Jackson v. Lee

Filed 7/11/06 Jackson v. Lee CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

This case involves a dispute between a mother, defendant Elizabeth Lee, and her son, plaintiff Marcus A. Jackson, over title to a home in Richmond. Plaintiff Marcus Jackson filed a complaint for breach of contract, fraud, and other causes of action; defendant cross-complained to quiet title and for other relief. Defendant obtained a default judgment on her cross-complaint, the court ruled for defendant on plaintiff's complaint, and plaintiff appeals from the final judgment for defendant. Plaintiff argues that the court should have granted his motion to vacate the default judgment on the cross-complaint. We conclude that the court did not err in denying the motion, and, accordingly, affirm the judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleged that the Richmond property was acquired in defendant's name with an oral agreement that he would pay the mortgage and other expenses for the property, and that she would deed the property to him at his request. Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of the alleged agreement after he discovered that she had borrowed money against the property, and she refused his demand to pay off the loan and convey title to him. Plaintiff testified that, after he filed suit, he found a quitclaim deed â€