Legal Notice of a Lis Pendens Requires Mailing to All Owners on the Tax Assessor’s Roll

Legal Update, Real Estate Law, and Real Estate Titles

In 2001, John Carr (“Carr”) claimed adverse possession of a vacant lot (the “Property”) in Riverside. The owner of record was a decedent’s estate in probate. In 2003, a judgment was recorded transferring from the estate one half of the Property to Ernest Ortiz (“Ortiz”) and the other half to Anna Colón (“Colón”). In March 2004, Colón executed a deed conveying her half of the lot to Michael Lopez (“Lopez”). However, the deed to Lopez was not recorded until two years later, in October 2006.

In May 2006, Carr filed a quiet title action against Ortiz and Colón (but not against Lopez, as Lopez’s deed had not yet been recorded).  A few days after filing the lawsuit, Carr recorded a lis pendens against the lot. The lis pendens was not mailed to anybody. Instead, Carr’s attorney attached his own declaration to the effect that Ortiz and Colón had no known address.  However, as of the date of recordation of the lis pendens, the latest county assessment roll listed Ortiz and Colón as the owners, with a “care of” address for an attorney in Oceanside.

In August 2007, Lopez executed a deed of trust on the lot in favor of Rondo Resources (“Rondo”), a mortgagor, who recorded the deed two months later. In December 2007, a trial court entered judgment on the adverse possession lawsuit, quieting title to the lot in favor of Carr as against Ortiz, Colón, and purportedly Lopez. However Lopez had never been made a party to the prior action.

In 2011, Carr filed a second complaint to quiet title against Lopez and Rondo over Colón’s former half of the Property. Lopez and Rondo both argued that under CCP §405.22 and CCP §405.23 the lis pendens was void because it was not mailed to Colón’s address, as shown on the assessor’s roll. Carr argued that he did not have to mail the lis pendens to the address on the assessor’s roll because that address was not valid and the lis pendens would not actually have reached Colón. The trial court ruled against Carr in favor of all defendants, finding that Plaintiff Carr’s quiet title judgment does not bind Lopez because the lis pendens was void.

DECISION:

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s decision that the lis pendens was required to be mailed to the owner’s address as shown on the tax assessor’s roll, regardless of whether that address was actually valid. The Court determined that where this was not done, the lis pendens was void, not only as against one owner but also as to the owner’s transferees.

WHY THIS DECISION IS IMPORTANT:

The opinion expressly states what actions a claimant must take to provide valid notice of a lis pendens to a property owner. Defective notice of a lis pendens can be fatal to a claimant’s rights and the opinion clarifies the mailing requirements after recordation of a lis pendens.

COMMENT:

Interestingly, the Court particularly clarified the distinction between a “known” and “unknown” address. The Court stated that CCP §405.22 and CCP §405.23 favor the claimant because all the claimant has to do is mail the lis pendens to the address shown on the assessor’s roll; the claimant does not have to make the sure the address is valid. “If a properly addressed lis pendens is returned as undeliverable, that is not the claimant’s problem.”  It is immaterial under the statute that the owner’s address listed with the assessor is incorrect. Once the claimant does check the assessment roll, the owners’ addresses become “known”. If the address is unlisted in the assessment roll because it is unknown to the assessor, then and only then may the claimant satisfy its obligation to mail the lis pendens to that owner by submitting a declaration that the owner has no known address.

 

Carr v. Rosien 238 Cal App. 4th 845

Latest Posts

Marijuana & Real Estate

Navigating the Unstable World of Real Estate and Cannabis in California

by Ashlee D. Gonzales, Esq. on June 25, 2018

Marijuana legalization in California is here, but the fact that the substance is still considered illegal at the Federal level is causing some confusion and hardships for growers and sellers. Learn about how to navigate the unknown areas in attorney [more]

Legal Update, Real Estate Law

Recreational Pot In 2018: High-Times Or A Buzz-Kill For California Real Estate?

by Adam Pedersen, Esq. on November 29, 2017

California is set to roll out new guidelines implementing the voter-mandated legalization of recreational marijuana use and production in January of 2018.  At the same time, cities and counties are scrambling to implement their own regulations before the state rules [more]

Landlord/Tenant Disputes

Progress Report on Rent Control Initiatives in Silicon Valley

by Ashlee D. Gonzales, Esq. on November 21, 2017

Few topics have drawn more heated discussions throughout the Silicon Valley real estate industry than the ever-changing and increasing rent control efforts happening all across the region. From 2011 to 2016, the median wage in San Francisco, Santa Clara, and [more]

Leave a Reply