Dudley v. Faustine
Plaintiff Rebecca Dudley sought to recover possession of real property her deceased parents had jointly owned more than 50 years ago. In her second amended complaint, she alleged her father forged a quitclaim deed in 1960 to transfer title to himself in violation of a divorce decree that had awarded the property to her mother, and then in 1966 fraudulently sold the property as his separate property. She asserted that as the sole heir of her mother, she was entitled to the property under the laws of intestate succession.
The trial court sustained for a second time a demurrer filed by the property’s current owners, defendants William and Cathy Faustine, and it did so without granting leave to amend. Appearing before us pro per, plaintiff claims the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer. She asserts she pleaded sufficient facts to state a cause of action and that her complaint is not time barred. She also claims the court committed various procedural errors.
We disagree with plaintiff’s contentions and affirm the trial court’s judgment. We conclude she is estopped from recovering on her cause of action by laches.
Comments on Dudley v. Faustine