78 Cal.App.5th 1051
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background:
- An elderly homeowner (Sara) was induced by real estate salesperson Tonika Miller to sign what she believed was a reverse mortgage; the document was actually a purchase agreement selling her home to Rex Regum, a company controlled by Justin Hall.
- A grant deed transferring title from Sara to Rex Regum was recorded; Rex Regum then conveyed the property to Lion Share Investments, which recorded a deed.
- Miller pled no contest to procuring/offering a false or forged instrument (Pen. Code §115(a)) and to grand theft of the property; the People moved under §115(e) to have the deed adjudged void ab initio.
- At the §115(e) proceeding the court considered Miller’s plea, Sara’s deposition testimony that she thought she was signing a reverse mortgage, and evidence submitted by Lion Share (e.g., texts); the trial court found the deed forged and void ab initio.
- Lion Share appealed arguing (1) a no contest plea cannot support a §115(e) order, (2) insufficient evidence the deed was forged, (3) the court should have deferred to Lion Share’s pending quiet title action, and (4) its due process rights were violated. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a no-contest plea may support a §115(e) motion to void a recorded instrument | §115(e) permits the People to move after a conviction or a plea; a felony no-contest plea is legally equivalent to a conviction under §1016 and Wallace | A no-contest plea is not an adjudication of falsity/forgery and is unreliable; §115(e) requires an adjudication of the instrument’s falsity or forgery | A felony no-contest plea constitutes a conviction for §115(e) purposes and may support a motion to void the instrument |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding the deed was forged | Miller’s no-contest plea plus Sara’s deposition that she believed she was signing a reverse mortgage show forgery by trickery | Lion Share points to texts suggesting Sara was happy and contends the court relied solely on the plea | Substantial evidence supports forgery: Sara’s testimony and Miller’s admissions show she was tricked into signing a substantially different document; deed is void ab initio |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by resolving title under §115 instead of deferring to pending quiet title action | Criminal resolution promotes finality, victim restitution, and protects the victim from prolonged civil uncertainty | The civil quiet title action is the appropriate forum for full adjudication of competing property rights | No abuse of discretion; §115(f) permits (but does not require) deference to civil proceedings and the court reasonably chose to proceed under §115 |
| Whether Lion Share was denied due process by resolution under §115 relying on Miller’s plea | The §115(f) procedures provide notice and an opportunity to be heard; Lion Share had multiple briefs, exhibits, depositions, and oral argument | Proceeding on the plea deprived Lion Share of a full adjudication of title and of presenting witnesses in the civil forum | No due process violation: Lion Share received statutory notice, opportunity to present evidence and argument, and a meaningful hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Schmidt, 41 Cal.App.5th 1042 (discusses §115 purpose and that forged recorded instruments are void ab initio)
- People v. Astorga-Lider, 35 Cal.App.5th 646 (forgery where victims were tricked into signing documents materially different from what they believed)
- People v. Wallace, 33 Cal.4th 738 (no-contest plea to felony treated as conviction for many purposes)
- Cartwright v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 16 Cal.3d 762 (limits on collateral use of no-contest pleas in administrative/civil contexts)
- Buck v. Superior Court, 232 Cal.App.2d 153 (forgery when a signer is tricked into executing an instrument they did not intend to execute)
- People v. Marquez, 1 Cal.4th 553 (trial court ruling will be upheld if any basis in the record supports it)