Jara v. Palma CA1/2

<p>Filed 10/22/20 Jara v. Palma CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO MIGUEL JARA, Plaintiff, Cross- Defendant and Appellant, A155393 v. (San Francisco County MARIA ELENA PALMA et al., Super. Ct. No. CGC-13-530601) Defendants, Cross- Complainants and Respondents. In 2013, appellant Miguel Jara (Jara) filed a complaint against his siblings to quiet title to property that had been held in the name of his deceased mother. The siblings filed a cross-complaint seeking among other things partition of the property. In 2014, summary judgment was granted against Jara on his complaint, following which trial began on the cross- complaint, at which Jara attempted to amend his answer to allege a new affirmative defense, which was denied. Trial proceeded, at the conclusion of which the court entered an interlocutory judgment granting partition. Jara appealed the summary judgment and denial of the amendment. He did not appeal the interlocutory judgment. And in March 2017, we filed our opinion affirming the rulings adverse to Jara. Following remand, the 1 siblings moved for appointment of a referee, which Jara opposed on the basis the parties had agreed to allow “the court to partition.” Despite all that, Jara later moved to vacate the interlocutory judgment on the ground it was in excess of the court’s jurisdiction. The motion was denied. Jara appeals. We affirm. BACKGROUND The General Setting Herminio Jara and Clodoalda Jara had nine children, one of whom was Jara. In 1972, Herminio and Clodoalda purchased a property on Mission Street in San Francisco (the property), taking title as joint tenants. Herminio died in 1990, at which point title vested on Clodoalda as surviving joint tenant. Clodoalda died intestate in 2000. In the early 1970’s, probably 1973, Jara began operating a taqueria at the property. And in 2013, 13 years after his mother’s death, he filed a lawsuit seeking title to the property. The Litigation and the First Appeal In April 2013, represented by attorney Jason Estavillo, Jara filed a verified complaint seeking to quiet title, adverse possession, and declaratory relief, naming as defendants his eight siblings (the siblings or respondents). The essence of Jara’s claim was that in 1972 he wanted to buy the property for $39,000 but could not qualify for a loan; his parents agreed to buy the property as joint tenants; that an individual made a personal loan of $10,500 and a savings and loan lent $27,300; Jara repaid both loans and the property taxes; and his parents meant to convey the property to him, but never did. So, Jara contended, he was entitled to the property by adverse possession “since his parents . . . failed to convey title ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4799783/jara-v-palma-ca12/">Original document</a>
Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on Beware.org, it is strongly advised to avoid Jara v. Palma CA1/2 in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Jara v. Palma CA1/2. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike Beware.org, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Jara v. Palma CA1/2 is rated 1 out of 5 based on the reviews submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased reviews.


>