Noble v. Blanchard

California Court of Appeal Feb 11, 1932 No. Docket No. 8217.Published

Before: Sturtevant

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the judgment in the first action should have been a dismissal because the issue was moot, and that the judgment in the second action was erroneous because the trial court lacked jurisdiction in the underlying foreclosure suit and made findings unsupported by evidence.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in entering a judgment on the merits rather than a dismissal in an action where the underlying judgment had been satisfied.
Whether the trial court acquired jurisdiction in a foreclosure suit where the summons was not served on the record owner.
Whether a failure to record a deed constitutes laches barring an action to quiet title.
Whether a complaint to quiet title is insufficient if it improperly anticipates defendant's defenses.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment is reversed and the trial court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal.”

“Instead of laches being a proper ground of attack it has been held that an unrecorded deed is valid against all the world, save those persons mentioned in the statute.”

STURTEVANT, J.

The transcript on appeal contains two separate appeals which are set forth in the order stated in the above title. In the briefs counsel discuss the appeals in the reverse order. We will follow the order contained in the briefs.

Noble

Southern California Bond and Finance Co.,

Los Angeles Record No. 219043.

This is an action brought to set aside a judgment alleged to be void. The judgment under attack was a judgment foreclosing a street assessment lien. It was entered on August 29, 1924. The action to set aside the judgment was commenced March 9, 1927. The plaintiff named as defendants in this action Southern California Bond and Finance Company, the plaintiff in the foreclosure action and Josephine Blanchard, the purchaser at the commissioner’s sale under execution. The company filed a disclaimer. Josephine Blanchard filed an answer. The court made findings in favor of the defendant and from the judgment entered thereon the plaintiff appealed. It will suffice to state that the record discloses the fact that satisfaction of the judgment of foreclosure was entered on October 1, 1924, and that there was nothing before the trial court in this action but a moot question. (1 C. J. 973; 15 C. J. 783;

People

Pratt,

30 Cal. 223.) Therefore the trial court did not err in entering a judgment in favor of the defendant, but the judgment as entered should not have been on the merits. It should have been a judgment of dismissal. (1 C. J. 975.)

Furthermore, every issue tendered in this action which has any materiality can be, and was, presented in action No. 199227, which we have discussed below.

The judgment is reversed and the trial court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal.

Noble

Blanchard,

Los Angeles Record No. 199227.

This is an action to quiet title. In his complaint the plaintiff inserted the usual allegations of a complaint in an

Noble v. Blanchard

AI Brief

STURTEVANT, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief