Bell v. Towne

California Court of Appeal Nov 14, 1957 No. Civ. 22531Published

Before: Fourt

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prior final judgment quieting title in the plaintiff against the same defendant is res judicata, and that the defendant failed to establish the necessary elements for adverse possession to overcome the plaintiff's established legal title.

Issues

Whether a prior final judgment quieting title is res judicata in a subsequent action between the same parties regarding the same property.
Whether the defendant established the elements of adverse possession to defeat the plaintiff's legal title.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“By virtue of the doctrine of res judicata the final determination of a court of competent jurisdiction necessarily affirming the existence of any fact is conclusive evidence of the existence of that fact”

“The court in the first action decreed that McKenna had no interest in the property, and therefore she had no interest which she could transfer to the appellant herein.”

“To establish title by adverse possession, the claimant must establish five elements in connection with his occupancy of the property.”

FOURT, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff quieting her title to two vacant lots.

This action was filed November 20, 1953. In 1946, the plaintiff herein filed an action, which will hereinafter be referred to as the “first action,” to quiet title to the same two lots involved in the present action. The matter was heard in the same court, against the same defendant-appellant, her husband, and Catherine A. McKenna, and plaintiff received a judgment quieting the title in plaintiff, which judgment was sustained on appeal in 95 Cal.App.2d 398 [213 P.2d 73], and became final on May 25, 1950. In the first action the appellant herein appeared and answered in propria persona and testified at the trial that she did not own any part of either lot and that she only claimed the right to take care of the lots for Mrs. McKenna. The judgment in the first action was in the usual form.

The present action was filed about three and one-half years after the judgment in the first action became final. The complaint in the present case set forth and pleaded a copy of the judgment in the first action, as well as a copy of the opinion of the District Court of Appeal. The appellant answered by denying that the plaintiff owned the property, but made no denial of the record of the first action. She further answered, by way of a special defense, that she was the owner of the property in question. There was no plea of the statute of limitations.

The evidence disclosed that the first time appellant saw or communicated with plaintiff, or anyone representing her,

[227]

following the first action was in the fall of 1953, at which time a representative of the plaintiff called on appellant to discuss the sale of the lots to appellant, and plaintiff through her representative thereupon discovered for the first time subsequent to the first action, that appellant claimed an interest in the lots. A title search was requested and plaintiff ascertained that a quitclaim deed dated April 28, 1952, from a Catherine A. McKenna to the appellant Towne had been recorded on April 29, 1952. Plaintiff then brought this action to remove the cloud on the title caused by the recording of the quitclaim deed, and also to remove any other possible claim of the appellant.

Bell v. Towne

AI Brief

FOURT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief