Ogier v. Pacific Oil & Gas Development Corp.

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of dismissal upon sustaining without leave to amend defendants’ demurrers to an amendment to an amended complaint and upon granting a motion to strike said amendment.

1. After the sustaining with leave to amend of demurrers to a complaint, is an amendment to that complaint a proper pleading ?

2. Does the complaint as thus amended state causes of action ?

3. Are the causes of action barred by the statute of limitations Í

4. Laches.

Record

Defendants demurred generally and specifically to the original complaint. Upon the sustaining of demurrers thereto plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Again demurrers thereto were sustained with leave to amend. Plaintiff then filed an “Amendment to Complaint.” The court ordered the amendment stricken, the demurrers thereto sustained, and entered judgment of dismissal.

1. Effect of Amendment.

The original complaint and the amended complaint contained 25 causes of action. The amendment to the complaint recites that the amended complaint is amended: (1) by changing paragraph VIII in the first 12 causes of action to read as in the amendment set forth, so as to set forth facts purporting to avoid the application of the statute of limitations; and (2) by changing paragraph X of the next 12 causes of action for the same purpose.

The effect of this procedure was to adopt by reference the amended complaint changed as set forth in the amendment. It is elementary that a complaint may adopt by reference various writings. The amended complaint referred to is 24 transcript pages long. No particular point would be gained by rewriting that complaint. It was perfectly obvious to court and counsel what was before the court. We can see no reason why the complaint as thus amended did not constitute a proper pleading.

In California it is fundamental that pleadings should be liberally construed in furtherance of justice in order that every case may be determined so far as possible on its real facts. To decline to permit the procedure followed here would be bowing to highly technical requirements to the exclusion of a consideration of the pleading as thus amended without any good reason for so doing. See Big Boy Drilling Corp. v. Rankin, 213 Cal. 646 , 648 [ 3 P.2d 13 ]:

It is true that when a demurrer to a complaint is sustained, the complaint, except for purposes of review, is, in effect, destroyed as an existing pleading. However, that fact would not prevent its being incorporated by reference in the amendment. Cases cited by defendants like Hendricks v. Osman, 72 Cal.App.2d 465 [ 164 P.2d 545 ], and Ross v. Goins, 51 Cal.App. 412 [ 197 P. 132 ], dealing with the refusal of the plaintiff to amend after demurrer sustained, have no application here.

(a) Lack of Permit.

The first 12 counts allege the sale to plaintiff of oil properties in violation of the Corporate Securities Act because no

The theory of the first 12 counts is that by failing to satisfy the requirements of the Corporate Securities Act defendants fraudulently transferred the “securities” (deeds) to plaintiff. Our first inquiry, then, is whether deeds to lands represented as oil bearing constitute a “certificate of interest” under Corporations Code, section 25008. Any such certificate issued without a permit is void under section 26100. A buyer of such a certificate may seek recovery of the purchase price paid either by way of rescission or an action for damages. (See Auslen v. Thompson, 38 Cal.App.2d 204 , 213 [ 101 P.2d 136 ], and Woods v. Deck, 112 F.2d 739 , 741.)

Section 25008 defines a “security” as “(a) Any stock, including treasury stock; any certificate of interest or participation ; any certificate of interest in a profit-sharing agreement; any certificate of interest in an oil, gas, or mining title or lease; any transferable share, investment contract, or beneficial interest in title to property, profits, or earnings.” (Emphasis added.) Taormina v. Antelope Min. Corp., 110 Cal.App.2d 314 , 320 [ 242 P.2d 665 ], states: “. . . it is also the law that a person who sells a security impliedly represents that a permit therefor has been secured when one is required by law for such a sale, and if this implied representation is false, then it is a negligent misrepresentation which is an actionable fraud [citation] ; and where, as here, the action is for damages for fraud, recovery may be had against all persons participating in the fraud, whether they received a portion of the money paid or not. [Citation.] ” (Emphasis added.)

In Moore v. Stella, 52 Cal.App.2d 766 [ 127 P.2d 300 ], the defendant transferred interest in mineral rights by deed. The interest ran to many acres of described land. The court said (p. 776): “Deeds to interests in real, property may be ‘certificates of interest’ and hence ‘securities’ althought the word ‘deed’ is not used in the definition.” This answers defendants’ contention that real property transferred in fee simple is not included in the section. The court added that the size of the area conveyed was not deter-, minative, and stated this rule (p. 773): “Whether the transactions were clean-cut transfers of interests in real estate to be held, used, or sold by the grantees without participation with others in a profit-sharing venture on the one hand, or whether upon the other hand, while they were conveyances of definite interests in real property, they were intended by both seller and buyer to transfer rights to participate in earnings or profits in the nature of landowner’s oil royalties that might inure to the benefit of numerous landowner lessors under community leases, was necessarily a question of fact for the trial court.” (Emphasis added.) The court then concluded that the evidence supported a “securities” finding.

In People v. Chait, 69 Cal.App.2d 503 [ 159 P.2d 445 ], the defendants sold to various individuals fractional lots upon the representation that they were “either proven oil lands, were located in a proven oil district, or that negotiations were then pending with major oil companies operating in the district, and that leases would be made with these companies by virtue of which the purchasers would receive large bonuses or royalties and a comfortable income.” (Pp. 507-508.) Mr. Presiding Justice Nourse noted (pp. 520-521) that the lands were purchased as investments in “proven oil lands,” (“potential oil lands” is the language used in our case) and the court held that evidence supported the finding that the transactions were within the purview of the Corporate Securities Act.

In Domestic & Foreign Petroleum Co. v. Long, 4 Cal.2d 547 [ 51 P.2d 73 ], lessees under an oil and gas lease executed assignments of percentages of oil and other substances to be produced during the term of the lease, and money

“A deed to mineral rights may or may not be a security. The determination of its true character requires an inquiry which goes beyond the mere name of the instrument or the nature of the interest conveyed.

“In deciding whether a given instrument is a security the courts have invariably looked through mere form to substance. [Citations.]” (Moore v. Stella, supra, 52 Cal.App.2d 766 , 772.)

One of the allegations of the complaint is that, in pursuance of the scheme to defraud plaintiff, defendants adopted the “device of executing grant deeds to plaintiff purporting to convey title to said prospective oil lands, or to a fractional undivided interest therein, but each such instrument was in fact a certificate of interest and a certificate of interest in an oil title.” Under the allegations of the complaint, the triers of the fact could determine that the transactions were not clean-cut transfers of interests in real estate to be held, used or sold by plaintiff without participation with others in profit-sharing ventures but it was intended by both seller and buyer that, while they were conveyances of definite interests in real property, they actually were to transfer rights to participate in earnings or profits in the nature of landowners oil royalties that might inure to the benefit of others under leases. This seems to be the test laid down in Moore v. Stella, supra, 52 Cal.App.2d 766 , 773. The first 12 counts state causes of action, at least as against the general demurrer filed.

Plaintiff alleged her advanced age, failing eyesight, impaired faculties, the close advisor-advisee relationship between herself and Hilding and her purchase of every security recommended to her by Hilding. The facts alleged, if proved, would constitute a confidential relationship. In Kent v. First Trust & Sav. Bank, 101 Cal.App.2d 361 , 370 [ 225 P.2d 625 ], it is said: “There is no merit in plaintiff’s contention that a confidential relationship was not pleaded ... It is alleged in the answer that by reason of Mrs. McKee’s age and physical condition her mental faculties were impaired and she was easily influenced by those in whom she had confidence; that she reposed trust and confidence in plaintiff and for a long period prior to and after the execution of the note she did whatever he suggested or instructed her to do.”

Defendants cite the rule stated in 12 Cal.Jur. 452, and cases supporting it, to the effect that the representations to be actionable must be of a present or past fact and not a mere expression of opinion or a representation of an act to be performed in the future, and contend that the representations here are in the latter categories. However, the representations here were of present facts, namely, that the lands were potential oil lands, were a good buy and worth the price asked. Moreover, there are two exceptions to the rule that expressions of opinion are not actionable and the allegations of the complaint bring the case within both exceptions. The first is that an expression of opinion is actionable if the party expressing it does not honestly entertain that opinion. (Dyke v. Zaiser, 80 Cal.App.2d 639 , 649 [ 182 P.2d 344 ]; Restatement, Torts, 525 (b); Hobart v. Hobart Estate Co., 26 Cal.2d 412 , 430 [ 159 P.2d 958 ].) Here it is alleged that defendant Hilding did not believe his representations to be true, thus making his opinion a dishonest one. The second exception arises when the party making the false representation of

3. Statute of Limitations.

Plaintiff’s allegations of the existence of the fiduciary relationship between her and Hilding, her age and condition and the other circumstances of the case, were sufficient to account for her failure to discover the true facts, until the dates alleged. Her causes of action did not accrue until the discovery of such facts. (Code Civ. Proc., § 338, subd. 4.) She alleged that because of some transaction she had with Hilding in October or November, 1952 (a transaction not here involved) she began to suspect that she had been imposed upon. She thereupon employed an attorney to investigate for her and upon his reporting to her the results of his investigation she first learned the true facts. This meets the requirements set forth in Douglas v. Douglas, 103 Cal.App.2d 29 , 32 [ 228 P.2d 603 ]. “Where the fraudulent acts complained of occurred more than three years prior to the filing of the action, to constitute a valid complaint not only must the facts constituting the fraud be declared but also the circumstances surrounding the discovery must be so alleged as to disclose that the action is not barred by the statute of limitations. [Citations.] ” See also Strangman v. Arc-Saws, Inc., 123 Cal.App.2d 620 [ 267 P.2d 395 ], an action based on the Corporate Securities Act, where it was held that the plaintiff’s failure to make inquiry sooner was justified because of the confidence imposed by him in his attorney who was also an officer of the issuing corporation. See Myers v. Stevenson, 125 Cal.App.2d 399 , 402 [ 270 P.2d 885 ], giving right to amend if allegations concerning the ignorance of the cause of action and its discovery are not sufficiently explicit.

What has been said about plaintiff’s failure to discover the facts earlier applies to the claim of laches. From the time plaintiff first became suspicious until the discovery of the facts, not more than two months elapsed. Thereafter for a period of approximately four months she withheld action at the request of defendants’ attorney. “ ‘Where a party protests promptly on discovering that he has been defrauded in making a contract, and enters into negotiations for a peaceable settlement, which fail, a complaint filed within a reasonable time after such failure is not barred by laches. ’ (Reiniger v. Hassell, 216 Cal. 209 , 210-211 [ 13 P.2d 737 ].)” (Williams v. Marshall, 37 Cal.2d 445 , 456 [ 235 P.2d 372 ].) No element of laches appears. It should be pointed out, also, that “. . . the defense of laches can be asserted only in an action in equity.” (18 Cal.Jur.2d 206.) Plaintiff’s action sounds in tort for fraud. (See Taormina v. Antelope Min. Corp., supra, 110 Cal.App.2d 314 , 319.)

The orders granting the motion to strike and sustaining the demurrers were erroneous. The judgment is reversed.

Peters, P. J., and Wood (Fred B.), J., concurred.

A petition for a rehearing was denied May 20, 1955, and respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied June 16, 1955. Schauer, J., and Spence, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.'