Case Number: BC49393    Hearing Date: September 08, 2014    Dept: 32

CASE NAME: Melvin Morris v. First Bethany Missionary Baptist Church
CASE NO.: BC549393
HEARING DATE: 09/08/14
DEPARTMENT: 32
CALENDAR NO.: 12
SUBJECT: (1) Motion to Quash; (2) Demurrer to Unlawful Detainer Complaint
MOVING PARTY: (1), (2) Defendant First Bethany Missionary Baptist Church
RESP. PARTY: (1), (2) Plaintiff Melvin Morris

COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING

Motion to Quash DENIED.

Demurrer to Unlawful Detainer Complaint OVERRULED.

Demurrer for Uncertainty OVERRULED.

BACKGROUND

This unlawful detainer case has a somewhat unusual background. The motion to quash and demurrers related to property which is located at 4921 South Figueroa Street in Los Angeles (the ”Property”) and which houses a church. It is clear from both the Complaint (paragraphs 6-8) and the opposition to the demurrers and motion that there have been disputes between the parties for the past five years over the Property, with both sides filing actions against the other and one case is presently on appeal. While in ruling on these motions the court relies only on the allegations of the complaint, it is clear from the opposition that the crux of the ongoing dispute is whether the legal description to the Property attached to the grant deed was switched, as alleged by Defendant, with the result, according to Defendant, that Plaintiff does not actually own the Property..

According to the complaint, Plaintiff purchased the Property from Defendant First Bethany Missionary Baptist Church on or about July 22, 2009. The parties have litigated ownership of the Property in two prior cases in this court, one of which is on appeal. With respect to the unlawful detainer, plaintiff alleges as follows. On May 20, 2014, Plaintiff caused to be personally served upon Church, by and through Pastor Gregory McClain, a written notice demanding that Church quit and deliver possession of the Property within Three (3) days after service of said notice on the grounds that Plaintiff is the owner of the Property. More than three (3) days has elapsed since the service of the Three (3) day notice upon Church, and Church has failed and refused to deliver up possession of the Property as required by said notice, and continues in possession of the Property without Plaintiffs permission or consent.

For the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motion to quash and overrules the demurrers.

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff’s Evidentiary Objections to Evidence Proffered in Support of Demurrer

(1) Entire Declaration of Gregory McClain – Sustained. Extrinsic evidence may not be considered in connection with a demurrer. (Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)

Motion to Quash

In the motion, Defendant contends that Plaintiff’s five-day summons was improper because Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of the incidental damages resulting from the alleged unlawful detainer.

The unlawful detainer “statute giving defendants only five days to respond (rather than the normal 30 days) applies only to summary (CCP § 1159 et seq.) proceedings for possession (unlawful detainer, forcible entry, or forcible detainer). [CCP § 1167] Therefore, if plaintiff pleads any cause of action other than unlawful detainer, forcible entry or forcible detainer, but serves a five-day summons, defendants may move to quash. The theory is defendants are entitled to a summons allowing 30 days to appear and defend.” (Rutter, Cal. Prac. Guide: Landlord-Tenant ¶ 8:156, citing Greene v. Municipal Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 446, 450.)

Because of the summary nature of the unlawful detainer proceedings, the subject matter that may be raised in such proceedings is limited. “California law holds ‘that possession is the principal subject of unlawful detainer actions and the entitlement of the plaintiff lessor to recover damages or rents therein is wholly dependent upon the lessor prevailing on the issue of unlawful detainer.’” (Hudec v. Robertson (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1156, 1163.) “An award of rent is only allowable if the unlawful detainer is based on the nonpayment of rent. [Citations.] Moreover, the award of damages for breaches of the lease occurring before the unlawful detainer and of ‘future damages’ for continued unlawful possession beyond the date of the judgment until such time as possession is returned to the landlord are not permitted in unlawful detainer.” (Ibid.)

Here, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant is a hold-over seller of the Property so that Plaintiff is entitled to the remedy of possession by an unlawful detainer action. Therefore, and as discussed further below for the demurrer, Plaintiff states a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

Defendant contends that Plaintiff improperly requests damages for rent. (See Mot. 4.) As indicated above, “an award of rent is only allowable if the unlawful detainer is based on the nonpayment of rent.” (Hudec, supra at 1163.) Here, Plaintiff does not allege a rental agreement with Defendant under which it would be entitled to rental damages. On the other hand, other cases state that “damages allowed in unlawful detainer proceedings are only those which result from the unlawful detention and accrue during that time,” which presumably could include fair rental value from a hold-over seller. (Vasey v. California Dance Co. (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 742, 748.) Also, although there is apparently a split of authority on the issue, some cases hold that any excessive damages claims would not subject an otherwise proper unlawful detainer complaint to motion to quash. (Rutter, Cal. Prac. Guide: Landlord-Tenant ¶ 8:164.) Rather, such damages claims may be addressed by motion to strike. (Ibid.) The Defendant did not persuasively show that the summons may be to quashed based on Plaintiff’s request for rental damages in the complaint. Any improper request for damages may be addressed in a motion to strike or at trial.

The motion is DENIED.

Demurrer

General Demurrer

A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the truth of its factual allegations or the plaintiff’s ability to prove those allegations. (Picton v. Anderson Union High Sch. Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726, 732.) The court must treat as true all of the complaint’s material factual allegations, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law. (Id. at 732-33.) The complaint is to be construed liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated. (Id. at 733.)

In the demurrer, Defendant contends that the complaint fails to allege that title has been duly perfected in Plaintiff. According to the complaint, on or about July 22, 2009, Plaintiff purchased the Property from Defendant First Bethany Missionary Baptist Church. Plaintiff alleges that he is the owner of the Property and he attaches a copy of a grant deed in support of that assertion. (Compl. ¶ 11, Exh. 1.) Based on these allegations, Plaintiff has given Defendant sufficient notice of his claim to title, i.e., he purchased the Property. While Defendant has sought to present evidence that Plaintiff’s title was improperly obtained, those facts do not appear in the complaint since they represent Defendant’s allegations on the underlying dispute. The demurrer is unpersuasive because it relies on extrinsic evidence outside the four corners of the pleadings in the declaration of Greg McClain. (See Ion Equip. Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 881.)

The demurrer is OVERRULED.

Demurrer for Uncertainty

Demurrers for uncertainty are strictly construed, because discovery can be used for clarification, and apply where defendants cannot reasonably determine what issues or claims are stated. (Khoury v. Maly’s of Cal., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616.) Defendant fails to show that the complaint is so uncertain that they cannot determine what issues are stated. Although Defendant argues that Plaintiff improperly used a five-day summons, that argument does not show any uncertainty in the complaint. (Dem. 5.) The demurrer for uncertainty is OVERRULED.