Moore v. Old Republic Title Co.
| Decision Date | 07 April 2023 |
| Docket Number | B305768 |
| Parties | RONALD MOORE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No BC559815, Stephanie M. Bowick, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of Freddie Lee Fletcher and Freddie Fletcher for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
Garrett & Tully, Ryan C. Squire and Linda R. Echegaray for Defendants and Respondents.
A mother died intestate leaving two adult children, Ronald Moore (Moore) and Rosa Lars (Lars), as heirs. After the sale of the mother's home, Moore filed a complaint to quiet title against Lars and others seeking his half of the property. A year later, Moore, now with two of the former defendants in the first complaint as coplaintiffs, filed an amended complaint. Subsequently, the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action under Code of Civil Procedure sections 583.310 and 583.360 due to the plaintiffs' failure to bring the case to trial within five years.[1] The trial court granted the motion. It concluded that section 583.310 barred the plaintiffs' claims because the amended complaint related back to the first complaint and five years had passed since it was filed. We agree and affirm.
In October 2014, Moore filed a complaint (first complaint) to quiet title. The complaint alleged that his mother, Dorothy Harrison (Harrison), died intestate in December 2010, leaving himself and his sister, Lars, as heirs to her home (the property). Moore alleged that upon his mother's death, the title to the property vested in himself and Lars through the laws governing intestate succession.
The complaint alleged that Harrison's grandson, Benny Newton, colluded with his friend Vincent Alva and Alva's wife, Nancy Cardenas, a notary, to forge Harrison's signature on a quitclaim deed to the property (Deed One), which they backdated to before Harrison's death. Moore alleged that forged Deed One purported to quitclaim Harrison's interests in the property to the following individuals: Lars (1/4 interest); Moore (1/8 interest); Benny Newton (3/8 interest); and Dane Moore (1/4 interest).
The first complaint then alleged that Lars and others conspired to defraud Moore of his interest in the property by then forging a second deed (Deed Two) that transferred to Lars all of the interests in the property, with the intent that Lars would then sell the property to a company, Verzfco, LLC (Verzfco).
The complaint alleged that the property was sold to Verzfco through a conspiracy that included Lars, Verzfco, a title company, real estate companies, an escrow company, notaries, and various named individuals and "Doe" defendants associated with those companies. The complaint alleged that the defendants shared among them the profits of the sale of the property to Verzfco for approximately $229,000, which was allegedly below market value.
The first complaint names the following individuals as defendants: Lars, Benny Newton, Dane Moore, Vincent Alva, Nancy Cardenas, T.B. Sanders, Verzfco, Old Republic Title Company, Blake Uradomo, Century 21 Allstars Inc., Maxres Inc., Joseph Garcia Villaescusa, Pacific Escrow Inc., Sandra Villaescusa, and 12 "Doe" defendants.
The first complaint contained only one cause of action against all the defendants: quiet title. It asserted that Moore had a one-half title interest because both Deeds One and Two were forged and thus fraudulent.
In November 2015, Moore, now with two of the defendants from the first complaint as coplaintiffs, Benny Newton and Dane Moore, filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint did not add any new named defendants, and reiterated the following as defendants: Lars, T.B. Sanders, Verzfco, Old Republic Title Company, Pacific Escrow Inc., Blake Uradomo, Century 21 Allstars Inc., Maxres Inc., Joseph Garcia Villaescusa, and Sandra Villaescusa.
The amended complaint contained a claim for quiet title to the same property, but added additional causes of action for ejectment, conversion (rents), money had and received, conversion (personal property), conspiracy to forge and falsely acknowledge deed, slander of title and cancellation of cloud on title, and partition.
The amended complaint alleges that Deed One transferred the property from Harrison in the same interests to the same four individuals as the first complaint: Lars (1/4 interest); Moore (1/8 interest); Benny Newton (3/8 interest); and Dane Moore (1/4 interest). However, unlike the first complaint, the amended complaint does not allege that Deed One was forged. Instead, it alleges that Harrison executed this quitclaim deed herself before she died, but her "drug-addicted children were not told that Mrs. Harrison had executed the deed."
As to Deed Two, the amended compliant again alleges that Deed Two was forged by Lars with the help of various companies and individuals associated with them, and purported to grant the interests from Deed One of Lars, Moore, Benny Newton and Dane Moore to Lars only.
Like the first complaint, the amended complaint then alleges that Lars, Verzfco, and various real estate and title companies and individuals associated with them conspired to transfer Lar's interest in the property to Verzfco at below market value for $229,000. The amended complaint also alleges that the various defendants shared the profits from the sale of the property to Verzfco.
The quiet title claim in the amended complaint seeks to adjudicate the plaintiffs' interests in the property as written on Deed One, with the exception that it alleges Lars has lawfully transferred her original interest in Deed One to Verzfco because it no longer alleges that Deed One was forged: Verzfco (1/4 interest); Moore (1/8 interest); Benny Newton (3/8 interest); and Dane Moore (1/4 interest).
The amended complaint also alleges that Verzfco has received rents exceeding $2,000 a month from the property and broke the locks on the property converting the personal property within it for its own use.
In September 2016 and May 2017 respectively, some of the defendants were voluntarily dismissed and default was entered against others. The trial court determined the pleadings were settled and set a trial date for June 19, 2018.
On June 19, 2018, the plaintiffs (Moore, Benny Newton, and Dane Moore) indicated that they were not ready for trial and also that they wanted a guardian appointed to represent Lars's Estate. Trial was rescheduled for May 2019. On the day of the final status conference, plaintiffs again sought a continuance, this time by ex parte application due to Lars's death in June 2018. The court rescheduled the trial to September 2020.
In December 2019, the remaining defendants, Old Republic Title Company and its officer and agent Blake Uradomo, and Verzfco (hereinafter Respondents), moved to dismiss the case pursuant to the five-year rule in section 583.310.
In January 2020, the trial court granted the motion. The trial court found that the amended complaint related back to the first complaint, which set the clock ticking on the five-year period, and that the plaintiffs had not been diligent in bringing the case to trial. The trial court dismissed the case in its entirety and gave notice of the dismissal in February 2020.
Ronald Moore, Benny Newton, and Dane Moore (Appellants) filed a timely appeal in April 2020.
Under section 583.310, "[a]n action shall be brought to trial within five years after the action is commenced against the defendant." (§ 583.310.) In computing the five years, (§ 583.340.) Dismissal under section 583.310 is "mandatory" unless a statutory exception applies. (§ 583.360; Martinez v. Landry's Restaurants, Inc. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 783, 793 [].)
The issue before us is the application of the relation-back doctrine to undisputed facts in the context of section 583.310's five-year rule, so we review the trial court's decision de novo. (Brumley v. FDCC California, Inc. (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 312, 318 (Brumley).) While the determination of whether section 583.310 was tolled for impossibility, impracticability, or futility in bringing the case to trial is ordinarily reviewed for an abuse of discretion, the question of the applicability of section 583.340 to undisputed facts is a legal question subject to de novo review. (Ibid.; Tanguilig v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 313, 324 (Tanguilig).)
Generally the" '[c]ommencement' of an action for purposes of section 583.310 . . . is firmly established as the date of filing of the initial complaint." (Brumley, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at p. 318, citing Kowalski v. Cohen (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 977, 980; see also Tanguilig, supra, 22 Cal.App.5th at p. 322.) Where an amended complaint alleges new causes of action that do not "relate back" to the first complaint, then the "commencement" of the action for purposes of section...
To continue reading
Request your trial