Rey Sanchez Investments v. Superior Court CA4/2
197 Cal. Rptr. 3d 575
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- PCH Enterprises filed suit on March 28, 2014 alleging a written agreement to sell real property and immediately recorded a lis pendens; no proof of service was recorded with the lis pendens.
- Rey Sanchez Investments (petitioner) recorded a grant deed April 2, 2014 and intervened in the action on March 18, 2015 asserting ownership of the subject property.
- Petitioner moved to expunge the lis pendens on March 25, 2015 under Code of Civil Procedure §405.23, arguing the lis pendens was void for lack of statutorily required service and proof of service.
- Real party in interest (PCH) opposed, relying on Biddle to argue defects in service are waived if the adverse party had actual notice and/or untimely raised the issue; PCH submitted a proof of personal service on one defendant and a declaration of earlier contact from petitioner’s agent.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding petitioner had actual notice and waived defects by waiting over six months to move to expunge.
- The Court of Appeal granted mandamus, concluding the lis pendens was void as to petitioner under §405.23 and that Biddle’s waiver exception did not apply on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lis pendens is void for failure to record proof of service and to timely serve petitioner under §405.22/405.23 | PCH contended lis pendens was valid; it later produced proof of service on one defendant and argued substantial compliance | Rey Sanchez argued §405.23 makes the lis pendens void and invalid because no proof of service accompanied the lis pendens and petitioner was not served as required | Court held lis pendens is void and invalid as to petitioner because no proof of service was recorded and petitioner was not served immediately when joined, so §405.23 applies |
| Whether the Biddle waiver/substantial-compliance exception saves the lis pendens despite service defects | PCH urged that Biddle permits excusing technical service defects where there was actual notice and/or defendants waived objections | Petitioner argued Biddle does not apply because PCH made no effort to comply and provided no proof of mailing; one agent contacting PCH counsel months earlier did not establish waiver | Court held Biddle did not apply: PCH provided no evidence of substantial compliance and failed to meet the waiver showing required to avoid §405.23 invalidation |
| Whether petitioner’s delay in moving to expunge bars relief | PCH argued petitioner waited too long (trial court found >6 months) and thus waived defects | Petitioner showed its agent contacted PCH counsel Jan 6, 2015 and filed motion within 78 days of that contact; thus no undue delay | Court found no factual basis for the trial court’s delay finding and held delay did not justify denying expungement |
| Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to reverse the denial of the expungement motion | N/A | N/A | Court granted peremptory writ directing trial court to vacate denial and grant expungement |
Key Cases Cited
- Palma v. U.S. Industrial Fasteners, Inc., 36 Cal.3d 171 (1984) (authorizes issuance of writ in the first instance when settled law applies)
- Biddle v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.3d 135 (1985) (recognizes waiver/substantial-compliance exception to strict service requirements for lis pendens in certain circumstances)
- Carr v. Rosien, 238 Cal.App.4th 845 (2015) (discusses interplay of §405.23 and Biddle; voidness ab initio and analysis of substantial compliance)
- McKnight v. Superior Court, 170 Cal.App.3d 291 (1985) (recognizes defective-service ground for expungement under §405.23)
- Campbell v. Superior Court, 132 Cal.App.4th 904 (2005) (explains lis pendens gives constructive notice and binds subsequent takers)