Harbor Pipe & Steel v. Stevens
Filed 4/4/06 Harbor Pipe & Steel v. Stevens CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
| HARBOR PIPE & STEEL, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DANIEL STEVENS et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G035530 (Super. Ct. No. 02CC07007) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Sheila Fell, Judge. Reversed and remanded.
Edward M. Picozzi for Plaintiff and Appellant.
White O'Connor Curry, Keri E. Borders and Jennifer B. Hodulik, for Defendants and Respondents.
Harbor Pipe and Steel appeals from a summary judgment entered against it on its causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief. Harbor Pipe asserts its recorded abstract of judgment against Dale Sarver established a lien against the assets held by Sarver's self-settled revocable family trust, and there is evidence that respondents Daniel and Michelle Stevens, subsequent purchasers of a home owned by that trust, took their title with constructive notice of Harbor Pipe's lien. We agree.
Under California law, all assets held by a revocable trust are automatically subject to the debts and obligations of the trust's settlor. Thus, any person taking title to property from such a trust is on notice that the property is subject to any judgments recorded not only against the trust itself, but also against the settlor. In this case, documents within the property's chain of title expressly revealed the trust was revocable, and that the Sarvers were its settlors. That meant the Stevenses were on notice that the property they were purchasing would be subject to any liens created by an abstract of judgment recorded not only against the trust itself, but also against either of the Sarvers. Consequently, they had a duty to inquire as to the existence of such liens, and are deemed to have constructive notice of any facts that would have been uncovered through such an inquiry – including (presumably) the existence of the underlying judgment at issue here. The summary judgment is reversed.
* * *
Dale Sarver and his wife, Gloria, deeded the property at issue in this case to the Sarver Family Trust on January 6, 1999. It was the fourth time they had done so. The Sarvers first transferred the property to their trust in August of 1990. The deed conveying that interest specifically identifies the trust as a â€
