Can a plaintiff bring an action against the state for failing to protect the title to the property during the statutory statute of limitations?

Even if the statute of limitations began to run at either of those times, "then during the entire statutory period in which an action could be brought, the plaintiff could have recovered at most only nominal damages. Such a result would in our opinion not only be unjust but would permit the use of the statute of limitations for a purpose never intended. [Citation.]" (Miller v. Bean, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d at p. 189.)

The court found it "clear that the entire damages which plaintiff seeks to recover were incurred when the title to the property was lost, thereby rendering valueless his security, for prior to that time he had sustained no actual injury." (Miller v. Bean, supra, 87 Cal.App.2d at p. 189.) Thus, "the statutory period for bringing an action based on the failure to protect the title could not have commenced to run until [title was lost], for only when the sale was completed was the breach complete." (Id. at pp. 189-190.) Analyzed another way, assuming "that the failure to pay the taxes when they fell due was a breach of the covenant, it was not the breach upon which the action is founded, and it did not bring about the result complained of." (Id. at p. 190.) Rather, "[t]he failure to redeem prior to the sale by the state was an independent breach which, alone, was the proximate cause of the loss of title. Manifestly, no cause of action for that loss arose until that breach occurred." (Ibid.)