RONALD KNIGHT VS. STELLA KNIGHT, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC029118    Hearing Date: January 09, 2020    Dept: A

# 10. Ronald Knight v. Stella Knight, et al.

Case No.: TC029118

Matter on calendar for: Demurrer to FAC

Tentative ruling:

1. Background

   This is a quiet title action involving an alleged forged deed. Plaintiff Ronald Knight alleges Defendants Stella Knight, Thomas Knight, The Daniel Lee Biddle, Sr., Living Trust, Francisco Favela, Victoria Favela, and Sandra Perez forged and fraudulently recorded. The property is located at 1010 Kay Street, Compton, California 90221. Plaintiff discovered the deed when the property was almost sold.

   The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleges the following causes of action:

1. Quiet Title;

2. Cancellation of Deed;

3. Fraud;

4. Constructive Trust; and

5. Declaratory Relief

   Defendant Thomas Knight and Sandra Perez now demur to the FAC. An opposition was filed and considered. No reply has been filed as of January 7, 2020.

   For the reasons set forth below, the Court overrules the demurrer.

1. Standard

A demurrer tests the sufficiency of a complaint as a matter of law and raises only questions of law. (Schmidt v. Foundation Health (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1702, 1706.) In testing the sufficiency of the complaint, the court must assume the truth of (1) the properly pleaded factual allegations; (2) facts that can be reasonably inferred from those expressly pleaded; and (3) judicially noticed matters. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The Court may not consider contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law. (Moore v. Conliffe (1994) 7 Cal.App.4th 634, 638.) Because a demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint, the plaintiff must show that the complaint alleges facts sufficient to establish every element of each cause of action. (Rakestraw v. California Physicians Service (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 39, 43.) Where the complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, courts should sustain the demurrer. (C.C.P., § 430.10(e); Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1126.)

Sufficient facts are the essential facts of the case "with reasonable precision and with particularity sufficiently specific to acquaint the defendant with the nature, source, and extent of his cause of action.” (Gressley v. Williams (1961) 193 Cal.App.2d 636, 643-644.) "Whether the plaintiff will be able to prove the pleaded facts is irrelevant to ruling upon the demurrer." (Stevens v. Superior Court (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 605, 609–610.) Under Code Civil Procedure § 430.10(f), a demurrer may also be sustained if a complaint is “uncertain.” Uncertainty exists where a complaint’s factual allegations are so confusing they do not sufficiently apprise a defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. (Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 135, 139, fn. 2.)

1. Analysis

   1. Fraud

Defendants argue the FAC does not possess the required specificity to allege fraud. The elements of fraud are (1) a misrepresentation; (2) knowledge of falsity; (3) intent to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Fraud must be pled with specificity. (Id. at 645.) This “necessitates pleading facts which show how, when, where, to whom, and by what means representations were tendered.” (Ibid.) The FAC and the attached deed make it clear that Plaintiff alleges Defendants fraudulently forged a deed transferring the property from Plaintiff to Defendants Stella Knight and Thomas Knight, with Defendants Angela Mosby and Sandra Perez participating in the scheme by witnessing the forged deed. (FAC ¶ 30.) This is sufficient to state a cause of action for fraud.

The demurrer to the FAC is overruled.

1. Ruling

   The demurrer to the FAC is overruled. Defendants to file and serve their answer within 15 days.

   Next dates:

   Notice: