Coons v. Thompson

California Court of Appeal Aug 6, 1946 No. Civ. 15323Published

Before: McCOMB

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the defendants' third amended answer because the answer's denial of the plaintiff's ownership raised material issues of fact, and the special demurrer failed to specify the alleged defects in the pleading.

Issues

Whether a general denial of ownership in a quiet title action raises material issues of fact requiring a trial.
Whether a special demurrer for ambiguity, unintelligibility, or uncertainty is sufficient without specifying the defects.
Whether a defendant is precluded from objecting to subsequent proceedings after a demurrer to their answer is sustained without leave to amend.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In a quiet title action the denial in defendants’ answer of plaintiff’s ownership and right to possession of the property in question raises issues of fact requiring a trial of the action.”

“It was therefore error to sustain the general demurrer to the third amended answer.”

McCOMB, J.

From a judgment in favor of plaintiff after the sustaining without leave to amend of a demurrer to the third amended answer of defendants in an action to quiet title to real property, defendants appeal.

These are the conceded facts:

On May 24, 1945, plaintiff filed a complaint to quiet title to certain real property. In Paragraph III of the complaint it was alleged “that plaintiff [was] the owner of and entitled to possession of the real property described as follows: . . .” (Thereafter there was a detailed description of the property claimed by plaintiff.) After demurrers of plaintiff had been sustained to two answers of defendants, a third amended answer was filed by them which read in part as follows:

“Deny generally and specifically each and every allegation contained in Paragraph III of plaintiff’s complaint.”

In addition the answer contained numerous allegations by which defendants unartfully endeavored to allege that they had certain equities in the property described in the complaint. To this answer plaintiff demurred

(1) generally and

[689]

(2) specifically on the grounds (a) that several causes of counterclaim had been improperly joined and not separately stated, (b) of ambiguity, (c) of unintelligibility and (d) of uncertainty. This demurrer was sustained without leave to amend on October 19, 1945.

On October 24, 1945, plaintiff served on defendants a notice of “Hearing of Proof of Title and Rights of Plaintiff to Immediate Possession,” which hearing was set for November 2, 1945. ' On the latter date defendants were represented by counsel, at which time the trial court took evidence and found that plaintiff was the owner and entitled to possession of the real property in question. The defendants made no objection to the introduction of evidence. A judgment was thereafter entered in favor of plaintiff pursuant to the trial court’s findings and the present appeal ensued.

Defendants rely for reversal of the judgment on the proposition that

the trial court committed prejudicial error in sustaining the demurrer to their third amended answer.

Coons v. Thompson

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief