Taliaferro v. Riddle

California Court of Appeal Dec 15, 1958 No. Civ. No. 18179Published

Before: Kaufman

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A party who acquires record title to real property prior to the commencement of a quiet title action and the filing of a lis pendens is not bound by a judgment in that action if they were not named as a defendant, and thus a writ of possession cannot be issued against them.

Issues

Whether a quiet title judgment is binding upon a party who acquired record title before the action commenced and was not named as a defendant.
Whether a writ of possession may be issued against a party who was not a defendant in the underlying quiet title action and is not a successor in interest to a defendant.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“a person to whom a party to an action has made an assignment or granted property or an interest therein before the commencement of the action is not regarded as in privity with the assignor or grantor so as to be affected by a judgment”

“respondents, not being named in the complaint filed pursuant to section 738 (an in personam action), were not required to appear and are not bound by the judgment.”

KAUFMAN, P. J. This appeal is based upon a judgment entered pursuant to a denial of a motion for writ of possession.

The property in issue is located in Contra Costa County and is described as Lot 5, Block 10, Tewksbury Heights. Prior to 1942, legal title to this lot was vested in one Etta Albertson. Albertson became delinquent in her 1936 property taxes and, pursuant to California law, the property was sold to the state on June 26, 1937.

At the end of the required five year period, the property was deeded to the state and on June 29, 1942, sold at a public auction to appellant and his wife Dorothy. Taliaferro did not record this deed until August 22, 1950. In the meantime, Albertson purportedly executed a deed dated April 15, 1950, conveying the above premises to one B. Hoey, which was recorded on April 19, 1950, in the office of the recorder of Contra Costa County. Hoey, on May 31, 1950, conveyed the property to respondents, Valentine K. and Elsie M. Hartmann, husband and wife, as joint tenants. This deed was recorded June 1, 1950.

On June 21, 1950, appellant filed a complaint (No. B-1046) requesting the court to quiet title to the premises in issue and to other specified parcels of land. A summons was issued on the same date. On June 26, appellant filed a Notice of Lis Pendens. The above summons was filed August 21 and showed personal service on certain named defendants. An alias summons issued August 21, 1950, was not filed until April 26, 1954. Etta Albertson, a named defendant, was served by publication and a default judgment was entered against her. On November 16, 1951, the court issued a decree quieting appellant’s title to the parcel in question and to other properties. This decree was recorded on November 28, 1951.

A copy of the summons and complaint in action B-1046 was served on Elsie Hartmann on May 15, 1954, and on her husband on May 29. Respondents made a special appearance to move for a dismissal of the action on the grounds that they were not served within three years after the commencement [126]of the action and issuance of summons. In their affidavit in support of this motion, it is alleged that, immediately after acquiring title to the property from Hoey, they erected improvements thereon and on April 1, 1951, moved into those improvements. The action was dismissed on June 17, 1954.

In March 1957, an alias summons was issued in the quiet title action and served upon the Hartmanns. Respondents, in a special appearance, moved to quash the service of the alias summons and amended complaint upon the grounds that they were not served within the required three year period. On May 13, 1957, the court issued an order granting this motion.

Taliaferro v. Riddle

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief