Lisana Meade v. Jules Helm et al, No. 2:2020cv08839 - Document 38 (C.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 16 AND PLAINTIFF'SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (SEE DOCUMENT FOR SPECIFICS) 17 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Lisana Meade v. Jules Helm et al Doc. 38 O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court Central District of California 9 10 11 Case 2:20-cv-08839-ODW (JEMx) LISANA MEADE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 JULES HELM, 15 Defendant. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [16] AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17] 16 I. 17 INTRODUCTION 18 On July 31, 2020, Plaintiff Lisana Meade initiated this action in state court, 19 seeking partition and an accounting for real property she allegedly co-owns with 20 Defendant Jules Helm. (Notice Removal (“NOR”), Ex. A (“Compl.”); ECF No. 1.) 21 On September 25, 2020, Helm removed the action to this Court. (See NOR.) Now, by 22 way of two fully briefed Motions, Helm and Meade each move for summary 23 judgment.1 For the following reasons, the Court DENIES both Motions.2 24 25 26 27 28 1 (See Def.’s Notice Mot., ECF No. 16; Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Helm Mot.”), ECF No. 16-1; Pl.’s Opp’n Helm Mot. (“Opp’n Helm Mot.), ECF No. 20; Def.’s Reply Helm Mot. (“Reply Helm Mot.”), ECF No. 23; Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Meade Mot.”), ECF No. 17; Def.’s Opp’n Meade Mot. (“Opp’n Meade Mot.”), ECF No. 19; Pl.’s Reply Meade Mot. (“Reply Meade Mot.”), ECF No. 24.) 2 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Dockets.Justia.com II. 1 BACKGROUND 2 Unless otherwise noted, the following allegations and facts are undisputed. In 3 1997, Jules and Helm were married. (Pl.’s Statement Genuine Issues Material Fact 4 (“Meade SGI”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 20-2.) In 1999, Helm and Jules acquired, in both of 5 their names, the real property located at 4139 Cahuenga Boulevard, Unit 107, Toluca 6 Lake, California (the “Property”). (Id. ¶ 3.) 7 By November 1999, the parties had separated and were in the process of 8 divorcing. (Meade SGI ¶¶ 4, 5.) During this time, Helm asked Meade to sign a 9 quitclaim deed to the Property. (Id. ¶ 5.) Helm asserts that, in 2000, Meade signed 10 and delivered the quitclaim deed to the Property, which Helm still maintains in his 11 possession. 12 No. 16-4; Def.’s Notice Errata Ex. 2 (“Helm Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. A (“Deed”), ECF 13 No. 18.) However, Meade argues that she returned the Deed to Helm unsigned, and 14 that the signature on the Deed is a forgery. (Decl. Lisana Meade (“Meade Decl.”) ¶¶ 15 5, 8, ECF No. 20-1.) (Def.’s Statement Uncontroverted Facts (“Helm SUF”) ¶ 6, ECF 16 Meade originally initiated this action in state court, seeking a partition for the 17 sale of the Property and a split of the proceeds, and accounting for the rents received 18 from third party tenants of the Property; Helm removed the action to this Court. (See 19 generally Compl.; NOR.) Helm now seeks summary judgment as to Meade’s claims, 20 arguing that, based on the Deed, she has no ownership interest in the Property and, 21 alternatively, that her claims are barred by the statute of limitations. (Helm Mot. 5– 22 11.) Meade also moves for summary judgment, arguing that as a co-owner of the 23 Property, she is entitled to partition by sale of the Property. (Meade Mot. 5–6.) For 24 the following reasons, the Court DENIES Helm’s and Meade’s Motions. 25 III. LEGAL STANDARD 26 A court “shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no 27 genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 28 matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The burden of establishing the absence of a 2 1 genuine issue of material fact lies with the moving party, see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 2 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986), and the court must view the facts and draw reasonable 3 inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, Scott v. Harris, 4 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007); Addisu v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 5 2000). A disputed fact is “material” where the resolution of that fact might affect the 6 outcome of the suit under the governing law, and the dispute is “genuine” where “the 7 evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving 8 party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Conclusory or 9 speculative testimony in affidavits is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and 10 defeat summary judgment. Thornhill Publ’g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 11 (9th Cir. 1979). Moreover, though the Court may not weigh conflicting evidence or 12 make credibility determinations, there must be more than a mere scintilla of 13 contradictory evidence to survive summary judgment. Addisu, 198 F.3d at 1134. 14 Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party cannot simply 15 rest on the pleadings or argue that any disagreement or “metaphysical doubt” about a 16 material issue of fact precludes summary judgment. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322–23; 17 Matsushita Elec. Indus. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986); Cal. 18 Architectural Bldg. Prods., Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1468 19 (9th Cir. 1987). A “non-moving party must show that there are ‘genuine factual issues 20 that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be 21 resolved in favor of either party.’” Cal. Architectural Bldg. Prods., 818 F.2d at 1468 22 (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 250). “[I]f the factual context makes the non-moving 23 party’s claim implausible, that party must come forward with more persuasive 24 evidence than would otherwise be necessary to show that there is a genuine issue for 25 trial.” Id. (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus., 475 U.S. at 586–87). “[U]ncorroborated 26 and self-serving” testimony will not create a genuine issue of material fact. Villiarimo 27 v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002). The court should grant 28 summary judgment against a party who fails to demonstrate facts sufficient to 3 1 establish an element essential to his case when that party will ultimately bear the 2 burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322. 3 When parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, the court “evaluate[s] 4 each motion separately, giving the nonmoving party in each instance the benefit of all 5 reasonable inferences.” A.C.L.U. of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 790–91 6 (9th Cir. 2006). In evaluating the motions, “the court must consider each party’s 7 evidence, regardless under which motion the evidence is offered.” Las Vegas Sands, 8 LLC v. Nehme, 632 F.3d 526, 532 (9th Cir. 2011); Fair Hous. Council of Riverside 9 Cnty., Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1134 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he court must 10 consider the appropriate evidentiary material identified and submitted in support of 11 both motions, and in opposition to both motions, before ruling on each of them.”). To 12 avoid errors such as the application of the wrong presumption or burden to a party’s 13 showing, the Court first analyzes the Helm’s Motion, followed by Meade’s Motion. IV. 14 EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS 15 The parties raise numerous objections to evidence presented in the various 16 filings. (See Pl.’s Obj. Helm Mot. (“Meade First Obj.”), ECF No 20-3; Def.’s Obj. 17 Opp’n Helm Mot. (“Helm Obj.”), ECF No. 23-1; Pl.’s Obj. Opp’n Meade Mot. 18 (“Meade Second Obj.”), ECF No. 24-1.) First, Meade objects to Helm’s copy of the 19 Deed, arguing that it lacks authentication and foundation. (Meade First Obj. 1–2, 20 Meade Second Obj 1–2.) However, Helm does provide authentication and foundation 21 for the copy of the Deed by testifying that it is a true and correct copy of the quitclaim 22 deed Helm received in the mail from Meade, and that Helm recognizes Meade’s 23 signature on the Deed as her own because Helm acquired familiarity with Meade’s 24 signature after observing her signing numerous documents during their marriage. 25 (Helm Decl. ¶ 9.) 26 finding that the item is what [he] claims it is,” which is the quitclaim deed Helm 27 received in the mail bearing what Helm believes is Meade’s signature. Fed. R. Civ. 28 Pro. 901(a); see id. 901(b)(1), (2). Accordingly, Helm offered “evidence sufficient to support a Thus, the Court OVERRULES Meade’s 4 1 objections and considers the Deed in analyzing the Motions. Whether Meade indeed 2 affixed her signature on the Deed—or whether it was affixed by forgery—remains a 3 disputed issue of fact. 4 Additionally, Helm objects to the statements Meade makes in her declaration 5 regarding Helm’s behavior at various times. (Helm Obj. 2.) However, the objected 6 evidence is unnecessary to the resolution of the Motions. Thus, the Court need not 7 and does not resolve those objections here. See Burch v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 433 8 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1122 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (proceeding with only necessary rulings on 9 evidentiary objections). V. 10 11 12 13 DISCUSSION The Court denies both Helm’s and Meade’s Motions because there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to Meade’s ownership interest in the Property. A. Helm’s Motion 14 In his Motion, Helm asserts that he is entitled to summary judgment because 15 Meade has no ownership interest in the Property, or alternatively, that Meade’s 16 partition claim is barred by the statute of limitations. (Helm Mot. 8, 10.) Helm 17 further argues Meade’s accounting claim must be dismissed as it is dependent on the 18 partition claim. (Id. at 10–11.) As explained below, the Court denies Helm’s Motion 19 on both alternative bases because the Court finds there is a genuine dispute of material 20 fact as to whether Meade has retained an ownership interest in the Property. 21 22 1. Meade’s Ownership Interest in the Property is a Material Fact in Genuine Dispute 23 Helm argues that Meade has no ownership interest in the Property because 24 Meade sent him the signed Deed, which was valid upon delivery. (Id. 8–9.) Meade 25 opposes this contention by arguing that the signature on the Deed is not her own and 26 instead is a forgery. (Opp’n Helm Mot. 4.) 27 In the context of instruments conveying real property interests, “a forged 28 document is void ab initio and constitutes a nullity; as such it cannot provide the basis 5 1 for a superior title as against the original grantor.” People v. Schmidt, 41 Cal. App. 2 5th 1042, 1058 (2019) (quoting Wutzke v. Bill Reid Painting Serv., Inc. (1984) 3 151 Cal. App. 3d 36, 43); City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 105 Cal. App. 2d 726, 733 4 (1951) (“An instrument that is void ab initio is comparable to a blank piece of 5 paper.”). Thus, “a deed altered without authority before delivery or recording or a 6 deed procured by fraud in the inception . . . is void and conveys no title to the 7 grantee.” Schmidt, 41 Cal. App. 5th at 1058 (citations omitted). Accordingly, if the 8 signature on the Deed is in fact a forgery, then Meade did not convey, and therefore 9 may still possess, her ownership interest in the Property. 10 Whether the signature on the Deed is authentic or a forgery, is a material fact 11 that the parties dispute. In support of his contention that the signature on the Deed is 12 authentic, Helm provides his declaration testimony that he received from Meade the 13 signed Deed in the mail and still has the original signed Deed in his possession and 14 provides a copy as evidence. (Helm Decl. ¶¶ 8, 9.) Helm declares that he recognizes 15 Meade’s signature on the Deed as her own because he became familiar with Meade’s 16 signature after witnessing her sign “many documents” during their marriage. (Id. ¶ 9.) 17 Helm also offers a copy of the parties’ divorce petition “to show an example of 18 [Meade’s] signature.” (Id. ¶ 7; see id., Ex. B.) In support of his contention that 19 Meade intended to sign the Deed, Helm also declares that he used his inheritance to 20 purchase the Property and that Meade did not financially contribute to the purchase 21 and accordingly, when Helm asked Meade to quitclaim her interest in the Property, 22 she told Helm “without hesitation” that she would do so. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 5.) Helm also 23 states that since their divorce, he maintained the Property alone—finding tenants, 24 overseeing the collection of rent, paying all property taxes and maintenance costs— 25 without Meade’s involvement. (Id. ¶ 10.) Helm asserts that until the initiation of this 26 action, Helm and Meade had “no communications whatsoever” regarding the Property 27 and Meade never disputed Helm’s sole ownership of the Property. (Id. ¶ 11.) 28 6 1 To show that the signature on the Deed is not her own, Meade offers her own 2 declaration testimony that she returned the Deed to Helm unsigned. (Meade Decl. 3 ¶ 5.) Specifically, Meade states, “In 2000, Defendant sent me a packet of documents 4 including the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage and a quitclaim deed for the 5 Property and requesting that I sign them. I returned all of the papers, signing the 6 divorce Petition but returned the quitclaim deed to him unsigned.” (Id.) Meade 7 declares that she never promised to, and never did, transfer her interest in the Property 8 to anyone and never signed the Deed or any quitclaim deed to the Property. (Id. ¶¶ 5, 9 7.) Meade states that the signature appearing on the Deed—which appears to include 10 the last name “Helm”—is a forgery and during her marriage, she never used the last 11 name “Helm.” (Id. ¶ 8.) In further support of the contention that she did not use the 12 “Helm” last name, Meade also asserts that her driver’s license and passport at the time 13 reflected that her last name was Meade, not Helm. (Id.) As evidence that Meade 14 never intended to sign the Deed, Meade declares that she contributed to the original 15 purchase of the Property with her own funds and she was unaware Helm held out the 16 Property as his own and “always asserted that she is a one half owner of the Property.” 17 (Id. ¶¶ 3, 9.) 18 Because both parties offer contradictory evidence regarding the authenticity of 19 the signature on the Deed, this factual issue is in genuine dispute. And because the 20 Court must determine the signature’s authenticity to determine whether Meade still 21 retains an ownership interest in the Property, this factual issue is material. 22 Accordingly, there is a genuine dispute as to a material fact and the Court cannot grant 23 summary judgment for Helm based on Meade’s lack of ownership interest. See 24 Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Atkinson, No. 11-CV-05299-RBL, 2012 WL 6057888, at *1 25 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 6, 2012) (referring to prior order denying summary judgment for 26 the named beneficiary of a life insurance policy because the policyholder’s wife 27 offered declaratory testimony that the policyholder’s signatures on his policy were 28 forged, thereby raising a genuine issue of material fact as to the validity of that 7 1 policy—an issue not resolvable on summary judgment).3 Thus, Helm is not entitled to 2 summary judgment on the ground that Meade lacks an ownership interest. 2. Meade’s Partition Claim is Not Barred by the Statute of Limitations 3 4 Helm alternatively argues that Meade’s partition claim is barred by the statute 5 of limitations and that her accounting claim must be dismissed as it is dependent on 6 the partition claim. (Helm Mot. 10–11.) Citing to California Code of Civil Procedure 7 section 319, Helm asserts that the statute of limitations for Meade’s claim is five years 8 from the date when she last possessed the Property. (Id. at 10.) 9 Accepting, for the sake of this analysis, that section 319 applies to Meade’s 10 partition claim, whether the five-year statute of limitations has expired necessarily 11 depends on when Meade last possessed the Property. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 319. 12 “Seized or possessed of the premises” includes ownership, even when the owner does 13 not reside in or have immediate possession of the property. Borden v. Boyvin, 55 Cal. 14 App. 2d 432, 436 (1942) (“If a party has an absolute conveyance of real property, 15 [section 319] do[es] not apply.” (citation omitted).) In this case, whether Meade still 16 has an ownership interest in the Property—or whether she conveyed that ownership 17 interest over twenty years ago—remains a genuine dispute of fact, and this dispute 18 must be resolved before determining whether section 319 applies. Thus, there is a 19 genuine dispute as to whether the statute of limitations bars Meade’s claims. As neither of Helm’s proffered bases for summary judgment shows entitlement 20 21 to judgment as a matter of law, the Court DENIES Helm’s Motion. B. Meade’s Motion 22 23 In her Motion, Meade argues that she is entitled to summary judgment on her 24 partition claim because the Property is a “partnership property” in which she and 25 26 27 28 3 Helm additionally contends that the Deed was valid upon delivery, irrespective of whether it was recorded or notarized, and because Meade otherwise treated the Deed as valid by remaining uninvolved with the Property for the last twenty years. (Helm Mot. 8–10.) The Court does not reach these arguments because it has not—and cannot at this stage—resolve the threshold factual issue of whether the signature on the Deed is valid or forged. See Schmidt, 41 Cal. App. 5th at 1058 (stating that a deed altered without authority, prior to delivery or recording, is void). 8 1 Helm have “concurrent interests.” (Meade Mot. 4.) Accordingly, Meade argues, she 2 is entitled to a partition “as of right.” (Id.) This contention is wholly without merit. 3 Meade’s entire Motion rests on the presumption that the Court has already 4 determined Meade has a valid ownership interest in the Property. (See id. 4–5 (“If the 5 court finds that the plaintiff is entitled to partition, it shall make an interlocutory 6 judgment that determines the interests of the parties in the property and orders the 7 partition of the property and . . . the manner of partition.” (emphasis added)) (quoting 8 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §872.720(a)).) As stated above, there is a genuine dispute as to 9 whether Meade has any ownership interest in the Property whatsoever. Thus, 10 Meade’s presumption that the Court finds she is “entitled to partition” is baseless and 11 the Court therefore DENIES Meade’s Motion. Finally, to the extent Meade moves 12 for summary judgment in her favor on her accounting claim, the Court DENIES her 13 Motion as neither the notice of Motion nor the moving papers placed Helm on clear, 14 sufficient notice that summary judgment of this claim was at issue. 15 VI. CONCLUSION 16 For these reasons, the Court finds that whether Meade retains an ownership 17 interest in the Property remains in genuine dispute. Because ownership is an element 18 of both of Meade’s claims, the entire case remains in genuine dispute, and the Court 19 therefore DENIES both Helm’s and Meade’s Motions, (ECF Nos. 16, 17). 20 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 May 2, 2022 24 25 26 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 9
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
