Preview
1 Henry G. Weinstein, Esq. (SBN 139117)
2 WEINSTEIN LEGAL
30842 Peggy Way
3
Cathedral City, CA 92234
4 (760) 400-6150
5 hank@weinsteinlegal.net
6 Attorney for Plaintiffs
MARIA GUADALUPE TEJADA and
7
FELIX TEJADA DURAN
8
9
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10
FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE – PALM SPRINGS COURTHOUSE
11
12
MARIA GUADALUPE Case No.
13
TEJADA, an Individual, FELIX
14 TEJADA DURAN, an Individual, (Unlimited Jurisdiction)
15 Plaintiffs,
VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:
16 vs.
1. Declaratory Relief;
17 2. 2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty;
MARCOS ANTONIO TEJADA, an
18 individual; MARIA LOURDES 3. Aiding and Abetting Breach
19 MORA, an individual; All Persons of Fiduciary Duty;
Unknown Claiming Any Legal Or 4. Cancellation of Instrument;
20 5. Quiet Title;
Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien
21 Or Interest In The Property 6. For Avoidance of Void or
22 Described In The Complaint Voidable Transfer under Civil Code
Adverse To Plaintiffs’ Title, Or Any Sections 3439.04, 05 and .07;
23 7. For Avoidance of Fraudulent
Cloud On Plaintiff’s Title; and
24 DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Transfer and Imposition of a
Constructive Trust Under Common
25 Defendants. Law and Equity;
26 8. Imposition of a Resulting Trust
27
28
1
COMPLAINT
1
2
3 Plaintiffs Maria Guadalupe Tejada, an individual, and Felix Tejada Duran
4 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) complain and allege as follows:
5
6 THE PARTIES
7 1. Plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Tejada (“Maria”) is an individual who, at all
8 times relevant to this Complaint was a resident of Desert Hot Springs, California.
9 Plaintiff Felix Tejada Duran (“Felix”) is an individual who, at all times relevant to this
10 Complaint was a resident of Desert Hot Springs, California. At all times relevant to
11 this Complaint, Maria and Felix have been husband and wife. Maria and Felix are
12 sometimes hereinafter referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs.”
13 2. Defendant Marcos Antonio Tejada (“Marcos”), is an individual who at all
14 times relevant to this Complaint was a resident of Desert Hot Springs, California.
15 3. Defendant Maria Lourdes Mora (“Lourdes”) is an individual who, at all
16 times relevant to this Complaint was a resident of Desert Hot Springs, California.
17 Defendants Marcos and Lourdes are Felix’s siblings.
18 4. Defendants DOES 1 through 50 are named as fictitious defendants who
19 have participated with or acted in concert with one or more of the defendants, or who
20 have acted on behalf of or as agents, servants or employees of one or more of the
21 defendants named herein, but whose true names and capacities, whether individual,
22 corporate, or otherwise, are presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed
23 and believe and thereon allege that defendants DOES 1 through 50 have directly or
24 indirectly participated in and are responsible for the acts and omissions that are more
25 specificially described herein, and Plaintiffs’ damages as alleged herein were
26 proximately caused by such defendants. Because Plaintiffs are presently uninformed as
27 to the true names and capacities of defendants ignorant of the true names and
28 capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, Plaintiffs sue them herein
2
COMPLAINT
1 by these fictitious names, but will seek leave to amend his Complaint when they
2 discover their true names and capacities.
3 5. The identities of defendants “All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal
4 Or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien Or Interest In The Property Described In The
5 Complaint Adverse To Plaintiffs’ Title, Or Any Cloud On Plaintiffs’ Title” are
6 currently unknown. Plaintiffs sue them herein by these fictitious names but will seek
7 leave to amend this Complaint when they discover their true names and capacities.
8 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times
9 mentioned herein, each of the defendants sued in this action was the agent, employee
10 and employer of each of their co-defendants, and in doing the acts hereinafter
11 mentioned, each of them was acting within the purpose and scope of their authority
12 and as such agent and employee with the permission and consent of their co-
13 defendants, and each of them.
14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15 7. Pursuant to sections 85 through 88 of the California Code of Civil
16 Procedure, this Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this lawsuit because
17 the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000.
18 8. Venue is proper in this Court because the real property that is the subject
19 of this Complaint is located in Desert Hot Springs California, and the defendants
20 named in this Complaint also reside in Desert Hot Springs.
21
22 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
23 A. The Property At Issue in this Action
24 9. On or about July 14, 2005, Marcos acquired legal title by grant deed
25 recorded in the Official Records of the County of Riverside as Document No. 2005-
26 0562895, to the improved residential real property located at the address of 66708
27 Hacienda Avenue, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240, Assessors’ Parcel Nos. 641-154-
28 015 and 614-154-015-5 with the following legal description:
3
COMPLAINT
1 Lot 15 Blk 9 of Desert Hot Springs Tract 5 in the City of Desert Hot Springs,
County of Riverside, State of California as per Map Recorder in book 21, Page
2 64 of Maps, in the Office of County Recorder of Said County.
3
4 Hereinafter, in this Complaint, this real property will be referred to
5 herein as the “Property.”
6 10. In 2005, Plaintiffs wanted to purchase a residence, but they did not have
7 sufficient credit to qualify for a loan. Plaintiffs asked Felix’s brother, Marcos, if he
8 would use his credit to obtain a loan to purchase the Property, and Plaintiffs would pay
9 all transaction closing costs, all monthly mortgage payments, taxes, insurance,
10 maintenance, repairs and any other costs and expenses associated with ownership of
11 the Property. Plaintiffs and Marcos agreed that when Plaintiffs had sufficient credit to
12 qualify for and obtain their own loan to pay off Marcos’ purchase money loan, Marcos
13 would transfer title to the Property to them. Marcos and Plaintiffs further agreed that,
14 in the meantime, Plaintiffs would be the true owners of the Property and that Marcos
15 would take title in name only. Pursuant to the terms of their agreement, Marcos
16 agreed that he would not do anything to impair or that was inconsistent with
17 Plaintiffs’ true ownership of the Property. As consideration for Marcos’ financing the
18 purchase of the Property, Plaintiffs and Marcos agreed that Marcos could live in the
19 house rent free, but that he would have to pay for his share of food and utilities.
20 (Plaintiffs’ and Marcos’ agreement will hereinafter be referred to as the “2005
21 Agreement.”)
22 11. The purchase price for the Property in July 2005 was $272,000 plus closing
23 costs. Marcos obtained 100% financing for the purchase of the Property through
24 Fremont Investment & Loan (“Fremont”). Marcos executed two promissory notes in
25 favor of the Fremont in the sums of $231,200 and $40,800, respectively. The larger
26 promissory note was secured by a first deed of trust encumbering the Property, and the
27 smaller promissory note was secured by a second deed of trust. In July 2005, The first
28 and second deeds of trust were recorded in the Office of the Riverside County
4
COMPLAINT
1 Recorder as Document Nos. 2005-0562896 and 2005-0562897, respectively.
2 (Hereinafter, in this Complaint, these transactions will be referred to collectively as the
3 “Fremont Loans”). Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that these
4 two encumbrances securing the Fremont Loans are the only two currently recorded
5 liens against the Property. The initial, combined monthly payment on the Fremont
6 Loans was approximately $2,250. 00.
7 12. Marcos did not contribute any of his own funds toward the acquisition or
8 any other costs of the Property. Plaintiffs contributed their own funds to pay any
9 acquisition costs for the Property that were in excess of the amounts financed with the
10 Freemont Loans pursuant to the terms of an oral agreement with Marcos as more fully
11 alleged below.
12 13. Pursuant to the terms of the 2005 Agreement and at all times since then,
13 Plaintiffs and Marcos have all lived together at the Property with Plaintiffs paying all
14 costs and expenses of the Property, including the payments on the Freemont Loans
15 that they paid directly to the lender, as well as all property taxes, insurance, utilities and
16 repairs. Marcos has sporadically paid Plaintiffs between $200 and $300 a month for
17 his share of food and utilities.
18 14. In or about 2008, Plaintiffs started experiencing difficulty in making their
19 payments on the Freemont Loans and the lender recorded a Notice of Default against
20 the Property. In order to bring the Freemont Loans current and/or modify them,
21 Marcos provided the lender with written authorization authorizing it to deal directly
22 with Plaintiffs. Between 2008 and continuing through at least 2012, Marcos
23 repeatedly confirmed to the lender, in writing, that Plaintiffs were the ones making the
24 monthly payments on the Freemont Loans. In addition, in or about November 2008,
25 Plaintiffs, consistent with their beneficial ownership of the Property, paid the fees for
26 Marcos’ consultation with an attorney as to how to modify/refinance the Freemont
27 Loans. Eventually, the loan was refinanced through Marcos, and the monthly loan
28 payments were reduced to $800.
5
COMPLAINT
1 15. Between 2005 and the date of this Complaint, in full performance of the
2 terms of the 2005 Agreement with Marcos, Plaintiffs have paid all costs and expenses
3 associated with the Property. At no time since 2005 has Marcos or Lourdes ever
4 contributed to the payment of any costs or expenses associated with the Property.
5 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that since 2005, the
6 Property’s value has increased significantly and there is currently substantial equity in
7 the Property of at least $200,000.
8 B. In 2022, Marcos Wrongfully Transferred An Interest in the
9 Property to Lourdes
10 17. Since 2005, when the Property was acquired, Plaintiffs and Marcos have
11 lived together at the Property. Over the years, Plaintiffs became increasingly
12 concerned about Marcos’s ongoing and increasingly severe drug and alcohol problems.
13 In early 2022, Plaintiffs started worrying that Marcos might become incapacitated or
14 even die, in which case they might not be able to prove that they were the beneficial
15 owners of title to the Property. Accordingly, in early 2022, Plaintiffs and Marcos
16 agreed that he would transfer title to the Property to them. On or about February 1,
17 2022, Plaintiffs presented a grant deed to Marcos for him to sign. Marcos told them
18 that his government-issued identification card had expired. Since Marcos needed some
19 way to prove his identity to a notary in connection with his execution of the deed,
20 Plaintiff Maria and Marcos agreed that Maria would take him to the DMV so he could
21 renew his identification card. Marcos did not have a means of transportation and had
22 become completely unreliable due to his drug and alcohol dependency issues.
23 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that sometime in
24 February 2022, Lourdes learned that Plaintiffs wanted Marcos to transfer title to the
25 Property to them, and she began scheming with Marcos to steal the Property and its
26 equity from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege
27 that Lourdes contacted Marcos, and demanded that he not execute the deed
28 transferring title to the Property to Plaintiffs and that he transfer an ownership
6
COMPLAINT
1 interest in the Property to her for no consideration. As alleged below, Plaintiffs did
2 not learn of Lourdes’s and Marcos’ scheme until a few months later in late May/early
3 June-2022.
4 19. In March-April 2022, Plaintiffs and Marcos were still discussing obtaining
5 identification papers for him so that he could execute the grant deed transferring legal
6 title to Plaintiffs to the Property. Accordingly, sometime between April 4-8, 2022,
7 Plaintiff Maria took Marcos to the DMVso that he could obtain an identification card,
8 execute the deed to her and Felix and have his signature notarized.
9 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that as of April 4,
10 2022, Defendant Marcos did not have any valid identification. Further, at the time he
11 went with Maria to the DMV, Marcos continued to represent to Plaintiffs that once
12 he obtained his identification card, he would take all the steps necessary to transfer
13 legal title to the Property to them.
14 21. Plaintiffs subsequently learned that the day after Maria took Marcos to the
15 DMV in April 2022, Lourdes took Marcos to the DMV so he could change his address
16 from the Property, where he was living with Maria and Felix, to Lourdes’ address.
17 That way, Maria and Felix would not know whether or when Marcos’ identification
18 arrived in the mail, and Marcos could execute a deed in favor of Lourdes before Maria
19 and Felix ever found out.
20 22. Approximately one month later, in late May/early June 2022, Plaintiffs
21 were confronted by Lourdes, who for the first time claimed that she now was an owner
22 of the Property and further disputed that Plaintiffs had any ownership interest in the
23 Property. Lourdes demanded that Plaintiffs start paying her rent and threatening
24 them with eviction if they did not comply with her demands. Prior to Lourdes’
25 demands and threats, Plaintiffs were unaware that Marcos had signed and had
26 notarized a deed transferring an interest in the Property to Lourdes. Prior to the
27 transfer to Lourdes, Marcos had never engaged in conduct that was inconsistent with
28 Plaintiffs’ ownership of the Property as per the 2005 Agreement.
7
COMPLAINT
1 23. After the confrontation with Lourdes, Plaintiffs immediately began
2 investigating the status of title to the Property. In early June 2022, they discovered
3 that according to documents in the public records of Riverside County, sometime
4 between March and April 1, 2022, Defendant Marcos had executed a grant deed
5 (dated March 1, 2022) transferring legal title to the Property to “Marco Antonio
6 Tejada, a single man and Maria Lourdes Lourdes, a married woman as her sole and
7 separate property.” The notary jurat for the grant deed is dated Friday, April 1, 2022.
8 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the deed was not properly
9 notarized, that the notary attestation is fraudulent and that as of April 1, 2022,
10 Lourdes did not have any identification papers as he did not go the DMV with
11 Plaintiffs to obtain same until sometime during the week of April 4-8, 2022.
12 Hereinafter, this deed will be referred to herein as the “2022 Grant Deed.”
13 24. Plaintiffs further learned that according to the public records of
14 Riverside County, on or about April 4, 2022, the 2022 Deed was recorded in the
15 official records of the County of Riverside as Document No. 2022-0159792. The
16 2022 Deed provided that copies of the recorded deed and tax statements be sent to
17 Marcos and Lourdes at 66051 Fifth Street, Desert Hot Springs, California 92240.
18 That address is Lourdes’s address, and Marcos resides at the Property where all
19 Property-related documents had been sent prior to Marcos’ execution of the 2022
20 Grant Deed.
21 25. The 2022 Grant Deed provides that there was no documentary or city
22 transfer tax to be paid as it is exempt under section 27388.1 of the California
23 Government Code because it was a transfer of real property that is a residential
24 dwelling to an owner-occupier. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege
25 that despite there being substantial equity of at least $200,000 in the Property in 2022,
26 Lourdes did not pay Marcos any consideration for his transfer to her of fifty percent
27 ownership interest in the Property.
28
8
COMPLAINT
1 26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Lourdes caused the 2022 Grant
2 Deed to be prepared and that she actively induced, caused, encouraged and facilitated
3 Marcos’s execution and recordation of the 2022 Grant Deed, and that she did so with
4 knowledge of the 2005 Agreement, of Plaintiffs’ beneficial ownership of the Property,
5 that Marcos’ conduct was a breach of the fiduciary duties he owed Plaintiffs and that
6 such conduct would substantially harm Plaintiffs.
7 27. Since July 2022, after having been confronted with Lourdes’ threats that
8 she would evict them if they did not pay her monthly rent in the amount of $800,
9 Plaintiffs started paying her $800 each month. As of the filing of this Complaint,
10 Marcos continues to reside at the Property along with Plaintiffs.
11 28. After being threatened with eviction by Lourdes and learning about the
12 existence of 2022 Grant Deed in late May/early June 2022, Plaintiffs immediately
13 confronted Marcos. He stated that he did not remember signing any deed or ever
14 appearing at a notary to have his signature notarized. At that time and ever since
15 learning of the existence of the 2022 Grant Deed, Plaintiffs have repeatedly demanded
16 that Marcos take all necessary action to restore Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property to
17 them, but he has failed and refused to do so, claiming that he does not want any further
18 involvement in this dispute.
19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (Declaratory Relief –As against Defendants Marcos and Lourdes
& DOES 1-10)
21
22 29. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth
23 herein each of the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
24 30. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties
25 concerning the ownership of the Property in that Plaintiffs contend that Marcos held
26 legal title to the Property solely as the trustee under the terms of the 2005 Agreement
27 between Marcos and Plaintiffs pursuant to which Marcos agreed to hold title solely for
28
9
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs benefit and to take no action that would impair Plaintiffs’ interest in the
2 Property. Defendants, and each of them dispute that contention.
3 31. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that
4 the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties regarding the Property.
5
6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty And for Imposition of a Constructive Trust and
7 Other Equitable Remedies– As Against All Defendants)
8
9 32. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth
10 herein each of the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint.
11 33. In his capacity as the holder of legal title to Plaintiffs’ Property pursuant to
12 the oral trust agreement, the 2005 Agreement, Marcos was Plaintiffs’ trustee and
13 fiduciary, and he owed Plaintiffs fiduciary duties of due care, the utmost good faith,
14 honesty and loyalty. He further owed Plaintiffs the duty to disclose all facts
15 concerning the Property and the duty to refrain from taking advantage of them in their
16 position as trustors and beneficiaries. As a fiduciary, Marcos had no authority to self-
17 deal in any transaction concerning the Property, and Plaintiffs did not give him that
18 authority.
19 34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Marcos
20 breached his fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to Plaintiffs by engaging and
21 participating in acts or omissions, including without limitation, the acts and omissions
22 described in Paragraphs 17-28 above.
23 35. At all times relevant herein, Marcos failed to act in good faith, in Plaintiffs’
24 best interests, and with such care as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position
25 would use under similar circumstances.
26 36. As a proximate cause of the breaches of fiduciary duty of care and loyalty of
27 Defendants, Plaintiffs have incurred damages and suffered harm in an amount to be
28 proven at trial.
10
COMPLAINT
1 37. As another direct and proximate cause of Defendant Marcos’s breaches of
2 the fiduciary duties he owed to Plaintiffs, Marcos has been unjustly enriched and will
3 continue to be unjustly enriched until the Plaintiffs’ Property and/or the value of said
4 Property is returned to them.
5 38. Marcos’s actions alleged in this cause of action were willful, wanton,
6 malicious and oppressive and were undertaken with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs,
7 and thus justify awarding punitive damages against him and DOES 1 through 10,
8 inclusive.
9 39. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in wrongful, unlawful and
10 dishonest conduct and breaches of fiduciary duty as hereinabove alleged and in
11 addition to damages, the court should impose equitable relief, including, but not
12 limited to: the imposition of a constructive trust pursuant to which Marcos holds any
13 ownership interest in the Property in a constructive trust for Plaintiffs’ benefit and or
14 an order rescinding and/or rescission of the transfer to Lourdes and/or restitution to
15 Plaintiffs.
16
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
17
(Aiding And Abetting Breach Of Fiduciary Duty And for
18 Imposition of A Constructive Trust and Other Equitable Remedies
19 Against Defendant Lourdes, All Persons Unknown and DOES 1-
10)
20
21 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 28
22 and 32 through 39 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein.
23 41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times
24 relevant herein, Lourdes knew of the 2005 Agreement and of the resulting fiduciary
25 obligations Marcos owed to Plaintiffs.
26 42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleged that at all times
27 relevant herein, Lourdes knowingly caused, encouraged, facilitated, gave substantial
28 assistance to and aided and abetted in Marcos’ breaches of fiduciary duty in
11
COMPLAINT
1 transferring legal title to the Property to himself and Lourdes, initially concealing said
2 transfer from Plaintiffs and refusing and continuing to refuse to take any and all
3 necessary actions to restore Plaintiffs’ ownership interest in the Property to them.
4 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that between March – April
5 2022, Lourdes induced Marcos to transfer title to the Property to himself and Lourdes
6 with the intent to benefit herself and cause harm to Plaintiffs.
7 43. Defendant Lourdes’s actions as hereinabove alleged was a substantial factor
8 in causing the breaches of fiduciary duty by Defendant Lourdes and resulting harm to
9 Plaintiffs.
10 44. Defendant Lourdes’s actions alleged in this cause of action were willful,
11 wanton, malicious and oppressive and were undertaken with the intent to defraud
12 Plaintiff, and thus justify awarding punitive damages against Defendant Lourdes and
13 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.
14 45. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in wrongful, unlawful and
15 dishonest conduct and in addition to damages, the court should impose equitable
16 relief, including, but not limited to: the imposition of a constructive trust pursuant to
17 which Lourdes holds any ownership interest in the Property in a constructive trust for
18 Plaintiffs’ benefit and/or an order rescinding and/or rescission of the transfer by
19 Marcos to Lourdes and/or restitution to Plaintiffs.
20
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21
(Cancellation of Instruments – Against All Defendants)
22
23 46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs 1-
24 28 and 32 through 45 of this Complaint as though set forth in full.
25 47. The 2005 grant deed appears valid on its face, and Marcos accepted
26 delivery of that deed with the knowledge and understanding that he was receiving only
27 naked legal title to the Property in his capacity as trustee for Plaintiffs, who held all
28 beneficial title to the Property. The 2022 Grant Deed appears vaild on its face, and
12
COMPLAINT
1 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Marcos executed it with full
2 knowledge that its effect would be to transfer legal title to the into his and Lourdes’
3 names in violation of the 2005 Agreement and in breach of the fiduciary duties he
4 owes to Plaintiffs.
5 48. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Lourdes
6 accepted delivery with full knowledge that Marcos did not have the power or authority
7 to transfer any portion of the ownership interest in the Property to her. Plaintiffs are
8 further informed and believe and thereon allege that Lourdes was not a bona fide
9 purchaser for value of the Property.
10 49. Consequently, the 2022 Grant Deed is voidable upon Plaintiffs’ request.
11 If it is not cancelled, Plaintiff will suffer serious and irreparable injury.
12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Quiet Title – Against All Defendants)
14 50. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by herein by reference paragraphs 1
15 through 28 and 32 through 49 of this Complaint as though set forth in full.
16 51. The basis of Plaintiffs’ title to the Property is the 2005 Agreement between
17 Plaintiffs and Marcos as hereinabove alleged in Paragraph 10 of this Complaint.
18 Pursuant to the 2005 Agreement, and at all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs held
19 beneficial title to the Property with Marcos holding legal title solely in his capacity as
20 the trustee pursuant to the terms of the 2005 Agreement, and Marcos agreed that he
21 would transfer title to the Property to Plaintiffs upon their request and would
22 otherwise take no action that would impair or that was inconsistent with Plaintiffs’
23 beneficial ownership of the Property.
24 52. As hereinabove alleged, between March- April 2002, with the direct
25 encouragement and assistance of Defendant Lourdes, and without the knowledge or
26 consent of Plaintiffs, Marcos allegedly executed and then recorded or allowed to be
27 recorded the 2022 Grant Deed transferring title to the Property to “Marco Antonio
28
13
COMPLAINT
1 Tejada, a single man and Maria Lourdes, a married woman as her sole and separate
2 property.”
3 53. Since that transfer Marcos has continued to engage in conduct that is
4 adverse to Plaintiffs’ claims of ownership; he has further failed to transfer legal title to
5 the Property to Plaintiffs upon their demand as he agreed to do, and he has failed and
6 refused to take all necessary action to restore Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property to them
7 despite their repeated demands to him that he do so.
8 54. Since approximately May/June 2022, Defendant Lourdes has contended
9 to Plaintiffs that she is an owner of the Property and that the 2022 Grant Deed is
10 valid; she has disputed and denied that Plaintiffs’ hold beneficial title to the Property
11 and refused to transfer title to the Property to Plaintiffs. She has further engaged in
12 conduct adverse to Plaintiffs’ ownership of the Property, including demanding that
13 they pay rent to her and threatening to evict them if they did not do so.
14 55. The legal description and street address of the Property that is the subject
15 of this quiet title claim is set forth in paragraph 9 hereinabove.
16 56. The 2005 grant deed transferring legal title in the Property to Marcos was
17 recorded in the official records of the Riverside County Recorder as described in
18 paragraph 9 above. The 2022 Grant Deed allegedly transferring the ownership interest
19 in the Property to Marcos and Lourdes was recorded in the official records of the
20 Riverside County Recorder as described in paragraph 24 hereinabove.
21 57. Plaintiffs bring this action to establish that they are the legal owners of the
22 Property, for an order declaring that the 2022 Grant Deed is null and void and
23 requiring Defendants, and each of them, to convey title to the Property to Plaintiffs.
24 58. The claims made by Defendants, and each of them, to the Property,
25 clouds Plaintiffs’ title to same, depreciates the market value of the Property, and
26 prevents Plaintiffs from enjoying the use of their Property in their own best interests as
27 owners.
28
14
COMPLAINT
1 59. Other than the liens described in Paragraph 9 hereinabove and the
2 refinancing lenders’ deeds of trust, Plaintiffs are unaware of any liens that have been
3 recorded against the Property as of the date of this Complaint.
4
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (For Avoidance Of Voidable Transfers Pursuant To California Civil
6 Code Sections 3439.04(A), 3439.05 And 3439.07 –
(Against All Defendants))
7
8 60. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by herein by reference paragraphs 1
9 through 28 and 32 through 45 of this Complaint as though set forth in full.
10 61. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.01(b), (c) and (e), at all
11 relevant times herein, as a result of the duties and obligations Marcos owed to Plaintiffs
12 under the 2005 Agreement, Marcos and Plaintiffs were in a debtor/creditor
13 relationship.
14 62. Marcos’s alleged transfer of a fifty percent interest in the Property to
15 Lourdes via the 2022 Grant Deed is a voidable transfer within the meaning of
16 California Civil Code Section 3439.04(1) and (2) and Section 3439.05 for any or all of
17 the following reasons:
18 (a) The transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Plaintiffs,
19 who at the time of the transfer were creditors of debtor Defendant Marcos;
20 (b) The transfer was not made in exchange for reasonable value; and
21 (c) The transfer was made at times that the debtor, Marcos was insolvent or the
22 transfer rendered him insolvent.
23 63. As a result of the transfer, and under Civil Code Section 3439.07, Plaintiffs
24 are entitled to all of the following:
25 (a) Avoidance of the transfer;
26 (b) An attachment against the transferred Property; and
27 (c) An injunction against further transfer of the Property.
28
15
COMPLAINT
1 64. Further, Lourdes, in acting as she did, including, inter alia, knowingly
2 causing, encouraging, facilitating and aiding and abetting Marcos’s transfer of an
3 interest in the Property to her for no consideration and doing so with full knowledge
4 that Plaintiffs were the beneficial owners of the Property who had paid substantially all
5 of the expenses for the Property for the last 17 years, acted with oppression, fraud and
6 malice justifying an award of punitive damages against her.
7
8 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9 (For Avoidance Of Fraudulent Transfers, Damages And For
Imposition Of Constructive Trust – Common Law And Equity
10
(Against All Defendants))
11 65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by herein by reference paragraphs 1
12 through 28 and 32 through 45 of this Complaint as though set forth in full.
13 66. At all relevant times herein, as a result of the duties and obligations Marcos
14 owed to Plaintiffs under the 2005 Agreement, Marcos and Plaintiffs were in a
15 debtor/creditor relationship.
16 67. Defendant Marcos’s alleged transfer of an interest in the Property to
17 Lourdes via the 2022 Grant Deed is a voidable transfer for any or all of the following
18 reasons:
19 (a) The transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Plaintiffs,
20 who at the time of the transfer were creditors of debtor Marcos;
21 (b) The transfer was not made in exchange for reasonable value;
22 (c) The transfer was made at times that the debtor, Marcos was insolvent or the
23 transfer rendered him insolvent.
24 68. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleges that Lourdes, who
25 received the benefit of the transfer of an ownership interest in the Property for no
26 consideration under the 2002 Deed, did so with full knowledge of the 2005
27 Agreement, of Plaintiffs’ beneficial ownership of the Property and that such a transfer
28 was a breach of Marcos’ fiduciary obligations to Plaintiffs and was done with
16
COMPLAINT
1 knowledge and intent to hinder, delay or defraud Plaintiffs in their capacity as a
2 creditor of Marcos, that she has been unjustly enriched as a result and Plaintiffs have
3 been substantially harmed by her wrongful, unlawful and dishonest conduct as
4 hereinabove alleged.
5 69. Plaintiffs seek an award of damages according to proof .
6 70. Plaintiffs further request that the court impose equitable relief, including,
7 but not limited to, the imposition of a constructive trust pursuant to which Lourdes
8 holds any ownership interest in the Property in a constructive trust for Plaintiffs’
9 benefit and or an order rescinding and/or rescission of the transfer by Marcos to
10 Lourdes and/or restitution to Plaintiffs.
11 71. Further, Lourdes, in acting as she did, including, inter alia, knowingly
12 causing, encouraging, facilitating and aiding and abetting Marcos’s transfer of an
13 interest in the Property to her for no consideration and doing so with full knowledge
14 that Plaintiffs were the beneficial owners of the Property who had paid substantially all
15 of the expenses for the Property for the last 17 years, Lourdes acted with oppression,
16 fraud and malice justifying an award of punitive damages against her.
17 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18 (For Imposition Of A Resulting Trust
19 (Against Defendants Marcos and Lourdes and DOES 11-20)
20 72. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by herein by reference paragraphs 1
21 through 28 and 32 through 45 of this Complaint as though set f
Preview
1 Henry G. Weinstein, Esq. (SBN 139117) 2 WEINSTEIN LEGAL 30842 Peggy Way 3 Cathedral City, CA 92234 4 (760) 400-6150 5 hank@weinsteinlegal.net 6 Attorney for Plaintiffs MARIA GUADALUPE TEJADA and 7 FELIX TEJADA DURAN 8 9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE – PALM SPRINGS COURTHOUSE 11 12 MARIA GUADALUPE Case No. 13 TEJADA, an Individual, FELIX 14 TEJADA DURAN, an Individual, (Unlimited Jurisdiction) 15 Plaintiffs, VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR: 16 vs. 1. Declaratory Relief; 17 2. 2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty; MARCOS ANTONIO TEJADA, an 18 individual; MARIA LOURDES 3. Aiding and Abetting Breach 19 MORA, an individual; All Persons of Fiduciary Duty; Unknown Claiming Any Legal Or 4. Cancellation of Instrument; 20 5. Quiet Title; Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien 21 Or Interest In The Property 6. For Avoidance of Void or 22 Described In The Complaint Voidable Transfer under Civil Code Adverse To Plaintiffs’ Title, Or Any Sections 3439.04, 05 and .07; 23 7. For Avoidance of Fraudulent Cloud On Plaintiff’s Title; and 24 DOES 1 through 50, Inclusive, Transfer and Imposition of a Constructive Trust Under Common 25 Defendants. Law and Equity; 26 8. Imposition of a Resulting Trust 27 28 1 COMPLAINT 1 2 3 Plaintiffs Maria Guadalupe Tejada, an individual, and Felix Tejada Duran 4 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) complain and allege as follows: 5 6 THE PARTIES 7 1. Plaintiff Maria Guadalupe Tejada (“Maria”) is an individual who, at all 8 times relevant to this Complaint was a resident of Desert Hot Springs, California. 9 Plaintiff Felix Tejada Duran (“Felix”) is an individual who, at all times relevant to this 10 Complaint was a resident of Desert Hot Springs, California. At all times relevant to 11 this Complaint, Maria and Felix have been husband and wife. Maria and Felix are 12 sometimes hereinafter referred to collectively as “Plaintiffs.” 13 2. Defendant Marcos Antonio Tejada (“Marcos”), is an individual who at all 14 times relevant to this Complaint was a resident of Desert Hot Springs, California. 15 3. Defendant Maria Lourdes Mora (“Lourdes”) is an individual who, at all 16 times relevant to this Complaint was a resident of Desert Hot Springs, California. 17 Defendants Marcos and Lourdes are Felix’s siblings. 18 4. Defendants DOES 1 through 50 are named as fictitious defendants who 19 have participated with or acted in concert with one or more of the defendants, or who 20 have acted on behalf of or as agents, servants or employees of one or more of the 21 defendants named herein, but whose true names and capacities, whether individual, 22 corporate, or otherwise, are presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are informed 23 and believe and thereon allege that defendants DOES 1 through 50 have directly or 24 indirectly participated in and are responsible for the acts and omissions that are more 25 specificially described herein, and Plaintiffs’ damages as alleged herein were 26 proximately caused by such defendants. Because Plaintiffs are presently uninformed as 27 to the true names and capacities of defendants ignorant of the true names and 28 capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 50, Plaintiffs sue them herein 2 COMPLAINT 1 by these fictitious names, but will seek leave to amend his Complaint when they 2 discover their true names and capacities. 3 5. The identities of defendants “All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal 4 Or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien Or Interest In The Property Described In The 5 Complaint Adverse To Plaintiffs’ Title, Or Any Cloud On Plaintiffs’ Title” are 6 currently unknown. Plaintiffs sue them herein by these fictitious names but will seek 7 leave to amend this Complaint when they discover their true names and capacities. 8 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that, at all times 9 mentioned herein, each of the defendants sued in this action was the agent, employee 10 and employer of each of their co-defendants, and in doing the acts hereinafter 11 mentioned, each of them was acting within the purpose and scope of their authority 12 and as such agent and employee with the permission and consent of their co- 13 defendants, and each of them. 14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15 7. Pursuant to sections 85 through 88 of the California Code of Civil 16 Procedure, this Court has jurisdiction over the claims alleged in this lawsuit because 17 the amount in controversy exceeds $25,000. 18 8. Venue is proper in this Court because the real property that is the subject 19 of this Complaint is located in Desert Hot Springs California, and the defendants 20 named in this Complaint also reside in Desert Hot Springs. 21 22 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 23 A. The Property At Issue in this Action 24 9. On or about July 14, 2005, Marcos acquired legal title by grant deed 25 recorded in the Official Records of the County of Riverside as Document No. 2005- 26 0562895, to the improved residential real property located at the address of 66708 27 Hacienda Avenue, Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240, Assessors’ Parcel Nos. 641-154- 28 015 and 614-154-015-5 with the following legal description: 3 COMPLAINT 1 Lot 15 Blk 9 of Desert Hot Springs Tract 5 in the City of Desert Hot Springs, County of Riverside, State of California as per Map Recorder in book 21, Page 2 64 of Maps, in the Office of County Recorder of Said County. 3 4 Hereinafter, in this Complaint, this real property will be referred to 5 herein as the “Property.” 6 10. In 2005, Plaintiffs wanted to purchase a residence, but they did not have 7 sufficient credit to qualify for a loan. Plaintiffs asked Felix’s brother, Marcos, if he 8 would use his credit to obtain a loan to purchase the Property, and Plaintiffs would pay 9 all transaction closing costs, all monthly mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, 10 maintenance, repairs and any other costs and expenses associated with ownership of 11 the Property. Plaintiffs and Marcos agreed that when Plaintiffs had sufficient credit to 12 qualify for and obtain their own loan to pay off Marcos’ purchase money loan, Marcos 13 would transfer title to the Property to them. Marcos and Plaintiffs further agreed that, 14 in the meantime, Plaintiffs would be the true owners of the Property and that Marcos 15 would take title in name only. Pursuant to the terms of their agreement, Marcos 16 agreed that he would not do anything to impair or that was inconsistent with 17 Plaintiffs’ true ownership of the Property. As consideration for Marcos’ financing the 18 purchase of the Property, Plaintiffs and Marcos agreed that Marcos could live in the 19 house rent free, but that he would have to pay for his share of food and utilities. 20 (Plaintiffs’ and Marcos’ agreement will hereinafter be referred to as the “2005 21 Agreement.”) 22 11. The purchase price for the Property in July 2005 was $272,000 plus closing 23 costs. Marcos obtained 100% financing for the purchase of the Property through 24 Fremont Investment & Loan (“Fremont”). Marcos executed two promissory notes in 25 favor of the Fremont in the sums of $231,200 and $40,800, respectively. The larger 26 promissory note was secured by a first deed of trust encumbering the Property, and the 27 smaller promissory note was secured by a second deed of trust. In July 2005, The first 28 and second deeds of trust were recorded in the Office of the Riverside County 4 COMPLAINT 1 Recorder as Document Nos. 2005-0562896 and 2005-0562897, respectively. 2 (Hereinafter, in this Complaint, these transactions will be referred to collectively as the 3 “Fremont Loans”). Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that these 4 two encumbrances securing the Fremont Loans are the only two currently recorded 5 liens against the Property. The initial, combined monthly payment on the Fremont 6 Loans was approximately $2,250. 00. 7 12. Marcos did not contribute any of his own funds toward the acquisition or 8 any other costs of the Property. Plaintiffs contributed their own funds to pay any 9 acquisition costs for the Property that were in excess of the amounts financed with the 10 Freemont Loans pursuant to the terms of an oral agreement with Marcos as more fully 11 alleged below. 12 13. Pursuant to the terms of the 2005 Agreement and at all times since then, 13 Plaintiffs and Marcos have all lived together at the Property with Plaintiffs paying all 14 costs and expenses of the Property, including the payments on the Freemont Loans 15 that they paid directly to the lender, as well as all property taxes, insurance, utilities and 16 repairs. Marcos has sporadically paid Plaintiffs between $200 and $300 a month for 17 his share of food and utilities. 18 14. In or about 2008, Plaintiffs started experiencing difficulty in making their 19 payments on the Freemont Loans and the lender recorded a Notice of Default against 20 the Property. In order to bring the Freemont Loans current and/or modify them, 21 Marcos provided the lender with written authorization authorizing it to deal directly 22 with Plaintiffs. Between 2008 and continuing through at least 2012, Marcos 23 repeatedly confirmed to the lender, in writing, that Plaintiffs were the ones making the 24 monthly payments on the Freemont Loans. In addition, in or about November 2008, 25 Plaintiffs, consistent with their beneficial ownership of the Property, paid the fees for 26 Marcos’ consultation with an attorney as to how to modify/refinance the Freemont 27 Loans. Eventually, the loan was refinanced through Marcos, and the monthly loan 28 payments were reduced to $800. 5 COMPLAINT 1 15. Between 2005 and the date of this Complaint, in full performance of the 2 terms of the 2005 Agreement with Marcos, Plaintiffs have paid all costs and expenses 3 associated with the Property. At no time since 2005 has Marcos or Lourdes ever 4 contributed to the payment of any costs or expenses associated with the Property. 5 16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that since 2005, the 6 Property’s value has increased significantly and there is currently substantial equity in 7 the Property of at least $200,000. 8 B. In 2022, Marcos Wrongfully Transferred An Interest in the 9 Property to Lourdes 10 17. Since 2005, when the Property was acquired, Plaintiffs and Marcos have 11 lived together at the Property. Over the years, Plaintiffs became increasingly 12 concerned about Marcos’s ongoing and increasingly severe drug and alcohol problems. 13 In early 2022, Plaintiffs started worrying that Marcos might become incapacitated or 14 even die, in which case they might not be able to prove that they were the beneficial 15 owners of title to the Property. Accordingly, in early 2022, Plaintiffs and Marcos 16 agreed that he would transfer title to the Property to them. On or about February 1, 17 2022, Plaintiffs presented a grant deed to Marcos for him to sign. Marcos told them 18 that his government-issued identification card had expired. Since Marcos needed some 19 way to prove his identity to a notary in connection with his execution of the deed, 20 Plaintiff Maria and Marcos agreed that Maria would take him to the DMV so he could 21 renew his identification card. Marcos did not have a means of transportation and had 22 become completely unreliable due to his drug and alcohol dependency issues. 23 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that sometime in 24 February 2022, Lourdes learned that Plaintiffs wanted Marcos to transfer title to the 25 Property to them, and she began scheming with Marcos to steal the Property and its 26 equity from Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege 27 that Lourdes contacted Marcos, and demanded that he not execute the deed 28 transferring title to the Property to Plaintiffs and that he transfer an ownership 6 COMPLAINT 1 interest in the Property to her for no consideration. As alleged below, Plaintiffs did 2 not learn of Lourdes’s and Marcos’ scheme until a few months later in late May/early 3 June-2022. 4 19. In March-April 2022, Plaintiffs and Marcos were still discussing obtaining 5 identification papers for him so that he could execute the grant deed transferring legal 6 title to Plaintiffs to the Property. Accordingly, sometime between April 4-8, 2022, 7 Plaintiff Maria took Marcos to the DMVso that he could obtain an identification card, 8 execute the deed to her and Felix and have his signature notarized. 9 20. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that as of April 4, 10 2022, Defendant Marcos did not have any valid identification. Further, at the time he 11 went with Maria to the DMV, Marcos continued to represent to Plaintiffs that once 12 he obtained his identification card, he would take all the steps necessary to transfer 13 legal title to the Property to them. 14 21. Plaintiffs subsequently learned that the day after Maria took Marcos to the 15 DMV in April 2022, Lourdes took Marcos to the DMV so he could change his address 16 from the Property, where he was living with Maria and Felix, to Lourdes’ address. 17 That way, Maria and Felix would not know whether or when Marcos’ identification 18 arrived in the mail, and Marcos could execute a deed in favor of Lourdes before Maria 19 and Felix ever found out. 20 22. Approximately one month later, in late May/early June 2022, Plaintiffs 21 were confronted by Lourdes, who for the first time claimed that she now was an owner 22 of the Property and further disputed that Plaintiffs had any ownership interest in the 23 Property. Lourdes demanded that Plaintiffs start paying her rent and threatening 24 them with eviction if they did not comply with her demands. Prior to Lourdes’ 25 demands and threats, Plaintiffs were unaware that Marcos had signed and had 26 notarized a deed transferring an interest in the Property to Lourdes. Prior to the 27 transfer to Lourdes, Marcos had never engaged in conduct that was inconsistent with 28 Plaintiffs’ ownership of the Property as per the 2005 Agreement. 7 COMPLAINT 1 23. After the confrontation with Lourdes, Plaintiffs immediately began 2 investigating the status of title to the Property. In early June 2022, they discovered 3 that according to documents in the public records of Riverside County, sometime 4 between March and April 1, 2022, Defendant Marcos had executed a grant deed 5 (dated March 1, 2022) transferring legal title to the Property to “Marco Antonio 6 Tejada, a single man and Maria Lourdes Lourdes, a married woman as her sole and 7 separate property.” The notary jurat for the grant deed is dated Friday, April 1, 2022. 8 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the deed was not properly 9 notarized, that the notary attestation is fraudulent and that as of April 1, 2022, 10 Lourdes did not have any identification papers as he did not go the DMV with 11 Plaintiffs to obtain same until sometime during the week of April 4-8, 2022. 12 Hereinafter, this deed will be referred to herein as the “2022 Grant Deed.” 13 24. Plaintiffs further learned that according to the public records of 14 Riverside County, on or about April 4, 2022, the 2022 Deed was recorded in the 15 official records of the County of Riverside as Document No. 2022-0159792. The 16 2022 Deed provided that copies of the recorded deed and tax statements be sent to 17 Marcos and Lourdes at 66051 Fifth Street, Desert Hot Springs, California 92240. 18 That address is Lourdes’s address, and Marcos resides at the Property where all 19 Property-related documents had been sent prior to Marcos’ execution of the 2022 20 Grant Deed. 21 25. The 2022 Grant Deed provides that there was no documentary or city 22 transfer tax to be paid as it is exempt under section 27388.1 of the California 23 Government Code because it was a transfer of real property that is a residential 24 dwelling to an owner-occupier. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege 25 that despite there being substantial equity of at least $200,000 in the Property in 2022, 26 Lourdes did not pay Marcos any consideration for his transfer to her of fifty percent 27 ownership interest in the Property. 28 8 COMPLAINT 1 26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Lourdes caused the 2022 Grant 2 Deed to be prepared and that she actively induced, caused, encouraged and facilitated 3 Marcos’s execution and recordation of the 2022 Grant Deed, and that she did so with 4 knowledge of the 2005 Agreement, of Plaintiffs’ beneficial ownership of the Property, 5 that Marcos’ conduct was a breach of the fiduciary duties he owed Plaintiffs and that 6 such conduct would substantially harm Plaintiffs. 7 27. Since July 2022, after having been confronted with Lourdes’ threats that 8 she would evict them if they did not pay her monthly rent in the amount of $800, 9 Plaintiffs started paying her $800 each month. As of the filing of this Complaint, 10 Marcos continues to reside at the Property along with Plaintiffs. 11 28. After being threatened with eviction by Lourdes and learning about the 12 existence of 2022 Grant Deed in late May/early June 2022, Plaintiffs immediately 13 confronted Marcos. He stated that he did not remember signing any deed or ever 14 appearing at a notary to have his signature notarized. At that time and ever since 15 learning of the existence of the 2022 Grant Deed, Plaintiffs have repeatedly demanded 16 that Marcos take all necessary action to restore Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property to 17 them, but he has failed and refused to do so, claiming that he does not want any further 18 involvement in this dispute. 19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 20 (Declaratory Relief –As against Defendants Marcos and Lourdes & DOES 1-10) 21 22 29. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth 23 herein each of the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint. 24 30. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties 25 concerning the ownership of the Property in that Plaintiffs contend that Marcos held 26 legal title to the Property solely as the trustee under the terms of the 2005 Agreement 27 between Marcos and Plaintiffs pursuant to which Marcos agreed to hold title solely for 28 9 COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiffs benefit and to take no action that would impair Plaintiffs’ interest in the 2 Property. Defendants, and each of them dispute that contention. 3 31. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that 4 the parties may ascertain their respective rights and duties regarding the Property. 5 6 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty And for Imposition of a Constructive Trust and 7 Other Equitable Remedies– As Against All Defendants) 8 9 32. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as though fully set forth 10 herein each of the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint. 11 33. In his capacity as the holder of legal title to Plaintiffs’ Property pursuant to 12 the oral trust agreement, the 2005 Agreement, Marcos was Plaintiffs’ trustee and 13 fiduciary, and he owed Plaintiffs fiduciary duties of due care, the utmost good faith, 14 honesty and loyalty. He further owed Plaintiffs the duty to disclose all facts 15 concerning the Property and the duty to refrain from taking advantage of them in their 16 position as trustors and beneficiaries. As a fiduciary, Marcos had no authority to self- 17 deal in any transaction concerning the Property, and Plaintiffs did not give him that 18 authority. 19 34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Marcos 20 breached his fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to Plaintiffs by engaging and 21 participating in acts or omissions, including without limitation, the acts and omissions 22 described in Paragraphs 17-28 above. 23 35. At all times relevant herein, Marcos failed to act in good faith, in Plaintiffs’ 24 best interests, and with such care as an ordinarily prudent person in a like position 25 would use under similar circumstances. 26 36. As a proximate cause of the breaches of fiduciary duty of care and loyalty of 27 Defendants, Plaintiffs have incurred damages and suffered harm in an amount to be 28 proven at trial. 10 COMPLAINT 1 37. As another direct and proximate cause of Defendant Marcos’s breaches of 2 the fiduciary duties he owed to Plaintiffs, Marcos has been unjustly enriched and will 3 continue to be unjustly enriched until the Plaintiffs’ Property and/or the value of said 4 Property is returned to them. 5 38. Marcos’s actions alleged in this cause of action were willful, wanton, 6 malicious and oppressive and were undertaken with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs, 7 and thus justify awarding punitive damages against him and DOES 1 through 10, 8 inclusive. 9 39. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in wrongful, unlawful and 10 dishonest conduct and breaches of fiduciary duty as hereinabove alleged and in 11 addition to damages, the court should impose equitable relief, including, but not 12 limited to: the imposition of a constructive trust pursuant to which Marcos holds any 13 ownership interest in the Property in a constructive trust for Plaintiffs’ benefit and or 14 an order rescinding and/or rescission of the transfer to Lourdes and/or restitution to 15 Plaintiffs. 16 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 17 (Aiding And Abetting Breach Of Fiduciary Duty And for 18 Imposition of A Constructive Trust and Other Equitable Remedies 19 Against Defendant Lourdes, All Persons Unknown and DOES 1- 10) 20 21 40. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 22 and 32 through 39 of this Complaint as though set forth in full herein. 23 41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times 24 relevant herein, Lourdes knew of the 2005 Agreement and of the resulting fiduciary 25 obligations Marcos owed to Plaintiffs. 26 42. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleged that at all times 27 relevant herein, Lourdes knowingly caused, encouraged, facilitated, gave substantial 28 assistance to and aided and abetted in Marcos’ breaches of fiduciary duty in 11 COMPLAINT 1 transferring legal title to the Property to himself and Lourdes, initially concealing said 2 transfer from Plaintiffs and refusing and continuing to refuse to take any and all 3 necessary actions to restore Plaintiffs’ ownership interest in the Property to them. 4 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that between March – April 5 2022, Lourdes induced Marcos to transfer title to the Property to himself and Lourdes 6 with the intent to benefit herself and cause harm to Plaintiffs. 7 43. Defendant Lourdes’s actions as hereinabove alleged was a substantial factor 8 in causing the breaches of fiduciary duty by Defendant Lourdes and resulting harm to 9 Plaintiffs. 10 44. Defendant Lourdes’s actions alleged in this cause of action were willful, 11 wanton, malicious and oppressive and were undertaken with the intent to defraud 12 Plaintiff, and thus justify awarding punitive damages against Defendant Lourdes and 13 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive. 14 45. Defendants, and each of them, have engaged in wrongful, unlawful and 15 dishonest conduct and in addition to damages, the court should impose equitable 16 relief, including, but not limited to: the imposition of a constructive trust pursuant to 17 which Lourdes holds any ownership interest in the Property in a constructive trust for 18 Plaintiffs’ benefit and/or an order rescinding and/or rescission of the transfer by 19 Marcos to Lourdes and/or restitution to Plaintiffs. 20 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 (Cancellation of Instruments – Against All Defendants) 22 23 46. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by this reference paragraphs 1- 24 28 and 32 through 45 of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 25 47. The 2005 grant deed appears valid on its face, and Marcos accepted 26 delivery of that deed with the knowledge and understanding that he was receiving only 27 naked legal title to the Property in his capacity as trustee for Plaintiffs, who held all 28 beneficial title to the Property. The 2022 Grant Deed appears vaild on its face, and 12 COMPLAINT 1 Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Marcos executed it with full 2 knowledge that its effect would be to transfer legal title to the into his and Lourdes’ 3 names in violation of the 2005 Agreement and in breach of the fiduciary duties he 4 owes to Plaintiffs. 5 48. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Lourdes 6 accepted delivery with full knowledge that Marcos did not have the power or authority 7 to transfer any portion of the ownership interest in the Property to her. Plaintiffs are 8 further informed and believe and thereon allege that Lourdes was not a bona fide 9 purchaser for value of the Property. 10 49. Consequently, the 2022 Grant Deed is voidable upon Plaintiffs’ request. 11 If it is not cancelled, Plaintiff will suffer serious and irreparable injury. 12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 (Quiet Title – Against All Defendants) 14 50. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by herein by reference paragraphs 1 15 through 28 and 32 through 49 of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 16 51. The basis of Plaintiffs’ title to the Property is the 2005 Agreement between 17 Plaintiffs and Marcos as hereinabove alleged in Paragraph 10 of this Complaint. 18 Pursuant to the 2005 Agreement, and at all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs held 19 beneficial title to the Property with Marcos holding legal title solely in his capacity as 20 the trustee pursuant to the terms of the 2005 Agreement, and Marcos agreed that he 21 would transfer title to the Property to Plaintiffs upon their request and would 22 otherwise take no action that would impair or that was inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ 23 beneficial ownership of the Property. 24 52. As hereinabove alleged, between March- April 2002, with the direct 25 encouragement and assistance of Defendant Lourdes, and without the knowledge or 26 consent of Plaintiffs, Marcos allegedly executed and then recorded or allowed to be 27 recorded the 2022 Grant Deed transferring title to the Property to “Marco Antonio 28 13 COMPLAINT 1 Tejada, a single man and Maria Lourdes, a married woman as her sole and separate 2 property.” 3 53. Since that transfer Marcos has continued to engage in conduct that is 4 adverse to Plaintiffs’ claims of ownership; he has further failed to transfer legal title to 5 the Property to Plaintiffs upon their demand as he agreed to do, and he has failed and 6 refused to take all necessary action to restore Plaintiffs’ interest in the Property to them 7 despite their repeated demands to him that he do so. 8 54. Since approximately May/June 2022, Defendant Lourdes has contended 9 to Plaintiffs that she is an owner of the Property and that the 2022 Grant Deed is 10 valid; she has disputed and denied that Plaintiffs’ hold beneficial title to the Property 11 and refused to transfer title to the Property to Plaintiffs. She has further engaged in 12 conduct adverse to Plaintiffs’ ownership of the Property, including demanding that 13 they pay rent to her and threatening to evict them if they did not do so. 14 55. The legal description and street address of the Property that is the subject 15 of this quiet title claim is set forth in paragraph 9 hereinabove. 16 56. The 2005 grant deed transferring legal title in the Property to Marcos was 17 recorded in the official records of the Riverside County Recorder as described in 18 paragraph 9 above. The 2022 Grant Deed allegedly transferring the ownership interest 19 in the Property to Marcos and Lourdes was recorded in the official records of the 20 Riverside County Recorder as described in paragraph 24 hereinabove. 21 57. Plaintiffs bring this action to establish that they are the legal owners of the 22 Property, for an order declaring that the 2022 Grant Deed is null and void and 23 requiring Defendants, and each of them, to convey title to the Property to Plaintiffs. 24 58. The claims made by Defendants, and each of them, to the Property, 25 clouds Plaintiffs’ title to same, depreciates the market value of the Property, and 26 prevents Plaintiffs from enjoying the use of their Property in their own best interests as 27 owners. 28 14 COMPLAINT 1 59. Other than the liens described in Paragraph 9 hereinabove and the 2 refinancing lenders’ deeds of trust, Plaintiffs are unaware of any liens that have been 3 recorded against the Property as of the date of this Complaint. 4 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 5 (For Avoidance Of Voidable Transfers Pursuant To California Civil 6 Code Sections 3439.04(A), 3439.05 And 3439.07 – (Against All Defendants)) 7 8 60. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by herein by reference paragraphs 1 9 through 28 and 32 through 45 of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 10 61. Pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3439.01(b), (c) and (e), at all 11 relevant times herein, as a result of the duties and obligations Marcos owed to Plaintiffs 12 under the 2005 Agreement, Marcos and Plaintiffs were in a debtor/creditor 13 relationship. 14 62. Marcos’s alleged transfer of a fifty percent interest in the Property to 15 Lourdes via the 2022 Grant Deed is a voidable transfer within the meaning of 16 California Civil Code Section 3439.04(1) and (2) and Section 3439.05 for any or all of 17 the following reasons: 18 (a) The transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Plaintiffs, 19 who at the time of the transfer were creditors of debtor Defendant Marcos; 20 (b) The transfer was not made in exchange for reasonable value; and 21 (c) The transfer was made at times that the debtor, Marcos was insolvent or the 22 transfer rendered him insolvent. 23 63. As a result of the transfer, and under Civil Code Section 3439.07, Plaintiffs 24 are entitled to all of the following: 25 (a) Avoidance of the transfer; 26 (b) An attachment against the transferred Property; and 27 (c) An injunction against further transfer of the Property. 28 15 COMPLAINT 1 64. Further, Lourdes, in acting as she did, including, inter alia, knowingly 2 causing, encouraging, facilitating and aiding and abetting Marcos’s transfer of an 3 interest in the Property to her for no consideration and doing so with full knowledge 4 that Plaintiffs were the beneficial owners of the Property who had paid substantially all 5 of the expenses for the Property for the last 17 years, acted with oppression, fraud and 6 malice justifying an award of punitive damages against her. 7 8 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (For Avoidance Of Fraudulent Transfers, Damages And For Imposition Of Constructive Trust – Common Law And Equity 10 (Against All Defendants)) 11 65. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by herein by reference paragraphs 1 12 through 28 and 32 through 45 of this Complaint as though set forth in full. 13 66. At all relevant times herein, as a result of the duties and obligations Marcos 14 owed to Plaintiffs under the 2005 Agreement, Marcos and Plaintiffs were in a 15 debtor/creditor relationship. 16 67. Defendant Marcos’s alleged transfer of an interest in the Property to 17 Lourdes via the 2022 Grant Deed is a voidable transfer for any or all of the following 18 reasons: 19 (a) The transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud Plaintiffs, 20 who at the time of the transfer were creditors of debtor Marcos; 21 (b) The transfer was not made in exchange for reasonable value; 22 (c) The transfer was made at times that the debtor, Marcos was insolvent or the 23 transfer rendered him insolvent. 24 68. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon alleges that Lourdes, who 25 received the benefit of the transfer of an ownership interest in the Property for no 26 consideration under the 2002 Deed, did so with full knowledge of the 2005 27 Agreement, of Plaintiffs’ beneficial ownership of the Property and that such a transfer 28 was a breach of Marcos’ fiduciary obligations to Plaintiffs and was done with 16 COMPLAINT 1 knowledge and intent to hinder, delay or defraud Plaintiffs in their capacity as a 2 creditor of Marcos, that she has been unjustly enriched as a result and Plaintiffs have 3 been substantially harmed by her wrongful, unlawful and dishonest conduct as 4 hereinabove alleged. 5 69. Plaintiffs seek an award of damages according to proof . 6 70. Plaintiffs further request that the court impose equitable relief, including, 7 but not limited to, the imposition of a constructive trust pursuant to which Lourdes 8 holds any ownership interest in the Property in a constructive trust for Plaintiffs’ 9 benefit and or an order rescinding and/or rescission of the transfer by Marcos to 10 Lourdes and/or restitution to Plaintiffs. 11 71. Further, Lourdes, in acting as she did, including, inter alia, knowingly 12 causing, encouraging, facilitating and aiding and abetting Marcos’s transfer of an 13 interest in the Property to her for no consideration and doing so with full knowledge 14 that Plaintiffs were the beneficial owners of the Property who had paid substantially all 15 of the expenses for the Property for the last 17 years, Lourdes acted with oppression, 16 fraud and malice justifying an award of punitive damages against her. 17 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 (For Imposition Of A Resulting Trust 19 (Against Defendants Marcos and Lourdes and DOES 11-20) 20 72. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by herein by reference paragraphs 1 21 through 28 and 32 through 45 of this Complaint as though set f