Facts

Frank Rosenblum sought to quiet title and to cancel a deed of trust and a trustee's deed in relation to a residential property to which he held an interest through his wife, Jennifer Rosenblum. Jennifer acquired her interest in the property from her previous domestic partner, Richard Hatfield. After Jennifer initiated a Marvin action against Hatfield, the San Mateo County Superior Court ruled the property must be divided equally between the two parties. Subsequently, a federal bankruptcy court found Hatfield's bankruptcy trustee held an undivided one-half share of the property, and held that the deed of trust from a loan Hatfield took out did not encumber Jennifer's interest in her one-half share in the property. Jennifer filed an unsuccessful suit against the Mortgage Electronic Registration System and U.S. Bank National Association in relation to the deed of trust, and the state appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the deed of trust encumbered the one-half share of the property Jennifer bought from Hatfield's bankruptcy trustee. Lastly, Jennifer unsuccessfully argued MERS was improperly dismissed from her prior lawsuit.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that the bankruptcy court held the lis pendens previously recorded by his wife was effective in the previous Marvin action, because her receipt of 100 percent of the property in that action dated to before the deed of trust was executed. Plaintiff further claimed the prior litigation ended with separate judgments as to MERS and U.S. Bank National Association, so no final judgment on the merits was entered.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendants claimed plaintiff's complaint was barred by res judicata from prior judgments against Jennifer in both federal and state court judgments.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, finding res judicata precluded plaintiff's claims. The court found that plaintiff was making the same arguments as his wife previously made in her unsuccessful suit against MERS and U.S. Bank National Association, the dismissal of which was upheld twice on appeal and deemed a final judgment. The court held the only venue for plaintiff's claims would be the California Supreme Court, but for the fact that it already rejected Jennifer's petition for review. Further, the court found privity between the parties existed because plaintiff received an interest in the property by grant deed conveyed by Jennifer to the both of them.