Baclet v. Baclet
| Docket Number | G061672 |
| Decision Date | 01 December 2023 |
| Parties | JEFFREY L. BACLET, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. ROSALIE BACLET, Defendant and Respondent. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, No 30-2019-01083668 David A. Hoffer, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Kathleen Aberegg and Kathleen Aberegg for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Olson Law Firm and Shawn M. Olson for Defendant and Respondent.
Jeffrey L. Baclet filed a complaint against his aunt Rosalie Baclet asserting causes of action for quiet title and fraud.[1] He contends the court erred in granting Rosalie's motion for summary adjudication of his two claims on the grounds they were barred by the statute of limitations and the claim preclusion doctrine. As we explain post, the undisputed facts demonstrate Jeffrey's claims accrued more than three years before he filed this lawsuit and his claims are therefore time barred by the three-year statute of limitations for fraud. (Code Civ Proc., § 338, subd. (d).) Because we conclude summary adjudication was properly granted on this ground, we do not address whether Jeffrey's claims were also barred by application of the claim preclusion doctrine. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment.
In 1999, Jeffrey's father Steven Baclet and Rosalie filed an action in the Superior Court of Orange County against their brother Charles Baclet, seeking declaratory relief regarding their respective interests in six real properties in California (California Properties) and six real properties in Nevada (Nevada Properties), properties they alleged Charles had converted and encumbered. (We will refer to this prior litigation as the California Action.) During the California Action, Steven passed away. Steven left a Last Will and Testament bequeathing a 60 percent share of his estate to Jeffrey and a 40 percent share to Rosalie. Probate proceedings for Steven's estate were opened in both California (Orange County) and Nevada (Washoe County).
The California Action settled in October 2001 when the parties entered a "Stipulation for Settlement" (settlement agreement). The settlement agreement defined "'plaintiffs'" as Steven's estate and Rosalie and "defendant" as Charles. As relevant here, it stated Charles acknowledged the California Properties belonged to Rosalie in full, and the settlement agreement required Charles to issue quitclaim deeds for all of them in Rosalie's name. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Nevada Properties belonged to Steven's estate and Rosalie and quitclaim deeds for the Nevada Properties were to be issued by Charles in the names and percentages as designated by Steven's estate and Rosalie.
The parties also agreed "to the appointment of a receiver/special master as an integral part of the settlement" and plaintiffs were to select the receiver/special master to be appointed. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Charles was to deliver to the receiver/special master quitclaim deeds on the California Properties and the Nevada Properties. The receiver/special master was "authorized to transfer the properties to Rosalie Baclet and/or Jeffrey Baclet in the name of or in percentages as designated by [them.]" The settlement agreement was signed by Rosalie and Jeffrey, each in his or her own individual capacity and as heirs to Steven's estate. The settlement agreement required its terms be approved by the probate courts in Nevada and California as it concerned Steven's estate.
In December 2001, the Nevada probate court approved the settlement agreement. The California probate court approved the settlement agreement in April 2002; in its order approving the agreement, the probate court stated no assets would be transferred to Steven's California estate under the settlement agreement's terms. Grant deeds were recorded in Orange County, California in October and December 2003, evidencing the transfer of the California Properties from Charles to Rosalie. After the Superior Court of Orange County approved the agreement, the California Action was dismissed. The probate proceedings in both California and Nevada were later closed.
The Nevada probate case closed in October 2003. Eight years later, in October 2011, Jeffrey filed a "Petition for Confirmation of Trustee for Accounting and to Remove Trustee and to Terminate Trust," reopening the probate case in Nevada (Nevada Probate Action). In his petition, Jeffrey sought to remove Rosalie as trustee for three properties in Nevada distributed to her from Steven's estate in 2003 and to have the properties transferred to him.
Jeffrey also discussed the California Properties in his petition, stating: In his petition, Jeffrey did not request the Nevada court take any action concerning the California Properties. Rosalie, however, raised the issue of the California Properties in her cross-petition in the Nevada Probate Action, and the parties presented evidence and arguments concerning the California Properties in the ensuing litigation.
In an affidavit Jeffrey filed in the Nevada Probate Action in 2012, he stated: (Boldface and capitalization omitted.) He also made the following statements in his affidavit: "In spite of numerous verbal &written agreements, [Rosalie] declares it was &is all hers" (capitalization omitted); "She indicates, she does not intend to honor her agreements with me, written or verbal" (boldface, capitalization, and underscore omitted); and "Rosalie asserts: [¶] . . . [¶] I have no interest in the CA properties &there was not to be a WILL." In his affidavit, he requested: "The CA properties be confirmed, in writing; as a life estate for [Rosalie], indelibly willed to [him] - that she cannot encumber them, without [his] signature - if sold, 50% must go to [him]." (Boldface, capitalization, and underscore omitted.)
A bench trial was held in the Nevada Probate Action. In February 2013, the Nevada district court found the California Properties should remain in Rosalie's name in accordance with the settlement agreement and the court's prior approval of the settlement agreement. (The parties dispute whether this finding is binding in the current proceeding but do not dispute the finding was made.) The Nevada district court found Jeffrey was judicially estopped from challenging the 2003 order distributing certain pieces of real property in Nevada to Rosalie, and the decision was affirmed by the Nevada Court of Appeal in 2020.
In June 2016, Rosalie sold one of the California Properties, the "Buttonwood Property," and Jeffrey learned of its sale in 2017. In July 2019, Jeffrey initiated the current action by filing a complaint against Rosalie, asserting two causes of action: (1) quiet title and (2) fraudulent false promise. The quiet title action involved the five remaining California Properties. The sixth property, the Buttonwood Property, was the subject of the fraud cause of action.
In his complaint, Jeffrey alleged that after the settlement agreement was reached in the California Action, he and Rosalie entered into a separate written agreement in November 2001, concerning the selection of a receiver/special master to be appointed to transfer all of the properties at issue in the California Action (November 2001 agreement).[3] Despite the settlement agreement dictating the California Properties belonged solely to Rosalie, the November 2001 agreement provided the California Properties would be equally divided between Rosalie and Jeffrey. Jeffrey alleged that about a week after they signed the November 2001 agreement, Rosalie requested he agree to all the California Properties being deeded to her, a return to the terms of the settlement agreement. He alleged she induced him to agree to this by promising she would bequeath the California Properties to him and if she sold any of them before she died, she would give him 50 percent of the sale proceeds. As a basis for both causes of action, Jeffrey alleged Rosalie never intended to perform this promise when she made it. He alleged he reasonably relied on her false promise and "assented to the transfer of all six California [P]roperties from Charles . . . to [Rosalie], in contradiction to the November [2001] agreement." Jeffrey further alleged Rosalie did not perform her promised act because she sold the Buttonwood Property and did not split the sale proceeds with him. He alleged he was harmed because he lost his remainderman interest in the Buttonwood Property and/or 50 percent of the sale proceeds.
In his quiet title cause of action,...
To continue reading
Request your trial