Cheney v. Trauzettel

California Supreme Court Jun 29, 1937 No. L. A. 15731Published

Before: Langdon

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. In a summary unlawful detainer proceeding, the court held that the right to possession is the primary issue and that defendants cannot litigate broad questions of title or equitable defenses through cross-complaints.

Issues

Whether broad questions of title and equitable defenses may be raised by cross-complaint in a summary unlawful detainer proceeding.
Whether the superior court must affirmatively plead facts establishing jurisdiction in an unlawful detainer action.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the trial court properly held that in the summary proceeding in unlawful detainer the right to possession alone was involved, and the broad question of title, could not be raised and litigated by cross-complaint or affirmative defense.”

“the alleged equitable grounds of attack on plaintiff’s title have no place in the present summary proceeding, for if such issues are permissible, the proceeding entirely loses its summary character.”

“It is not necessary to plead affirmatively the facts showing jurisdiction, and lack of jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown.”

LANGDON, J.

This is a proceeding in unlawful detainer brought under section 1161a of the Code of Civil Procedure by the purchaser at a sale under a deed of trust. Defendants answered and cross-complained, setting up a claim of title and several other defenses, including the pendency of a quiet title suit between the parties involving the same property. The trial court, on motion of plaintiffs, struck out the cross-complaint and special defenses, and gave judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appealed.

The trial court properly held that in the summary proceeding in unlawful detainer the right to possession alone was involved, and the broad question of title, could not be raised and litigated by cross-complaint or affirmative defense. (See

Arnold

Krigbaum,

169 Cal. 143 [146 Pac. 423, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 370];

Bekins

Trull,

69 Cal. App. 40 [230 Pac. 24].) It is true that where the purchaser at a trustee’s sale proceeds under section 1161a of the Code of Civil Procedure he must prove his acquisition of title by purchase at the sale; but it is only to this limited extent, as provided by the statute, that the title may be litigated in such a proceeding.

(Hewitt

Justice’s Court,

131 Cal. App. 439 [21 Pac. (2d) 641];

Nineteenth Realty Co.

Diggs,

134 Cal. App. 278 [25 Pac. (2d) 522];

Berkeley Guarantee Building & Loan Assn.

Cunnyngham,

218 Cal. 714 [24 Pac. (2d) 782].)

[160]

Cheney v. Trauzettel

AI Brief

LANGDON, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief