Facts

In 1997, Jules Helm owned, with his then wife, Lisana Meade, a condo located in Toluca Lake. When, in 1999, they separated and were in the process of divorcing, Helm asked Meade to sign a quitclaim deed to the property. Helm claimed that Meade signed and delivered the quitclaim deed. Meade argued that she returned the deed to Helm unsigned and that the signature on the deed is a forgery. On July 31, 2020, Meade filed suit in state court, seeking a partition for the sale of the property, a split of the proceeds and accounting for the rents received from third party tenants of the property.

Helm removed the action to federal court. On May 2, 2022, the court denied the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether plaintiff signed a quitclaim deed. On June 16, 2022, the court issued an order stating that the factual question regarding the signature's authenticity was the only remaining issue to be tried. On June 24, 2022, the court held an in-person, one-day bench trial.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted that the signature was a forgery and that as co-owner of the property, she was entitled to partition by sale of the property. Defendant had sent a packet of documents including the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage and a quitclaim deed for the property. Plaintiff signed the divorce petition, but returned the quitclaim deed unsigned. She never promised to, nor signed, nor transferred her interest in the property. The signature on the deed was a forgery and during her marriage she never used the last name "Helm," which was the name signed on the quitclaim deed as evidenced by her passport and driver's license during that period of time. Moreover, she contributed to the original purchase of the property with her own funds and was unaware that defendant held out the property as his own. Finally, she has always asserted that she is one half owner of the property.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant asserted that, based on the deed, plaintiff had no ownership interest in the property and, alternatively, that her claims were barred by the statute of limitations. He received the signed deed in the mail and still had the original signed deed. He recognized her signature as he had witnessed her signing many documents during their marriage and the signature on the quitclaim deed can be matched with the divorce petition. Furthermore, he used his inheritance to purchase the property and plaintiff did not contribute financially to its purchase, so that when he asked her to quitclaim her interest in the property, she readily agreed to do so. Since their divorce, he has maintained the property on his own (finding tenants, collecting rent, paying all maintenance and taxes) without her involvement. Until plaintiff's lawsuit, they had no communication regarding the property whatsoever.

Result

After plaintiff rested her case, defendant made a motion for judgment on partial findings which the court granted based on plaintiff's testimony at trial, her credibility, the exhibits admitted and the Final Pretrial Conference Order. The court adjudged that plaintiff signed the deed and quitclaimed her interest in the property and therefore since then had maintained no interest in the property; her signature was not a forgery; she was not entitled to an accounting of the property and judgment was entered for defendant.