What Is a Quiet Title Action in California? (2024)

Definition

An action to quiet title is an action to establish one’s title against adverse claims to real or personal property or any interest therein. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, § 760.020.)

Element 1: Plaintiff’s Title or Property Interest

In a quiet title action, the plaintiff must prove his or her title in order to recover. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, § 761.020, subd. (b); Preciado v. Wilde (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 321.)

The complaint must state the plaintiff’s title as well as the basis of the title. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, § 761.020, subd. (b); Twain Harte Homeowners Ass’n v. Patterson (1982) 193 Cal.App.3d 184, 188 [plaintiff must allege an interest in the property].)

A complaint is sufficient if it alleges that the plaintiff is the owner and entitled to possession of the property. (Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank, N.A. (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 935.)

The holder of equitable title cannot maintain a quiet title action against the legal owner. (Lewis v. Superior Court (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1850, 1866.)

The plaintiff may allege an interest less than a fee interest in the estate, such as a leasehold. (Golden West Baseball Co. v. City of Anaheim (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 11, 50.)

Title conferred by occupancy is not a sufficient interest in real property to enable the occupant or the occupant’s privies to commence or maintain an action to quiet title unless the occupancy has ripened into title by prescription. (Cal. Civ. Code, § 1006.)

An easem*nt is a sufficient property interest to support an action to quiet title. (Twain Harte Homeowners Ass’n v. Patterson (1982) 193 Cal.App.3d 184, 188.)

The right of reentry on breach of a condition subsequent is a sufficient property interest to support a quiet title action. (Warren v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 24, 32-33.)

Plaintiff has the burden of proof and must stand on the strength of his or her own title, rather than on the weakness of defendant’s title. (Mandel v. Great Lakes Oil & Chemical Co. (1957) 150 Cal.App.2d 621, 626.)

Element 2: Defendant’s Adverse Claim

An element of a cause of action for quiet title is “the adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought.” (Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 1010; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, § 760.020, subd. (c).) An adverse claim includes any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or interest in property or cloud on title. (See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, § 760.010, subd. (a).)

The complaint must include the adverse claims to the plaintiff’s title against which a determination is sought. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, § 761.020, subd. (c).)

If the title is based on adverse possession, the complaint must allege the specific facts constituting the adverse possession. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, § 761.020, subd. (b).)

Allegations that “defendants claim an adverse interest in real property owned by plaintiff, that such claim was without right, and that defendants had no estate, title or interest in the property” were sufficient to state a quiet title action. (Ephraim v. Metropolitan Trust Co. (1946) 28 Cal.2d 824, 833.)

Remedies

Costs

Plaintiffs may be able to recover costs. (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code, §§ 1032, 761.030, subd. (b).)

Injunction

Injunction is available as an equitable remedy. (Mansfield v. Kaiser (1959) 176 Cal.App.2d 632, 637.)

Ejectment

A quiet title action is equitable in nature except when it takes on the character of an ejectment proceeding to recover possession of real property. (Aguayo v. Amaro (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1102.)

Punitive Damages

Punitive damages may be available. (Cal. Civ. Code, § 1294.)

Statute of Limitations

“It long has been the law that whether a statute of limitations bars an action toquiettitlemay turn on whetherthe plaintiff is in undisturbed possession of the land.” (Mayer v. L&B Real Estate(2008) 43 Cal.4th 1231, 1237.) The Legislature has not established a specific statute of limitations for actions to quiet title. (Muktarian v. Barmby (1965) 63 Cal.2d 558, 560.) Therefore, courts refer to the underlying theory of relief to determine the applicable period of limitations. (Ibid.; see 53 Cal.Jur.3d (2012) Quieting Title, § 34, pp. 412-413.) An inquiry into the underlying theory requires the court to identify the nature (i.e., the “gravamen”) of the cause of action. (Hensler v. City of Gendale (1994) 8 Cal.4th 1, 22.)

Generally, the most likely time limits for a quiet title action are the five-year limitations period for adverse possession (claims involving adverse possession are subject to the five-year limitations period in sections 318, 319, 320 and 321); the four-year limitations period for the cancellation of an instrument (actions for cancellation of an instrument are subject to the four-year limitations period in the catchall provision of section 343 (Moss v. Moss (1942) 20 Cal.2d 640, 644-645.)); or the three-year limitations period for claims based on fraud and mistake (Section 338, subdivision (d) provides that a three-year limitation period applies to action “for relief on the ground of fraud or mistake.”)

Affirmative Defenses

Laches

In a quiet title action, the party in possession runs the risk that the doctrine of laches will bar his action to quiet title if his delay in brining action has prejudiced the claimant. (Huang v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th 431, 441.)

Equitable Estoppel

A valid claim ofequitableestoppelin a quiet title action consists of the following elements: (1) representation or concealment of material facts; (2) made with knowledge, actual or virtual, of the facts; (3) to a party ignorant, actually and permissibly, of the truth; (4) with the intention, actual or virtual, that the ignorant party act on it; and (5) that party was induced to act on it. (Nellie Gail Ranch Owners Assn. v. McMullin (2016) 4 Cal.App.5th 982, 998.)

Fraud

Fraud can be a defense in a quiet title action. (See Moss Estate Co. v. Adler (1953) 41 Cal.2d 581, 585.)