McGuire v. IMT Associates CA1/3

Filed 5/12/15 McGuire v. IMT Associates CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

COLIN McGUIRE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A143019 v. IMT ASSOCIATES et al., (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RG14724287) Defendants and Appellants.

Defendants IMT Associates and IMT Associates as successor trustee of the McGuire Family Irrevocable Trust (collectively IMT) appeal from the denial of their special motion to strike plaintiff Colin McGuire’s quiet title complaint and from the imposition of sanctions for filing a frivolous motion. We agree with the trial court that “it is clear that [the requirements for filing a special motion to strike under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 are] not met in this case and this should have been apparent to ‘any reasonable attorney’ reviewing the applicable case law.” We shall therefore affirm the order. Background The complaint in this action that IMT sought to strike was preceded by an unlawful detainer action that IMT brought to evict McGuire from what apparently had been a family home in Berkeley. Some four months after the filing of the unlawful detainer action McGuire filed the instant action for quiet title and declaratory relief. The complaint acknowledges the filing of the unlawful detainer action and alleges that title to the property in question is held by IMT, but that: “The basis of [IMT’s] legal interest in

1

the subject property are various living trust and irrevocable trust documents and deeds contained in the chain of title thereto. Based on information and belief, [McGuire] further alleges that he is a vested beneficiary under the operative trust document(s) contained in the chain of title.” The complaint further alleges that IMT has “no title, legal, or equitable interest in the subject property, and further, that any deeds purporting to convey title or interest to [IMT] are void as a matter of law.” The second cause of action seeking declaratory relief alleges further that the settlor of the operative irrevocable trust document, his mother, “lacks the legal capacity to amend, change or modify the trust agreement,” that she “has been legally incompetent in this regard for several years,” and seeks a declaration that she “was, at all times relevant hereto with respect to various transfers in the chain of title and on the trust documents, legally incompetent to the extent that she lacked legal capacity to transfer and convey title and/or to amend any trust documents from the date of her declared incompetence henceforward.” Arguing that this action arises from the unlawful detainer action, IMT filed a special motion to strike both causes of action of the complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute,1 Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16). The trial court denied the motion, explaining, “The mere fact that this lawsuit was filed after the unlawful detainer suit, and even may have been prompted by it, is not sufficient to bring the suit within section 425.16,” citing City of Cotati v. Cashman (2002) 29 Cal.4th 69, 80 and Copenbarger v. Morris Cerullo World Evangelism (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1237, 1247- 1248. The court also granted McGuire’s motion for attorney fees and costs, finding the motion frivolous and awarding fees and costs of $9,100. IMT has timely appealed from the trial court’s order. Discussion The basic principles applicable to motions to strike under section 425.16 have been restated many times. We quote from this court’s opinion in Peregrine Funding, Inc. v. Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 658, 669-670: