arrow left
arrow right
  • Quicken Loans, Inc. vs. Harris, Seth et alCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Quicken Loans, Inc. vs. Harris, Seth et alCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Quicken Loans, Inc. vs. Harris, Seth et alCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Quicken Loans, Inc. vs. Harris, Seth et alCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Quicken Loans, Inc. vs. Harris, Seth et alCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Quicken Loans, Inc. vs. Harris, Seth et alCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Quicken Loans, Inc. vs. Harris, Seth et alCivil-Roseville document preview
  • Quicken Loans, Inc. vs. Harris, Seth et alCivil-Roseville document preview
						
                                

Preview

ELECTRONICALLY FILED LAUREL I. HANDLEY (SBN 231249) superior Court of California, DIALA DEBBAS (SBN 312322) County of Placer ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP 09/01/2020 4375 JUTLAND DRIVE, SUITE 200 By: CeciliaHenderson, Deputy Clerk P.O. BOX 17935 SAN DIEGO, CA 92177-0935 TELEPHONE: (858) 750-7600 FACSIMILE: (619) 590-1385 E-Mail: ddebbas@aldridgepite.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, QUICKEN LOANS INC. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF PLACER QUICKEN LOANS INC., Case No. SCV0043712 Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF vs. PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION AS TO NO DEFAULT PROVE-UP SHARON HARRIS, and DOES 1 THROUGH HEARING REQUIRED IN ACTION FOR 20, ALL INCLUSIVE, REFORMATION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, Defendants, FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE 9/15/20 DEFAULT PROVE-UP HEARING DATE: 9/3/20 TIME: 8:30 a.m. DEPT.: “42” Complaint Filed: October 8, 2019 Trial Date: Not Set Current Default Prove-Up Hearing: 9/15/20 Comes now Plaintiff, QUICKEN LOANS, INC. (“Plaintiff”), which hereby provides the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application as to a request to the Court that the Default Prove-Up Hearing currently set for September 15, 2020 is not required for the Court to enter a Default Court Judgment based on the previously-filed Default Judgment Package in an action solely for Reformation and Declaratory Relief as to an extremely minor typographical error in the legal description in Plaintiffs Deed of Trust and the Grant Deed, in which in which a date is stated “July 13” instead of the correct “July 31”, or, in the alternative, to continue the Default Prove-Up Hearing from September 15, 2020 to a date in -l- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION December 2020 convenient to the Court’s calendar to allow time for both counsel as well as Plaintiff's witness, who must travel from out of state, to arrange their schedules to attend the hearing, as well as for COVID-19 travel concerns of counsel and the witness. I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF FACTS The Court has set a Default Prove-Up Hearing in this action for Reformation and Declaratory Relief for September 15, 2020, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 40 of this Court. However, for the reasons stated below, a Default Prove-Up Hearing ifnot required for the Court to enter a Default Court Judgment in an action solely for Reformation and Declaratory Relief as to an 10 extremely minor typographical error in the legal description in Plaintiff's Deed of Trust and the 1] Grant Deed, in which in which a date is stated “July 13” instead of the correct “July 31” and where 12 there isNO cause of action for Quiet Title contained in Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff commenced the instant action for Reformation and Declaratory Relief against 14 Defendant, Sharon Harris. Specifically, Plaintiffs action seeks only an order for Reformation and 15 Declaratory Relief as to an extremely minor typographical error in the legal description in 16 Plaintiff's Deed of Trust and the Grant Deed, in which in which a date is stated “July 13” instead 17 of the correct “July 31”. Plaintiff's action does not contain a cause of action for Quiet Title. No 18 other relief is sought, other than Reformation and Declaratory Relief as to an extremely minor 19 typographical error in the legal description in Plaintiff's Deed of Trust and the Grant Deed, in 20 which in which a date is stated “July 13” instead of the correct “July 31”, and there isno adverse 21 claim or dispute by any party as to titleto the subject property. 22 II 23 LEGAL ANALYSIS 24 The only action inwhich a Default Prove-Up Hearing is mandated is in a Quiet Title action. California Code ofCivil Procedure Sections 760.010—-764.080 pertain to actions for Quiet Title. 26 ai Specifically, California Code of Civil Procedure Section 764.010 requires an evidentiary hearing 28 in a quiet title action after default. In quiet title actions, judgment may not be entered by the w Dw MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION normal Default Prove-Up Hearing methods; the Court must require evidence of the Plaintiff's title. See also Yeung v. Soos (2004) 119 Cal. App. 4"" 576, 581. However, as stated above, Plaintiffs action is not an action for quiet title, but only seeks an order of Reformation and Declaratory Relief as to an extremely minor typographical error in the legal description in Plaintiff's Deed of Trust and the Grant Deed, in which in which a date is stated “July 13” instead of the correct “July 31”. The controlling statute for Reformation is California Civil Code Section 3399. Reformation, California Civil Code Section 3399 states as follows: “When, through fraud or a mutual mistake ofthe parties, or a mistake of one party, which the other at the time knew or suspected, a written contract does not truly express the intention of the parties, it may be revised on the application of a party aggrieved, so as to express that intention, so far as itcan be done without prejudice to rights acquired by third persons, in good faith and for value”. Accordingly, a Reformation cause of action is brought under California Civil Code §3399, to correct an extremely minor typographical error in the legal description. While similar to an action to Quiet Title, an action for Reformation is “narrower in scope” because itis “directed at a particular instrument or piece of evidence.” (5 Witkin, California Procedure, Pleading, § 655(6), at p. 83 (5th 2008).) As the Court stated in Castro v. Barry (1889) 79 Cal. 443, 446, that while an action such as Reformation “is aimed at a particular instrument, or piece of evidence”, a quiet title isan action “for the purpose of stopping the assertion of an adverse claim to the plaintiff's property.” and to “to establish titleagainst adverse claims to real or personal property or any interest therein.” (Castro v. Barry (1889) 79 Cal. 443, 446.). Therefore, because Plaintiff's action issolely to reform and correct a minor typographical error in the legal description in the Deed of Trust and the Grant Deed, and there is no cause of action for Quiet Title or any adverse claims to the Property, no Default Prove-Up Hearing is required for the Court to enter the Default Court Judgment based on the previously-filed Default Judgment Package. As the Court stated in Welsher v. Glickman (1969) 272 Cal. App. 2d 134 commented as follows as to the distinction between a quiet title action and a cancellation of instruments action: “ -3- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION “Distinguishing an action seeking to uncloud a titlefrom one to quiet title, Castro states [p. 446]: "In the former case the proceeding is aimed at a particular instrument, or piece of evidence, while in the latter,the proceeding is for the purpose of stopping the mouth of a person who has asserted or isasserting a claim to the plaintiff's property, whether such claim be founded upon evidence or utterly baseless. Itis not aimed at a particular [sic] piece of evidence, but at the pretensions of an individual." Accordingly, no Default Prove-Up Hearing is required for the Court to enter a Default Court Judgment herein based on the previously-filed Default Judgment Package to correct an extremely minor typographical error in the legal description in Plaintiff's Deed of Trust. As stated above, unlike a Reformation action, a quiet titleaction isbased on adverse claims 10 to the Property by the parties. Specifically, California Code ofCivil Procedure Section 760.020 1] defines quiet title as follows: (2 An action may be brought under this chapter to establish title against adverse claims to _real or personal property or any interest therein. (Emphasis added). 14 15 16 Moreover, in a quiet title action, the Court looks to the title of the plaintiff as to which a 17 determination issought and the basis of the title.as well as to the adverse claims to the titleof the 18 plaintiff against which a determination is sought. (California Code of Civil Procedure Section 19 761.020 (b) and (c)). 20 21 No such determination of title is needed or requested in the Reformation action herein. 22 Rather, Plaintiff's Complaint seeks only to correct a minor typographical error in the legal description of its Deed of Trust and the Grant Deed and does not contain a cause of action for 24 Quiet Title and therefore is not subject to California Code of Civil Procedure §764.010, which 25 requires a Court evidentiary hearing in Quiet Title actions. 26 27 In the within action, Plaintiff seeks only an order correcting extremely minor typographical 28 error in the legal description of Plaintiff's Deed of Trust and the Grant Deed. Accordingly, no -4- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION default prove-up hearing is required for the Court to enter Default Court Judgment based on the previously-filed Default Judgment Package. Ill CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth hereinabove, Plaintiff, respectfully requests that the Court grant Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application and proceed to enter the Default Court Judgment based on the previously-filed Default Judgment Package to reform an extremely minor typographical error in the legal description in Plaintiff's Deed of and the Grant Deed, in which in which a date is stated “July 13” instead of the correct “July 31” without a Default Prove-Up Hearing, or, in the alternative, to continue the Default Prove-Up Hearing from September 15, 2020 to a date in December 2020 convenient to the Court’s calendar, to allow time for both counsel as well as Plaintiff's witness, who must travel from out of state, to arrange their schedules to attend the hearing, as well as for COVID-19 travel concerns. ALDRIDGE PITE, LLP a Dated: September / . 2020 By: (Ba Ut C CA 0 CHARLES A. CORREIA Attorneys for Plaintiff, QUICKEN LOANS INC. _5- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION DECLARATION OF SERVICE I, the undersigned, declare: I am, and was at the time of service of the papers herein referred to, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to this action. My business address is 4375 Jutland Drive, Suite 200, P.O. Box 17935, San Diego, CA 92177-0935. On September 1, 2020, I served the following document(s): MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION AS TO NO DEFAULT PROVE-UP HEARING REQUIRED IN ACTION FOR REFORMATION AND DECLARATORY RELIEF; OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR CONTINUANCE OF THE 9/15/20 DEFAULT PROVE-UP HEARING on the parties in this action addressed as follows: Sharon Harris 5770 Little Oak Lane 10 Foresthill, CA 95631 11 X BY MAIL: I caused a true copy to be placed in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated 12 above. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. It is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day 13 in the ordinary course of business. Iam aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day 14 after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 15 BY CERTIFIED MAIL: I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope addressed as indicated above via certified mail, return receipt requested. 16 BY FACSIMILE: I personally sent to the addressee's facsimile number a true copy of 17 the above-described document(s). I verified transmission with a confirmation printed out by the facsimile machine used. Thereafter, I placed a true copy in a sealed envelope 18 addressed and mailed as indicated above. 19 BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: I placed a true copy in a sealed Federal Express envelope addressed as indicated above. I am familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and 20 processing correspondence for Federal Express delivery and that the documents served are deposited with Federal Express this date for overnight delivery. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct 23 Executed this Ist day of September, 2020, at San Diego, California. 24 (line Kander 25 AGUSTINA SANDOVAL 26 27 28 -6- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION