Carr v. RosienAnnotate this Case
John Carr filed a prior quiet title action against Earnest Ortiz and Anna Colón. In connection with that action, he recorded a lis pendens. However, he did not mail the lis pendens to either Ortiz or Colón; instead, he filed a declaration that their addresses were unknown. He also did not examine the county assessor's roll, which would have shown that Ortiz and Colón had a mailing address in Oceanside. While the prior action was pending, a deed was recorded transferring Colón's half of the property to Michael Lopez; a deed of trust was recorded encumbering what was now Lopez's half of the property to secure a loan from Rondo Resources, Inc. (Rondo). Thereafter, Carr won a judgment in the prior action, quieting title in him as against Ortiz and Colón. Carr then brought this new quiet title action against Lopez and Rondo (plus Rondo). Ortiz and Colón were not parties; under the judgment in the prior action, they no longer had any interest in the property. Moreover, there was no dispute over Ortiz's former half of the property; under the judgment in the prior action, Carr owned that half. The issue this case presented for the Court of Appeal's review centered on the dispute over Colón's former half of the property. Lopez and Rondo both argued that the lis pendens was void because it was not mailed to Colón's address, as shown on the assessor's roll. Carr argued that he did not have to mail the lis pendens to the address on the assessor's roll because that address was not valid and the lis pendens would not actually have reached Colón. The Court concluded that, under the applicable statutes, the lis pendens had to be mailed to Colón's address as shown on the assessor's roll, regardless of whether that address was actually valid; because this was not done, the lis pendens was void, not only as against Colón, but also as against Lopez and Rondo.