Unlawful Detainer with Phoney Plaintiff

[WhoDonnit]

Jurisdiction

California

It is a long story but here is the meat of my question. My friend is on the defendant end of an "Unlawful Detainer". The Plaintiff is XYZ.LP which I believe is a limited partnership. We believe this to be a fictional company as the California Secretary of State Office has no record of them. Is it possible to for an attorney to file an unlawful detainer on-line with the County Clerks (San Mateo County) and not have the Plaintiff be a real person or corporation?

 

[doucar]

It is a long story but here is the meat of my question. My friend is on the defendant end of an "Unlawful Detainer". The Plaintiff is XYZ.LP which I believe is a limited partnership. We believe this to be a fictional company as the California Secretary of State Office has no record of them. Is it possible to for an attorney to file an unlawful detainer on-line with the County Clerks (San Mateo County) and not have the Plaintiff be a real person or corporation?

If he did it, of course it is possible. Have you checked ficticious names in the county records?

 

[WhoDonnit]

If he did it, of course it is possible. Have you checked ficticious names in the county records?

No, but I will do that tomorrow. Thanks for the advice. Maybe a ficticious name for a business? The property is the subject of a fraud lawsuit and they know that the person that they are attempting to evict is not a tenant and has never paid rent.

 

[WhoDonnit]

No, but I will do that tomorrow. Thanks for the advice. Maybe a ficticious name for a business? The property is the subject of a fraud lawsuit and they know that the person that they are attempting to evict is not a tenant and has never paid rent.

I just did a search in the county of the property, the county of residence of the person that filed it and also the county of the attorney's office and found none.

 

[adjusterjack]

This thread makes no sense. First you say

My friend is on the defendant end of an "Unlawful Detainer".

Later you say

they know that the person that they are attempting to evict is not a tenant and has never paid rent.

"They" being the Plaintiff?

"The person they are trying to evict" being your friend who presumably has been served with a UD-100 Unlawful Detainer Complaint, which would identify him as tenant and list the reasons for the eviction.

The UD-100 is a 4 page form, quite comprehensive in explaining the reasons for eviction.

UD-100 Complaint—Unlawful Detainer (ca.gov)

Perhaps you can get it from your friend and post a copy for us to look at.

You also wrote

The property is the subject of a fraud lawsuit

What does that have to do with your friend being evicted? Who is suing who for fraud?

You have a lot of explaining to do if you want any helpful comments.

 

[WhoDonnit]

This thread makes no sense. First you say



Later you say



"They" being the Plaintiff?

"The person they are trying to evict" being your friend who presumably has been served with a UD-100 Unlawful Detainer Complaint, which would identify him as tenant and list the reasons for the eviction.

The UD-100 is a 4 page form, quite comprehensive in explaining the reasons for eviction.

UD-100 Complaint—Unlawful Detainer (ca.gov)

Perhaps you can get it from your friend and post a copy for us to look at.

You also wrote



What does that have to do with your friend being evicted? Who is suing who for fraud?

You have a lot of explaining to do if you want any helpful comments.

Yes, I said it was complicated. The friend has lived there for over 30 years. The owner bought it at a lien sale and let the friend move in. The friend is a dumba... and proceeded to pay mortgage, taxes, insurance and all expenses going forward believing that the owner had transferred the property to them. They even paid the mortgage off early. 30 years later the owner transfers the title via quitclaim to his buddy in this ficticious name. They tried getting the friend to move out via harassment and serving eviction papers that were never filed with the court. The friend files a civil fraud case against the owner which is in process now. Then the buddy finds a lawyer to file the unlawful detainer.

 

[Zigner]

Sounds like your friend should move.

 

[welkin]

The friend is a dumba... and proceeded to pay mortgage, taxes, insurance and all expenses going forward believing that the owner had transferred the property to them. They even paid the mortgage off early. 30 years later

Your friend should speak with an attorney and see about a counterclaim to the Unlawful Detainer suit with a claim for adverse possession.

Your friend may have squatters rights depending on if he had any communication with the owner in the 30 years and what that might have been. It is unclear if there was any communication if your friend thought for 30 years the house was his.

California has only a 5 year SOL on adverse passion. The elements that have to be met are as follows:

a claimant must prove: (1) possession under the claim of right or color of title, (2) actual, open, and notorious possession that gives reasonable notice to the true owner, (3) possession that is hostile to the true owner, (4) continuous possession for the five-year statutory period, and (5) payment of all taxes for the five-year statutory period.

It appears that without some indication from the owner, at least every 5 years, that your friend was living in the owner's home with permission, that your friend meets the requirements.

He has possession under the claim of right or color of title since he believed the home was his and he paid the mortgage and taxes for 30 years. He wasn't paying rent. The true owner knew he was there so the use was actual, and open. And continuous possession for 6 X the SOL.

 

[zddoodah]

The Plaintiff is XYZ.LP which I believe is a limited partnership. We believe this to be a fictional company as the California Secretary of State Office has no record of them.

I assume "XYZ.LP" is a made up name. I also assume that the entity listed as the plaintiff actually has "LP" at the end of its name, and that's why you believe it to be a limited partnership. Am I correct about that? If so, does the plaintiff's name match the name of the landlord on your friend's lease (if there is a lease)? Also, the CASOS search engine can be a bit persnickety, so make sure you have the entity name spelled correctly. If the entity name has initials, you should try them both smushed together and separated (e.g., "A.B.C." and "A. B. C."). You should also only search the name without the "LP" designator.

Is it possible to for an attorney to file an unlawful detainer on-line with the County Clerks (San Mateo County) and not have the Plaintiff be a real person or corporation?

Of course it's possible, but I doubt that's what you intended to ask.

If, in fact, the entity is a limited partnership and has not properly qualified to do business in the state of California, then your friend may want to file a demurrer.

they know that the person that they are attempting to evict is not a tenant and has never paid rent.

The friend has lived there for over 30 years.

If your friend has lived there for over 30 years and doesn't have an ownership interest, then he/she most certainly is a tenant.

The friend is a dumba... and proceeded to pay mortgage, taxes, insurance and all expenses going forward believing that the owner had transferred the property to them.

Please don't use "they" and "them" unless you're referring to multiple people; it makes what you write ambiguous. Your friend is either "he/him" or "she/her," but it would be best simply to refer to him/her as "my friend." The landlord, if an LP, is "it," but "the landlord" or "the owner" would be the best way to avoid ambiguity.

That said, on what basis did your friend believe that the owner had transferred ownership of the property to him/her? Is there a deed of any sort (whether or not recorded) by which the owner of the property transferred title to your friend?

30 years later the owner transfers the title via quitclaim to his buddy in this ficticious name.

So, 30+ years ago, "Joe Blow" bought the property and allowed your friend to live in the property. Your friend, instead of paying rent, paid the mortgage on the property. Then, after the mortgage was paid off, Joe transferred ownership to "John Smith." Is that the deal? What is the connection between Joe and/or John and the LP that is the plaintiff in the UD case?

The friend files a civil fraud case against the owner which is in process now.

Which owner? Joe or John? What's the basis of the fraud claim? Is your friend represented by a lawyer? If not, he needs one if he wants any chance of succeeding in what he's doing.

 

[Zigner]

Your friend should speak with an attorney and see about a counterclaim to the Unlawful Detainer suit with a claim for adverse possession.

Use was permissive. There is no adverse possession.

 

[welkin]

Use was permissive. There is no adverse possession.

You must have a crystal ball to know what exactly what happened 30 years ago and what has transpired in that 30 years. Was there a lease? Why would the friend think the home was his for 30 years? What mortgage was the friend paying off? Who was the mortgagor in a mortgage paid off early? What communication was there between the friend and the owner over the 30 year period? Was a claim of title abandoned in favor of the possessor? And the list of what we don't know goes on.

You will take notice, that in my post, I specifically stated the a theory of AP rests with what communications took place between the owner and the possessor over that period of time and when they took place. And that is still something we don't know.

Why is the unlawful detainer suit not filed in the original owner's name? Is it possible that the original owner is dead and an estate discovered that there is this property that was in his name? I would think that a title search would discover if the property was transferred to someone else and then to a LP. There is something fishy about that.

What may have started as a casual verbal agreement or perhaps a lease to allow the friend to live in the home may have long been abandoned under CA common law. But to say that the use started was permissible is to ignore what happened next.

And let's not forget the doctrine of laches as a defense to the unlawful detainer in the alternative.

 

[Zigner]

But to say that the use started was permissible is to ignore what happened next.

My statement that the use was permissible was based on the facts given and only addressed your assertion that an adverse possession might be a viable action based on those facts. Anything else you claim I said (or implied) is simply you putting words in my mouth.

 

[welkin]

My statement that the use was permissible was based on the facts given and only addressed your assertion that an adverse possession might be a viable action based on those facts. Anything else you claim I said (or implied) is simply you putting words in my mouth.

I took your statement to say that there couldn't be a claim for AP because it was a permissible use. I just wanted to point out that under CA common law, it is much more complicated than that.

 

[Zigner]

I took your statement to say that there couldn't be a claim for AP because it was a permissible use. I just wanted to point out that under CA common law, it is much more complicated than that.

That is EXACTLY my claim. If the use is permissive, it is not adverse possession. There's no claim from the OP that the use was anything other than permissive (until recently).

If you'd like to read facts in that weren't provided, be my guest. It's pure speculation, but have at, I suppose.

 

[welkin]

That is EXACTLY my claim. If the use is permissive, it is not adverse possession. There's no claim from the OP that the use was anything other than permissive (until recently).

If you'd like to read facts in that weren't provided, be my guest. It's pure speculation, but have at, I suppose.

I'm not reading any facts into what was provided. The facts provided by the OP was (1) the friend was allowed to move into a house that someone purchased 30 years ago in a lien sale. (2) that the friend paid property taxes and a mortgage for 30 years thinking the house was transferred to him. (3) the friend wasn't paying rent.

So what facts do you think I am making up?

And I repeat, what happened in those 30 years matters in CA common law. If there was an agreement that said the friend would pay the taxes and mortgage in lieu of rent then maybe there would be no claim of AP. And if the agreement (if it existed) was a purchase agreement, then there would be no claim for unlawful retainer. And if neither, then there may be a claim for AP.

 

[Zigner]

I'm not reading any facts into what was provided. The facts provided by the OP was (1) the friend was allowed to move into a house that someone purchased 30 years ago in a lien sale.

I'm glad you agree with me.

 

[welkin]

I'm glad you agree with me.

I don't.

There is no point in debating this any further unless and until the OP comes back and gives us some answers.

 

[Zigner]

There is no point in debating this any further unless and until the OP comes back and gives us some answers.

On this, we agree