Singh v. Khaira CA1/1

Filed 3/24/26 Singh v. Khaira CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

SURINDER SINGH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.

NAVJEET KAUR KHAIRA, as Trustee, etc., A172222

Defendant and Respondent; (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG19011626) SIMARJOT SINGH GILL, Intervenor, Defendant and Respondent.

In this matter, the trial court entered quiet title judgment in favor of Navjeet Kaur Khaira, trustee of the Mandeep Kaur Living Trust (trust).1 The court determined title to the real property located at 32473 Edith Way (home) in Union City “was and now is vested in [Navjeet] . . . 100% as owner in fee simple,” and Surinder Singh has no right, title, or other interest in the

1 We recite only those facts and procedural history necessary to resolve

the issues before us. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) For clarity, we use related individuals’ first names, intending no disrespect. 1

property. On appeal, Surinder primarily alleges the court’s decision was the product of bias. We affirm. I. BACKGROUND Mandeep Kaur was trustee of the trust, and Simarjot Singh Gill— Mandeep’s son—was and is its sole beneficiary. Mandeep was sole owner of the home until May 2013, when she transferred ownership to herself as trustee. Navjeet (Mandeep’s sister) was successor trustee and—when Mandeep died in January 2018—became record title owner of the home in her capacity as trustee of the trust. Surinder and his wife, Rajinder Kaur, lived in the home pursuant to an October 2015 rental agreement, which required them to pay Mandeep $3,000 monthly. Although the agreement was not modified, Rajinder began paying $3,400 in November 2017. Surinder, Rajinder, their children, and Rajinder’s parents lived in the home from November 2015 until March 2023. From November 2015 through January 2018—when Mandeep died—Surinder and Rajinder made 25 payments, totaling $53,670. They made no further monthly payments, and Navjeet served a three-day notice to pay or quit in March 2018. In March 2019, Surinder filed a quiet title complaint against Navjeet, seeking a judgment that he was the sole owner of the home. He alleged that at the time the rental agreement was executed, Mandeep orally agreed to sell him the home for $475,000, and a promissory note was executed two years later reflecting the agreement. He also alleged several “large payments [were] made in cash in India,” and the full purchase amount was paid in January 2018 as shown in a receipt. Finally, he alleged Mandeep died before recording a transfer deed for the sale. In September 2019, Navjeet filed an unlawful detainer complaint against Surinder and Rajinder, alleging they