Walters v. Boosinger
2 Cal. App. 5th 421
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Randy Walters and Valerie Boosinger executed a 2003 grant deed that, on its face, conveyed the property to them as joint tenants; earlier ownership arrangement (1997) was alleged to be tenants in common (Randy 2/3, Boosinger 1/3).
- Randy filed a partition complaint in April 2013 alleging he owned two-thirds; Boosinger answered, denying some assertions and later pleaded the 2003 deed created a joint tenancy giving her survivorship rights.
- Randy died in July 2013; Scott Walters, as administrator of Randy's estate, substituted in and filed a first amended complaint asserting quiet title and partition. Scott alleged the 2003 deed was void ab initio (fraud, incapacity, lack of intent) or, alternatively, that the joint tenancy was severed by the parties’ pleadings.
- Boosinger demurred, arguing the quiet title claim based on fraud/mistake was barred by the three-year statute of limitations and that the parties’ pleadings did not effect a severance; the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed.
- On appeal, Scott argued (1) a deed declared void ab initio can be attacked at any time, and (2) the complaint and answer together severed the joint tenancy. The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a quiet title action claiming a deed is void ab initio is barred by a statute of limitations | Scott: A deed void ab initio may be attacked "at any time," so no limitations period applies | Boosinger: Claim grounded in fraud/mistake or cancellation is subject to statutory limitations (e.g., CCP §338(d) or §343) | Held: Statute of limitations applies; claim time‑barred (Loftis dictum rejected; Robertson/Moss controlling) |
| Whether the original complaint and Boosinger’s answer together operated as a written agreement severing the joint tenancy | Scott: The filings constituted a signed writing by both parties effecting a bilateral severance, creating tenants in common | Boosinger: Pleadings and superseded admissions do not constitute a written agreement to sever; no clear mutual intent | Held: The pleadings did not establish an agreement to sever; quiet title claim on that theory not properly pleaded |
| Whether a unilateral severance by Randy (filing complaint) was adequately pleaded | Scott: (argued below; not pressed on appeal) complaint alone severed joint tenancy | Boosinger: Not adequately pleaded or argued; statutory recording/notice requirements not met | Held: Court declined to consider unilateral severance theory raised first in reply; plaintiff did not show amendable defect |
| Whether trial court erred by judicially noticing documents showing Randy’s earlier awareness of Boosinger’s adverse claim | Scott: Trial court should not have relied on judicially noticed documents | Boosinger: Judicial notice appropriate; documents showed Randy’s awareness, triggering accrual | Held: Issue raised first in reply on appeal; court declined to consider it. Trial court’s reliance not disturbed |
Key Cases Cited
- Salazar v. Thomas, 236 Cal.App.4th 467 (2015) (statute of limitations for quiet title depends on underlying theory; common applicable periods: 5, 4, or 3 years)
- Robertson v. Superior Court, 90 Cal.App.4th 1319 (2001) (rejects notion that claim to cancel an instrument as "void" is immune from statutes of limitations; applies prior authorities holding limitations apply)
- Moss v. Moss, 20 Cal.2d 640 (1942) (claims to cancel an instrument void as against public policy subject to four-year limitations period)
- Costa Serena Owners Coalition v. Costa Serena Architectural Com., 175 Cal.App.4th 1175 (2009) (discusses void vs. voidable instruments; portions suggesting no limitations for void instruments treated as dicta)
- Erickson v. Bohne, 130 Cal.App.2d 553 (1955) (discusses void vs. voidable distinction; dicta relied upon in later cases)
- Loftis v. Marshall, 134 Cal. 394 (1901) (early statement that an action to cancel a wholly void instrument may be brought at any time; treated as aberrant dictum and implicitly overruled by later authority)