What is slander/disparagement of title?

Useful Resources for Slander or Disparagement of Title

Recent Rulings on Slander or Disparagement of Title

BELCHER, ET AL. V. DAKOTA NOTE LLC, ET AL.

. §§ 1601-1665 (1968), 12 CFR part 1024 § 1026; 3) Wrongful foreclosure; 4) Slander of title; 5) Intentional misrepresentation; 6) Negligence per se 7) Unfair business practices; 8) Breach of fiduciary duty; 9) Breach of contract; and, 10) Negligence.

  • Hearing

    Jan 21, 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

HANNA V. MICHAEL, ET AL.

A false and unprivileged publication that charges a person with crime or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime constitutes slander per se and there is no need to plead or prove actual damages. (Civ. Code § 46(1); Regalia v. The Nethercutt Collection (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 361, 367.) Similarly, when the defamatory meaning of a publication appears within the language itself without the need for explanation, it is libelous on its face and there is no need to plead special damage. (Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 20, 2021

FAWAZ ELMASRI VS JUSTIN PAUL RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

(FAXC ¶¶ 9, 10, 11 [incorporating paragraphs 9 and 10 into first cause of action for Abuse of Process], 18 [second cause of action for Slander of Title], 20 [third cause of action for Fraud and Deceit], 21.) In the opposition, Rodriguez does not attempt to distinguish O’Neil-Rosales or otherwise set forth any exception to the litigation privilege. Even if Elmasri were attempting to extort Rodriguez (FAXC ¶ 10), recording an abstract of judgment is still subject to an absolute privilege.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

GARY LEFKOWITZ VS KHALED A. TAWNSEY, ET AL.

The complaint, filed April 2, 2019, alleged causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) RICO; (4) slander; and (5) libel. The first amended complaint (“FAC”), filed January 3, 2020, alleges causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) fraud; (3) RICO; (4) extortion; (5) slander; (6) libel; (7) tortious interference with contract; (8) negligent interference with contract; (9) malpractice; (10) refusal of Dr.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JORGE ROBLES, ET AL. VS MARIBEL HINOJOSA

The Complaint asserts causes of action for: Defamation: Libel Per Se [Pursuant to Civil Code § 45a]; Defamation: Slander [Pursuant to Civil Code § 46]; and Violation of Business and Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq. (Unfair Competition Law). On October 16, 2020, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to strike Plaintiffs’ Complaint as an unlawful Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (“SLAPP”) filed and for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs.

  • Hearing

    Jan 15, 2021

CONENZA, INC. VS ENTERPRISEJUNGLE, INC.

Defamation has two forms, libel and slander. (Civ. Code § 44.) Libel involves defamatory publications that are made “by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye ....” (Civ. Code § 45.) Slander involves defamatory publications that are “orally uttered,” and also includes “communications by radio or any mechanical or other means.” (Civ. Code § 46.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

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

JANE DOE VS CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, ET AL.

The operative FAC alleges ten causes of action against Defendants: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) concealment, (3) false promise, (4) false imprisonment, (5) kidnapping, (6) stalking in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.7, (7) libel in violation of California Civil Code § 45, (8) slander in violation of California Civil Code § 46, (9) constructive invasion of privacy in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.8, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HECTOR HERNANDEZ VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

The operative FAC alleges ten causes of action against Defendants: (1) intentional misrepresentation, (2) concealment, (3) false promise, (4) false imprisonment, (5) kidnapping, (6) stalking in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.7, (7) libel in violation of California Civil Code § 45, (8) slander in violation of California Civil Code § 46, (9) constructive invasion of privacy in violation of California Civil Code § 1708.8, (10) intentional infliction of emotional distress.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

DANIEL FORSTER, ET AL VS. CHARLES E. JANEKE, & DOES 1-10

On August 30, 2018, Defendant filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiffs and Does 11 through 20, alleging claims for: (1) financial elder abuse; (2) breach of contract; (3) slander/cloud of title; and (4) intentional interference with prospective economic relations. On June 17, 2020, Defendant filed this motion for judgment as both a defendant and a cross-complainant.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Landlord Tenant

CONENZA, INC. VS ENTERPRISEJUNGLE, INC.

Defamation has two forms, libel and slander. (Civ. Code § 44.) Libel involves defamatory publications that are made “by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye ....” (Civ. Code § 45.) Slander involves defamatory publications that are “orally uttered,” and also includes “communications by radio or any mechanical or other means.” (Civ. Code § 46.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

NORMANDIE COMMUNITY WORSHIP CENTER VS ANTOINETTE BROOKS, ET AL.

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. Defendant was previously represented by counsel. On September 4, 2020, the Court granted counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

  • Hearing

    Jan 14, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CANNON VS VIJAYRAGHAVAN

For slander of title, Plaintiff has to show absence of privilege. Here, the litigation privilege applies. Williams’ declaration provides no new information and it does not aid Plaintiff’s burden on the anti-SLAPP motion to show that the litigation privilege does not apply. Defendants late opposition has no bearing on the Ruling as Plaintiff has failed to meet his initial burden of proof.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

CONDOR MANAGEMENT, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS REDIGER INVESTMENT MORTGAGE FUND, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, ET AL.

Plaintiff has had multiple opportunities to state a sufficient cause of action for slander of title. Given that the Court has found the basis for the first cause of action fails, the Court need not address any of the other arguments advanced as to the first cause of action. Issue No.2: Second Cause of Action Civ.

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

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

LYLE HOWRY VS REGINALD MYLABATHULA BENJAMIN, ET AL.

Slander Per Se Slander per se requires: (1) a false and unprivileged publication; (2) orally uttered to a third person; and (3) naturally tending directly to injure a person, in respect to office, profession, trade or business (slander per se), or special damages. (Mann v. Quality Old Time Service, Inc. (2004) 120 Cal. App. 4th 90, 106, disapproved on other grounds by Baral v. Schnitt (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 376, 392.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2021

ATHENA RIVERA VS JC PENNEY, ET AL.

JC Penney, Sephora 3) Defamation/False Light/Slander of Title v. All Defendants 4) Invasion of Privacy/Unreasonable Intrusion v. JC Penney, Sephora 5) Assault and Battery v. JC Penney, Sephora 6) Fraud Worked on an Agent v. JC Penney, Sephora, Galleria 7) IIED v.

  • Hearing

    Jan 08, 2021

RICHARD C COLYEAR VS ROLLING HILLS COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OF

Prevailing Party Status On September 4, 2020, the Court entered judgment in favor of Plaintiff Colyear and against all Defendants on the claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and breach of fiduciary duty, and in favor of Defendant RHCA and against Plaintiff Colyear on the claim for slander of title.

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

GUADALUPE PARAMO VS PATTSY PAN, ET AL.

Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action: (1) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; (2) Slander of Title; (3) Quiet Tile; (4) Fraud/Deceit; (5) Declaratory Relief; and (6) Injunctive Relief. The Motion to Consolidate is GRANTED. “Because of its summary character, an unlawful detainer action is not a suitable vehicle to try complicated ownership issues involving allegations of fraud.” (Mehr v. Superior Court (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 1044.)

  • Hearing

    Jan 07, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    Quiet Title

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CALVARY CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST VS THREE DESERT STREAMS INC

A title insurance company can be liable to a third party for slander of title, even if there were no direct dealings with that party. (Seeley, supra, at 860-861 (recordation of facially void lease could give rise to slander of title action by landowner against title insurance company who recorded the document).)

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

BRETT O'BRIEN, ET AL. VS JOHN GOULD

The operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) was filed on July 31, 2020 and asserts causes of action for (1) libel per se, (2) slander per se, (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (4) extortion, (5) impersonation by electronic means in violation of Penal Code § 528.5, (6) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (7) aiding and abetting libel per se, (8) aiding and abetting slander per se, (9) aiding and abetting intentional infliction of emotional distress, (10) aiding and

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

HAIM REVAH, ET AL. VS WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., ET AL.

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend with new causes of action for abuse of process, slander of title, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional interference with prospective economic relations and negligent interference with prospective economic relations. Wells Fargo does not oppose. Considering the public policy in favor of granting leave to amend, and the absence of any evidence of prejudice to defendant, the motion is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2021

CONDOR MANAGEMENT, LLC VS GRAYSON FUNDS I, LLC, ET AL.

As to each of the causes of action challenged, the Court finds as follows: 1) SLANDER OF TITLE: Per Appel v. Burman (19984) 159 CA3d 1209, the elements are: 1. A false statement, oral or written, disparaging title to real or personal property; (2) publication of the statement to a third person; (3) express or implied malice; (4) an absence of privilege to make the statement; and (5) pecuniary damage suffered as the direct and natural consequence of the slander.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Richard L. Fruin

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FELICIA JACINTA ANARO VS MASON-MCDUFFIE MORTGAGE CORPORATION AND U.S. BANK, N.A. ET AL.

The following causes of action are stricken from the SAC as against both Moving Defendants: “lack of standing/wrongful foreclosure” (SAC, first cause of action), intentional infliction of emotional distress (FAC, fourth cause), slander of title (SAC, fifth cause), violations of TILA and HOEPA (SAC, eighth cause). MERS’ motion to strike the SAC’s tenth cause of action for rescission is GRANTED as to it, for the same reasons. Ibid.

  • Hearing

    Jan 05, 2021

  • Judge

    George J. Abdallah

  • County

    San Joaquin County, CA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 76     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.