On October 28, 2019 a
Party Statement
was filed
involving a dispute between
Avila, Octavio,
and
Kelch, Patricia D,
Mueller, Carolyn,
Sanders, Clyde E,
Sanders, Leonard G,
Sanders, Perry,
Stewart Title Of California Inc,
for Quiet Title: Unlimited
in the District Court of Stanislaus County.
Preview
Electronically Filed
Dale W. Mahon, SB ¹ 45581 1/27/2021 10:12 AM
9951 Grant Line Road Superior Court of California
Elk Grove, CA 95624
County of Stanislaus
Telephone: (916) 686-6575 Clerk of the Court
E-mail:dalewmahon@aol.corn By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy
Attorney for Plaintiff $90 PAID
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
10
Case No.: CV 19006466
Octavio Avila SEPARATE STATEMENT
Plaintiff, RE: MOTION
for
vs. FURTHER ANSWERS
Patricia Kelch, et al,
Date of Motion: 3/3/2021
Defendants. Time:8:30 a.m.
Department: 22
Hon. Stacy P. Spiller
Action Filed:11/28/2019
Trial Date: Not Set
20
Moving Party: Octavio Avila, Plaintiff
Responding Party Patricia Kelch, Defendant
BACKGROUND
This is action to quiet title to a parcel of real property. A thirty year old deed of trust
securing a $ 25,000 note clouds the title to the subject property. The two payees on the note
are deceased. Of their five known heirs, all have been served; four have defaulted, the
remaining heir, Patricia Kelch, is the defendant to which the subject discovery is directed.
Mr. Sanchez, a prior owner of the property, and one of the makers of the note that
clouds the title has made a declaration under penalty of perjury that the note was paid in
full; a copy of which declaration was provided to Mrs. Kelch. In response to discovery,
Mrs. Kelch now claims that the note was never satisfied.
The basis for the present discovery is to determine all facts/evidence, that supports
her claim that the note was not fully satisfied..
DISPUTED DISCOVERY RESPONSE
Form Interro atories Set Two
10 Mrs. Kelch's response to the Form Interrogatories, Set 2, Question 17.1 (b) as it
applies to her response to Request for Admission, Set 0 II, Request 418 is non-responsive,
12 evasive, and incomplete.
To wit:
14 Request for Admission No. 18: "The note secured by said Trust Deed,
15 referred to in paragraph 16 above, has been fully paid and satisfied."
16 Response for Admission No. 18: "Deny"
17 Interrogatory 17.1 asks: "... for each response that is not an unqualified admission:
....(b) state all facts upon which you base your response; ....".
Mrs. Kelch's response to Interrogatory 17.1 (b)), RFA tile was: "The transaction
20 that was to take place between Juan F. Sanchez and Salvador Sanchez and the deceased
21 owners was not satisfied in full. The property is encumbered by Trust Deed that was
22 subject to a promissory note that was never satisfied. The property is subject to an
23 encumbrance secured by a Deed of Trust in which I have an interest as an heir."
24 This answer by Mrs. Kelch is non-responsive, inadequate and circular. She merely
25 repeats her contention that the note was not paid in full. It contains no facts that support
26 that contention. It is a conclusion that assumes facts not in evidence, i.e.that there is a
reasonable basis for the conclusion that the note was paid. The one key issue of her entire
28
claim is that the note was not paid. The facts that support that claim is what standard
question 17.1 ask. The dictionary defines a fact as: (" 2 thing that is inckspuiaMy the case;
Information used as evidence ")..Plaintiff wants to known the "facts" upon which she bases
her denial that the note was not paid in full.
Dated: January 26, 2021
Da e W. Ma on
Attorney for Plaintiff
10
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Document Filed Date
January 27, 2021
Case Filing Date
October 28, 2019
Category
Quiet Title: Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
Electronically Filed Dale W. Mahon, SB ¹ 45581 1/27/2021 10:12 AM 9951 Grant Line Road Superior Court of California Elk Grove, CA 95624 County of Stanislaus Telephone: (916) 686-6575 Clerk of the Court E-mail:dalewmahon@aol.corn By: Mouang Saechao, Deputy Attorney for Plaintiff $90 PAID SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF STANISLAUS 10 Case No.: CV 19006466 Octavio Avila SEPARATE STATEMENT Plaintiff, RE: MOTION for vs. FURTHER ANSWERS Patricia Kelch, et al, Date of Motion: 3/3/2021 Defendants. Time:8:30 a.m. Department: 22 Hon. Stacy P. Spiller Action Filed:11/28/2019 Trial Date: Not Set 20 Moving Party: Octavio Avila, Plaintiff Responding Party Patricia Kelch, Defendant BACKGROUND This is action to quiet title to a parcel of real property. A thirty year old deed of trust securing a $ 25,000 note clouds the title to the subject property. The two payees on the note are deceased. Of their five known heirs, all have been served; four have defaulted, the remaining heir, Patricia Kelch, is the defendant to which the subject discovery is directed. Mr. Sanchez, a prior owner of the property, and one of the makers of the note that clouds the title has made a declaration under penalty of perjury that the note was paid in full; a copy of which declaration was provided to Mrs. Kelch. In response to discovery, Mrs. Kelch now claims that the note was never satisfied. The basis for the present discovery is to determine all facts/evidence, that supports her claim that the note was not fully satisfied.. DISPUTED DISCOVERY RESPONSE Form Interro atories Set Two 10 Mrs. Kelch's response to the Form Interrogatories, Set 2, Question 17.1 (b) as it applies to her response to Request for Admission, Set 0 II, Request 418 is non-responsive, 12 evasive, and incomplete. To wit: 14 Request for Admission No. 18: "The note secured by said Trust Deed, 15 referred to in paragraph 16 above, has been fully paid and satisfied." 16 Response for Admission No. 18: "Deny" 17 Interrogatory 17.1 asks: "... for each response that is not an unqualified admission: ....(b) state all facts upon which you base your response; ....". Mrs. Kelch's response to Interrogatory 17.1 (b)), RFA tile was: "The transaction 20 that was to take place between Juan F. Sanchez and Salvador Sanchez and the deceased 21 owners was not satisfied in full. The property is encumbered by Trust Deed that was 22 subject to a promissory note that was never satisfied. The property is subject to an 23 encumbrance secured by a Deed of Trust in which I have an interest as an heir." 24 This answer by Mrs. Kelch is non-responsive, inadequate and circular. She merely 25 repeats her contention that the note was not paid in full. It contains no facts that support 26 that contention. It is a conclusion that assumes facts not in evidence, i.e.that there is a reasonable basis for the conclusion that the note was paid. The one key issue of her entire 28 claim is that the note was not paid. The facts that support that claim is what standard question 17.1 ask. The dictionary defines a fact as: (" 2 thing that is inckspuiaMy the case; Information used as evidence ")..Plaintiff wants to known the "facts" upon which she bases her denial that the note was not paid in full. Dated: January 26, 2021 Da e W. Ma on Attorney for Plaintiff 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28