the Court should grant Plaintiff leave to amend, Plaintiff would like to remove his cause of action for Slander of Title.” The court deems this a concession that the first cause of action does not state a cause of action. The demurrer will be sustained as to this cause of action. Fraud Plaintiff asserts as his fifth cause of action a complaint for fraud.

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2011

SUSAN LANGE VS. CHASE AS SUCCESSOR TO WASHINGTON MUTUAL

Ninth Cause of Action (Slander of Title): Plaintiff does not oppose the demurrer to the ninth cause of action. The demurrer is sustained as to it without leave to amend. Tenth Cause of Action (IIED): The allegations fail to allege facts constituting extreme and outrageous conduct. The demurrer is sustained as to it without leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jul 11, 2011

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

ADVANCED INTERIOR SYSTEMS INC VS. MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES INC A NEW YORK CORPORATION

There is a question whether the delayed-discovery rule applies to slander actions at all. (See Burdette v. Carrier Corp. (App. 3. Dist. 2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1668, 1692.) Like the Court of Appeal in Burdette, this Court will assume that the discovery rule does apply. On that basis, the Court grants AIS leave to amend and add allegations of its delayed discovery of Boyles' alleged slander. (See Fox v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2011

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

GREGG WELSH ET AL VS HADDON DILLON ET AL

Defendant Farrell now demurs to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on the ground that the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action for slander. Farrell’s previous demurrer to the slander cause of action in plaintiffs’ first amended complaint was sustained with leave to amend.

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2011

DOUG DAVIS, TRUSTEE VS. THE ESTATE OF RICHARD LEBEL ET AL.,

Nymark v Heart Fed Savings & Loan Assoc 231 CA 3d 1089, 1093, fn 1 Overrule as to Cause of Action 4 - Slander of Title: Plaintiff has alleged that the prior trustee knew that what he was doing was wrong and that he assisted Seattle Mortgage in the wrongful recordation of false documents. No legal authority that Defendant cited would impute such wrongdoing to a successor trustee. Wrongdoing would not be essential to the 'effective administration of the trust'. Moeller v Superior Court 16 C 4th 1124, 1131.

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2011

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JEAN MOREAU ET AL VS JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA ET AL

Plaintiffs filed this action on March 2, 2011, asserting seven causes of action: (1) breach of contract, (2) fraud, (3) slander of title, (4) cancellation of cloud on title, (5) deceptive business practices, (6) failure to notify reporting agency of dispute, and (7) injunction. Defendants demur to each of the causes of action in the complaint on the grounds that each fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 13, 2011

JIMMY HONG VS. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK

Plaintiffs' other allegations do not establish a claim for slander of title. Plaintiffs' cuonsel conceded at the hearing that Plaintiffs have no additonal facts to plead as to this count. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, if any, by June 21 2011, on the theories of liability set forth in causes of action 1 (for declaratory relief) and cause of action 4 (intentional misrepresentation) only.

  • Hearing

    Jun 07, 2011

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

JUAN GUTIERREZ PHD VS MURIEL LEZAK PHD

The complaint alleged five causes of action, including a claim for slander per se. The trial court sustained the defendant’s demurrer to all five causes of action without leave to amend and entered judgment for defendant. On appeal, the Fourth Appellate District affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant’s statements before the board were privileged under Section 47 (b ). Id., at 952.

  • Hearing

    Jun 06, 2011

DAVIS VS ADVANCED SEARCH PARTNERS

Overrule Security's demurrer to the 6th cause of action for defamation per se, as Defendants have not shown, as a matter of law, that Security is not Plaintiff'as employer; and slander and libel are sufficiently plead. 7. Overrule Security's and Vona Sr.'s demurrer to the 10th cause of action for violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, as Defendants have not shown, as a matter of law, that Security was not the Plaintiff's employer. 8.

  • Hearing

    May 11, 2011

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ZACK VICO VS BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION ET AL

Slander of Title To state an action for slander of title, plaintiff must allege: “(1) a publication, (2) which is without privilege or justification, (3) which is false, and (4) which causes direct and immediate pecuniary loss.” (Manhattan Loft, LLC v. Mercury Liquors, Inc. (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th 1040, 1051.) The allegations of the cause of action are that a notice of default was recorded by Recontrust purportedly acting as the agent of the beneficiary. (Complaint, ¶ 41-41.)

  • Hearing

    May 09, 2011

VENETTA CLEPPER VS. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC

In the civil action Plaintiff has asserted claims for wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, and slander of title. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages. The civil action was filed on April 13, 2011. The unlawful detainer action was filed on January 11, 2011. In that action, Defendants seek possession of the subject property.

  • Hearing

    May 03, 2011

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

MARY LOU MANKOWSKI VS LA CUMBRE OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC

“The gravamen of an action for ‘disparagement of title,’ also known as ‘slander of title,’ differs from that of an action for personal defamation. [Citation.] Disparagement of title occurs when a person, without a privilege to do so, publishes a false statement that disparages title to property and causes pecuniary loss. [Citation.] ‘The elements of the tort are (1) publication, (2) absence of justification, (3) falsity and (4) direct pecuniary loss.’ [Citation.]

  • Hearing

    Apr 18, 2011

GREGG WELSH ET AL VS HADDON DILLON ET AL

“A slander that falls within the first four subdivisions of Civil Code section 46 is slander per se and requires no proof of actual damages. [Citation.] A slander that does not fit into those four subdivisions is slander per quod, and special damages are required for there to be any recovery for that slander. [Citation.]” (Regalia v. The Nethercutt Collection (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 361, 367.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 11, 2011

MARY LOU MANKOWSKI VS LA CUMBRE OWNERS ASSOCIATION INC

Plaintiff’s complaint consists of a cause of action for slander of title and an untitled cause of action for declaratory relief. In two previous motions for summary adjudication—one brought by plaintiff, one brought by defendant—the court addressed the underlying issues of this litigation.

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2011

MEGAN AMSLER ET AL VS FELL MARKING ABKIN MONTGOMERY ETC

As a consequence, Silva filed the Silva Action asserting causes of action against Jevne, Woosley and his law firms for (1) slander of title, (2) abuse of process, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Silva Action Complaint, at pp. 5-7.) Woosley was, and still is, represented by attorney Edith Matthai and Robie & Matthai in the Silva Action. (Woosley decl., ¶¶ 2-5.) The Silva Action remains pending, but a settlement has been reached.

  • Hearing

    Mar 22, 2011

LOUIS YEAGER VS. ANNA ANKA

Second cause of action (slander per se): Overruled. Defendant argues that this action is barred by the statute of limitations. Specifically, she claims that plaintiff fails to allege when defendant published these defamatory statements. A demurrer may be sustained on statute of limitations grounds only when it is clear from the complaint that the claim is time-barred. Union Carbide Corp. v Superior Court (1984) 36 Cal.3d 15.

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2011

RUDOLFO SANZANA VS GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION ET AL

of title”) The Complaint repeats a “15th count” at page 24 alleging a count for slander of title (there is no 20th count on the caption but obviously plaintiff is contemplating at least 20 counts and apparently mis-numbered some of the counts). 2.

  • Hearing

    Mar 08, 2011

GREGG WELSH ET AL VS HADDON DILLON ET AL

Plaintiffs also argue that consolidating the two actions will cause unfair and prejudicial delay in the trial of the slander of title case, which was filed on May 8, 2009, and was stayed pending the appeals in the two earlier cases. According to plaintiffs, the slander of title action “is ready for trial,” other than some limited discovery relating to one of the defenses raised by defendants in their answer.

  • Hearing

    Mar 07, 2011

GREGG WELSH ET AL VS HADDON DILLON ET AL

“A slander that falls within the first four subdivisions of Civil Code section 46 is slander per se and requires no proof of actual damages. [Citation.] A slander that does not fit into those four subdivisions is slander per quod, and special damages are required for there to be any recovery for that slander. [Citation.]” (Regalia v. The Nethercutt Collection (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 361, 367.)

  • Hearing

    Feb 15, 2011

STAN A VS WELLS FARGO & COMPANY ET AL

The FAC asserts causes of action for (1) breach of express contract (confidentiality agreement), (2) breach of implied agreement (confidentiality), (3) fraud, (4) negligent misrepresentation, (5) defamation/ slander, (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (7) wrongful termination, (8) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing (employment agreement), (9) breach of contract (employment agreement), (10) invasion of right of privacy – intrusion into private affairs, (11) invasion of right of privacy

  • Hearing

    Jan 25, 2011

MARY LOU MANKOWSKI V. LA CUMBRE OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.

Accrual upon discovery of a recorded deed is inconsistent with accrual of a continuing tort: recording the deed gives continuous notice to the world of the claim upon which the slander of title was based. (See Civ. Code, § 1213.) An action for slander of title does not continuously accrue. “Slander of title occurs when there is an unprivileged publication of a false statement which disparages title to property and causes pecuniary loss.” (Stalberg v. Western Title Ins.

  • Hearing

    Jan 24, 2011

  « first    1 ... 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.