Carr v. Rosien
190 Cal. Rptr. 3d 245
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- John Carr recorded a lis pendens in 2006 in a quiet title action against Ortiz and Colón but did not mail the lis pendens to them; his counsel filed a declaration that their addresses were unknown and did not check the county assessor’s roll.
- The assessor’s roll listed Ortiz and Colón as owners with a mailing address “c/o Raymond Gaitan, P.O. Box 2224, Oceanside.” Carr’s office contacted Gaitan, who said he no longer represented them and declined to provide an address.
- Between recording the lis pendens (May 18, 2006) and service of the complaint on Colón (November 15, 2006), Colón’s deed to Lopez was recorded (October 13, 2006); Lopez later granted a deed of trust to Rondo, a good-faith lender, recorded August–October 2007.
- Carr obtained a judgment in the prior quiet title action quieting title against Ortiz and Colón; Lopez was never made a defendant in that action.
- Carr sued Lopez and Rondo in a new action; the trial court ruled the lis pendens was void for failure to mail and entered judgment for defendants. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mailing to the address on the county assessment roll is required before recording a lis pendens | Carr: need not mail to assessor’s-roll address if that address is invalid or would not reach the owner | Lopez/Rondo: statute requires mailing to all known addresses and to owners on the latest assessment roll; failure invalidates lis pendens | Mailing to addresses shown on the assessor’s roll is required; if claimant does not check the roll, the owner’s address is not “unknown” and the lis pendens is void as to that owner |
| Whether a lis pendens void as to an owner is nevertheless effective against the owner’s transferees (bona fide purchasers) | Carr: invalid as to owner but still provides constructive notice to later takers unless expunged | Lopez/Rondo: a lis pendens void as to owner cannot impair the owner’s ability to convey to good-faith purchasers | A lis pendens void as to an owner is also void as to that owner’s transferees; Lopez and Rondo take free of Carr’s claim |
| Whether actual notice or substantial compliance can save a defective lis pendens | Carr: substantial compliance/unreliability of assessor address; actual notice (service after deed recorded) suffices | Defendants: statutory mailing + voiding rule control; substantial compliance not shown | Even assuming substantial compliance doctrine survives, Carr did not substantially comply; actual notice received after Lopez’s deed did not help Carr |
| Whether a lis pendens that is void for failure to mail remains effective until expunged | Carr: constructive notice persists absent expungement | Defendants: Legislature made such defects render the lis pendens void ab initio; expungement statutes need not be invoked | The Court treats a lis pendens not mailed as required as void ab initio and unenforceable against subsequent transferees without need for expungement |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.4th 904 (2005) (describing lis pendens effect as constructive notice and that later takers take subject to litigation)
- Biddle v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.3d 135 (1985) (discussing substantial compliance and waiver where defendants received actual notice and delayed raising mailing defects)
- Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal.3d 660 (1976) (distinguishing void and voidable legal consequences)
- McKnight v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.3d 291 (1985) (holding noncompliance with mailing requirement is a ground for expungement)
- Jones v. Independent Title Co., 23 Cal.2d 859 (1944) (principles protecting bona fide purchasers from prior unknown claims)