From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cruz v. Ocampo

Court of Appeal of California
Apr 23, 2009
No. B206265 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2009)

Opinion

B206265

4-23-2009

CHERRY O. CRUZ, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO T. OCAMPO, JR., Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Tredway, Lumsdaine & Doyle, Roy J. Jimenez and Pamela Tahim for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant. DesJardins & Panitz, Michael A. DesJardins and Eric A. Panitz for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent.

Not to be Published in the Official Reports


This action involves cross-claims by Cherry Cruz and Alejandro Ocampo, Jr., for quiet title to residential property (property) in Long Beach. Ocampo appeals from a judgment quieting title in Cruz, challenging the trial courts finding in its statement of decision that the statute of limitations on Cruzs complaint was tolled. We affirm the judgment because Ocampo fails to establish any prejudicial error.

BACKGROUND

We grant Ocampos motion to augment the record on appeal to include the trial exhibits.

Cruz and Ocampo are brother and sister who obtained title to the property in 1994 as joint tenants. At trial, Cruz and Ocampo, among others, testified and presented conflicting reasons as to why they held title to the property as joint tenants. Cruz testified that Ocampo was a "straw buyer" whose name and social security number were used to obtain a loan to purchase the property and that she was the one who paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance. Ocampo testified that he paid a portion of the mortgage and they intended that the property was to be co-owned by them as joint tenants. The trial court believed Cruzs version of events and quieted title in favor of Cruz, ruling in her favor on the complaint and cross-complaint. The trial court also rejected Ocampos assertion that Cruzs complaint was barred by the statute of limitations, finding that no statute of limitations ran against Cruz because she was in possession of the property.

DISCUSSION

We agree with Cruz that Ocampos brief fails to show that the evidence is insufficient to support the factual findings underpinning the statute of limitations ruling because his brief fails to discuss the evidence favorable to Cruz, which evidence the trial court found credible and which is discussed in the statement of decision. And the statute of limitations presents no bar to the complaint in this case because Cruz was a holder of legal title and Ocampo did not offer evidence to establish title by adverse possession. "[T]o start the statute [of limitations] running against the legal owner of the land, there must be an avowed claim of ownership by the party relying upon the statute and substantially all the elements essential to the establishment of title by adverse possession shown to exist. In the instant case, the claim by defendants of the running of the statute of limitations necessarily falls with the failure of the testimony to support their claim of title by adverse possession." (Wood v. Henley (1928) 88 Cal.App. 441, 460; Harrison v. Welch (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1096.)

Even assuming that the trial court erred in its ruling on the statute of limitations issue, Ocampo fails to show that such purported error was prejudicial. "`It is a fundamental principle of appellate jurisprudence in this state that a judgment will not be reversed unless it can be shown that a trial court error in the case affected the result. [Citation.]" (In re Marriage of Falcone & Fyke (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 814, 822.) Ocampo has not shown any prejudice.

Ocampos cross-complaint for quiet title and declaratory relief and Cruzs answer presented the same issues as the complaint. The trial court, in adjudicating the cross-complaint, was required to determine Ocampos title against the claims of Cruz and to "render judgment in accordance with the evidence and the law." (Code Civ. Proc., § 764.010.) Accordingly, the judgment in Cruzs favor on the cross-complaint "determines title as between the parties and protects [Cruz] against any claim of [Ocampo] as fully as would an affirmative decree in [her] favor." (Warden v. Stoll (1930) 210 Cal. 374, 377.) Thus, Ocampo fails to establish on appeal that, had the complaint been barred, a different judgment would have been rendered on his cross-complaint.

DISPOSITION

Defendant Alejandro T. Ocampo, Jr.s motion to augment the record is granted. The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff Cherry Cruz is entitled to costs on appeal.

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, J.

WEISBERG, J.


Summaries of

Cruz v. Ocampo

Court of Appeal of California
Apr 23, 2009
No. B206265 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2009)
Case details for

Cruz v. Ocampo

Case Details

Full title:CHERRY O. CRUZ, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO T…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Apr 23, 2009

Citations

No. B206265 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2009)