Summary
The California Supreme Court held that an unlawful detainer proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a is limited to determining the right to possession and does not permit broad litigation of title through cross-complaints or affirmative defenses. A purchaser at a trustee's sale need establish statutory compliance and purchase at the sale, while challenges to the validity of the trust deed, underlying obligation, or other basic title defects must be brought in a separate action. The court also held that the superior court's jurisdiction was presumed despite the complaint's failure to allege the property's rental value and affirmed the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether defendants in a summary unlawful detainer proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a may litigate broad title issues through a cross-complaint or affirmative defenses.
- Whether the purchaser in a section 1161a unlawful detainer action must prove more than a statutory and deed-of-trust-compliant sale followed by purchase at that sale.
- Whether the superior court lacked jurisdiction because the complaint alleged $1,000 in damages but did not allege the property's rental value.
Holdings
- A summary unlawful detainer proceeding determines the right to possession, not broad questions of title. A defendant may not litigate such title issues through a cross-complaint or affirmative defense in that proceeding.
- The purchaser need prove only a sale conducted in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by purchase at that sale. The defendant may object only to that limited phase of the title issue; challenges to the validity of the trust deed, the primary obligation, or other basic defects in title are not properly litigated in the summary possession proceeding.
- The superior court was presumed to have jurisdiction as a court of record and general jurisdiction. The complaint was not required to affirmatively plead facts establishing jurisdiction, and the defendants failed to affirmatively show that jurisdiction was lacking.
Key quotations
“Matters affecting the validity of the trust deed or primary obligation itself, or other basic defects in the plaintiff's title, are neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment.” (160)
“It is not necessary to plead affirmatively the facts showing jurisdiction, and lack of jurisdiction must be affirmatively shown.” (161)
Factual background
Nancy McMahon Cheney purchased property at a sale conducted under a deed of trust and brought a summary unlawful detainer action to obtain possession. The defendants claimed title and asserted that the sale was merely colorable, that the plaintiff did not acquire valid title, and that the deed of trust's gold-coin payment provision was unenforceable under federal law. They also relied on the pendency of a separate quiet-title action involving the property.
Procedural history
The purchaser at a deed-of-trust sale brought an unlawful detainer proceeding under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. The defendants answered, filed a cross-complaint seeking to quiet title, and asserted defenses concerning title and the pendency of a related quiet-title action. The trial court struck the cross-complaint and special defenses and entered judgment for the plaintiff. The California Supreme Court affirmed.