MOTION FOR DETERMINATION REGARDING NONPARTY

Calendar: 3
Case No: EC058926
Date: 2/28/14

MP: Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, Monica Kim
RP: Nonparty, Charley Kwang Jin Cha

RELIEF REQUESTED:
Order that nonparty, Charley Kwang Jin Cha, is bound by the judgment.

DISCUSSION:
This case arises from a dispute between sisters regarding the ownership of a parcel of real property. The Plaintiff, Monica Kim, alleges in her Complaint that she purchased the property from the Defendant, Juli Kim. The Defendant, Juli Kim, alleges in her Cross-Complaint, that there was no actual conveyance and that it was a nominal conveyance in order to obtain a loan.
The matter proceeded to a Court trial on November 25, 2013. On January 6, 2014, the Court found in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The Court found that the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the property and that the Defendant has no interest. Based on evidence that the Defendant has transferred her interest to Charley Kwang Jin Cha through a quitclaim deed, the Court directed the Plaintiff to file the pending motion to ensure that the judgment would be binding on Charley Kwang Jin Cha.
The Court has not entered a judgment.

At this hearing, the Plaintiff seeks an order that nonparty, Charley Kwang Jin Cha, is bound by the judgment on the ground that the Defendant transferred her one-half interest in the parcel of real property at issue through a quitclaim deed to Charley Kwang Jin Cha. The Plaintiff seeks relief under CCP section 1908(b).
Section 1908 identifies the effect of a judgment. Subsection(b) applies to nonparties to the litigation. Subsection (b) states that a person who is not a party but who controls an action, individually or in cooperation with others, is bound by the adjudications of litigated matters as if he were a party if he has a proprietary or financial interest in the judgment or in the determination of a question of fact or of a question of law with reference to the same subject matter or transaction; if the other party has notice of his participation, the other party is equally bound.
Section 1908(b) does not make a nonparty liable for damages and is not a procedure for amending a judgment. Instead, section 1908(b) codifies the principles of res judicata with respect to a nonparty, e.g., a decision regarding an interest in property.

Section 1908(b) creates a procedure for making a determination on whether a nonparty is bound by the judgment. It authorizes any party or nonparty to make a noticed motion to the Court, at any time prior to a final judgment, for a determination whether the judgment is binding upon a nonparty. Section 1908(b) provides that if appropriate, a judgment may be entered or ordered to be entered pursuant to such determination.

A review of the proof of service reveals that the Plaintiff served this motion and notice of this hearing on Charley Kwang Jin Cha.
The Plaintiff argues that the Court should find that Charley Kwang Jin Cha is bound by the judgment based on testimony by the Defendant that she had transferred her interest to Charley Kwang Jin Cha through a quitclaim deed for no consideration because she and Charley Kwang Jin Cha are in a romantic relationship. The Plaintiff’s attorney, Jerry Kay, states in paragraph 8 of his declaration that Charley Kwang Jin Cha, appeared in Court, but did not testify. Further, Mr. Kay states that Charley Kwang Jin Cha stated that he would sign a quitclaim deed concerning the property.
Based on this testimony, the Plaintiff requested Charley Kwang Jin Cha to sign a quitclaim to release the property to the Plaintiff (see copy of quitclaim in exhibit D to moving papers). In addition, the Plaintiff filed this motion at the request of the Court to obtain a determination that Charley Kwang Jin Cha is bound by the finding in the judgment that the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the property.
As noted above, section 1908(b) states that a person who is not a party is bound by the adjudications of litigated matters as if he were a party if he has a proprietary interest in the judgment, if he has notice. Here, Charley Kwang Jin Cha has a proprietary interest in the parcel of real property at issue in this litigation. Further, Charley Kwang Jin Cha had notice of the action because he appeared in the Court and made a statement about signing a quitclaim deed regarding the property.

Charley Kwang Jin Cha filed an opposition to claim that he was a bona fide purchaser of the property. Mr. Cha provides facts in a declaration to demonstrate that he made an oral agreement to purchase a 50% interest in the property by making payments to support the Defendant and her children. Since this was an agreement for the purchase of an interest in real property, it comes within the statute of frauds and it is not an enforceable agreement unless it is in writing. Civil Code section 1624(a)(3). Mr. Cha offers no evidence of a written agreement between himself and the Defendant.
Accordingly, Charley Kwang Jin Cha¿s evidence does not offer proof of a legally enforceable agreement to purchase the real property. Instead, the evidence offered at Court was that the Defendant transferred the interest to Charley Kwang Jin Cha for no consideration. Since Charley Cha has not offered evidence of a legally enforceable agreement to purchase the property, Charley Cha is not a bona fide purchaser of a 50% interest in the property.

Charley Kwang Jin Cha also argues that he did not receive notice of that this case involved a claim against the property. However, Charley Cha admits that he knew about the lawsuit and that he appeared at the trial to testify.
Further, the Plaintiff recorded a notice of lis pendens on the property. The notice of lis pendens was not served on Charley Kwang Jin Cha because the Defendant transferred the 50% interest to him after the commencement of the trial.

However, Civil Code section 1213 establishes that each subsequent purchaser is deemed to have constructive notice of documents recorded on the property. Since the lis pendens was recorded on the property, Charley Cha, who claims he was a subsequent purchaser, had constructive notice that this action was a real property claim against the property. Accordingly, he had constructive notice of the lis pendens and notice of the real property claim because it was recorded on the property that he purchased.

Therefore, Mr. Cha has not offered any evidence to dispute that he had notice of this case. As noted above, the evidence offered at trial established that Charley Kwang Jin Cha obtained his interest in the real property from the Defendant under a quitclaim deed for which he paid no pecuniary consideration. Since the Court has found that the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the property, the Defendant had no right to transfer any interest in the real property. Accordingly, the Court will make a determination that Charley Kwang Jin Cha is bound by the Court’s judgment that the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the property.

Therefore, the Court will grant the Plaintiff’s motion and make the requested determination that the nonparty, Charley Kwang Jin Cha, is bound by the Court’s judgment that the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the property.

RULING:
GRANT motion and make determination under CCP section 1908(b) that Charley Kwang Jin Cha is bound by the Court’s judgment that the Plaintiff is the sole owner of the property.