PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE AND REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT
23CV057369: ZHAN, et al. vs WATSON, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE AND REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT; filed by JINCHUN ZHAN (Plaintiff) + CRS# 404238436161 in Department 518
Tentative Ruling - 07/30/2026 Mark Fickes
The Motion re: PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE AND REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT filed by JINCHUN ZHAN, YU JIE on 05/14/2026 is Granted.
On March 13, 2009, the Court entered an Order for Final Distribution on the property which was previously owned by Carole Anne Watson. The distribution states that Leon Watson, Alex Koopman, Edward Koopman, and Peyton Bloxton each receive 25% of the Property with Leon Watson also receiving a life estate in the Subject Property.
Despite some heirs questioning whether Leon Watson could sell the Subject Property, all living heirs signed an agreement that the sales proceeds would be distributed equally among Mr. Watson and Carole Anne Watsons three adult children. (MPA, p. 3, Bones Decl., Ex. A.)
On August 11, 2021, Plaintiffs Jinchun Zhan and Yu Jie acquired the real property located at 35801 Burning Tree Drive, Newark, California (Subject Property). (Request for Judicial Notice (RJN), ex. A.)
On December 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed their complaint for Quiet Title; Reformation; Breach of Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Imposition of Constructive Trust; and Declaratory Relief.
After Plaintiffs filed the instant action, Leon Watson died. (RJN, Exhibit C.) Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Carrie Ann Freed, the adult daughter of Leon Watson, and the testate and intestate successors of Leon Watson as defendants in this matter. (See RJN, Exhibits D & E.)
Defendants Edward Koopman and Peyton Bloxton, and Carrie Ann Freed have each filed a Disclaimer of Interest and Stipulation for Entry of Judgment. (RJN, Exhibits F H.) Defendants Edward Koopman and Peyton Bloxton have also both executed quit claim deeds conveying any interest they may have in the Property to Plaintiffs. (RJN, Exhibits I & J.) (MPA, p. 3.)
Further, the probate court entered an Order for Final Distribution of the Estate of Alex Koopman distributing Alex Koopmans interest in the Property to Edward Koopman and Peyton Koopman. (RJN, Exhibit L.)
Thus, Alex Koopmans interest in the Subject Property has been resolved. (MPA, p. 3; RJN, Exhibit M.)
On May 14, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an Application for Judgment for Quiet Title and Reformation of Instrument. 23CV057369: ZHAN, et al. vs WATSON, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE AND REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT; filed by JINCHUN ZHAN (Plaintiff) + CRS# 404238436161 in Department 518
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs unopposed request for judicial notice. (Evid. Code § 452(c).)
The elements of quiet title have been met including a description of the real property, title of the Plaintiffs as to which determination of quiet title is sought and the basis of title, including any adverse claims to the title and that notice has been given to all interested parties. (CCP § 761.020; MPA, p. 2- 3.)
Further, this motion is unopposed.
Plaintiffs, via the evidence presented in the RJN, have established title and shown the mistake in the instrument can be reformed without prejudice to rights of any interested third party. (Civil Code § 3399.) Plaintiffs ask that title be reformed to identify Watson, Edward Koopman, Alex Koopman, and Peyton Bloxton all as Grantors of the Property to Plaintiffs.
Thus, Plaintiffs request for quiet title and reformation of the instrument as to the Subject Property is GRANTED.
The Court will sign the proposed order submitted May 14, 2026.
---
PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1308, subdivision (a)(1), this tentative ruling will become the order of the Court unless it is contested before 4:00 PM on the court day preceding the noticed hearing.
To contest a tentative ruling, a party should do the following:
First, the party must notify Department 518, by email at Dept518@alameda.courts.ca.gov and copy all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The contesting party must state in the subject line of the email the case name, case number and motion.
Second, the party shall log into the eCourt Public Portal, search for this case (e.g., by case number), select the case name, select the "Tentative Rulings" tab, click the "Click to Contest this Ruling" button, enter the party's name and a brief statement of the party's reason for contesting the tentative, and click "Proceed."
Please note the Court does not permit remote appearances for motions for summary judgment that are contested. If you contest a Motion for Summary Judgment, you must appear in person.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
23CV057369: ZHAN, et al. vs WATSON, et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Motion - Other PLAINTIFFS APPLICATION FOR JUDGMENT FOR QUIET TITLE AND REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENT; filed by JINCHUN ZHAN (Plaintiff) + CRS# 404238436161 in Department 518 For all other motions (unless otherwise noted in the tentative ruling), Parties may appear via videoconference, using the Zoom.com website or application. TO CONNECT TO ZOOM: Department 518 is inviting you to a scheduled ZoomGov meeting.
Topic: Department 518's Personal Meeting Room
Join ZoomGov Meeting https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16054307984
Meeting ID: 160 5430 7984
One tap mobile +16692545252,,16054307984# US (San Jose) +14154494000,,16054307984# US (US Spanish Line)
---
Dial by your location +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose)