Stenzel v. Kronick

California Court of Appeal Dec 11, 1929 No. Docket No. 3965.Published

Before: Thompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A general statutory lien created by a money judgment does not constitute a vested interest in specific real property sufficient to maintain a quiet title action, and a court may properly decline to grant declaratory relief when a speedy and adequate remedy at law exists.

Issues

Whether a general statutory judgment lien constitutes a sufficient interest in real property to support a quiet title action.
Whether the court abused its discretion in refusing to grant declaratory relief when the plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The judgment does not create an actual interest in the real property upon which it becomes a lien, such as will warrant the maintenance of an action to quiet title.”

“The court may refuse to exercise the power granted by this chapter in any case where its declaration or determination is not necessary or proper at the time under all the circumstances.”

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

This is an appeal from a judgment which was entered against the plaintiff upon sustaining a demurrer to the complaint to quiet title.

The complaint alleges only an interest in a particularly described piece of real property by virtue of a general money judgment which, as the law then existed, gave him a statutory lien upon all the real property of the judgment debtor which was situated in the county where the judgment was procured. (Sec. 671, Code Civ. Proc.) The usual other allegations of an ordinary suit to quiet title pursuant to section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure are made. The complaint further alleges that a controversy exists between the respective parties to the action regarding the validity of the asserted lien upon the property described as security for the payment of the judgment.

A demurrer was sustained upon the ground that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The plaintiff was denied the privilege of amending his pleading, and a judg< ment of dismissal was thereupon entered against him, from which this appeal was perfected.

The appellant contends that under the provisions of section 671 of the Code of Civil Procedure he was given such a vested" interest in the real property as authorized the maintenance of a suit to quiet title, and that the complaint stated a cause of action entitling him to declaratory relief pursuant to section 1060 of the same" code.

The plaintiff had a speedy and complete remedy at law for the satisfaction of his valid and binding judgment, by procuring and levying an execution under section 681 of the Code of Civil Procedure and selling this or any other available property. A suit to quiet title under such circumstances would accomplish no more than to affirm the validity of the "lien already established by virtue of the provisions of section 671 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A suit to quiet title will not lie in the present case. The judgment does not create an actual interest in the real property upon which it becomes a lien, such as will warrant the maintenance of an action to quiet title. The general lien which is

[509]

created upon all the real property of the judgment debtor, by the provisions of section 671,

Stenzel v. Kronick

AI Brief

THOMPSON (R. L.), J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief