Gildardo Aburto, et al. v. Aura M. Palacios, et al.
Published: Nov. 25, 2003 | Result Date: Sep. 23, 2003 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: GC030485 Bench Decision – $0
Judge
Court
L.A. Superior Alhambra
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
David R. Denis
(Law Offices of David R. Denis PC)
Facts
In or about October 1999, the defendant, Aura M. Palacios, the plaintiff, Cleotilde Rivera and her sister, Aurelia Rivera agreed to purchase real property that had been improved with two residential units in Altadena. Cleotilde and Aurelia could not qualify for financing and title to the Altadena property was taken in Aura's name and the name of Cleotilde's and Aurelia's nephew, Gildardo Aburto, each of whom assumed liability for the payment of the purchase money loan, but all property related expenses, including the mortgage, were paid by Aura. Cleotilde and Aurelia paid rent. Gildardo paid nothing toward the property. In or about November 2001, Aura attempted to sell the property representing herself as the sole owner on the basis of a quitclaim deed whereby Gildardo purported to relinquish his co-tenancy interest in the property to Aura. On Sep. 30, 2002, Gildardo filed the subject suit wherein he alleged that his name had been forged on the quitclaim deed whereby he purported to relinquish his co-tenancy interest in the Altadena property to Aura, and wherein he requested a cancellation of the deed, a judgment restoring and quieting, his title to a joint tenancy interest in the Altadena property and damages for the slander by the forged deed. On Oct. 8, 2002, Aura filed an unlawful detainer action wherein she attempted to evict Cleotilde and her family from the Altadena property and wherein she asked for a judgment on the pleadings whereby the court would award possession of the property to her based on the authorities that provide that Cleotilde was precluded from asserting and the unlawful detainer court was precluded from considering, the title issues arising from the forged deed. On Nov. 6, 2002, or at the conclusion of the trial in the unlawful detainer action, Aura served a separate civil action on Cleotilde and Gildardo, wherein she asked for the damages she suffered as the result of the claims they asserted in the prior quiet title action that she forged or procured the forgery of the deed divesting Gildardo of his interest in the Altadena property. On Feb. 26, 2003, the court dismissed the separate civil action following a demurrer that was sustained without leave to amend on the grounds that the allegations asserted by Aura in the separate civil action should have been asserted in a compulsory cross-complaint in the quiet title action. The plaintiffs obtained a stay of the rendition of judgment in the unlawful detainer action and a preferential trial setting for a first or liability phase of the trial in their quiet title action and on May 27, 2003, the court found that the quitclaim deed purporting to divest Gildardo of his interest in the Altadena property was a forgery based on the testimony and reports submitted by the plaintiffs who examined the fingerprint placed on the notary log by the person who signed the quitclaim deed. The court canceled the forged quitclaim deed, restored and quieted Gildardo's title to the Altadena property, found that the forgery of the quitclaim deed was procured by Aura and constituted a slander of title. The court further stayed the unlawful detainer action on the grounds that it was based on possible ownership issues of tenants and set the matter for a second phase of the trial to determine the extent of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the forgery.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs offered to dismiss the quiet title action and pay Aura $15,000 in exchange for a deed relinquishing her interest in the Altadena property to Cleotilde and Gildardo, but the defendant rejected the offer.
Damages
On Sep. 23, 2003, the plaintiffs requested damages that they had suffered as the result of the slander of title caused by the forged quitclaim deed. The damages requested by the plaintiffs consisted of the fees and costs they incurred in obtaining a quiet title judgment and defending themselves in the separate actions filed by Aura and on Sep. 23, 2003, the court awarded damages to the plaintiffs in the amount of $82,029.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390