108 Cal.App.3d 141 (1980) 166 Cal. Rptr. 306 PETER T. ASUNCION et al., Petitioners, v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, Respondent; W.C. FINANCIAL, INC., Real Party in Interest. Docket No. 22722. Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One. July 14, 1980. 142*142 COUNSEL Dennis E. Holz, Gregory A. Veach and Joyce A. Wharton for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Carmine J. Bua and John C. Lessel for Real Party in Interest. OPINION BROWN (Gerald), P.J. Action in unlawful detainer, filed in municipal court on October 15, 1979, by real party, W.C. Financial, Inc. (Financial) under Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, subdivision 4, claiming lawful sale to Financial of the real property located at 4404 Logan Avenue, City of San Diego. Defendants Peter and Teresa Asuncion successfully moved in the municipal court for a transfer of the action to superior court on the ground title to real property worth more 143*143 than $15,000 was in issue, a subject not within the jurisdiction of the municipal court. Also, the Asuncions on October 24, 1979, filed a complaint against Financial in the superior court alleging fraud, usury, unfair business practices, truth in lending violations, undue influence, and other causes, and requesting title to the property be quieted in their favor, rescission or cancellation of deed, and actual and punitive damages. After transfer of the eviction action to superior court, Financial obtained an order of the superior court retransferring the action to the municipal court. The Asuncions have petitioned this court for a writ of mandate, contending at this stage of the proceedings neither the superior nor the municipal court appears willing to take jurisdiction of the eviction, and further, to permit the eviction action to proceed summarily in the lower court will deprive the Asuncions of their legitimate defenses based on fraud and will irreparably damage them by causing their eviction from their home before their action in the superior court can be resolved. They have owned the subject real property since 1971, and by mid-1979 had an equity in the property exceeding $20,000. The Asuncions' complaint in the superior court alleges: Financial regularly engages in unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices; it locates persons with substantial equity in encumbered residential real property who are in default on their home loans; represents to these homeowners Financial will offer them advice and assistance, and further states the homeowners must act at once to prevent foreclosure, despite the fact homeowners have 90 days to cure a default; offers to loan the homeowners funds to pay off the defaults, with the real property to be security for the loan; and then induces the homeowners to sign legal papers which they do not understand and which obligate the homeowners to repay sums greatly in excess of their present undertakings, charge usurious rates of interest, and, unbeknownst to the homeowners, grant Financial legal title to the property. Since the assumed new obligation is always more burdensome than the existing loans, which the homeowner could not meet, there is a further default on the new agreement, and Financial then evicts the homeowners and converts the equity to its own use. Here it is alleged the Asuncions in 1971 obtained a purchase money mortgage on the property of $19,800 with monthly payments of $149. In 1978 they executed a second trust deed on an obligation of $3,500, with payments of $64.84. They missed two payments on the second trust deed in June and July

1979. The beneficiary of the second trust 144*144 deed filed a notice of default to commence foreclosure on July 12. On July 19 representatives of Financial contacted the Asuncions. The Asuncions signed papers on that date which they were told were necessary to prevent foreclosure on their home. The legal effect of those papers was, among other things, to grant title to the property to Financial, subject to a 45-day option to reacquire the property by executing in Financial's favor a $12,000 promissory note at 18 percent "or more" payable in three years. Financial in return promised to retire a furniture company debt in the sum of $1,126.36 and to pay the second trust deed of approximately $3,500. Financial recorded the grant deed immediately after its execution on July 19. On October 15, 1979, it commenced the unlawful detainer action alleging expiration of the option on September 3, 1979, resulting in ownership of the property in Financial. The net effect of the parties' dealings is, Financial has loaned the Asuncions about $4,800 for 45 days, in return for real property having an equity in excess of $20,000. It is alleged such loan may be usurious, as well as fraudulent and in violation of a number of laws, both state (unfair business practices, Bus. & Prof. Code, 17200 et seq.; and usury, Cal. Const., art. XV, 1, and Deering's Ann. Uncod. Measures 1919-1 (1973 ed.) p. 78; 10 West's Ann. Civ. Code (1954 ed., 1979 Cum. Supp.) foll. 1916 at p. 39) and federal (truth in lending, 15 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.). It is generally recognized the summary unlawful detainer action is not a suitable vehicle to try complicated ownership issues involving assertions of fraud and deceptive practices such as the Asuncions allege here. In holding an unlawful detainer action is not res judicata on the question of fraud in the acquisition of title, Gonzales v. Gem Properties, Inc. (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 1029, 1036 [112 Cal. Rptr. 884], pointed out, "The summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings suggests that, as a practical matter, the likelihood of the defendant's being prepared to litigate the factual issues involved in a fraudulent scheme to deprive him of his property, no matter how diligent defendant is, is not great." Normally, the unlawful detainer action may encompass only a "narrow and sharply focused examination of title" directed at the formal validity of the trustee sale (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255 [142 Cal. Rptr. 414, 572 P.2d 28]). Similarly, in a case which permitted the summary eviction of a gas station franchisee despite multiple asserted defenses of fraud, estoppel, bad faith, and violations of the franchise investment law, the court would not permit consideration of the franchisee's affirmative demands for relief by cross-complaint in the 145*145 unlawful detainer, and further pointed out the defendant's right to raise such matter defensively in the eviction action had to be balanced against the interest in preserving the summary nature of eviction. "In causes where the legality of the reason for an eviction may be in issue, the court, in deciding whether to permit affirmative defenses, may balance the interest in preserving the summary nature of the unlawful detainer action against the public policies furthered by protecting the defendant from eviction under the alleged defenses." (Mobil Oil Corp. v. Handley (1978) 76 Cal. App.3d 956, 963 [143 Cal. Rptr. 321]; see also S.P. Growers Assn. v. Rodriguez (1976) 17 Cal.3d 719, 724 [131 Cal. Rptr. 761, 552 P.2d 721].) Similarly, another court found antitrust violations were not a proper defense in an unlawful detainer action. (Union Oil Co. v. Chandler (1970) 4 Cal. App.3d 716 [84 Cal. Rptr. 756].) Although no case appears to hold directly that ownership issues such as are raised here may, or may not, justify slowing the pace of eviction actions, the following cases are helpful in indicating the direction of legal development on this issue. Language in S.P. Growers Assn. v. Rodriguez, supra, 17 Cal.3d 719, 730, indicates the possibility commercial evictions should be treated differently than residential evictions, permitting affirmative defenses more liberally in the latter situation. (See com. in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Handley, supra, 76 Cal. App.3d 956, 966.) The affirmative defenses of retaliatory eviction and violation of the Agricultural Labor Relations Act have been permitted in unlawful detainer actions (Schweiger v. Superior Court (1970) 3 Cal.3d 507 [90 Cal. Rptr. 729, 476 P.2d 97]; Vargas v. Municipal

Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 902 [150 Cal. Rptr. 918, 587 P.2d 714]). Likewise, the defendant may defend by showing use of rent money to make repairs as authorized by statute. (See Aweeka v. Bonds (1971) 20 Cal. App.3d 278, 282 [97 Cal. Rptr. 650].) In Vargas, supra, the court held, to exclude from an eviction action the defense of retaliatory eviction for exercising protected rights under the ALRA, denied the tenant/farm-workers due process, by undermining the essential fairness and basic integrity of that judicial proceeding (Vargas v. Municipal Court, supra, 22 Cal.3d 902, 915). However, the court left to the municipal court discretion to determine whether and for how long to postpone the eviction proceeding while awaiting the outcome of pending proceedings before the ALRB. There is some inconsistency between the language of Vella v. Hudgins, supra, clearly limiting the scope of issues in eviction proceedings 146*146 to the narrowest formalities of conveyance of title, and the statement in Vargas, supra, "[T]he essential fairness and basic integrity required of a judicial proceeding by due process is clearly violated if only one party to the controversy is permitted to present evidence relating to the matters at issue." (22 Cal.3d at p. 915.)We note, however, the court in Vella was not directly faced with the issue of accommodating summary procedures and affirmative defenses, for there the issue was the res judicata effect of an eviction already consummated, in a later action based on fraud. Vargas, however, directly faced the issue in the context of a retaliatory eviction for protected exercise of collective bargaining rights, and that court's language applies here as well. (1) We are prepared to hold homeowners cannot be evicted, consistent with due process guaranties, without being permitted to raise the affirmative defenses which if proved would maintain their possession and ownership. Such a procedure would be as unfair as the situation forbidden in Vargas. Accordingly, title to the property is inevitably in issue in this unlawful detainer action, and the action is not within the jurisdiction of the municipal court. As we see it, after the eviction is transferred to the superior court, a number of procedural devices exist to facilitate accommodating the eviction action with the fraud action which the Asuncions separately filed. A possibility, which we understand is frequently utilized in other counties, is for the superior court to stay the eviction proceedings until trial of the fraud action, based on the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 526 which permits a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo on such grounds as irreparable injury, multiplicity of legal actions, or unconscionable relative hardship.[1] (See, e.g., Continental147*147Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528 [67 Cal. Rptr. 761, 439 P.2d 889], and see generally discussion of subject in 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Provisional Remedies, 47, p. 1496; 73, pp. 1511-1512.) Bond would be required to obtain such an injunction (Code Civ. Proc., 529), which could be waived for an indigent litigant (Conover v. Hall (1974) 11 Cal.3d 842, 851, 853 [114 Cal. Rptr. 642, 523 P.2d 682]). It has been held where foreclosure of a trust deed would moot a claim of right under a deed, and the deed is attacked as a fraudulent conveyance, a preliminary injunction is permitted to prevent foreclosure pending trial (Weingand v. Atlantic Sav. & Loan Assn. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 806 [83 Cal. Rptr. 650, 464 P.2d 106]). Staying the eviction here is analogous. An alternate possibility might be consolidation of the actions. Since this court is not a suitable forum to determine the need for a preliminary injunction nor its terms and conditions, we leave such matters for determination in the trial court. We hold only, the Asuncions are entitled to defend this eviction action based on the claims of fraud and related causes which they have asserted, and accordingly the action necessarily exceeds the jurisdiction of the municipal court and cannot be tried there. Let a writ of mandate issue, directing the superior court to vacate its order transferring this action to the municipal court, and to retain jurisdiction over the matter so long as substantive issues of ownership

remain to be litigated. Petitioners shall have costs in this proceeding. Attorneys' fees incurred in this proceeding may form part of the Asuncions' damages if they prevail in their claim of fraud. (See Civ. Code, 3333; Walters v. Marler (1978) 83 Cal. App.3d 1, 30 [147 Cal. Rptr. 655].) Cologne, J., and Staniforth, J., concurred. [1] But see, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Superior Court (1978) 79 Cal. App.3d 486 [145 Cal. Rptr. 17]. There a service station lessee filed a Los Angeles Superior Court action seeking declaratory relief and affirmative remedies for wrongful termination of franchise. The gist of the relief sought was to maintain the lessee in possession. Then in a different district of that same court, Mobil Oil filed unlawful detainer against the lessee. The lessee obtained from the superior court a stay of the unlawful detainer, which the appellate court vacated on writ of mandate. The court stated the stay was an abuse of discretion because there were no facts presented to the trial court which would justify the granting of a stay. (Id. at p. 495.) It is unclear why the court reached this conclusion, but it appears to have relied on a combination of preserving the summary nature of unlawful detainer, and the fact the lessee did not seek a preliminary injunction in his lawsuit against Mobil. (Id. at p. 495.) The court also noted the lessee was bringing a lengthy and complex representative action, imposing a heavy burden on the evicting franchisor by delaying his action. Although it would be premature for us to determine the effect of this case on the Asuncions' right to a stay, we note Mobil Oil Corp. involves a commercial, rather than a residential, eviction. Insofar as the preliminary injunction question is concerned, the Asuncions have not yet had the opportunity to present facts in the trial court warranting either such an injunction or a stay, whereas in Mobil Oil Corp., supra, the stay had already been issued on a record the appellate court perceived as inadequate.

HOW CITED
Custom Parking, Inc. v. Superior Court 138 Cal. App. 3d 90 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 3rd Div. 1982 Do Commercial Property Tenants Possess Warranties of Habitability? RA Levinson - Real Est. LJ, 1985
[PDF]

Mehr v. Superior Court 139 Cal. App. 3d 1044 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1983 California real estate HD Miller - 2000
[CITATION] [BOOK] California eviction defense manual M Moskovitz - 1971

all 23 citing documents

Related documents
Kinney v. Vaccari 27 C3d 348 - 1980
[CITATION] [CITATION] Lehr v. Crosby 123 CA3d Supp 1 - 1981

Singer v. Hunsinger 91 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 1 - Cal: Court of Appeals 1979 Bedi v. McMullan 160 Cal. App. 3d 272 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 7th Div. 1984 Mehr v. Superior Court 139 Cal. App. 3d 1044 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1983

THIS IS THE SECOND APPEAL CASE- THE MEHRS

139 Cal.App.3d 1044 (1983) 189 Cal. Rptr. 138 SEYMOUR MEHR et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent; PETER FINNEGAN, Real Party in Interest. Docket No. AO18602. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Two. February 17, 1983. 1046*1046 COUNSEL Joe R. McCray and Cliff Weingus for Petitioners. No appearance for Respondent. Milton Katz for Real Party in Interest. OPINION ROUSE, Acting P.J. In this application for writ of mandate, we consider whether respondent court abused its discretion in denying a stay of execution pending an appeal from a judgment which was rendered in favor of Peter Finnegan, real party in interest, and against the Mehrs, who are petitioners in this proceeding. The matter began when Finnegan instituted an unlawful detainer action against the Mehrs, seeking to remove them from possession of their home 1047*1047 located at 537 Liberty Street, San Francisco. The action was initiated pursuant to section 1161a of the Code of Civil Procedure.[1] In the complaint, Finnegan claimed to be the owner of the property by virtue of purchase at a trustee's sale held on August 13, 1981. After Finnegan filed his unlawful detainer action, the Mehrs initiated a separate action against Finnegan to set aside the trustee's deed on the grounds that, in conducting the sale, the trustee had failed to comply with statutory provisions and that the trustee's deed under which Finnegan claimed title had been obtained by fraud. The Mehrs also asserted similar claims by way of affirmative defenses in the unlawful detainer action. After the unlawful detainer action, originally filed in the municipal court, had been transferred to the superior court, the Mehrs moved to consolidate the actions, pursuant to section 1048, subdivision (a), of the Code of Civil Procedure. The basis for their motion was that each involved common questions of fact and law in that both actions raised the issue of the validity of the trustee's deed under which Finnegan claimed title to the property.[2] Although filed on March 23, 1982, hearing on the motion to consolidate was not had until May 11, 1982, at which time the motion was denied. The Mehrs then sought a continuance of the trial of the unlawful detainer action so that they might seek a writ from this court. The motion for

continuance of the trial date was also denied, and the unlawful detainer action came on for trial on May 21, 1982. On June 2, 1982, judgment for possession was entered in favor of Finnegan and against the Mehrs. The judgment also awarded damages in the amount of $950 per month from December 1, 1981, to the date of the judgment. The judgment further provided for a 30-day stay of execution on condition that the Mehrs pay Finnegan $950 for said 30-day period, and additionally provided that the court would entertain a further motion for a stay of execution. The 1048*1048 Mehrs filed notice of appeal and moved for a stay of execution pending the determination of their appeal. On July 23, 1982, the motion for stay of execution pending the determination of the appeal was denied by respondent court. The Mehrs then petitioned this court for a writ of mandate to compel respondent court to grant a stay of execution pending appeal, contending that, in the absence of such a stay, they and their three small children would suffer irreparable injury in that they would be evicted from their home of 15 years. They also claimed that the appeal presented a substantial question in that, under the authority of Asuncion v. Superior Court (1980) 108 Cal. App.3d 141 [166 Cal. Rptr. 306], their pretrial motion to consolidate should have been granted. The Mehrs further asserted that the prejudice to Finnegan would be minimal since he had never intended to live in the property; he had been paid the rental value awarded in the judgment; and that, in addition to posting an appeal bond, they were willing and able to continue to pay Finnegan $950 per month by the 10th day of every month during the pendency of the appeal. Section 1176, subdivision (a), of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "An appeal taken by the defendant shall not stay proceedings upon the judgment unless the judge before whom the same was rendered so directs." (Italics added.) (1) (See fn. 3.) Believing ourselves bound by the provisions of section 1176, subdivision (a), and numerous California Supreme Court decisions construing the statute, this court denied the petition.[3] On petition for hearing to 1049*1049 the California Supreme Court, that court on August 3, 1982, entered an order staying execution of the judgment pending determination of the petition for hearing, on condition that, by August 10, 1982, petitioners pay $950 as provided in the judgment. On August 18, 1982, the Supreme Court granted the petition for hearing and transferred the matter to this court will directions to issue an alternative writ of mandate. The Supreme Court also ordered that the stay granted on August 3, 1982, remain in effect pending final determination of the matter. (2) By directing the issuance of an alternative writ of mandate, the Supreme Court necessarily determined that there is no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law and that this case is a proper one for the exercise of our original jurisdiction. (Brooks v. Small Claims Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 661, 663 [105 Cal. Rptr. 785, 504 P.2d 1249].) Therefore, we consider the merits of the petition. Asuncion v. Superior Court, supra, 108 Cal. App.3d 141, 146, held that, consistent with due process guarantees, homeowners cannot be evicted

without being permitted to raise affirmative defenses which if proved would maintain their possession and ownership. The court suggested the use of certain existing procedural devices to facilitate accommodating an unlawful detainer action with a separately filed fraud action, such as a stay of the unlawful detainer proceedings until trial of the fraud action, or, in the alternative, consolidation of the actions. (Pp. 146-147.) (3) Because of its summary character, an unlawful detainer action is not a suitable vehicle to try complicated ownership issues involving allegations of fraud. (Asuncion v. Superior Court, supra, 108 Cal. App.3d 144; Gonzales v. Gem Properties, Inc. (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 1029, 1036 [112 Cal. Rptr. 884].) Although title may be litigated in an unlawful detainer action to a "`... limited extent, as provided by statute ...'" (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255 [142 Cal. Rptr. 414, 572 P.2d 28]; Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal.2d 158, 159 [69 P.2d 832]), "section 1161a does not require a defendant to litigate, in a summary action within the statutory time constraints ( 1167, 1179a), a complex fraud claim involving activities not directly related to the technical regularity of the trustee's sale." (Vella v. Hudgins, supra, at p. 258.) In the absence of a record establishing that the claim was asserted and that the legal and factual issues therein were fully litigated, the question of fraudulent acquisition of title is not foreclosed by an adverse judgment in an earlier summary proceeding. (Vella v. Hudgins, supra, at p. 258.) In their separate equity action, the Mehrs alleged that Finnegan and others, including the trustee and the attorney for the trustee, conspired to obtain possession 1050*1050 of their property by unlawful means. They alleged that the fair market value of the property was $250,000; that they were lulled into believing that they had until August 14, 1981, to exercise their right of redemption, but that on August 13, 1981, the trustee sold the property to Finnegan, the sole bidder, for the inadequate sum of $69,402.81. The Mehrs prayed for an order restraining Finnegan from pursuing the unlawful detainer action; for a decree setting aside the trustee's sale of August 13, 1981; for a decree allowing redemption of the property and reinstatement of the second deed of trust; and for general and exemplary damages. Among the affirmative defenses alleged in the Mehrs' answer to the unlawful detainer proceeding were that the alleged trustee's sale was void and of no effect in that the trustee failed to comply with the terms and conditions of section 1161a of the Code of Civil Procedure, and sections 2924 and 2924a through 2924h of the Civil Code; that Finnegan was not a bona fide purchaser for value but had participated in or had knowledge of the failure to give them notice of sale with the intent to cause a forfeiture by fraud, oppression or intentional irregularity; that the alleged trustee's sale was void and of no effect in that the sum paid by Finnegan was inadequate, and that inadequacy was a result of the irregularity in the sale, oppressive conduct and unfairness by the trustee, which conduct was known or should have been known by Finnegan. That the question of fraudulent acquisition of title was not fully litigated in the unlawful detainer trial is attested to by respondent court's own

determination that "such finding is not res judicata on the issue of title, and may be retried in Mehr v. Finnegan, et al., San Francisco Superior Court Action No. 786-515." (4) It appears from the record, therefore, that the Mehrs have shown that a substantial question will be raised on appeal; that they will suffer irreparable injury by an eviction from their home prior to the determination of the appeal; and that Finnegan will not be sorely prejudiced if protected in the manner proposed. Under the circumstances, we conclude that respondent court abused its discretion in denying the Mehrs' motion for a stay of execution of the judgment pending determination of their appeal. Let a peremptory writ of mandate issue to compel respondent court to set aside its order of July 23, 1982, denying petitioners' motion for stay of execution pending appeal, and to grant said motion, under such conditions as respondent court may deem proper. 1051*1051 Smith, J., concurred. Grodin, J.,[*] concurred in the result. [1] Section 1161a of the Code of Civil Procedure provides, in relevant part, that "In either of the following cases, a person who holds over and continues in possession of real property, after a three-day written notice to quit the same, shall have been served upon him ... may be removed therefrom as prescribed in this chapter. [] ... 3. Where the property has been duly sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by him, or a person under whom he claims, and the title under the sale has been duly perfected." [2] Section 1048, subdivision (a), of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "When actions involving a common question of law or fact are pending before the court, it may order a joint hearing or trial of any or all the matters in issue in the actions; it may order all the actions consolidated and it may make such orders concerning proceedings therein as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or delay." [3] Section 1176, subdivision (a), of the Code of Civil Procedure was originally enacted in 1872. Over the past 110 years, numerous California Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions have construed the statute to mean exactly what it says, and neither supersedeas, mandate nor prohibition has been permitted to issue. (McDonald v. Hanlon (1887) 71 Cal. 535, 536 [12 P. 515]; Gross v. Kelleher (1887) 73 Cal. 639, 641 [15 P. 362]; Lee Chuck v. QuanWo Chong Co. (1889) 81 Cal. 222, 227-228 [22 P. 594]; Cluness v. Bowen (1902) 135 Cal. 660, 662 [67 P. 1048]; Bateman v. Superior Court (1903) 139 Cal. 140, 143-145 [72 P. 922] (supersedeas, or prohibition, or mandate denied); Sarthou v. Reese (1907) 151 Cal. 96, 9798 [90 P. 187]; Plummer v. Agoure (1912) 20 Cal. App. 319, 323 [128 P. 1014] (supersedeas); Kaiser v. Hancock (1914) 25 Cal. App. 323, 327-328 [143 P. 614] (mandate); Jameson v. Chanslor-Canfield etc. Oil Co. (1916) 173 Cal. 612, 616-617 [160 P. 1066] (appellate court has no inherent power to make provision contrary to the statute); Candeias v. Superior Court (1920) 49 Cal. App. 580, 583 [193 P. 957] (mandamus); St. Clair v.

Joos(1924) 66 Cal. App. 398, 404 [226 P. 623]; Magnaud v. Traeger (1924) 66 Cal. App. 526, 528-529 [226 P. 990]; Mendoza v. Small Claims Court (1958) 49 Cal.2d 668, 671-672 [321 P.2d 9] ( 1178, Code Civ. Proc., provides that unlawful detainer sections are controlling over "Part 2" of Code Civ. Proc.); but see People ex rel. S.F. Bay etc. Com. v. Town of Emeryville (1968) 69 Cal.2d 533, 537 [72 Cal. Rptr. 790, 446 P.2d 790] (supersedeas).) Although the California Supreme Court is free to overrule its own prior decisions, the doctrine of stare decisis compels lower court tribunals to follow the Supreme Court whatever reason the intermediate tribunals might have for not wishing to do so. (Olson v. Cory (1982) 134 Cal. App.3d 85, 104 [184 Cal. Rptr. 325]; Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [26 Cal. Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) There is no exception for Supreme Court cases of ancient vintage. [*] Assigned by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.

HOW CITED
Cited by Goldie's Bookstore v. Super. Ct. of State of Cal. 739 F. 2d 466 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 1984 People v. Haynes 61 Cal. App. 4th 1282 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1998 City of Oakland v. Superior Court 150 Cal. App. 3d 267 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 1st Appellate Dist., 4th Div. 1983 Selma Auto Mall II v. Appellate Department 44 Cal. App. 4th 1672 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 5th Appellate Dist. 1996 SAN DIEGO SERVICE AUTHORITY v. Superior Court 198 Cal. App. 3d 1466 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 1988 all 20 citing documents Related documents Asuncion v. Superior Court 108 Cal. App. 3d 141 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 1980 Lee v. Superior Court 196 Cal. App. 2d 161 - Cal: Court of Appeals 1961 Sierchio v. 772 BROAD STREET, INC. 536 A. 2d 330 - NJ: Superior Court, Law Div. 1987 Mehdi v. Superior Court 213 Cal. App. 3d 1198 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 1989 Mason v. Superior Court 23 Cal. App. 3d 913 - Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 2nd Div. 1972