Thompson v. Ioane
11 Cal. App. 5th 1180
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- The Blue Gum property in Capitola was sold at foreclosure in 1998; Bank United obtained possession in an unlawful detainer judgment in 1999. The property was deeded to James J. Thompson (later substituted by his successor) in 2001.
- Michael and Shelly Ioane pursued multiple suits (bankruptcy adversary proceeding; federal suit) attacking the foreclosure; the federal court dismissed their claims and imposed a pre-filing sanction in 2000. The Ioanes later recorded various documents purporting to affect title.
- The Ioanes previously brought a quiet title action (Santa Cruz County case No. CV138163) in which the trial court entered judgment for the Thompsons; this court affirmed in an unpublished decision (Olson).
- Thompson sued the Ioanes in 2014 to quiet title, cancel recorded instruments, and for declaratory relief. Briana Ioane cross-complained asserting quiet title, cancellation, conversion, malicious prosecution, and declaratory relief claims.
- The trial court sustained Thompson’s demurrer to Briana’s cross-complaint (without leave to amend), later granted Thompson summary judgment on quiet title and declaratory relief, and entered a judgment quieting title in Thompson and canceling documents. The court also found Michael and Shelly vexatious litigants and imposed a pre-filing order.
- The Ioanes and Briana appealed. The Court of Appeal affirmed the demurrer ruling as to Briana, reversed the summary judgment and vacated the pre-filing order, and remanded with directions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson) | Defendant's Argument (Ioanes/Briana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Were the premature notices of appeal fatal? | Appeals may be treated as from final judgment under Rule 8.104(d)(2). | Notices were premature but may be construed as filed after final judgment. | Notices were premature but will be liberally construed as appeals from the later-entered final judgment. |
| Was Briana’s quiet title/cancellation/declaratory cross-complaint barred by claim preclusion? | Prior quiet title litigation and judgments preclude relitigation; demurrer proper. | Prior proceedings and rulings were erroneous or void; she can relitigate. | Demurrer sustained: claim preclusion applies; prior final judgments bar Briana’s claims; challenges to earlier judgments forfeited or meritless. |
| Was Thompson entitled to summary judgment on his quiet title and declaratory claims? | Thompson presented judicially-noticed history and argued he purchased from Bank United; summary judgment appropriate. | Appellants disputed chain-of-title facts; Thompson failed to prove his title as a matter of law. | Reversed: Thompson failed to meet prima facie burden—triable issues exist about his chain of title and source of title; summary judgment improperly granted. |
| Was the vexatious-litigant pre-filing order against Michael and Shelly valid under §391(b)(4)? | Prior federal pre-filing sanction supports finding under §391(b)(4). | §391(b)(4) should apply only to plaintiffs in the current action; applying it to defendants (mere targets of suit) is improper. | Reversed as applied: §391(b)(4) construed to target the plaintiff in the current action; pre-filing order vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jennings v. Marralle, 8 Cal.4th 121 (discussion of appealability and jurisdictional prerequisite for appeal)
- DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813 (distinguishing claim preclusion and issue preclusion; standards for res judicata)
- Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (burden allocation on summary judgment motion)
- John v. Superior Court, 63 Cal.4th 91 (statutory construction principles and vexatious-litigant law)
- Shalant v. Girardi, 51 Cal.4th 1164 (purpose of vexatious litigant statute)
- McKinney v. County of Santa Clara, 110 Cal.App.3d 787 (final judgments are conclusive even if erroneous)
- Sosinsky v. Grant, 6 Cal.App.4th 1548 (limits on judicial notice of factual statements in appellate opinions)