People v. 01tonika Lynette Miller
| Decision Date | 18 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | A161601 |
| Citation | 78 Cal.App.5th 1051,294 Cal.Rptr.3d 246 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. 01Tonika Lynette MILLER, Defendant; Lion Share Investments, LLC, Real Party in Interest and Appellant. |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith, Jeffrey H. Lowenthal, Edward Egan Smith, San Francisco, Stacey C. Quan, for Real Party in Interest and Appellant.
Stephen M. Wagstaffe, District Attorney, Kimberly A. Perrotti, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
An elderly victim signed a purchase agreement conveying her home (Property) to Rex Regum, LLC (Rex Regum), a corporation controlled by Justin Hall. Based on false representations by defendant Tonika Lynette Miller, the victim believed she was instead signing a document to obtain a reverse mortgage for $500,000. Unaware of that transaction, and believing Rex Regum was the lawful owner of the Property, real party in interest Lion Share Investments, LLC (Lion Share), purchased the Property from Rex Regum. Rex Regum thereafter executed a grant deed transferring title to Lion Share.
Miller later pled no contest to procuring and offering a false or forged instrument and to unlawfully taking real property from the victim. ( Pen. Code, §§ 115, subd. (a), 487, subd. (a) ; undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Pursuant to section 115, subdivision (e) ( section 115(e) ), the People moved to void the deed conveying the Property to Rex Regum. Partially relying on Miller's no contest plea, the trial court found the deed was false and forged and thus void from its inception.
On appeal, Lion Share argues Miller's no contest plea "was not an adjudication of the alleged falsity or forgery" of the deed and was thus an insufficient basis for the trial court's voiding the deed under section 115(e). Without a full determination of the facts, Lion Share contends, the court's finding was not supported by the record. Lion Share also argues that, as a matter of due process, the court should have deferred to Lion Share's pending quiet title action to afford a full adjudication of its claim to the Property. We disagree and affirm.
Sara J., an elderly woman, owned the Property in Redwood City and resided there with her husband, who has dementia, and Cynthia S., a tenant. In 2018, San Mateo County informed Sara that she owed property taxes and faced a foreclosure sale. Miller, a real estate salesperson, contacted Sara and offered to secure a reverse mortgage to help save the Property. Sara agreed; she believed a reverse mortgage would allow her to use her equity in the Property to pay the taxes. Miller and her employer, Hall, indicated they would pay Sara's tax obligation, and Sara would reimburse them by sending them $150 every month. Cynthia coordinated with Miller on Sara's behalf. Sara agreed to pay $25,000 from the proceeds of the transaction to Cynthia as compensation for her assistance.
On July 23, 2018, Miller provided Sara with a document to sign. At the time, Sara believed the document was to secure a $500,000 reverse mortgage. Sara also thought that after she signed the document, Miller would pay the owed property taxes to prevent a foreclosure sale. Miller pressured Sara to sign the document quickly, explaining she needed to pay the overdue property taxes before the county office closed for the day. Sara did not read the document but nonetheless signed it. In fact, the document was a purchase agreement resulting in the sale of the Property to Rex Regum for $500,000.1 Although Sara's delinquent taxes were paid, a deed transferring title of the Property from Sara to Rex Regum was recorded the same day. Sara did not learn that she had sold her property until August 2, when an inspector from the San Mateo County District Attorney's Office notified her of the sale. Later in August, Lion Share purchased the Property from Rex Regum. A deed reflecting Lion Share's title to the Property was recorded on August 27.
In December 2018, the San Mateo County District Attorney charged Hall and Miller with several criminal offenses arising from the transfer of the Property from Sara to Rex Regum and subsequently to Lion Share. In November 2019, Miller pled no contest to unlawfully and knowingly procuring and offering a false or forged instrument to be filed in a state public office and recorded under state and federal law. ( § 115, subd. (a).) She also pled no contest to grand theft of the Property. ( § 487, subd. (a).) Hall pled not guilty to all charges including procuring a false or forged instrument and grand theft of real and personal property.
Shortly after the criminal complaint was filed against Miller and Hall, Lion Share filed a quiet title action in January 2019 and asserted ownership of the Property. At her deposition, Sara consistently testified she did not intend to sell her house. Rather, she believed Miller gave her the document to obtain a reverse mortgage. She was shocked when the inspector notified her that she sold the Property to Rex Regum. She stated, "I had no idea that I had sold my house." In response, Rex Regum produced text messages from Cynthia, some conveying Sara's purported happiness regarding the availability of possible homes for purchase. In her deposition, however, Sara explained she did not believe she had any choice but to move as she no longer had a home because it had been stolen from her. Cynthia refused to appear for a deposition.
While the quiet title action was pending, but after Miller pled no contest, the People filed a motion to void the deed conveying Sara's home to Rex Regum. ( § 115(e).) In multiple rounds of briefing and oral arguments, Lion Share opposed the motion and argued the trial court should defer to the quiet title action as the appropriate forum for an adjudication of the parties’ respective real property rights. Lion Share supported its position with, among other things, various declarations, portions of Sara's deposition testimony, and Cynthia's text messages.
Citing Miller's no contest pleas to procuring and offering a false or forged instrument and to grand theft of real property, as well as Sara's deposition testimony, the trial court determined the deed was forged. It found Sara relied on Miller's false representations and believed she was signing documents for a reverse mortgage, not a grant deed. The court further stated the "instrument is false because the property ... was stolen from Sara ... as indicated by defendant's conviction" for theft of real property. The court also concluded the matter was more appropriately addressed in the criminal proceeding rather than the quiet title action based on the interests of judicial economy, giving finality to Miller's criminal case, providing victim restitution, and potential prejudice to Sara resulting from a lengthy civil proceeding. The court then adjudged the deed void from its inception.
Section 115 makes it a felony to knowingly procure or offer "any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public" state office. ( § 115, subd. (a) ; People v. Schmidt (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 1042, 1055, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 694 ( Schmidt ).) A defendant violates this provision by either "procuring or offering a false instrument for filing," or "by procuring or offering a forged instrument for filing." ( Schmidt , at p. 1056, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 694.) Section 115 was crafted "to prevent the recordation of spurious documents knowingly offered for record" and to protect the integrity of judicial and public records. ( Generes v. Justice Court (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 678, 681–682, 165 Cal.Rptr. 222 ; People v. Tate (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 663, 666, 64 Cal.Rptr.2d 206.)
After "a person is convicted of a violation of [ section 115 ], or a plea is entered whereby a charge alleging a violation of this section is dismissed and waiver is obtained pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 159 Cal.Rptr. 696, 602 P.2d 396, upon written motion of the prosecuting agency," the court "shall issue a written order that the false or forged instrument be adjudged void ab initio if the court determines that an order is appropriate under applicable law." ( § 115, subd. (e)(1).) "The order shall state whether the instrument is false or forged, or both false and forged, and describe the nature of the falsity or forgery." (Ibid .) Section 115, subdivision (f) sets forth the process for a hearing on a motion to void a false or forged instrument. Among other things, the subdivision requires that any hearing must be held with notice to all parties who have an interest in the property; any such parties have the right to be heard and present information to the court. ( § 115, subd. (f)(1), (7)–(8).) Moreover, "if the court determines that the interests of justice or the need to protect the property rights of any person or party so requires ... the court may decline to make a determination" that the instrument is void under subdivision (e). (Id. , subd. (f)(9)(A).)
We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo, but otherwise review a judgment for substantial evidence. ( Schmidt , supra , 41 Cal.App.5th at p. 1056, 254 Cal.Rptr.3d 694 ; § 115, subd. (h) [].)
Lion Share contends a section 115(e) motion to declare the deed void from its inception cannot be based on a no contest plea. After reviewing the text of section 115 and giving its words their usual and ordinary meaning, we disagree. ( People v. Abrahamian (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 314, 332, 258 Cal.Rptr.3d 670.)
Section 115(e) allows a prosecuting agency to move for an order that an instrument is void "[a]fter a person is convicted ... or a plea is entered whereby a charge alleging a violation of this section is dismissed and waiver is obtained pursuant to People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 159 Cal.Rptr. 696, 602 P.2d 396." (Italics added.) Nothing in section 115...
To continue reading
Request your trial