70 Cal.App.5th 269
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background
- Hoffman and his then-wife Mitchell owned a San Diego parcel; they entered a 2014 stipulated judgment in their divorce addressing disposition of sale proceeds but did not award Hoffman a money judgment.
- In 2018 Mitchell (and Glade Place, LLC) obtained a quiet-title judgment against Hoffman finding earlier claimed trust/deed-of-trust interests extinguished and voiding a 2016 trustee’s sale; judgment quieted title in favor of Mitchell and Glade Place.
- Shortly after that judgment, Hoffman procured and recorded an abstract of judgment (the 2018 Abstract) that misstated the divorce judgment as a $699,000 money judgment and thus created a purported judgment lien.
- The Weedens purchased the Property in 2019; Hoffman later sent a letter threatening writ of execution and sale based on the recorded 2018 Abstract. The Weedens sued for quiet title, cancellation of instrument, and slander of title.
- The trial court granted Hoffman’s anti‑SLAPP motion, finding the recording was protected petitioning activity and that the litigation privilege barred the Weedens’ claims; judgment was entered for Hoffman.
- The Court of Appeal held: the recording was protected activity (so anti‑SLAPP analysis applied), but the litigation privilege bars only tort damages claims—not equitable claims to quiet title or cancel an instrument—reversed the judgment as to quiet title and cancellation, and affirmed as to slander of title; matter remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Weedens’ claims “arise from” protected petitioning activity | Weeden: their claims challenge Hoffman’s wrongful claim of an interest in property, not mere recording, so not covered | Hoffman: obtaining and recording an abstract of judgment is litigation‑related petitioning activity protected by §425.16 | Recording the 2018 Abstract is protected activity; prong one satisfied (anti‑SLAPP shifts burden). |
| Whether the litigation privilege bars all claims based on the recording | Weeden: privilege inapplicable because the abstract was fraudulently obtained/illegal and some claims are non‑tort equitable relief | Hoffman: litigation privilege is absolute for litigation‑related publications and bars liability | Privilege bars tort damages claims but does not bar equitable remedies (quiet title, cancellation) that do not seek tort damages. |
| Whether Weedens showed a probability of prevailing on quiet title and cancellation | Weeden: exhibits and judgment records show the 2018 Abstract misstates the divorce judgment and thus may be void; prima facie showing made | Hoffman: abstract is privileged and plaintiffs lack minimal merit | Court: accepting plaintiffs’ evidence, the Abstract appears invalid and plaintiffs made the required prima facie showing; anti‑SLAPP should not have been granted as to these claims. |
| Whether the slander of title claim survives the anti‑SLAPP motion | Weeden: slander claim seeks relief for cloud on title and damages from Hoffman’s recording | Hoffman: slander is a tort based on a publication; litigation privilege provides complete defense | Slander of title is a tort for damages and is barred by the litigation privilege as applied to the recording; that claim may be struck. |
Key Cases Cited
- Navellier v. Sletten, 29 Cal.4th 82 (sets out anti‑SLAPP framework and protected‑activity categories)
- Baral v. Schnitt, 1 Cal.5th 376 (second‑prong anti‑SLAPP procedure is summary‑judgment‑like; accept plaintiff’s evidence)
- Rusheen v. Cohen, 37 Cal.4th 1048 (litigation privilege bars tort claims but parties retain equitable and other non‑tort remedies)
- Silberg v. Anderson, 50 Cal.3d 205 (scope of litigation privilege and its application beyond defamation)
- RGC Gaslamp, LLC v. Ehmcke Sheet Metal Co., Inc., 56 Cal.App.5th 413 (dicta: quiet title/declaratory relief actions challenging recorded liens are not categorically barred by litigation privilege)
- O'Keefe v. Kompa, 84 Cal.App.4th 130 (application of litigation privilege to tort claims based on recording an abstract of judgment)
- Sanai v. Saltz, 170 Cal.App.4th 746 (court canceled an abstract obtained and recorded in a mischaracterized amount; abstract may be recalled/quashed where invalid)