Unlawful Detainer proceedings are summary proceedings. As such, the court is not equipped to handle lengthy disputes over title and ownership. As a result, California case law suggests that unlawful detainer courts cannot deal with title disputes. This does not mean, however, that title is presumed to be proper with the plaintiff who brings an unlawful detainer action to recover possession. Indeed, the Plaitniff must still show that it is the real party in interest (has standing to pursue the unlawful detainer) by demonstrating it has a right to posssession.
The general Civil Code provisions related to proper parties in proceedings fully apply to unlawful detainers. CCP § 1165. The plaintiff must be the “real party in interest” with respect to the claim sued upon. CCP § 367, Dino v. Pelayo (2006) 145 CA4th 347, 353. The real party in interest is the person who holds title to the claim or property involved. Gantman v. United Pac. Ins. Co. (1991). In unlawful detainer actions the plaintiff’s right to possession is what qualifies the plaintiff as the “real party in interest.” CCP §§367, 1166(a)(2).
While it may be true that title disputes cannot be litigated in summary unlawful detainer proceedings. Matters that cannot be raised by cross-complaint can, however, be pursued in an independent civil action. And where an unlawful detainer defendant’s civil suit raises title issues, the court may either stay the unlawful detainer action or order it consolidated with the general jurisdiction matter. Wilson v. Gentile (1992) 8 CA4th 759, 761. A stay of the unlawful detainer action is appropriate because if the tenant prevails on the claim of title it will defeat the landlord’s right to recover possession of the premises. Id. at 761. Accordingly, where landlord and tenant are litigating title in an independent civil action and an unlawful detainer is simultaneously pending between them, the trial court has power to stay the unlawful detainer action. Asuncion v. Super. Ct. (1980) 108 CA3d 141. Indeed, the Court of Appeals, in Asuncion held that it may stay an unlawful detainer proceeding pending the resolution of the independent title action. The court held that it can:
“Stay the eviction proceedings until trial of the fraud action, based on the authority of Code of Civil Procedure 526 which permits a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo on such grounds as irreparable injury, multiplicity of actions, or unconscionable relative hardship.” Id. at 146; citing Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal. 2d 512, 528.
In Asuncion, the W.C. Financial, Inc. (“W.C.”) filed an unlawful detainer complaint following what they claimed was the lawful sale of the underlying real property. Id. at 142. The unlawful detainer defendants, Asuncion, in turn, filed a general civil complaint in the superior court against W.C. alleging fraud, usury, unfair business practices, truth and lending violations, undue influence, and other causes, and requesting title to the property be quieted in their favor. Id. at 143. The Court of Appeals recognized that “the summary unlawful detainer action is not a suitable vehicle to try complicated ownership issues as the Asuncions had alleged.” Id. at 144. The court further held, “ ‘the summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings suggest that, as a practical matter, the likelihood of the defendant’s [W.C.] being prepared to litigate the factual issues involved in a fraudulent scheme to deprive him of his property, no matter how diligent defendant is, is not great’”. Ibid.; [citations omitted] The court further held “homeowners cannot be evicted, consistent with due process guarantees, without being permitted to raise the affirmative defenses which if proved would maintain their possession and ownership.” Id. at 146. (Emphasis Added) Such a procedure would be unfair. Ibid. When title to the property is at issue in unlawful detainer actions, and a title action is not within the jurisdiction of the unlawful detainer court, the unlawful detainer defendants must be afforded their due process. Ibid. The way to afford defendants their due process is to stay the eviction until the title issues can be resolved in the general jurisdiction superior court. Ibid.
For more information, contact Zachary D. Schorr of Schorr Law, APC. www.schorr-law.com, 310-954-1877, zschorr@schorr-law.com.
I am Pro Per now making my way into the Court of Appeals, as the Appellate Court upheld the decision of the lower court against citing Asuncion, We have judges who have no knowledge
of these sub-prime loans, which were designed to fail and fall into foreclosure. I cancelled the
loan upon the 3-day notice because the Note was forged and cancelled again under TILA, USA Section 1635 and Reg. Z.. The problem is that we have Martin Bonanno, a past mobster, who hired lawyers to shelve the Quiet Title I filed in Fed. Court. My FICO in 2008 was 805, and I have purchased 5 homes in the past. I have been fighting a court system that is corrupt and ignores the laws. My attorney I hired threw me under the bus and did not argue res judicata or collateral estoppel, none that apply.
Pamela Zander/Forensic Documents Research/ American School of Mortgage Banking -certified in Loan Processing, Escrow II, Loan Signing Spec. for Notary, Past Notary 760) 617-7989
Excellent very simply stated,.
What is especially important is the amount of tenants who are evicted from unlawful owners.
I am a fraud underwriter and have seen many different types of fraud but little know by the public is how often after a bank takes back the property from the homeowner the property is left vacate for 6 the 24 months. And along comes A new predator with a for rent sign and poses a the new ” landlord” collects a deposit and in a few months the new tenant is evicted by the same ” new illegal landlord. This is facilitated by the fact that its widely known that the CA Unlawful Detainer process does not verify title
and is so heavily weighted to the plaintiff regaining possession. That the scheme goes undetected.
Excellent very simply stated,.
What is especially important is the amount of tenants who are evicted from unlawful owners.
I am a fraud underwriter and have seen many different types of fraud but little is known by the public of how often after a bank takes back a property leaving it vacate for 6 to 24 months. Thereby giving life to a opportunity to defraud the public. ” And along comes A our-new predator , a with a for- rent sign poses as the new ” landlord. Puts up a sign, sits back and rents the home, collects a deposit and in a few months the new tenant is evicted by the same ” new illegal landlord. This is facilitated by the fact that CA Unlawful Detainer court pays little attention to issues of title and its main focus is a quick remedy for plaintiff’s possession allows this scheme to go undetected. We have come a long way but we still fall short of fair.
I was not allowed to challenge the so called duly perfected title in ud court and judgement was awarded to plaintiff along with writ of poss. sale was not on nos date, was sold to my private lender’s/re broker’s mother in law’s trust, for $ 0 consideration. and lender s/ trustee lic. to conduct bus. in ca was and is suspened by ca.ftb since 1998 . Appealed,got supersedous to stay sheriffs order to vacate which they performed but talked mom in laws son, specialist re attorney from oc to stay a few more days and finish packing my 12 yr. 3.5 acre home. Appeals reversed w/ costs on grounds he did not show valid proof he was the trusts rep.What about trust can hold title Im scarred they will correct the trust rep issue and file ud again. along ways to go in quite title action, but these people are the worst of the worst and have swindled hundreds of good citizens from their american dreams using the weak prop laws that people like trump voted into Ca. law. My dear dad would of backed his parties candidate and then impeached the man on grounds he’s clueless .Dad practice law in oc for 40 yrs thanks for letting me vent