24 Cal. App. 5th 40
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Nist rented a storage unit; after nonpayment, the facility (Swiatek) secured the unit and held a lien sale. Hall (respondent) and partner Burke bought the unit contents at a $400 lien sale.
- Nist previously sued the storage facility for alleged violations of the California Self-Service Storage Facility Act and settled for $12,000, dismissing that action with prejudice.
- Nist later sued Hall for conversion; Hall claimed he was a good-faith purchaser under Business & Professions Code § 21711 and demurred.
- The trial court found Hall to be a good-faith purchaser at the lien sale and held § 21711 bars Nist’s claim despite any procedural noncompliance by the facility with the Act.
- The court also applied judicial estoppel because Nist had previously argued the Act was violated in the earlier suit and accepted a settlement, then asserted an inconsistent position against Hall.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 21711 protect a purchaser when the rental agreement was not written as required by § 21712? | Nist: § 21712’s writing requirement prevents § 21711 protection where no written contract exists. | Hall: § 21711 expressly protects good-faith purchasers “despite noncompliance” by the owner. | Court: § 21711 governs purchaser rights; it shields good-faith purchasers even if owner failed § 21712 formalities. |
| Did the purchaser acquire no title because the seller’s lien/title was void (void vs. voidable title)? | Nist: The lien sale was procedurally defective so the seller had void title and could not convey good title. | Hall: The Self-Service Storage Act creates a possessory lien and its good-faith-purchaser rule controls; UCC rules for voluntary transfers don’t apply. | Court: UCC void-title rules inapplicable; § 21711 controls and protects the purchaser. |
| Can Nist sue the good-faith purchaser for conversion despite § 21711? | Nist: Conversion claim survives because purchaser lacked valid title if sale defective. | Hall: § 21711 bars conversion claims by persons against whom the lien was claimed. | Court: § 21711 bars conversion action against a good-faith purchaser at a statutory lien sale. |
| Does judicial estoppel bar Nist’s inconsistent litigation positions? | Nist: Prior position was a mistake; should not estop current claim. | Hall: Nist previously asserted the Act was violated and obtained a settlement; estoppel prevents reversing positions. | Court: Judicial estoppel applies; Nist’s prior suit and settlement foreclose the inconsistent claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vitug v. Alameda Point Storage, Inc., 187 Cal.App.4th 407 (Cal. Ct. App.) (describing purpose of the Self-Service Storage Facility Act and owner remedies)
- Advanced Modular Sputtering, Inc. v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.4th 826 (Cal. Ct. App.) (interpreting § 21711’s text protecting purchasers despite owner noncompliance)
- Aguilar v. Lerner, 32 Cal.4th 974 (Cal.) (doctrine of judicial estoppel in California)
- Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, 60 Cal.App.4th 171 (Cal. Ct. App.) (judicial estoppel protects judicial process against inconsistent positions)
- Thomas v. Gordon, 85 Cal.App.4th 113 (Cal. Ct. App.) (criticizing litigants who assert inconsistent positions as playing "fast and loose" with courts)
- Suburban Motors, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 218 Cal.App.3d 1354 (Cal. Ct. App.) (distinguishing void vs. voidable transfers in conversion context)