Cook v. Trebino CA6, H047830

Background:

Joanne Martin owned a half-interest in a family property (Arroyo Seco). Between 1992–2007 she signed promissory notes secured by deeds of trust held by Tondre and Yvonne Alarid; in July 2011 Joanne signed a grant deed conveying her trust’s interest to the Alarid trust, allegedly while incapacitated.
Plaintiffs (Joanne’s children and successor trustees) sued in January 2018 seeking quiet title, rescission for fraud/undue influence, accounting, and other relief; defendants pled statute of limitations as an affirmative defense and sought fees under the notes/deed of trust.
The court bifurcated and tried the statute‑of‑limitations issue first (bench trial Nov. 2019). The court found plaintiffs had actual or inquiry notice of the 2011 transfer well before July 26, 2015 (emails, deposition testimony, recorded deed, repairs and $70,000 checks) and therefore the claims were time‑barred.
Judgment dismissed plaintiffs’ operative complaint as barred by the statute of limitations; a subsequent costs/fees judgment awarded defendants $320,100 in attorney fees based on the promissory notes and 2007 deed of trust.
On appeal the Court of Appeal affirmed both the limitations ruling and the attorney‑fees award, and rejected challenges to the statement of decision, jury‑waiver handling, and denial of leave to amend.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accrual / delayed discovery of quiet title/fraud claims	Martin's heirs did not discover the transfer until they were "locked out" in Aug/Sep 2015; delayed‑discovery tolling applies	Plaintiffs had actual or inquiry notice of the transfer and surrounding facts by 2011–2012; limitations expired by July 26, 2015	Court: substantial evidence supports finding plaintiffs had actual or inquiry notice earlier; delayed‑discovery tolling not triggered; claims time‑barred
Sufficiency of statement of decision	Statement omitted findings on capacity, trustee identity, fraud timing, fiduciary duty	Statement need only state ultimate facts supporting judgment on statute of limitations	Court: statement of decision adequate—ultimate facts addressed; omitted intermediary facts unnecessary
Jury trial waiver / relief from waiver	Plaintiffs sought relief from waiver of jury fees and jury trial on SOL issue	Defendants pointed out plaintiffs failed to timely pay jury fees; bench trial on SOL already underway	Court: plaintiffs waived jury by failing to deposit fees; court properly granted relief prospectively but could not restore jury for SOL bench trial
Denial of leave to amend to add elder financial abuse	New expert evidence justified late amendment on eve of trial	Defendants would be prejudiced; documents underpinning claim were available earlier; amendment would require reopening discovery	Court: denial not an abuse of discretion—undue delay and prejudice to defendants justified refusal
Entitlement to attorney fees under notes/deed of trust	Plaintiffs: notes/deed not litigated on the merits; defendants nonsignatories; fees not recoverable	Defendants: notes/deed include broad fee clauses; action sought to rescind the transaction that extinguished notes; successors and estate bound	Court: fees recoverable under CCP §1021 and contractual provisions; promissory notes and 2007 deed of trust supported fee award against trust/estate; $320,100 affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Fox v. Ethicon Endo‑Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal.4th 797 (2005) (describes discovery rule and when plaintiff has reason to discover a claim)
Sun’n Sand, Inc. v. United California Bank, 21 Cal.3d 671 (1978) (delayed discovery requires reasonable diligence to discover fraud)
Walters v. Boosinger, 2 Cal.App.5th 421 (2016) (limitations periods applicable to quiet title claims vary by gravamen)
Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d 1103 (1988) (statute‑of‑limitations accrual is normally a question of fact)
Santisas v. Goodin, 17 Cal.4th 599 (1998) (Civil Code §1717 mutuality and interpretation of contractual fee provisions)
Mountain Air Enterprises, LLC v. Sundowner Towers, LLC, 3 Cal.5th 744 (2017) (standards for reviewing attorney‑fee awards and interplay with CCP §1021)
Muzquiz v. City of Emeryville, 79 Cal.App.4th 1106 (2000) (statement of decision must state ultimate facts supporting the judgment)