Nickell v. Matlock
206 Cal. App. 4th 934
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Defaulting defendants in quiet title actions normally cannot participate in prove-up hearings, but § 764.010 creates an exception allowing their participation to hear evidence before judgment.
- The trial court did not permit the Matlocks, who defaulted, to present evidence at a prejudgment evidentiary hearing in Nickell v. Matlocks.
- Nickell owned property in Littlerock; the grant deed incorrectly described the north half as the entire parcel; deed recorded August 29, 2006, escrow closed, error not corrected.
- Nickell filed a quiet title action on April 2, 2007; the Matlocks answered but later failed to appear for depositions, leading to sanctions and defaults consistent with discovery violations.
- In August 2010, the court entered judgment quieting title to Nickell, without a noticed prejudgment evidentiary hearing; the judgment stated evidence had been introduced via Nickell and his attorney.
- Tonie Matlock moved to vacate the default and default judgment; the trial court denied the motion in December 2010; both Matlocks appealed, and timeliness was disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of the Matlocks’ appeals | Nickell argues appeals untimely; Matlocks contend timely. | Matlocks contend timely due to judgment entry timing and tolling. | Appeals timely; deadline calculated from judgment entry with proper tolling considerations. |
| Right to prejudgment evidentiary hearing for defaults in quiet title | Plaintiff argues default prove-up suffices and hearing not required for defaulted defendants. | Matlocks assert §764.010 requires hearing and allows defendant participation. | Defaulting defendants are entitled to participate in an open prejudgment evidentiary hearing under §764.010. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbour Vista, LLC v. HSBC Mortgage Services Inc., 201 Cal.App.4th 1496 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2011) (establishes right of defaulting defendants to participate in prejudgment hearing in quiet title)
- Yeung v. Soos, 119 Cal.App.4th 576 (Cal. App. Dist. 5th 2004) (requires evidentiary hearing with live witnesses after default in quiet title)
- Doe v. United States Swimming, Inc., 200 Cal.App.4th 1424 (Cal. App. Dist. 2d 2011) (timeliness of appeal from terminating sanctions clarified)