Aguilar v. Bocci
1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 980, 39 Cal. App. 3d 475, 114 Cal. Rptr. 91 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mortgagor in possession of property cannot quiet title to that property without paying the secured debt, even if the statute of limitations has barred the mortgagee's remedy of foreclosure.
Facts:
- In 1962, Mix was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon and hired Sodd, an attorney, for his defense.
- Mix signed a retainer agreement obligating himself to pay Sodd a fee of $10,000.
- To secure payment of the fee, Mix executed and delivered a deed to his home to Sodd, which Sodd recorded.
- It was understood by both parties that the deed was intended only as a security interest for the fee, thus creating an equitable mortgage.
- Mix never paid the fee in full.
- Mix remained in physical possession of the property at all times since giving the deed.
- Sodd never attempted to foreclose on the property, and the time allowed by the statute of limitations to collect the debt or to foreclose eventually expired.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1970, Mix (plaintiff) sued Sodd (defendant) in a trial court to quiet title to his property, alleging the deed was obtained by fraud.
- Sodd filed a cross-complaint to quiet title to a half-interest in the property and to recover the unpaid balance of his attorney's fee.
- The trial court found for Sodd, concluding the parties were tenants in common and ordered the property to be partitioned by sale if Mix did not purchase Sodd's interest.
- Mix, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a mortgagor in possession of property obtain a quiet title judgment against the mortgagee without paying the secured debt, when the statute of limitations has barred the mortgagee's ability to foreclose on the property?
Opinions:
Majority - Draper, P. J.
No. A mortgagor in possession cannot quiet title without paying the secured debt, even if the mortgagee's foreclosure remedy is time-barred. The court reasoned that a deed given as security for a debt creates an equitable mortgage. While the statute of limitations bars the mortgagee's (Sodd's) remedy to foreclose on the debt or sue on the note, it does not extinguish the debt itself or the lien against the property. The mortgagee who is not in possession has no present judicial remedy, but the mortgagor (Mix) cannot seek an equitable remedy like quieting title without first satisfying his own obligation to pay the debt. This creates a legal impasse where the mortgagor remains in possession but with a clouded title, and the mortgagee retains a security interest he cannot judicially enforce.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the critical distinction between a legal remedy and an underlying right. It affirms that a statute of limitations acts as a shield, not a sword; it can be used defensively to block a lawsuit to collect a debt, but it cannot be used offensively to erase the debt for the purpose of clearing a title. The ruling creates a legal stalemate that strongly incentivizes the parties to negotiate a settlement, as neither can obtain a complete victory through the courts. This reinforces the equitable maxim that 'he who seeks equity must do equity,' meaning a party asking a court for an equitable remedy like quiet title must first fulfill their own related obligations.
