Opinion
G059169
04-23-2021
EBRAHIM DUEL, as Trustee etc., Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AMIR DOUNEL, Defendant and Appellant.
Lyle R. Mink for Defendant and Appellant. Berokim & Duel and Kousha Berokim for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01089291) OPINION Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Derek W. Hunt, Judge. Reversed. Lyle R. Mink for Defendant and Appellant. Berokim & Duel and Kousha Berokim for Plaintiff and Respondent.
* * *
Defendant Amir Dounel appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff Ebrahim Duel, as trustee of The Ebrahim Duel Revocable Trust and authorized agent for 3211 E. Mandeville LLC (collectively Duel), on Duel's claims for quiet title, cancellation of instrument, and injunctive relief. Dounel contends Duel is barred from asserting those claims in the instant action under the compulsory counterclaim rule of Code of Civil Procedure section 426.30, subdivision (a). As explained below, the claims in the instant action are subject to the compulsory counterclaim rule because they should have been brought in prior litigation between the parties in a related appeal (G058116). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment.
All further statutory citations are to the Code of Civil Procedure, unless otherwise designated. --------
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 1998, Ebrahim Duel purchased two properties in Santa Ana. In March 2010 and October 2012, the grant deeds were recorded granting Amir Dounel a partial interest in the two properties. In February 2013, Dounel filed a complaint alleging causes of action arising from a purported oral partnership agreement in the two properties. The complaint stated a cause of action for partition of real properties, alleging Dounel had legal title to the properties pursuant to the recorded grant deeds and that as a co-owner Duel was asserting a partition claim. The trial court dismissed Dounel's legal claims for dilatory prosecution, and held a court trial on the equitable claims, including the claim for partition of real properties. The trial court found Dounel failed to prove the existence of an oral partnership, and entered a judgment in favor of Duel on all claims. Dounel appealed.
While the appeal from the judgment on Dounel's complaint was pending, Duel filed the instant lawsuit seeking to cancel the recorded deeds granting Dounel partial interest in the properties. The amended complaint alleged that Duel transferred the properties to The Duel Family Limited Partnership in 2008. The complaint contended the recordings in 2010 and 2012 were ineffective as a result of the prior transfers of the properties to the family partnership in 2008.
Dounel demurred to the amended complaint, arguing, among other grounds, that the claims in the complaint were barred by the compulsory counterclaim rule of section 426.30, subdivision (a). The trial court overruled the demurrer. Following a court trial, the trial court found in favor of Duel on the cancellation claims, but denied the claims for quiet title and injunctive relief.
II
DISCUSSION
Dounel contends the trial court erred in overruling his demurrer to the amended complaint based on the compulsory counterclaim rule. In reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, "we examine the complaint de novo to determine whether it alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any legal theory, such facts being assumed true for this purpose." (McCall v. PacifiCare of Cal., Inc. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 412, 415.)
Section 426.30, subdivision (a), provides that "if a party against whom a complaint has been filed and served fails to allege in a cross-complaint any related cause of action which (at the time of serving his answer to the complaint) he has against the plaintiff, such party may not thereafter in any other action assert against the plaintiff the related cause of action not pleaded." The phrase "'[r]elated cause of action'" is defined as "a cause of action which arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges in his complaint." (§ 426.10, subd. (c).)
Here, the claims asserted in the instant action arose from the recordings of the grant deeds to the real properties. Duel sought to cancel those grant deeds. The same recordings, however, formed the basis for Dounel's standing to assert a partition claim in the related appeal. There, Dounel alleged he held legal title to the properties based on the recorded grant deeds, and asserted his right as a legal titleholder to partition the properties. Thus, the claims in this case are "'related cause[s] of action'" because they arise out of the same transactions or occurrences (the recordings of the grant deeds) as the partition claim in the prior action. In addition, Duel could have asserted the instant claims in 2013 because the recordings occurred in 2010 and 2012. Accordingly, Duel should have asserted these claims in the prior litigation, and he is barred from asserting them in this action under section 426.30, subdivision (a). The judgment must be reversed. We note, however, that our ruling in this action does not affect any valid finding or judgment on the partition claim in the related appeal.
III
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. Duel is entitled to his costs on appeal.
MOORE, ACTING P.J. WE CONCUR: THOMPSON, J. GOETHALS, J.