Parks v. McDonald CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Dec 23, 2025 No. B328090Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court properly granted a nonsuit because the plaintiff's claims for breach of contract, quiet title, financial elder abuse, and related equitable relief were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, as the plaintiff had notice of the alleged breach at least 20 years prior to filing suit. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff could not raise a new theory of partition for the first time on appeal.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in granting a nonsuit on the ground that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statutes of limitations.
Whether the plaintiff may assert a new legal theory of partition for the first time on appeal.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Clearly the statute of limitations began running at the latest in 2002. That’s the point at which they’re repudiating that he is entitled to it. . . . At that point he knew that they’re breaching the agreement.”

“An appellant may not assert a new legal theory of liability for the first time on appeal.”

“The trial court did not err in determining these causes of action were barred as a matter of law.”

Filed 12/23/25 Parks v. McDonald CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

CHARLES PARKS, B328090 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. No. 22LBCV00013) GLENN S. MCDONALD et al., Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael P. Vicencia, Judge. Affirmed.

Law Office of Mark B. Simpkins and Mark B. Simpkins for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, Antony Nash and Nada I. Shamonki for Defendants and Respondents.

******

Charles Parks (appellant) appeals from a judgment of nonsuit as to all causes of action appellant alleged against his stepdaughter Dimple Renee McDonald (Renee) and her husband Glenn S. McDonald (Glenn) (collectively the McDonalds) on the ground that appellant’s claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations as a matter of law.1 We find no error and affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND This is a family dispute concerning a residence located at 2135 Vuelta Grande in Long Beach, California (the property). Appellant purchased the property from his brother, Willie Parks, in 1981, using the proceeds from a $100,000 loan appellant obtained. Appellant, his wife Eva Parks, and the McDonalds were all named on title after appellant purchased the property.2 On December 16, 1998, appellant and his wife Eva conveyed their entire interest in the property to the McDonalds as joint tenants. The 1998 grant deed stated, “This conveyance is a bonafide gift and the grantor received nothing in return.” Since its purchase, the McDonalds have been living in the property and were financially responsible for all mortgage payments and upgrades. The 1998 grant deed is the operative recorded grant deed regarding the property. On January 14, 2022, appellant filed his verified complaint for (1) breach of written contract, (2) quiet title, (3) financial elder abuse, (4) unfair business practices, (5) unjust enrichment, (6) constructive trust, and (7) declaratory relief.

Parks v. McDonald CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

CHAVEZ, J.

LUI, P. J.

AI Brief