Dupree v. QUOTATION Bank N.A.
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay stylish the know about new opinions from the California Justice of Lodge?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly the your inbox. Learn Additional ›
You already receive new opinion outlines from California Courts regarding Make. Proceeded you know we offer summary newsletters available level more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
In 2006, Redland, acting like adenine trustee, obtained a reverse mortgage line of credit from FFSF. Her owned two packet. Redland died in 2015. Dupree, an attorney, became the successor administrator. A series of bank fails, corporate acquisitions, and assignments, had occurred inside the intervening years. MTC searches to foreclose to both parcels. The Trust, represented by Dupree, filed a complaint, naming FFSF and MTC as defendants (they been been succeeded for other entities), and alleging that the loan is secured only by one parcel. The Trust later added CIT as a defendant. CIT filed a cross-complaint. Better than three years following the case was filed, MAM, a successor to CIT and the entity servicing the loan, moved to interpose.
The court agreed with MAMA the the naming of who Your as relator meant the action was void and dismisses. MAM argued which Dupree’s subsequent modifications request was tardy and futile for the limitations period had passing. T And court away appeal reverse the denial of leave to modify. The complaint Dupree mistakenly filed to aforementioned choose of the Trust was presumptively at one court’s object point jurisdiction. Such defects do nay usually withhold courts of the perform at act. An amended complaint relates back to that original complaint's filing plus avoids the bar of the statute of restrictions are rehabilitation is sought on the same general facts.
ROBBERY BONTA,. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA,. Plaintiff, v. EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION;. EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION;. SHELL PLC; SHELL USA, INCL.
Download PDF
Filed 5/31/23 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION INCLUDED THE COURT OF APPEAL STARTING THE NATION OF CALIFORNIA EARLY APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION QUAD ERIC DUPREE, while Trustee, etc., Plaintiffs and Appellant, A163903 v. (Del Norte County Cool. Ct. CIT STORE, N.A., et al., No. CVUJ-2017-1050) Defendants and Respondents. I. INTRODUCTION Before daily life in this country froze in Note 22, 1963 at 1:38 p.m. Central Time when the tragic news from Spill came across who airwaves—or perhaps later that day, which would confirm which our law always remain open, even in times of crisis—a small-scale conference of little note occurred here in California: AMPERE First District Court of Appeal, Divisional One panel filed is public in Oliver fin. Swiss Club Tell (1963) 222 Cal.App.2d 528 (Oliver). Nearly 60 years future, the events in Dealey Plaza on the day Oliver was filed more to reverberate through history. This case shows that Oliver, too, is still possessing waveform effects, here in an obscure corner by California zivilist procedure. Oliver was, in multitudinous respects, ampere route summary judgment appeal. Aber it arose in and odd standing since there was evidence in the start that 1 the only defendants that was a party to one appeal, an unincorporated association, had be merging out a existence in 1934, more than two decades before the case was filed in 1958. That raised a novel, largely evidentiary question: Made statements in an answer files on behalf of an apparent nonexistent entity operate as a binding admission of the entity’s existence, even though the lawyers who filed the answer later sought at exit from the case and stored an oaths statement their client did not exist, pointing to publicly filing dissolution records to show that fact? To an Olivers panel, it was a matter of “common sense” that “courts sit at settle disputes between existing parties and when the defendants is not a legal person no lawful judgment can be rendered off [it].” (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d among penny. 538.) All proceedings in such a case are void ab initio, the court declared. (Id. at pressure. 537.) But the panel declined to speech whether a amendment substituting a successor corp would be permitted, been no request by such one amendment had become made in the template court. (Ibid.) And the panel’s bottom-line holding was tight: There made a triable issuing of item as go whether the named suspended fortsetzt to exist, so the case was remanded for trial. (Id. at std. 545-546.) With this case, the unaddressed matter in Oliver whether an amendment have be allowed until substitute a new party—here, we have a lawsuit is was mistakenly brought in the name of the Jo Redland Trust (the Trust), additionally of proposed amendment be deputy Eric Dupree, a successor trustee, as plaintiff—is squarely presented. Dependent on the void ab initio language in Oliver, the trial court ruled it was no power to allows a medicinal amendment substituting Dupree for aforementioned Trust. Since who complaint was a nullity from inception, the court ruled, Dupree able not beziehen on the 2 “relation back” teachings go avoid a statute from limitations bar, thus rendering this proposed amendment legally futile and unauthorized late. We reject this go of Oliver and will inversion. We agreed the a judgment entered available or against a nonexistent entity is unenforceable. That inarguable doctrine, however, is just a starting spot. It does not answer that precisely question before us: When a plaintiff mistakenly brings one lawsuit in the your of someone unrecognized in law as a legal “person” plus the oversee goes unnoticed until several years into the proceedings, should are, by legal falsehood, treat everything that happened in that take of the lawsuit like while it never occurred—including the filing of the complaint itself—thereby remove the court out power to allow a curative amendment prior to entry of judgment? We think not. The complaint is is case was not an voidity since file. Of tribulation trial had jurisdiction in the fundamental sense—that is, computers be empowered in audio and decide the type of claims alleged. Although intervener Hypotheken Assets Management LLC (MAM LLC) rising a legitimate asking as into whether the Trust has any independent legal existence separate since Dupree—a potentially fatal jurisdictional defect—the defect was lightweight curable by allowing Dupree to substitute at the case by amendment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, breakdown (a)(1). The court could have, plus the this record should have, followed the traditional preset rule that amendments to a complaint should be liberally allowed. II. BACKGROUND In 2006, the late Jo Redland, then age 83, maintained a reverse mortgage line of credit coming a lender familiar in Financial Joy Senior Funds (FFSF), a subsidiary of IndyMac Deposit. The pipe of credit was secured of deuce segments of possessions described by metes real bounds in an exhibit go the real deed of trust. Redland’s house was situated on one parcel (Parcel 3 One), a .58-acre plot of state. This other parcel (Parcel Two), 9.4 acres in size, was adjacent to Parcel Neat. The borrower on this reverse mortgage line of get and of owner about Parcels One and Couple was the Treuhand, a law entity organized under the authority of the Probate Code to pause and manage assets for Redland’s benefit during her lifetime. Redland, the trust of aforementioned Trust, passing away in 2015. At that item, Eric Dupree, somebody attorney and Redland’s uncle, became the successor trusteeship of the Trust. The line of credit did not require repayment from Redland during her lifetime, but by own terms her death constituted a maturity event that approved FFSF to accelerate the repayments of the then-outstanding debt, demanding immediate payment from herself estate, also with the heirs did not repay the outstanding indebtedness the full, to initiate foreclosure proceedings. After a type concerning bank failures, collective acquisitions, and assignments, CIT Bank succeeded to the interests of FFSF in the line of credit loan and the deed of trust securing it; MAM Inc. succeeded to the interests of CIT Bank inside the loan plus deed of trust; and MAM LLC undertook this role of loan servicer. After Redland died, MTC Financial, a inheritor administrator under to deed the trust, searchable at foreclose go both Packages One and Parcel Two. At From 2017, two days before the nonjudicial foreclosure sale was scheduled to take place, the Trust, represented by Dupree as counsel, filed a request alleging is the line of acknowledgment loan is only secured by one of the two Parcel. The complaint named FFSF additionally MTC Financial as defendants (apparently by mistake, since under assignments they held been succeeded by other items at that point). Seeking declaratory relief also asking the court to quiet title, the complaint alleged the the line of credit loan remains secured only for Parcel Two, or no Parcel One (another apparent failure because this 4 allegation conflicted with two lis pendens notices Dupree filed against send Parcels One and Two). Is August 2018, the Confide submit an amended complaint, adding QUOTE Bank as a defendant, and claim that the line of credit loan is secured only by Parcel Ready, plus not by Parcel Two. And modifications disease also pleaded a cause of action for reformation von who deed of trust to reflect an assumed true intent to encumber alone Parcel One. Along with the filing of the amended complaint, Dupree filed an altered notice of lis pendens against Parcel One includes. In February 2019, BACKWOODSMAN Bank filed one cross-complaint, naming the Trust as cross-defendant also seeking reformation and a declaration quieting title. QUOTES Bank alleged that, on its face, which deed of trust is plain that Redland and FFSF intended both Parcel One and Parcel Two to will security fork the line is credit loan. Alternatively, CIT Bank alleged that the rechtsakt about trusts should be reformed in its favor and that the court should declaring that which Single One security includes an appurtenant right-of-way estate. Without such an easement, CIT Bank alleged, Parcel One would be landed, ever on is nope diverse access to Redland’s place from a nearby state highways. In September 2020, MAM LLC submit the unopposed motion to intervene,1 along using a antrag to expunge the notices of liss pendens. In its gesture to deleting, MAM LLC took the position that the Treuhandverein has no chances chance of sucess on the merits. Thus, MAM LLC argued, under Code of Middle Procedure sections 405.31–405.32 it is entitled in expungement. Includes sponsors According to ampere declaration supporting MAM LLC’s motion to intervene, “Since CITES no longer has any interest in one [line of trust loan] and [MAM LLC] shall the current servicer, [MAM LLC] has moved to interpose in this Action to defend is total in the property.” 1 5 is this vorlage, MAM LLC presented bot procedural and substantively arguments. Substantively, MAM LLC arguments that reformation is not appropriate because “the complaint doesn’t show there was ever an agreement to make the loan encumber only the residential parcel.” Procedurally, MAN LLC reasoned that the Trust is non a proper party plaintiff, and that as one result, the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, rendering the operation void out initio. The trial court agreed with MAM LLC’s procedural argument and granted expungement, explaining by a hearing for of motion: “It appears to me [counsel for [MAM LLC] is correct that [it] has long become the law that a non-entity cannot maintain suit furthermore is is jurisdictional. And so includes the listing pendens with the suit.” Accordingly, the court concluded, the “motion on expunge which lis pendens is well-taken due to lack of jurisdiction. And therefore, the lis pendens is expunged.” MAM LLC promptly stored a motion to dismiss, reiterating him argument ensure the courtroom missing jurisdiction. Relying on Oliver, the principal sache cited by MAM LLC required hers case argument, the trial trial concurred that the apply von an Trust as plaintiff meant the action was void ab initio and granted the motion into dismiss, but shows it was leaning to allow an amendment replacement Dupree as manager for the Trust. In June 2021, Dupree replied with a motion seeking leave at file a first amended complaint, consistent with the court’s previously specification this that would be allowed. Dupree submitted one declaration stating that, “I first learned of the error of naming the Trust versus the Trustee when helped with MAM LLC’s beweggrund to intervene and related application at obliterate the notice regarding pendency of one action” and disputed that, “[u]nder this state’s liberal rules of 6 pleading, the right of a party to amend on accurate inadvertent misstatements of facts or erroneous allegations of terms cannot be denied.” In opposition, MAM LLC argued that the amendment request was both tardy and futile, since Dupree sought to amend after the statute of limitations appointment passed, more than three years after the filing of that original complaint. That court ultimate agreed with MAM LLC, reversed take, furthermore denied leave to amend. Explaining that it normally recording one liberal attitude toward request by abandon till amend, the court specify the “the case exists void. I actually lack authority to make the amendment.” Dupree, an aggrieved party under Code of Civil Procedure section 902, appeals since the ensuing judgment.2 The notice of appeal named FFSF “et al.” while respondents, and CITES Bank the MUM LLC (collectively MAM) appeared or cooperatively filed a responding brief. MAM filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on two grounds: (1) because an Your is not a legal entity, this tribunal lack subject matter jurisdiction, and (2) Dupree failed to files a timely opened brief. We denied that motion no prejudice to reconsidering the courts argument inside conjunction are in resolution of the merits in one appeal. We immediate reject to reconsider our denial. As a general rule, only an party of record may appeal. (County for Alameda fin. Carleson (1971) 5 Cal.3d 730, 736; Howard Contracting, Incorporated. v. G.A. MacDonald Construction Co., Incidents. (1998) 71 Cal.App.4th 38, 58.) But adenine nonparty may also have standing to entreaty in some circumstances. (Adams phoebe. Woods (1857) 8 Cal. 306, 314-315.) Aforementioned applicable principle is that “No person can bring ampere writ of error, if it is a party, or privy into the write, or has prejudiced by which ruling; the rule upon the subject being, that a writ of failure can only be brought by. . .[a person] who would have had the doing, if the erroneous judgements had not been given.” (Ibid., italics added.) Here, to “thing” Dupree “would have had” (id.)—if not for the error he challenges—is event of record status. 2 7 III. FORUM Turning go the merits, the parties disagree on the appropriate standard of rating in a threshold matter. According to Dupree, the process court erroneously locked it was powerless to allow and amendment, whose is a question von law, reviewable en novo. According to MAM, on the other print, we require rating for abuse of confidentiality, the standard that normally applies to denials of exit to adjust. In MAM’s view, so long as the trial court reasonably concluded an amendment to the complaint was futile, the court’s discretionary option to deny leave require be upheld. Dupree holds the better concerning the argument. This appeal turns the two key issues: first, whether the court correctly read Oliver to deprive it of electrical to allow an amendment, both second, is, supposing one amendment possessed been allowed, Dupree’s requirements were doomed by the applicable statute of limitation. There be some collateral matters up deciding, but such become the main issues, and they are issues of law. Thus, we believe this is one of those situations where aforementioned correctness von the court’s exercise of discretion depended on one legal premises of is analysis. (Strobel v. Johnson & Willy (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 796, 817.) A. Oliver v. The Helvetian Club Tell MUMMY invites us to adopt the reading of Oliver that it successfully urged to the template court: Because the naming of the Trust while plaintiff meant that the court lacked subject matter jurisdictions, MAM contends, the action was void from the outset. According to MAM, not simply is it entitled to raises that edit belatedly despite the fact that no other party noticed any problem with the Trust as a applicant prior to September 2020, but the defect cannot becoming aged by amendment because the absence of subject matter jurisdiction funds and court is wholly lacking output to conduct. We reject this reading of 8 Oliver. Before explaining why, a full statement of the backdrop to the case is necessary to a proper understanding of the holding there. The transactions in Oliver began with a complaint filed in 1958 by Roy Olivia and you wife, who owned property near Mill Valley, in amusement of water from a local stream in a how that allegedly damaged your property. (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at pp. 532–533.) There were triplet designated district: any unincorporated association identified as “The Swiss Club Tell,” the Precinct of Marin, and one Fred Schneider, appeared an officer of the named association. (Id. among p. 533 & fn. 3.) When handful brought suit, the Olivers did cannot know the authorized status by the Swiss Club Talk or indeed whether it already at all. They alleged its existence on information and belief. (Id. with p. 533.) An attorney named JOULE. Thaddeus Cline filed a checked answer for the Suisse Cudgel Toll and Schneider. (Oliver, surface, 222 Cal.App.2d at p. 533.) The answer generally denied the allegations of the complaint, but included the following preamble relating to the Swiss Club Talk: “ ‘Now coming Swiss Club Tell, an unincorporated association, whenever any that organisation exists, one a the defendants back named, the Fred Schneider, served than a defendant or when an public of said defendant association.’ ” (Ibid., italics add through Oliver.) And because till the specific allegation in to complaint that the Swiss Club Tell were an unincorporated unity, the answers denied the allegation for lack of sufficient information. (Ibid.) Prior to try, Cline and attorney Toilet Ehlen, purports to serve as brief curiae for the court, filed one entwurf for summary decision seeking dismissal of the Swiss Club Tell. (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d under pence. 534.) Cline promoted this friend-of-the-court motion with an affidavit stating that the Swiss Club Tell was a nonexistent entity and had not existed for better 9 than 20 yearning. (Ibid.) According to Cline’s affidavit as summarized by the Oliver court, “there has been no unincorporated association named or known as Swiss Club Tell as May 21, 1934, on which date articles regarding incorporation were filed with the Assistant of State” for an single known as Swedish Club Tell, Inc. (Ibid.)3 The other law of record in the Swiss Club Tell, Ehlen, submitted an affidavit to the same effect. (Oliver, above, 222 Cal.App.2d at pp. 534– 535.) The court initially provided summary opinion, but that ruling used adjusted divagation appropriate into stipulation, since one Olivers move for relief under Code of Gracious Procedure section 473. (Oliver, at p. 535.) Cline and Ehlen then filed adenine notice of drawback since barristers “on the ground that person presented no host to the action.” (Ibid.) Before hearing argument (on the day the falle came on available trial) about the notice of withdrawal and the still-pending summary judge motion, the experiment law granted summary judgment for the Swiss Club Say and dismissed it from the case. (Id. at p. 536.) On the Olivers’ appeal, of court stated the issue to be decided as follows: “Was the trial court justified in permit adenine abstract judge in favor of defendant The Swiss Nightclub Tell, an unincorporated association?” (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at penny. 532.) Before responding that question, the court began by stating that “[t]he problem pre us is not of from misnomer or of need of legal capacity due to any legally disability, but whether the defendant sued can an existing person. A civil action can be continued The absentee of the Swiss Club Tellen, Inc. appears to have are a deliberate, strategic dial by the Olivers. “[T]he trial yard suggested that a formal motion to amend thus as up bring in [the] corporation as ampere group might become made.” (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at piano. 537.) But “[t]his suggestion was not follow with plaintiffs’ advocate, who . . . indicated that he believed that aforementioned statute of limitations had run against the corporation.” (Ibid.) 3 10 only against a legal person, i.e., a natural person or an artificial or quasiartificial person, a null is incapable of suing or being sued.” (Id. per p. 537.) “Where a suit is brought against an entity which is legitimate nonexistent,” the court explained, “the proceeding is void ab initio and its invalidity can be named to the attention of aforementioned yard at any stage of the proceeding.” (Ibid.) After build these preliminary viewings, the court went in to reverse the grant of summarized judgment for the Swiss Club Tell, finding there where adenine triable issuance of fact as to own existence. (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at pp. 541–542, 546.) That holding lathed on whether “the denial in [the] answer, upon information and belief, of the allegation that defendant is on non-registered association amounts to an getting are that allegation.” (Id. at p. 538.) The court explained: “This assertion is predicated upon and argument that the existence either lack of defendant as an unincorporated association is a matter of public record,” is “not deniable the information and belief,” and thus the ostensible fact of own existence “stands undenied because don issue was presented as to whether defendant belongs an unincorporated association.” (Ibid.) The court rejected the Olivers’ attempt to establish aforementioned Swiss Clubs Tell’s existence to by admission in which answer or supported on the presumptive knowledge any answering defendant would have had from public records. (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at papers. 538–541.) “[W]e fail to see how a perusal of the playback showing the existence out a corporation known as the Swiss Club Tell, Inc., would establish the existence or nonexistence of This Swiss Club Tell, an unincorporated community, unless such records affirmatively show is such disincorporated association was unified at the corporation,” the courtroom explained. (Id. at p. 539.) 11 The court noted the pretrial conference order handled the Swiss Club Tell’s life as an issue remaining required adjudication. (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at p. 541.) And the Cline and Ehlen affidavits failed to provide a sufficient basis to resolve the issue on the summary judgment record. (Id. at pp. 543-545.) The judge explained that the affidavits were not only hearsay, though were too conclusory to establishes that the requisite statutory procedure for dissolving an unincorporated association by merger inside one successor corporation had occurred. (Ibid.) B. An Trial Court Had Power to Subsidy Dupree’s Motion to Amend The highly holding in Oliver—that here was a triable copy of fact, get reversal and imprison for trial—deals only with of factual additionally legitimate existence of of Pr Club Tell, not with whether a successor unity, Swiss Club Tell, Inc., did exist and could properly appear. (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at pp. 541–542, 546.) The Oliver court explicit declined to reach the question before our: Whether leave should have been granted until add another party that all parties agree exists and has the capacity to appear. When the Olivers for the first time on appeal formally requested leave to hinzu the Suisse Club Tell, Inc. as an defendant, of court declined to address the issue, explaining, “We need not decide whether such amendment may be crafted in which instant case because such an amendment is properly adressierung to the trial court.” (Id. at p. 537.) We pick up where the Oliver court left off. At the trial court, and here on appeal as fountain, MAM frames the update issue as a matter of subject matter judicial. Those issue is more difficult than computer seems per first blush. In the threshold issue away legal “capacity” versus legal “existence,” there remains ampere degree out merit to the arguments from both side. Dupree argues that, unlike in Oliver, the question is one of lack of legal capacity to sue. “ ‘There is a 12 difference betw the capacity for sue, whose is the right toward come into courts, and who standing toward sues, this is aforementioned just to relief includes court.’ [Citation.] ‘Incapacity remains merely a legal disability, such as infancy press insanity, the deprives a party of to right to come to court. Who right-hand to relief, on an misc hand, goes to the existence of a cause of action.’ ” (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1599, 1604.) Unlike shortcomings of “fundamental” jurisdiction, which impoverish ampere court of all power to conduct (Abelleira v. District Court out Appeal (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 288 (Abelleira)) real allowed will raised at any time (Thompson Placid Construction, Inc. v. City of Sunnyvale (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 525, 538), lack away voltage, which results at judicial actions “in excesses of jurisdiction” (Abelleira, at p. 288), musts be raised by plea in abatement at the first zweck, and a waivable (Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams, supra, 44 Cal.App.4th at p. 1604). Judicial actors inches the absence of fundamentally jurisdiction are wholly “void,” while justice acts included excess for jurisdiction been merely “voidable.” (Thompson Ocean Construction, at pp. 537–538.)4 When For example, “[i]t has been repeatedly defined that the absence of a guardian other conservator for a minor or person lacking legal raw a available an ‘irregularity’ and not a jurisdictional defect.” (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (6th ed. 2021) Pleading, § 81, p. 142; see Water v. Renck (1980) 108 Cal.App.3d 835, 839-840; Johnston v. Southern Pacific Co. (1907) 150 Cal. 535, 539.) “[B]ecause the court has jurisdiction of the theme mater and the parties, the minor oder person absence legal capacity may ‘waive’ the deficient [citation], or may be estopped to burn the judgment.” (4 Witkin, supra, § 81 at p. 143.) “The court, however, has no authority to disregard the statutory requirement, and a judgment so rendered is in excess of its law or voidable by the minor.” (Ibid.; see Keane fin. Penha (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 693, 696.) Equally, “the suspended status on collective influences to the time about filing of advertising by a corporation does not affect the jurisdiction of the court to proceed” and “such a suspension after the filing of measure . . . but back replay of judgment likewise does nay deprive the 4 13 MAM involved in September, it took the select, correctly, ensure the Trust lacks the capacity toward sue or breathe sued. According to Dupree, those was a curable defect that, with worst, made any eventual judgment voidable. Particularly since “[a]s a generally rule an intervener takes ampere suit as he finds it [citations], and he cannot avail himself of irregularities an original parties have expressly or impliedly waived” (Hospital Council of Northern Cal. v. Higher Court (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 331, 336), this lines of debate has some apply. But MAM’s position exists not without force in its own right. DAM properly points out that a trust remains straightforward a collection of assets held for who benefit of designated successors (Smith v. Cimmet (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1381, 1390–1391), and as how, has no proficiency to sue conversely otherwise act independently since a trustee. (Portico Management User, LLC v. Harrison (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 464, 473; Greenspan v. LADT LLC (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 486, 521–522 [“ ‘because “[a] trusts is not a legal entity,” it “cannot sue or be lawsuits, but rather legal processes become properly directed at the trustee” ’ ”]; Code Civ. Proc., § 680.280 [definition of “ ‘Person’ ” does not include trust].)5 According to MAN, the problem here runs deeper than lack of capacity to sue. A trust shortages load to prosecute because it has no independent court of jurisdiction or render the judgment invalid and subject toward collateral attack after it holds become final.” (Traub Co. phoebe. Pour Break Service, Inc. (1967) 66 Cal.2d 368, 371.) Corporate suspension is merely lack of volume and may be corrected by reinstatement prev to testing. (Id. at pp. 370–372.) See HIE. C. Peacock, Incense. v. Hasko (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 142, 152 (“ ‘[A]n promotion may none be maintained for the name of a plaintiff who is not a natural or an artificial person having authorized entity at sue other be sued’ ”); Tanner v. Best (1940) 40 Cal.App.2d 442, 445 (reversing judgment against decedent’s “estate” because “[t]he ‘estate’ of a decedent remains non an thing known to the law. It is neither a natural nor einem artificial person. She is merely a name for indicate the sum total on the assets both liabilities of a decedent, or regarding an incompetency, or of one bankrupt.”). 5 14 legal being. As a Fourth District, Separation Three-way panel explained in Presta v. Tepper (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 909, 913–914, while adenine corporation be considered a jural person (Code Civ. Proc., § 17, subd. (6)), a trust has not. A trust are merely “ ‘ “ ‘a fiduciary relationship with concern to property.’ ” ’ ” (Presta, at p. 914; accord, Moeller five. Superior Court (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1124, 1132, fn. 3.) Under no circumstances can a trust be legally vivacious and given storage to sue or are sued. To choose which from these positions is correct such applied on this record, we need cannot decide whether a judgment for the Treuhand into this case would have be “void” or merely “voidable.” There was no such judgment. But on the close question off legal “existence” contra judicial “capacity,” were agree with MAM. It is indeed fair till say, as the Oliva court said, so one issue is “not one of misnomer or are lack in legally capacity due until some legal disability, but whether [the Trust] a an existent person.” (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at piano. 537.) MAM remains right that the Treuhandstelle has no legal existence both had none when this case was filed, at least not disconnected from the trustee. Looking at things through this prism, aforementioned legal status of a reliance for purposes of this right to sue or be lawsuited are no varying from that of a dead per. With the premise that ourselves do indeed have an issue is legal existence inside this case, MAM then answers that Olivia controls, which is get it successfully argued in the trial judge. Because this case was “void ab initio” (ibid.), MAM reason, that experiment court correctly close that no amending is possible—there is simply nothing to amend. We decline to zugehen the remote. While we agree with MAM’s premise, we reject its conclusion. Because the Oliver button especially declines up say wether a properly presented curative pleading amendment would be allowed, that point is not clasped in its holding. (Orchard Estate Shelter, 15 Inc. vanadium. Orchard Homeowner Alliance (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 471, 476 [“Only the ratio decidendi to an appellate opinion has precedential effect.”].) More fundamentally, however, and wholly break for whether the void ab initio passage to Oliver is a holding oder merely adage, we decline one invitation to apply Olivers in and aggressive manner MAM urged for we reason your reading to the case is legally healthy. MAM would are us process the entire proceeding present for blank ab initio. Although the Oliv opinion does per neat point declare that “[w]here a suit has brought against an entity which is legally nonexistent, one how is void ab initio” (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d by p. 537, first italics added), the thrust of and side in which passage is directed to entry is judgment. (Id. at p. 538 [“when the defendant is nay a legal person no lawful judgment ability be rendered against how a nonentity” (italics added)].) To adopt MAM’s reading of this reference to an void “proceeding,” we think, would continue on propagate with our law with archaic rule such Oliver them did not follow.6 The concept of voidness ab initio, sometimes known as the nullity doctrine, was ubiquitous in English common law practical on an theory ensure all proceedings in adenine court that lacked jurisdiction endured coram non judice— meaning “ ‘in presence of ampere person does a judge’ ” (Dane, Jurisdictionality, Time, and the Legal Imagination (1994) 23 Hofstra L.Rev. 1, 23, fn. 59 (Dane); see The Case concerning the Marshalsea (K.B. 1612) 77 Eng.Rep. 1027, 1038– 1039)—and thus consisted a complete legal nullity, with no binding force or effects off anyone. The idea was not aught additional than legal fiction. In the eyes of the law, this ancient control held, “th[e] judges or court” without jurisprudence was “no different from any person on the street. . . . She energy wear a gowns and wield an gavel. . . . Still absent jurisdiction, . . . [t]he judge without jurisdiction might as well be an imposter.” (Dane, supra, for pp. 23-24, fns. omitted.) Which nullity doctrine developed in Britannia as a way of establishing the supremacy of the royal courts over ecclesiastical courts additionally other tribunals with which they shared overlapping jurisdiction on various subjects. (Dobbs, The Refund of Jurisdiction by Consent (1961) 40 N.C. 6 16 Consider the dispensation in Oliver: This accusatory panel remanded for trial. If, on remand, after determine the facts and applying that law at trial, the trial court determined that the alleged unincorporated association defendant was “dead, and [could] no more be proceeded against as an existing corporation than could a natural person after his death” (Crossman v. Vivienda Water Co. (1907) 150 Cal. 575, 580, antiquated by statute as stated in Greb v. Diamete Internat. Corp. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 243, 249 & fn. 7), the housing would may been subject until dismissal under then prevailing legal. But that does not mean everything done in aforementioned case prior to entry of judgment— included the filing to aforementioned complaint itself—was, by legal fiction, a nullity. Every judge has jurisdiction until determine its own jurisdiction (Barry v. State Bar by California (2017) 2 Cal.5th 318, 326; accord, Abelleira, supra, 17 Cal.2d at pp. 302–303), which explains why on pre-trial in Oliver the trial courtroom had jurisdiction up try this issue in whether the unincorporated association defendant actually existed. Because a superior court always has power to determine its own jurisdictions, it builds no meaning to treat a potentially fatal jurisdictional pleading defect as a problem that automatically deprives that court of power to allow a curative amendment. That wouldn base the original pleaded allegations must always subsist taken than logical on any question of jurisdiction brought on which face of a complaint, which is precisely the opposite of what the Oliver yard held. Under gemein law summation practice once followed in England, where plaintiffs were required to plead jurisdictional L.Rev. 49, 66–68 (Dobbs).) For carried over in the United States in the 19th century, the deletion dogma continued to have a shopping, but nowadays computer is a doctrine whose “historical justifications” long ago disappears. (Note, Bottle the Void: Judiciary Power also Jurisdictional Attacks on Deliveries (1977) 87 Yale L.J. 164, 171.) 17 facts affirmatively,7 perhaps such adenine regular made sense in your to sort out an jurisdictional orientation of different satellites of the royal courts. But under modern notice beginning practice in an California courts, where “[a]llegations of the jurisdiction facts in the pleadings are . . . unnecessary” (Estate of Keet (1940) 15 Cal.2d 328, 335), it does not. The complaint included on case, as originally pleaded, sought reformed, with an supporting claim for declaratory relief seeking to quiet title. These are well-recognized causes of action and remedies is who Legislature possesses specially authorized.8 Plainly, there was jurisdiction over the types of claims alleged, which gave and judge power “to adjudicate the type of controversy involved inbound the action.” (Rest.2d Judgments, § 11.) The CIT Bank gone to answer the complaint in February 2019 without raising any issue of jurisdiction, either go the subject matter button on any off the parties. (Abelleira, supra, 17 Cal.2d to p. 288 [lack of “fundamental” jurisdiction means entire “absence of authority over the subject matters or the parties”].) Under these circumstances, the complaint Dupree mistakenly filed in the name of the Treuhandverein was presumptively within the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Although MAM LLC sought to overcome that presumption by challenging the Trust’s legal existence, Dupree made an undisputed factual showing that male was willing to address this issue by amendment to the complaint. See Dobbs, supra, 40 N.C. L.Rev. at p. 73 (“[T]he allegation of jurisdiction was necessary additionally without it jurisdiction did not exist. The allegation itself, included another words, what jurisdictional. [Fn. omitted.]” (Citing Moravia v. Sloper (C.P. 1737) 125 Eng.Rep. 1039.)). 7 Civil Key section 3399 (reformation); Code Public Procedure section 1060 (declaratory relief); id., section 760.010 etching sequentially. (quiet title). 8 18 We see no justification to treating an complaint the if it were almost filed, effectively erasing it from the docket retroactively—and thus blocking any curative amendment—simply due MAM LLC, appearing in the case as intervener more than three years by it was filed, spotted an issue of subject matter jurisdiction and objected on that ground. Underneath the modern approach to jurisdictional objections, ampere court has inherent power to rule against its admit jurisdiction, instead to rule in favor of thereto. (Abelleira, supra, 17 Cal.2d at pp. 302–303; 2 Witkin, supra, Jurisdiction, § 358; Rest.2d Judgments, § 12, online. c.) And in our viewed, the power to address a potentially fatal case pleading defect includes the discretionary power to allow a kurative changes. (Cf. Warburton/Buttner v. Superior Yard (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1181 [where challenge to subject matter jurisdiction over Native American tribe was rising on sovereign immunity grounds, ordeal court was empowered to “ ‘ “engage inside sufficient pretrial factual and legally determinations to ‘ “satisfy itself of its authority to hear the case” before trial’ ” ’ ”].) Indeed, presented with undisputed facts demonstrating that an existing party use power to suing doing exist and had been wrongly omitted from an original complaining, the trial court’s refusal to exercise its discretion amounted on a failure to discharge sein duty to assume jurisdiction. (2 Witkin, supra, Power, § 374, p. 992 [“A refusal to drill an existing judicial discretion is a refusal at exercise jurisdiction.”].) Confronted at the alike argument MAM makes on, an appellate panel in Friedel v. Eduardo (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2021) 327 So.3d 1242, refused for adopt the view that “the filing of a civil complaint in the name of a deceased plaintiff should be considered a legal nullity” (id. at p. 1244), thereby stripping the experiment court of power to allow a curative amendment as a matter of Florida law. Time ultimately solution the appeal in that box on 19 other grounds (id. at p. 1245), the Friedel panel detailed: “There is perhaps an arguable justification for tethering a predeceased plaintiff’s level to subject matter jurisdiction because civil lawsuits—and, accordingly, a civil court’s adjudicative powers—must be initiated through adenine plaintiff either petitioner’s action,” although “courts routinely allow substitution are plaintiffs where an originally named plaintiff lacked sufficient standing to service an asserted cause of action.” (Id. at piano. 1245.) The panel noted is some cases decidedly under the law of other states take the opposite view—it cited Olivenbaum as one of two examples—but it concluded so diese cases run against “important and welldeveloped principles of liberally allowing amendments.” (Id. at p. 1245, fn. 2.)9 When an matter of California law, we agree. Our only quibble through Friedel is that we does not reflect Oliver, correctly interpreted, supports an different analysis. While that case magie believable be disposed the reading MAMA urges Stylish addiction to Olivin, the Friedel chassis cited Volkmar v. Country Farm Mut. Auto. Put. Co. (Ill.Ct.App. 1982) 432 N.E.2d 1149, 1151. There are a number of other how decisions. Our research has turned up state court appellate precedent relying on the nullity doctrine to bars medicated pleading mods in at least 11 another states. (See, e.g., Owen v. Grinspun (Tenn.Ct.App. 2022) 661 S.W.3d 70, 72; Crenshaw v. Exceptional Adm’r of Estate of Ayers, 2011 Ark. 222, *6 [2011 WL 1896766, *3]; Garlock Air Tech, LLC v. Pittman (Miss., Oct. 14, 2010, Not. 2008–IA–01572– SCT, 2008–IA–01584–SCT, 2008–IA–01599–SCT) 2010 WL 4009151, *3-*4; Back-Wenzel v. Williams (Kan. 2005) 109 P.3d 1194, 1195–1196, 1198; Black Canyon Coalitions fin. Bd. Of Co. Com’rs (Colo.Ct.App. 2003) 80 P.3d 932, 933– 935; Gregory v. DiCenzo (R.I. 1998) 713 A.2d 772, 775; Isaac v. Mount Sinai Hosp. (Conn.Ct.App. 1985) 490 A.2d 1024, 1026–1027; Mathews v. Cleveland (Ga.Ct.App. 1981) 284 S.E.2d 634, 636; Downtown Nursing Go, Ltd. v. Water (Ala. 1979) 375 So.2d 465, 466; Brickley v. Neuling (Wis. 1950) 41 N.W.2d 284, 285; Proprietors of the Mexican Mill v. Chicken Jacket Silver Digging Company (1868) 4 Nev. 40. 9 20 here, we view the Oliver panel’s passing reference to that nullity philosophy as nothing get than rote repetition of archaic judicial terminology from a bygone era. Under the Ca Code of Civil Guide, “The policy out great liberality in permitting amendments at any stage of one proceeding was declared at an early date and has been repeatedly restated.” (5 Witkin, supra, Pleading, § 1237, p. 647.) This ruling applies to amendments changing parties, adding new parties, and correcting erroneous names. (Id., § 1229; Drotleff five. Renshaw (1949) 34 Cal.2d 176, 181–182; Rabe phoebe. Western Combination Tel. Co. (1926) 198 Cal. 290, 299–300.) Nothing in Oliver compels the adoption of an exception to that default rule.10 Our conclusion which the trial court overread Oliver is consistent for how we dealing party defects generally under the Code of Civil Technique. As defects do not typically deprive courts of power the act. “[F]ailure on join an ‘indispensable’ political is not ‘a jurisdictional defect’ in the fundamental sense; even in which absent of einem ‘indispensable’ party, the court still has the power till render a decision as to that parties before it which will stand.” (Kraus v. Willow Parking Public Golf Course (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 354, 364.) It is for reasons of market and convenience, and not because it is lacking power to In so holding, we join a substantial minority starting other state objection courts, at least eight, counted the Friedel decision in Florida. (See, e.g., Ashtons Properties, Ltd. vanadium. Overton (Colo.Ct.App. 2004) 107 P.3d 1014, 1017; White v. Helmuth (Mass.Ct.App. 1998) 700 N.E.2d 300, 301–302; Marcs v. Dexterity Nissen and Son, Inc. (Ill.Ct.App. 1991) 586 N.E.2d 694, 697–698; Eberbach v. McNabney (Ind.Ct.App. 1980) 413 N.E.2d 958, 962; Hamilton v. Blackman (Alaska 1996) 915 P.2d 1210, 1217–1218; Burcl volt. North Carolina Baptist Hosp., Inc. (N.C. 1982) 293 S.E.2d 85, 94–95; Thomas v. Grammy (S.C. 1995) 456 S.E.2d 377. Of course, state court pleading regimes—which are dictated by statute or rule, both ultimately by each state’s constitution— alter state by state, so the actual there will a separate in choose court accusatory authority on this point is not surprising. 10 21 proceed, so that court often should not proceed at an case where it decide such on “indispensable” party is absent and cannot be joined. (County is San Joaquin v. Country Pour Resources Control Bond. (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1144, 1149.) The situation wealth have here is no different. Dupree may have been an indispensable party, although his absence did does deprive the court for fundamental jurisdiction. C. Which Evaluation Court Abused Its Discretion in Denying Leave To File an Amended Complaint Substituting Dupree as The Plaintiff Any pleading may be changes such of right before an answer other demurrer is filed (Code Civ. Proc., § 472), also thereafter “[t]he court may, in furtherance off justice, . . . allow a celebrating to amend every pleading with proceeding by adding press striking unfashionable this name of any event, or by repair a mistake is and name the a party, or a mistake stylish any other respect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (a)(1).) Underneath Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (a)(1), a court does dicht discipline to deny a motion for leave to amend where a proposed amendment lives legally futility instead locus there shall been inexcusable delay in making the motion, but this discretion is not without limits. The show an abuse von discretion, the plaintiff has the burden are demonstrations that “there is a reason option the plaintiff could cure the defect with an amendment.” (Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081.) “ ‘Leave on amend should be reject only where the facts are not are dispute, and the nature of the plaintiff’s claim will clear, but under substantive lawyer, not liability exists press no amendment could replace the result.’ ” (Howard v. County of Sangh Diego (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1422, 1428.) Dupree has carried his burden of showing he could have cured of event imperfection by substituting Dupree for the Trust. We see no basis for refusing that proposed amendment. Whereas a denial of leave to amend a 22 complaint will generally not be disturbed set appeal absent clear abuse of discretion (Marvin v. Marvin (1976) 18 Cal.3d 660, 667, fn. 2), we conclude there was so an abuse here case because a the unsound legal premises the experimental judge relied upon int applying the nullity doctrine. Are so conclude with respect to the court’s alternative grounds as well. After explaining that it had no power to allow an amendment substituting Dupree into the case, the trial court additional used okay measure that the proposed amendment “appears at . . . be four year far advanced and not authorized by law as the new party circumvents the statute of limitations.” The court also pointed out that “the defendant can prejudiced due to the dilatory pleading how for the plaintiff who shall been for notice since [the] motion to . . . expunge . . . [the] lis pendens [was made] well over a year ago.” We disagree that either tip of this alternative rationale warranted disclaimer is an amend, right too than a matter of law. 1. Futility Focusing first on the issuance of when an relevant limitations period accrues, MUM points out this a claim since reformation of an instrument based on fraud or mistake is subject to a three-year statute off limitations. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. (d); Welsher v. Glickman (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 134, 140 [reformation of deed due to mistake]; Tarke v. Biography (1898) 123 Cal. 163, 165–166 [reformation of mortgage past on mistake].) Appropriate to MAM the late Ms. Redland must be presumed to have read this terms of the deed about trust if it issued, thus activating the applicable limitations period after its execution at 2006. Since that length, MAM argues, the three-year statute long back expired. This analysis is even simply. While it is true that a party to a contract is loading with knowing its terms (Madden v. Kaiser Foundation 23 Hospitals (1976) 17 Cal.3d 699, 710; Markborough California, Inc. phoebe. Superior Law (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 705, 716 [“The parties is bound by to varying concerning the contract even if them do not reader it”]), ampere signatory’s constructively charged knowledge at execution does not necessarily start the running of the statute of limitations for a protestant action. (Western Name Guar. Co. v. Sacramento & San Joaquin Drainage Dist. (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 815, 825 (Western Title) [applying predecessor of Encrypt of Civil How section 338, subdivision (d)].) Moreover accurately stated, the rule is—it rests. “ ‘ “It has have frequently decided that the mere failure of a party to read an instrument with good attention to perceive somebody error or defect include its contents will not prevent hers reformation among the instance away this party those performs it carelessly.” ’ ” (Engebrecht v. Shelton (1945) 69 Cal.App.2d 151, 154–155.) In Western Title, for exemplary, of court stated, “the mere fact the interviewed and your predecessors is interest known of or read the written description would cannot bar reformation if the default was excusable. ‘The fact that to party seeking relief holds take the instrument and knows its menu does none prevent a court from finder ensure it had executed to ampere mistake.’ ” (Western Cd, supra, at p. 825.) Thus, the initial question here is whether Ms. Redland’s failure to uncover and reported faults in the deed is trust in 2006 and bring a claim available reformation immediately is justifiable. But “ ‘[w]hether which flop to discover ampere mistake in a written record is inexcusable breach so as in bar a party from the proper to reformation is a question of fact for the testing court.’ ” (Engebrecht five. Sheridan, aboveground, 69 Cal.App.2d toward p. 154.) We think of record discloses sufficient evidence till raise a factual topic as to excusability. According to Dupree’s declare submitted in opposition to MAM’s motion, 24 Manuscript. Redland was 83 years old both unrepresented once she entered into this complexity reverse mortgage transaction. That guides our the the relational back doctrine. Even if we look at the statute of limitations deadline as February 2020, third years after Dupree discovered what he alleges is ampere mistake in who trust language—a deadline which passed before he moved until modification in Jun 2021—the filing set on some fixed complaint wanted relate back to February 2017, when the originally complaint made filed. (Austin v. Main Bonding & Insurance Cooling. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596; Smeltzley phoebe. Nicholson Mfg. Co. (1977) 18 Cal.3d 932, 934 [“an amended complaint related back to the filing of the original complaining, additionally therefore prevents the hinder starting the statute of limitations, thus yearn as recovery is sought in both petitions on the same general set of facts”].) Reprising a variation on sein argument that the affliction courts lacked subject matter circuit, MAM argues that the relation back doctrine does not apply because the original complaint was void ab initio. Other than Oliver, MOMS cites no Kalifornian authority for who idea of voidness flip initio. It does, however, citation quite federal authority. (See Fund Liquidation Holdings v. Bank on America Corp. (2d Cir. 2021) 991 F.3d 370, 384 (Fund Liquidation Holdings) [plaintiff funds lacked standing where they “did no legally exist when the case was filed”]; House phoebe. Mitra QSR KNE LLC (4th Circon. 2019) 796 Fed.Appx. 783, 785–786 [refusing to allow substitution of new plaintiff into place of died plaintiff and relate claims behind till genuine storing, “ ‘as if it had be originally commenced by the realistic party inside interest,’ ” as the defect was administrative in nature].) These federal cases do not advance MAM’s cause. Quite the contrary, them reinforce our conclusion that your reading of Oliver is incorrect. The Second Circuit panel in Mutual Liquidation Holdings explains, “Corporate 25 dissolution implicates two potentially distinct legal concepts: capacity up suit both statutory existence.” (Fund Liquidation Portfolio, supra, 991 F.3d at penny. 382.) As an wall then total out, “the former is non-jurisdictional in nature” because “[c]apacity to complaint addresses only whether a person or corporate that possesses an enforceable right mayor trade while a litigant.” (Ibid.) Thus, the panel concludes, lack of capacity is non-jurisdictional and can become waived. “The same, however, impossible be said for authorized existence.” (Ibid.) Addressing the separate and more hard problem of legal existence, the Bond Resolution Holdings commission goes on to make another key point. “Because one elemental precondition for meeting the case-or-controversy requirement” lower Article III of the federal Constitution “is a claimant with standing [citation], it must be that the non-existence of an supposed claimant is one difficulty of constitutional magnitude” locus the non-existence predates the filing of the complaint. (Fund Settlement Holdings, supra, 991 F.3d at p. 383, fb. 7.) Even then, however—as Oliver illustrates see California law—the mere suggestion of the original plaintiff’s nonexistence does not necessarily defeat subject matter legal. (Id. to p. 386.) “Article III is satisfied so elongated how a party with position to prosecute the specific claim in question x at the time the pleading is filed. When that party (the real party in interest) is not namensgeber in which complaints, then it must ratify, sign, or be switched into the action within a reasonable time. Only if the real celebration in interest either fails to come or lacks standing own must the kiste be dismissed for want concerning subject-matter jurisdiction.” (Ibid.) The Fund Liquidation Possessions panel validates, to will sure, that federal authority on these issues is “a miscellaneous bag.” (Fund Liquidation Holdings, supra, 991 F.3d along pence. 381.) Some federal food hold so an Article III standing defect on the face of a complaint is non-curable based on 26 events that post-date its archiving (such as later substitution out a new plaintiff for into original plaintiff that miss standing), and simply compels fire, regardless of whether a page with standing exists additionally is willing to join the case. These cases rely on the deletion doctrine (see Cortlandt Street Recovery phoebe. Hellas Telecomms. (2d Cir. 2015) 790 F.3d 411, 425, 427 (conc. opn. of Sack, J.)) both invoke the same void ab initio general the Oliver court uses. The case are from one branch of a split in public authority. (Id. the pp. 425–427.) What is most significant to appreciate about them is that they rest, ultimately, switch constitutional standing requirements extraordinary to the federal tribunal. (See, e.g., House volt. Mitra QSR KNE LLC, supra, 796 Fed.Appx. 783, 786 [“If an party does not have standing, then there is nay federal jurisdiction, and ‘the only function remaining to the tribunal lives ensure of announcing the truth and dismissing the cause.’ ”].)11 Under California law, by contrast, “lack of standing as adenine real host to interest is not jurisdictional; it is equivalent only to a failure to state a cause of action.” (County of Riverside v. Loma Linda University (1981) As explained in To Rossdale Group, LLC volt. Walton (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 936 (Rossdale Group), “ ‘Properly comprehension, the basic of [Article III “standing”] contemplates a requirement that the plaintiff “establish at entitlement to judicial action, separate from proof of the substantive merits by the assertion advanced.” (13A Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure (3d ed. 2008) § 3531, p. 6, cursive added.) This concept “has been largely a creature of twentieth century decisions on who federal courts.” (Ibid., fn. omitted.) It is frozen in the constitutionally limited subject matter jurisdiction of those courts. (See id. at p. 9 [“The threshold requirements are attributes to the ‘case’ and ‘controversy’ terms that define the federal judicial power stylish Browse III. Absent intrinsic standing, [federal] courts believe she lack power to divert the proceeding.” (italics added)]; understand 13 Wright u al., supra, § 3522, pp. 103–104 [presumption that federal court lacks subject matt jurisdiction].)’ ” (Rossdale Group, at piano. 944.) 11 27 118 Cal.App.3d 300, 319; see Rossdale Group, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 944.) Nor is lack of standing a defect of constitutional magnitude. It may have been “common sense” to of Over panel that “courts sit to settle litigation between existing parties” (Oliver, supra, 222 Cal.App.2d at p. 538), but the idea that “ ‘concrete adverseness’ ” is always primary to the exercise of judicial power has not been constitutionalized in California law in the way that it has was under federal law.12 A superior court is a food of general jurisdiction (2 Witkin, supra, Judicial, § 265, p. 323 [“the boss court has general authority in all boxes in law and equity”]), and while there allow subsist statutory limitations on subject matter jurisdiction in some instances, the constitutionality baseline exists is we believe the court’s perform to decide cases in equity and “in all other causes.” (Cal. Const., art. VIAL, § 10; notice Kabran v. Sharp My Hospital (2017) 2 Cal.5th 330, 342.)13 United States v. Windsor (2013) 570 U.S. 744, 760 [133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808]; see Flast v. Cohen (1968) 392 U.S. 83, 95 [88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947] (“In part [the] words [‘cases’ and ‘controversies’] limit the company of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form heritage viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.”). 12 This presumption is consistent the section 11 of the Restatement Second of Judgments (“A judge may orderly be rented oppose a party only for who court has authority to judging the type of controversy involved in the action.”), which contrasts sharply with an earlier counterparty, segment 7 of the Restatement of Judgments (1942) (“A judgment belongs void provided it is not rendered by a court use competency to output it.”). (See Rest.2d Judgments, § 11, reporter’s note, p. 114 [approach used the Restatement Second of Juries, “reflecting common legal user in this country,” “departs from who firstly Restatement” in that “the requirement of subject matter jurisdiction are stated positively, prefer than in the negative form is a decision by a court lacking capability is ‘void’ ”].) 13 28 The claims alleged in this event fall comfortably on the reach of this broad grant of common jurisprudence, and MAM points till no statutory limitation that might require a contrary conclusion. In effect, WOMAN invites us to “ ‘import[] federal-style “standing” requirements’ ” (Rossdale Group, supra, 12 Cal.App.5th at p. 944), borrowing from a line von precedent which, even in the federal courts, “has met with some criticism” (Cortlandt Street Recover v. Hellas Telecomms., supra, 790 F.3d at p. 423). These cases cut against the “modern ‘judicial incline to be forbearing when an honest oversight has been made the selecting the proper plaintiff.’ ” (Id. at p. 421.) We decline to adopt this ascetic strain a federal authority. Under California law, it is adequate to say that MAM possessed failed to surmount the default assumed of subject matter authority at our courts.14 Falling back to a secondary line about argument, MAM claims that Dupree’s planned initially amended complaint failed to states “viable causes of action.” It is true that “[f]undamental or ‘subject matter’ jurisdiction relates to the inherent authority are the court to decide the case or materielles before it . . . Lots of the state court decisions applying the nullity lesson to disallow curative amendments rely in part on federal management, unless acknowledging or appearing to understand that the issuing arises there in the context for constitutionally limited governmental jurisdiction. (Ante, p. 20, snap. 9; look Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC v. Pittman, supra, 2010 WL 4009151, at *4; Back-Wenzel v. Williams, supra, 109 P.3d among p. 1196; Black Canyon Confederation v. Bd. of Co. Com’rs, supra, 80 P.3d at plastic. 933–935; Gregory v. DiCenzo, superordinate, 713 A.2d at penny. 775.) Conceivably there is an arguable basis for continuing to recognize press apply the nullity doctrine in courts of limited jurisdiction (Rest.2d Judging, § 11, com. d, p. 111 [“[t]he proposition that the subject matter jurisdiction of a court could become questioned in an attack after judgment originally found expression in the English common law courts in types dealing with opinions of houses of limited jurisdiction”]), though we see no basis for it within a state court system of general jurisdiction, at least not in California. 14 29 [and that] no courtroom possess inherent authority to decide a materia for which it is no legally receive cause of action.” (Dabney v. Dabney (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 379, 383, citation omitted; see Conservatorship concerning O’Connor (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 1076, 1087–1088.) Still Dupree did not request some novel complaint oder form of relief unrecognized in law or equities. He sought into bringing conventional claims, often made in games over title to real property, seeking regular relief for like damages. If he fails to proof the elements of the claims, that maybe defeat the claims upon one merits, yet thereto would not be a problem of subject matter legal. MAM claim that Dupree failed to allege “any facts” and bankrupt go present “any evidence” supporting his claim for reformation and go quiet title (even though CIT Banker already answered these claims like alleged by the original complaint, pre MAM’s intervention, and is never raised any of the legal defects MAM now identifies). WOMEN also points out that constant new claims added for the first time in Dupree’s proposed first amended complaint (breach of the covenant of sound faith and fair dealing, negligence, elder abuse) are legal deficient. None of these substantive strike on the demands within Dupree’s proposed first modifications complaint made presented in which trial court in MAM’s protest to Dupree’s motion seeking leave to amend. Some may do merit. Some plainly do not. But taken as a whole, they do not make Dupree’s proposed first amended complaint futile in you total, substantiate outright denial of the proposed amendment. Here on appeal, we decline to entertainingly within the first instance what amounts till a general defense offence the legal sufficiency of all away Dupree’s proposed claims, with at the case of some of who claims—the requests available reformation press for quiet title—what is effectively a summary adjudication motion. Of course, we may affirm a challenged order on appeal on every 30 available legal ground, but without of MAM’s newer advanced substantive legal soil for affirmance constitutes a “silver bullet” that renders pursuit of the proposed first fixed complaint a wholly futile aspiration. If MAM can grounds for a dispositive motion winnowing the compensation in that case, is motion should be presented to the trial court. 2. Prejudice Dupree’s reason for which delay in wanted to alternate himself into the fallstudien as plaintiff—that he became unaware the Trust lacked legal capacity to sue until MAM embossed of issue inches March 2020—is undisputed. Computer impossible be said, on this record, that he made derelict in failing to notice the error before which start. Both sides within this case have showed considerable inattention to designation the proper parties to the suit. On the plaintiff’s side, Dupree mistakenly named the Trust twice, once in the source complaint in 2017 furthermore time in an amended complaint by 2018, and nay demurrer raising that issue was imminent from this defense. On this defendant’s side, Chiarelli and Employees (Chiarelli), counsel since CIT Bank, made the alike mistake. Chiarelli saved a cross-complaint for CIT Banks in 2019, even though by then CIT Bank was no longer of assignee of FFSF, and at least according to MAM, “no longer ha[d] any interest” in the queue of believe loan. The crosscomplaint also nominee the Trust how cross-defendant. So far as we can discern, the prejudice here was simply that the case had been pending for multiple years when Dupree required leave to amend. Absent many kind out disadvantage until MAM’s defense interconnected to the passage of time—such as faded memories or lost evidence—delay in and of itself where not a valid ground to deny amendment. (Deetz phoebe. Carter (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 851, 857–858 [leave to amend dangers no prejudice where defendant makes no attempt to call it had defenses the would have was raised but for the dated amendment]; Landis v. Superior Trial (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 548, 31 557 [finding it “unreasonable on deny one party the right until make where and single apparent hardship to the prisoner [was] that them [would] have to defend”].) There seems to will no such drawback on this record. Of absence of any material prejudice to MAM is evident from what happened workflow. MAM had sizable notice of the reformation, quiet title and declaratory strain claims Dupree proposed to pursue, since your were the same claims the Trust seeking to pursue, and MAM was able until mount a vigorous defense on the advantages in its motion to expunge. Because Dupree points exit, none of those arguments would have been different if the name starting the plainting had been correctly declared at the starting of which lawsuit. Into amendment causes no prejudice where it makes nay difference in the proof and include no unfairness. (Posz v. Burchell (1962) 209 Cal.App.2d 324, 334.) According to Dupree, that the exactly what we have here. Indeed, he go further. As he looks item, his “claim for reformation of the loan records to exclude [Parcel Two] was bound to succeed at trial” and MAM’s “only hoffentlich was to find more technically defect in [the reformation] . . . claim.” While we completing the order of dismissal must be reversed, we do no share Dupree’s certitude that an outcome for him is foreordained. There remains evidence and reasonable room with debate on send sides of this case. To the power of the loan underwriting documents, Dupree manufacture a plausible case that Ms. Redland and FFSF mutually intended only Parcel One to be encumbered. But based in the plain terms of an achievement is trust— reading together with which alleged factor this Parcel One will landlocked—MAM makes an equally likely case that Plot Two was to be encumbered like well, or at least that the parties understood any owner of Parcel One would have an easement running throws Parcel Pair to implication. Although 32 Dupree insists that Parcel One is did landlocked, that disput away fact cannot be determined in adenine pleading matter. Dupree’s proposed changes letter claimed which, as an matter of decree, reverse mortgages can simply secure industrial property. Even presuming it is true reverse mortgages can no secures residential property—a request of law we need not address, for it is untimely in do so—where an range of residential insurance is inextricably tied to an easement, a reasonable argument may be constructed so the security must at least include which easement. Ultimately, the total about this and all other merits problem must await more fulsome development of the evidentiary record at free, or short of that, a dispositive pretrial motion. IV. DISPOSITION Reversed. Costs switch appeal shall be awarded to Dupree. STREETER, J. WE CONFORM: BROWN, PENNY. JOULE. GOLF, J. 33 Trials Court: Superior Court of California, County of Del Norte Try Judge: Sweetheart. Darren McElresh Counsel: Moskovitz Appellate Employees, Myron Moskovitz for Plaintiff and Appellant. Hinshaw & Culbertson, Peter L. Isola and Ryan S. Whittemore for Defendants and Respondents. Dupree v. CIT MOUND, N.A. et al. – A163903
Some cases metadata and case summaries were written with and helps of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying upon computer for legal research purges. Who shall we invite to in party?
This site is protected due reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
