AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The dispute centers around the ownership of a house purchased by Ms. Huber in 1974, where her son, Mr. Mendoza, lived with her until she moved out in 1980. Mr. Mendoza claims to have paid the mortgage and property taxes by giving his social security checks to Ms. Huber, a claim she disputes. Between 1991 and 2003, several quitclaim deeds transferring ownership between them were executed, with the last deed dated October 10, 2003, transferring the house from Mr. Mendoza to Ms. Huber. Mr. Mendoza filed a quiet-title action in 2008, which was dismissed in 2010 for lack of prosecution, and later filed the current complaint to quiet title (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Mr. Mendoza): Argued that Ms. Huber gave him the house in 1980 as an oral, inter vivos gift; the first quitclaim deed in 1991 transferred final ownership to him; his signature on the October 2003 quitclaim deed was forged and obtained by fraud; and sought the house on the basis of promissory estoppel (para 4).
• Defendants-Appellees (Ms. Huber and successors in interest): Maintained that Ms. Huber paid the mortgage, taxes, and insurance premiums on the house, disputed the claim of an oral gift, and contended that the 2003 deed transferring title to Ms. Huber was the last valid deed on record (paras 2-3, 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in failing to find that Ms. Huber gave Mr. Mendoza the house in 1980 by way of an oral, inter vivos gift.
• Whether the first quitclaim deed from 1991 transferred final ownership of the house from Ms. Huber to Mr. Mendoza.
• Whether Mr. Mendoza’s signature on the October 2003 quitclaim deed was forged and the deed obtained by fraud.
• Whether the house should be awarded to Mr. Mendoza on the basis of promissory estoppel (para 4).

Disposition

• The district court's order recognizing Lucinda Huber as the recorded title holder of the disputed property was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Kristina Bogardus, with Chief Judge M. Monica Zamora and Judge Megan P. Duffy concurring, found that the district court's factual conclusions were supported by sufficient evidence. The Court noted that Mr. Mendoza failed to provide a record sufficient for review, leading to a presumption that the district court's decision was correct. The Court found no enforceable oral gift of the property in 1980, as actions subsequent to that year, including the exchange of quitclaim deeds, contradicted such a claim. The Court also resolved against Mr. Mendoza on the issues of the quitclaim deeds' intent, the alleged forgery of the 2003 deed, and the claim of promissory estoppel, citing lack of preservation of the latter argument and insufficient evidence to support the former claims (paras 5-12).