gno.law

North Coast Business Park v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal · D001896 · 1984-07-27 · Published · 158 Cal. App. 3d 858 · 205 Cal. Rptr. 81 · 1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 2365

NORTH COAST BUSINESS PARK, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; J. WILEY JONES Et Al., Real Parties in Interest

Area
civil
Panel
Robert O. Staniforth (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T07:45Z · confidence high

The trial court granted a motion to expunge a lis pendens under Code of Civil Procedure section 409.2 but conditioned the expungement on the petitioner posting a $1 million bond. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate the bond requirement, holding that the individual limited partners lacked a direct interest in the real property to support the notice.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Trial court order conditioning the expungement of the lis pendens on the posting of a $1 million bond.
“Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue ... directing the Superior Court of San Diego County to vacate that part of its order directing petitioner to post a $1 million bond as a condition of expunging the lis pendens.”
unclearerroragree with court
The appellate court determined that the individual limited partners did not have an interest in the real property itself, but rather in the partnership, which is personal property. Because the plaintiffs lacked a direct interest in title or possession of the land, the lis pendens was improper, and the condition of posting a bond was unnecessary and erroneous.

Authorities

  • relied: Coppinger v. Superior Court (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 883 — An action to impose a constructive trust may be one affecting title to or possession of land for purposes of a lis pendens.
  • relied: Kraus v. Willow Park Public Golf Course (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 354 — Supports the proposition that actions affecting title or possession can support a lis pendens.
  • relied: Evans v. Galardi (1979) 16 Cal.3d 300 — Partnership property is not available to satisfy a judgment against a limited partner in his individual capacity, establishing that individual partners do not have a direct interest in the partnership's real property.
  • relied: United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359 — Standard for issuing a peremptory writ of mandate.
  • relied: Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692 — Standard for issuing a peremptory writ of mandate.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly applies the distinction between a partnership's real property and an individual partner's interest in the partnership. By relying on Evans v. Galardi, the court accurately concludes that individual limited partners lack the direct interest in the land required to sustain a lis pendens under Code of Civil Procedure section 409.1. The decision to issue a peremptory writ is supported by the clear error in the trial court's condition.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:32Z · confidence low

The superior court granted petitioner's motion to expunge a lis pendens recorded by three individual limited partners in their suit for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and constructive trust, but did so only under Code of Civil Procedure section 409.2 and conditioned expungement on petitioner posting a $1 million bond. The Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the superior court to vacate the bond condition, holding that expungement should have been ordered under section 409.1 because individual limited partners hold only a personal property interest in the partnership and have no title to or right of possession of partnership real property that could support a lis pendens.

Ruling reviewedStandardThe courtThe model
Order expunging lis pendens under Code of Civil Procedure section 409.2 on condition that petitioner post a $1 million bond, rather than expunging unconditionally under section 409.1 (implicit finding that the action affects title to or right of possession of the real property)
“so individual limited partners do not have an interest in the partnership’s real property, neither title to the property nor a right of possession, that can support the filing of a lis pendens.”
unclearerror (law misapplied)unsure
The court's core premise is correct: under former Corporations Code section 15518 a limited partner's interest is personal property, and Evans v. Galardi confirms that limited partners have no direct interest in specific partnership real property. On that premise the action, brought by the partners individually, does not 'affect title to or right of possession' within section 409.1(a). But the opinion does not engage with the fact that the constructive trust claim, if successful, would restore title to PT I and thus necessarily affects title to the land itself; nor does it consider whether the complaint could be read as derivative on behalf of PT I, which would change the analysis under Coppinger. It also does not state the standard of review or address the preponderance burden the statute places on the party who recorded the notice. The result is defensible but the reasoning is conclusory, so I cannot confidently agree or identify a specific misapplication of law.

Authorities

  • relied: Coppinger v. Superior Court (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 883 — An action seeking imposition of a constructive trust on real property may be one affecting title to or possession of the property for lis pendens purposes.
  • relied: Kraus v. Willow Park Public Golf Course (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 354 — Cited for the proposition that a constructive trust claim can affect title to or right of possession of real property.
  • relied: Evans v. Galardi (1976) 16 Cal.3d 300 — Partnership property is not available to satisfy a judgment against a limited partner in his individual capacity; a limited partner's interest is in the partnership, not in specific partnership property. (The opinion misdates this decision as 1979; it was decided in 1976.)
  • relied: United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359 — A peremptory writ of mandate may issue in the first instance without further briefing and argument under Code of Civil Procedure section 1088.
  • relied: Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692 — Authority for issuing a peremptory writ in the first instance under Code of Civil Procedure section 1088.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly identifies that a limited partner's interest is personal property and that individual limited partners have no title or possessory interest in partnership realty, which supports expungement under section 409.1 when the plaintiffs sue solely in their individual capacities. However, it does not address why a constructive trust claim that would return title to the partnership does not itself 'affect title,' does not consider whether the suit could be characterized as derivative, and does not state the standard of review or the statutory preponderance burden, leaving the result adequately supported but thinly reasoned.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion — Staniforth

Opinion

STANIFORTH, J.

Real parties are three of an unknown number of limited partners in a partnership (PT I) which was formed to purchase and develop a tract of land. They received their collective 15 percent partnership interest plus monetary compensation in return for services rendered to the partnership. Financial difficulties made it necessary to transfer ownership of the property in order to secure new financing. The general partners of PT I undertook to form a second partnership (PT II) to which the property has been transferred. PT II executed promissory notes in favor of PT I in *860 the amount of approximately $3,750,000 secured by two deeds of trust on the property. Real parties brought suit, saying the property was transferred for $17,650,000 when it has a fair market value of $24,500,000. Their suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty, breach of agreement, fraud warranting imposition of a constructive trust and violations of the Penal Code. As part of the cause of action seeking a constructive trust, real parties filed a lis pendens on the property. Petitioner sought to have the lis pendens expunged based on Code of Civil Procedure sections 409.1 and 409.2. This was granted under Code of Civil Procedure section 409.2 on condition petitioner post a $1 million bond. Petitioner seeks to have the lis pendens expunged under Code of Civil Procedure section 409.1 so that no bond will be required.

Code of Civil Procedure section 409.1 reads in pertinent part: “At any time after notice of pendency of an action has been recorded pursuant to Section 409 or other law, the court in which the action is pending shall, upon motion of a party to the action supported by affidavit, order that the notice be expunged, unless the party filing the notice shows to the satisfaction of the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:

“(a) The action does affect title to or right of possession of the real property described in the notice . . . .”

Subsection (a) requires there be an action which affects title or right of possession. An action to impose a constructive trust may be one affecting title to or possession of land (Coppinger v. Superior Court (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 883 [185 Cal.Rptr. 24]; see Kraus v. Willow Park Public Golf Course (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 354 [140 Cal.Rptr. 744]). However, here the suit is not brought by the partnership entity. Rather, the plaintiffs are three individual members of the partnership who have brought suit as individuals. As such their interest is in the partnership not the land. An interest in a partnership is personal property (Corp. Code, § 15518). Just as partnership property is not available to satisfy a judgment against a limited partner in hisindividual capacity (Evans v. Galardi (1979) 16 Cal.3d 300 [128 Cal.Rptr. 25, 546 P.2d 313]), so individual limited partners do not have an interest in the partnership’s real property, neither title to the property nor a right of possession, that can support the filing of a lis pendens.

The issues can be determined without further briefing and argument. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue (Code Civ. Proc., § 1088; United Nuclear Corp. v. Superior Court (1980) 113 Cal.App.3d 359, 361 [169 Cal.Rptr. 827]; Goodenough v. Superior Court (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 692, 697 [96 Cal.Rptr. 165]) directing the Superior Court of San Diego County *861 to vacate that part of its order directing petitioner to post a $1 million bond as a condition of expunging the lis pendens.

Brown (Gerald), P. J., and Butler, J., concurred.

Cites, in this corpus

Cited by