Court Opinion

ID: 9531873
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:15:33.518799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:36.345421
License: Public Domain

CARTER, J.
I dissent.
In affirming the judgment the majority opinion holds that where the first count of a complaint alleging a cause of action to quiet title shows that with respect to certain defendants it is based upon the same facts pleaded in the second count to remove a cloud from the title, a general demurrer of those defendants will be sustained if the second count reveals a defect in plaintiff’s title or fails to state a cause of action; that in the present case the allegations of the second count are insufficient to show a cloud upon the title and, therefore, the trial court properly sustained the general demurrer.
With this conclusion I cannot agree. The allegations of the second count of the complaint in my opinion state facts which would justify a decree declaring that, notwithstanding the apparent validity of the deed and declaration of trust, those instruments are invalid, constituting clouds upon the title (Civ. Code, § 2911; Faxon v. All Persons, 166 Cal. 707 [137 P. 919, L.R.A. 1916B 1209]; Banta v. Wise, 135 Cal. 277 [67 P. 129]; Hibernia S. & L. Soc. v. Ordway, 38 Cal. *838679, 681; Hyatt v. Colkins, 174 Cal. 580, 581 [163 P. 1007] ; see Kroeker v. Hurlbert, 38 Cal.App.2d 261, 265 [101 P.2d 101]; Castro v. Barry, 79 Cal. 443 [21 P. 946]; Civ. Code, §§ 3412-3415). Since these clouds afford grounds for a reasonable apprehension that they may cause serious injury, the Ephraims are entitled to have them removed. (Civ. Code, § 3412: Patterson v. Clifford F. Reid, Inc., 132 Cal.App. 454, 547 [23 P.2d 35].)
It is urged that where a written contract, which is the foundation of an action, is attached to the complaint and made a part of it, the allegations of conclusions with respect to the legal construction of the instrument and averments in conflict with its clear provisions should be disregarded as surplusage. (Citing Peak v. Republic Truck Sales Corp., 194 Cal. 782 [230 P. 948] ; Stoddard v. Treadwell, 26 Cal. 294; Bashford v. A. Levy & Zentner Co., 123 Cal.App. 204 [11 P.2d 51]; Meer v. Cerati, 53 Cal.App. 497 [200 P. 501].) But a deed absolute on its face may be shown, by parol, to have been intended as a mortgage. Regardless of the form of a conveyance of real property which was given as security for the performance of an obligation it is, in equity, a mortgage. And equity will look beyond the form in which the transaction is clothed, and will grant such relief as is necessary to carry out the true intent of the parties to the agreement. For the purpose of determining that intent the court will consider all of the facts and circumstances of the transaction. (Beeler v. American Trust Co., 24 Cal.2d 1 [147 P.2d 583]; Vance v. Anderson, 113 Cal. 532 [45 P. 816].)
Here the Ephraims have alleged that the parties intended the instruments to be a mortgage. The language of the instruments does not conclusively negative that claim. All of the circumstances surrounding the transaction, the conduct of the parties, their declarations as to the purposes to be accomplished, their relations to one another and to the subject matter, are proper subjects for consideration in a trial of that issue. (Beeler v. American Trust Co., supra; Jones v. Dickerman, 114 Cal.App. 357 [300 P. 135].) Upon demurrer to a complaint all facts well pleaded must be taken as true, and the case of the plaintiff must be considered as he has stated it without investigation or inquiry as to its merits. (Favorite v. Superior Court, 181 Cal. 621 [184 P. 15, 8 A.L.R. 290]; Hevren v. Reed, 126 Cal. 219 [58 P. 536].)
The contention that the cause of action is barred by sections *839318, 319 and 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure is without merit. An action to quiet title to land under section 738 of the Code of Civil Procedure or to remove a cloud under sections 3412-3415 of the Civil Code may be brought by one out of possession, and the complaint need not allege that the plaintiff was in possession of the property. (Hyatt v. Colkins, supra, p. 581; Casey v. Leggett, 125 Cal. 664,672 [58 P. 264] ; People v. Center, 66 Cal. 551, 556 [5 P. 263, 6 P. 481]; Thompson v. Lynch, 29 Cal. 189.) Nor is the cause of action to quiet title and to remove a cloud upon the title barred by the statute of limitations. This court has held that “An outstanding adverse claim, which amounts only to a cloud upon the title, is a continuing cause of action, and is not barred by lapse of time, until the hostile claim is asserted in some manner to jeopardize the superior title. So long as the adverse “ claim lies dormant and inactive the owner of the superior title may not be incommoded by it and has the privilege of allowing it to stand indefinitely. Each day’s assertion of such adverse claim gives a renewed cause of action to quiet title until such action is brought.” (Secret Valley Land Co. v. Perry, 187 Cal. 420, 426 [202 P. 449] ; see Campbell v. Drais, 125 Cal. 253 [57 P. 994] ; People v. Center, supra, p. 565; Stewart v. Thompson, 32 Cal. 260.)
To state a cause of action for declaratory relief under section 1060 of the Code of Civil Procedure appropriate facts should be alleged from which the court may determine that an actual controversy relating to legal rights and duties of the respective parties exists (City of Alturas v. Gloster, 16 Cal.2d 46, 48 [104 P.2d 810]; Frasch v. London & Lancashire F. Ins. Co., 213 Cal. 219, 225 [2 P.2d 147]; American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. California Bank, 59 Cal.App.2d 46, 51 [138 P.2d 49]) and the proceeding is maintainable notwithstanding the fact that the applicant has an adequate remedy by means of an action at law or a suit in equity. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1062; Adams v. Cook, 15 Cal.2d 352, 362 [101 P.2d 484]; Gunn v. Girando, 48 Cal.App.2d 622, 630 [120 P.2d 177].) If the complaint is sufficient in form and substance and no facts appear showing that a determination is unnecessary or improper, it is an abuse of discretion to refuse the relief sought. (Henderson v. Oroville-Wyandotte Irr. Dist., 207 Cal. 215 [277 P. 487]; Phelps v. Loop, 53 Cal.App.2d 541 [128 P.2d 63]; Zimmer v. Gorelnik, 42 Cal.App.2d 440 [109 P.2d 34].)
*840It is contended that the respondents have a moral obligation to pay the debt and “he who seeks equity must first offer to do equity.” But the rule that notwithstanding the lien of a mortgage is extinguished by the barring of the debt by limitations, the mortgagor cannot, without paying the debt, quiet title against the mortgagee, is not applicable to a grantee of mortgaged property who takes title after the running of the statute. (Fontana Land Co. v. Laughlin, 199 Cal. 625, 639 [250 P. 669, 48 A.L.R. 1308]; Muhs v. Hibernia S. & L. Soc., 166 Cal. 760 [138 P. 352] ; Faxon v. All Persons, supra.)
Regarding the contention that a bankruptcy court made certain orders in connection with the administration of the property of the Henrys, ordinarily a court takes judicial notice only of proceedings in the same case, although, under some circumstances, it will extend the rule to other cases in the same court in the interests of justice. (Willson v. SecurityFirst Nat. Bank, 21 Cal.2d 705, 711 [134 P.2d 800].) However, to hold that a court may generally take such notice of another proceeding with a view to determining whether it is a bar to a pending suit would do away with the rule that although the defense of lack of jurisdiction is never waived, it can be raised by demurrer only if the facts giving rise to such a defense appear upon the face of the complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., §430; Doll v. Feller, 16 Cal. 432, 433; Schwartz, Inc. v. Burnett Phar., 112 Cal.App.Supp. 781, 786 [295 P. 508] ; see Willson v. Security-First Nat. Bank, supra, p. 711.) In the absence of such facts, the plea of either lack of jurisdiction or res judicata must be made by answer or appropriate motion. (Code Civ. Proc., §433; Doll v. Feller, supra; Willson v. Security-First Nat. Bank, supra, p. 710; Talbot v. City of Pasadena, 28 Cal.App.2d 271, 273 [82 P.2d 483].) In the present controversy it is apparent that the respondents are urging the defense of res judicata rather than lack of jurisdiction and no facts appear upon the face of the complaint which would warrant an order sustaining a demurrer upon that ground.
A plaintiff who has declined to amend his complaint, after general and special demurrers have been sustained with leave to do so must stand upon his pleading as against both grounds of demurrer. (Aalwyn v. Cobe, 168 Cal. 165, 173 [142 P. 79]; Martinovich v. Wooley, 128 Cal. 141, 144 [60 P. 760].) However, a special demurrer should not be sustained where the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to ap*841prise the defendant of the issues which he is to meet (People v. Lim, 18 Cal.2d 872, 882 [118 P.2d 472] ; Jacobson v. Oakland Meat etc. Co., 161 Cal: 425, 433 [119 P. 653, Ann.Cas. 1913B 1194]) and as a complaint is invulnerable to general demurrer if upon any theory it states a cause of action {Johnson v. Clark, 7 Cal.2d 529, 536 [61 P.2d 767]), the order made by the court in this action was erroneous.
The judgment should be reversed.
Appellants’ petition for a rehearing was denied October 10, 1946. Carter, J., voted for a rehearing.