Hakopian vs. Hakopian

Defendant John Hakopian’s Motion to Strike Portions of the First Amended Complaint is DENIED as to the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th causes of action and GRANTED as to the 10th, 11th and 12th causes of action.

2. Demurrer to Amended Complaint

Defendant demurs to the 1st -7th and 9-12th causes of action of the FAC. Because the Court granted Defendant’s Motion to Strike the 10th, 11th, and 12th causes of action of the FAC, the demur to those causes of action is MOOT. 1st Cause of Action – Quiet Title To plead a cause of action for quiet title, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a description of the property in question; (2) the basis for plaintiff’s title; and (3) the adverse claims to plaintiff’s title. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 761.020.) “[T]he general rule is that the holder of equitable title cannot maintain a quiet title action against the holder of legal title. But an exception exists “when legal title has been acquired through fraud. In that case, available remedies include quieting title in the defrauded equitable title holder’s name and making the legal title holder the constructive trustee of the property for the benefit of the defrauded equitable titleholder.” (Liberty National Enterprises, L.P. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 62, 81 [cleaned up].) Plaintiff no longer relies on an oral agreement as a basis for her title. Instead, Plaintiff bases her title on “a present equitable ownership and possessory interest in the Subject Property, 9

including the right to occupy and possess the property during her lifetime” due to Defendant’s acquisition of legal title through “fraud abuse of a confidential parent-child relationship, and unjust enrichment.” (FAC, ¶¶ 39, 41-46.) Plaintiff’s allegations of fraud by Defendant falls squarely within the exception. (See Liberty National Enterprises, L.P., supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. 81.) Tentative Ruling: The demurrer to the 1st cause of action is OVERRULED. 2nd Cause of Action – Fraud (Fraudulent Inducement) The elements for fraud are “(a) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment or nondisclosure); (b) knowledge of falsity (or “scienter”); (c) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (d) justifiable reliance; and (e) resulting damage.” (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.) Fraud must be alleged with particularity. (Goldrich v. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc. (1994) 25 Cal. App. 4th 772, 782.) Thus, the complaint must allege facts showing “how, when, where, to whom, and by what means’” the fraud was perpetrated. (Lazar, supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 645.) Nevertheless, a general allegation that the representation was made with the intent to deceive the plaintiff is sufficient. (See Hall v. Mitchell (1922) 59 Cal.App. 743, 749 [although pleader need not adopt any particular phraseology, simple and direct averment that representation was made with intent to deceive would remove any uncertainty]; 5 Witkin, Cal. Proc. 6th Plead § 725 (2026).) Here, the FAC alleges Defendant made specific false representations to Plaintiff and Harry before and at the time title was placed in Defendant’s name beginning about 1998 and lasting for about 26 years, including, inter alia, that: (1) title would be in H arry’s, Plaintiff’s, and Defendant’s names; (2) Harry and Plaintiff would share ownership with Defendant; (3) Defendant would make a 20% down payment if Harry and Plaintiff gave him approximately $70,000; (4) Harry and Plaintiff could reside at the Subject Property for life; and (5) Defendant would care for them in old age. The FAC further alleges that Defendant did not intend to honor those representations when made, intended to assert exclusive ownership once title was secured, and induced Plaintiff and Harry to part with money and allow title to be structured in a way that 10

left Defendant in control. (FAC, ¶¶ 10-14, 50-56.) At the pleading stage, these allegations are sufficient. Tentative Ruling: The demurrer to the 2nd cause of action is OVERRULED. 3rd Cause of Action – Cancellation of Instrument When an otherwise valid deed does not truly express the intention of the parties, whether through fraud or mistake, the deed may be revised, reformed, or in some cases canceled. (Steiner v. Steiner (1958) 160 Cal.App.2d 665, 668-669.) Defendant demurs to the cancellation of instrument claim on the grounds that Plaintiff does not state a claim for fraud. Thus, because Plaintiff adequately alleges fraud, Plaintiff adequately alleges cancellation of instrument. Defendant also argues Plaintiff only alleges in a conclusory manner that she has a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding, the deed would cause injury, without any facts and without any explanation. However, Plaintiff alleges Defendant has used the deeds and record title to exclude Plaintiff from her home, pursue eviction, prevent access to her belongings, list the Subject Property for sale, and threaten extinguishment of Plaintiff’s equitable and possessory rights. (See FAC, e.g., ¶¶ 36, 67.) These allegations are sufficient to support Plaintiff’s claim that she has a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding, the deed would cause injury. Tentative Ruling: The demurrer to the 3rd cause of action is OVERRULED. 4th Cause of Action – Declaratory Relief Defendant argues the fourth cause of action for declaratory relief is derivative of its quiet title should be dismissed if Plaintiff’s quiet title claim does not survive demurrer. Thus, the quiet title cause of action survives demurrer. Tentative Ruling: The demurrer to the 4th cause of action is OVERRULED. 5th Cause of Action – Unjust Enrichment/Constructive Trust 11

Unjust enrichment and constructive trust are remedies, not causes of action. ((Habitat Trust for Wildlife, Inc v City of Rancho Cucamonga (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1306, 1332; accord, Farmers Ins Exchange v Zerin (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 445, 457 [constructive trust]; (McBride v. Boughton (“McBride”) (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 369, 387 [unjust enrichment].) Tentative Ruling: The demurrer to the 5th cause of action is SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend. 6th and 7th Causes of Action – Ouster and Partition Both causes of action require Plaintiff to have an interest in the property. (Civ. Code, §§ 843(a); 872.810.) Plaintiff has adequately alleged an equitable interest in the property to withstand demurrer. Tentative Ruling: The demurrer to the 6th and 7th causes of action is OVERRULED. 9th Cause of Action – IIED “A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress exists when there is (1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. A defendant’s conduct is outrageous when it is so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1050 (cleaned up).) “With respect to the requirement that the plaintiff show severe emotional distress, this court has set a high bar. Severe emotional distress means emotional distress of such substantial quality or enduring quality that no reasonable person in civilized society should be expected to endure it.” (Id. at 1051.) Plaintiff has alleged sufficient emotional distress. (FAC, ¶¶ 15-36, 129-137 Tentative Ruling: The Demurrer to the 9th cause of action is OVERRULED. 12

Summary of Tentative Ruling: Motion to Strike: DENIED as to the 2nd, 3rd, 5th causes of action and GRANTED as to the 10th – 12th causes of action. Demurer: MOOT as to the 10th, 11th, and 12th causes of action, SUSTAINED with 10 days leave to amend as to the 5th cause of action, OVERRULED as to the remaining cause of action Defendant to give notice