The expedited procedural framework for unlawful detainer cases is necessary to prevent frustration of the summary proceedings by the introduction of delays and extraneous issues. See Vasey v. California Dance Co., (1977) 70 Cal. App. 3d 742, 747. Therefore, a UD under C.C.P. § 1161 will only be interrupted by consolidation with a civil action where complex issues of title exist. See Martin-Bragg, (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 367, 393; see also Mehr v. Superior Court, (1983) 139 Cal. App. 3d 1044, 1049; see also Asuncion v. Superior Court (1980), 108 Cal. App. 3d 141, 145.
In Martin-Bragg, a property owner filed an unlawful detainer action against a tenant for failure to pay rent. See Martin-Bragg supra, 219 Cal. App. 4th at 371. The tenant subsequently filed a civil quiet title action against the property owner, alleging that he was the true owner of the property, and that due to a complex personal relationship with the property owner “he had caused title to the property to be transferred to her, with the understanding that she would hold it in trust for him.” Id. at 372. The Court concluded that the complex issues of title raised by the tenant required a departure from the summary procedures of the unlawful detainer action. Id. at 395.
In Mehr, an unlawful detainer action was filed by the purchaser of a property at a trustee’s sale. See Mehr supra, 139 Cal. App. 3d at 1046. The defaulted borrowers filed a separate civil case, alleging that the foreclosure sale was void because the foreclosure trustee and its attorneys, along with others, conspired with the purchaser to obtain possession of the property by unlawful means. Id. at 1049-1050. The borrowers alleged that they were lulled into believing they could exercise their right of redemption on August 14, but the sale occurred without their knowledge on August 13, and the property was awarded to the sole bidder for an inadequate price. Id. at 1050. In ordering a writ of mandate granting the borrowers’ motion for stay of execution of the post-judgment writ of possession pending appeal, the Court ruled that the fact-intensive question of fraudulent acquisition of title was not fully litigated at the unlawful detainer trial. Id.
In Asuncion, a hard money lender paid off a delinquent second mortgage and other debts of two borrowers in exchange for a grant deed to the property, subject to a 45-day option for the borrowers to reacquire the property by executing a promissory note in favor of the lender on very unfavorable terms. See Asuncion supra, 108 Cal. App. 3d at 143-144. Upon the expiration of the option, the lender recorded the grant deed and immediately commenced unlawful detainer proceedings. Id. at 144. The borrowers filed a separate civil action seeking to quiet title and alleging fraud, usury, unfair business practices and truth in lending violations. Id. at 143. The Court found that the title issues raised by the borrowers were sufficient to merit either a stay of the eviction proceedings pending adjudication of the title issues, or consolidation of the actions. Id. at 146-147.
Thus, short of complex title issues raised as a defense to an unlawful detainer action, Evictions would likely not be consolidated with a civil action. If you are a landlord and are seeking to evict a tenant, contact one of our Los Angeles Eviction Attorneys today for a free consultation and case evaluation.