Padilla v. Carson Redevelopment Agency
Appellants filed a complaint against respondent Carson Redevelopment Agency (the Agency) seeking to quiet title to a 45 unit senior housing complex located in Carson. According to the complaint, the Padillas are the owners of the property and the Agency is the beneficiary of a deed of trust covering it. The Padillas contend that the Agency wrongfully refused to record a reconveyance. A demurrer was sustained and the issue raised is straightforward: whether, assuming the truth of the material facts pled, the complaint stated a cause of action. (See Montclair Parkowners Assn. v. City of Montclair (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 784, 790.) The parties, who were involved in related litigation for three years, press for resolution of factual issues pertaining to the scope of the deed of trust, although neither that document nor the agreement setting forth the underlying obligation was attached to the complaint or included in judicially noticed documents presented to the trial court. It is a basic precept of appellate law that documents not before the trial court are beyond the scope of appellate review, and factual statements in the briefs are disregarded when not supported by the record. (Pulver v. Avco Financial Services (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 622, 632.) Accordingly, Court cannot resolve whether the deed of trust secures something more than the debt described in the Padillas complaint and, if so, whether either partys failure to raise that obligation in prior litigation precludes it from raising it now. Based on the information properly before us, Court conclude that the Padillas complaint stated a cognizable cause of action. Court therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Comments on Padilla v. Carson Redevelopment Agency