How far have courts gone to extend Coppinger protection to a party who really has no present interest in or possession of the property?

California, United States of America

The following excerpt is from Moseley v. Superior Court, 177 Cal.App.3d 672, 223 Cal.Rptr. 116 (Cal. App. 1986):

The "constructive trust" theory of Coppinger is about as far as California courts have gone to extend lis pendens protection to a party who really has no present claim to an interest in or possession of the property on which the lis pendens has been imposed. In Deane v. Superior Court (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 292, 210 Cal.Rptr. 406, this court refused to extend Coppinger beyond its facts. Plaintiffs in Deane attempted to base a lis pendens on a claim that belonged to a third party.

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Try it today free of charge!

The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.

Other Questions

Is there a distinction between a person who has a possessory interest in real property and who has not a right to possession of real property? (California, United States of America)

Does a party have a right to an easement that encroachments upon the property of a property owned by the same party? (California, United States of America)

When an arbitration agreement requires the parties to share the costs of arbitration, does the court have jurisdiction to order that party to waive its right to arbitrate the other party's claim? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances would the Court have found that possession for sale and possession for possession of a firearm be a less favourable verdict than the previous verdict? (California, United States of America)

Does a party have an interest in the possession of a property which has been used for a forbidden purpose? (California, United States of America)

What is the test for reversal of a finding of possession of a property where the court's definition of "possessory interest" was confusing and confusing? (California, United States of America)

In what circumstances will a court change the charge of simple possession of marijuana to the charged offense of possession of possession for sale? (California, United States of America)

Does the privity rule apply to bind those who succeed to an interest in property where rights in the interest have been litigated to judgment by a predecessor in interest? (California, United States of America)

Is a party required to request that the court enter judgment on a valid jury verdict in order for that party to have the benefit of the verdict? (California, United States of America)

Does the Court of Appeal have found that Defendant Joiner did not waive his assumed constitutional right to be personally present at the remand hearing and that the court erred in conducting that hearing in his absence? (California, United States of America)

How far have courts gone to extend Coppinger protection to a party who really has no present interest in or possession of the property?

"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Other Questions

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.

Company

Product

Resources