reasonably diligent inquiry in California

2014(Berry v. Valence Technology, Inc. (9th Cir.1999) 175 F.3d 699, 704 , 706 & fn. 9.)” (Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 428 , italics added; see Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 131 .) It is thus open to even the most negligent victim to argue that a reasonably diligent inquiry, if conducted, would not have uncovered the fraud. 13 The rule commencing the statutory period upon discovery by a private victim may not adequately take account of situations in which victims have a material incentive 28 Here it is not suggested that law enforcement authorities, or

2014(Berry v. Valence Technology, Inc. (9th Cir.1999) 175 F.3d 699, 704 , 706 & fn. 9.)” (Deveny v. Entropin, Inc. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 408, 428 , italics added; see Bedolla v. Logan & Frazer (1975) 52 Cal.App.3d 118, 131 .) It is thus open to even the most negligent victim to argue that a reasonably diligent inquiry, if conducted, would not have uncovered the fraud. 13 The rule commencing the statutory period upon discovery by a private victim may not adequately take account of situations in which victims have a material incentive not to report a crime—particularly in cases like this one, where

2022Garrett Co. v. States (1935) 3 Cal.2d 379, 381 ; accord, Pell v. McElroy (1868) 36 Cal. 268, 273 [“The simple, independent fact of possession is sufficient to raise a presumption of interest in the premises on behalf of the occupant.”].) 11 “ ‘The possession required to impart notice to a subsequent purchaser must be open, notorious, exclusive and visible, and not consistent with the record title.’ [Citation.] If either a tenant or a stranger is in possession of leased premises, the purchaser is charged with all those facts which might have been ascertained had a reasonably diligent inquiry be

1989(Claremont Terrace Homeowners’ Assn. v. United States, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d 398, 408 ; Basch v. Tidewater etc. Co., supra, 49 Cal.App.2d Supp. 743 , 748.) “ ‘Possession is notice not only of whatever title the occupant has but also of whatever right he may have in the property, and the knowledge chargeable to a person after he is put on inquiry by possession of land is not limited to such knowledge as would be gained by examination of the public records.’ ” (Claremont Terrace Homeowners’ Assn. v. United States, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d 398, 409 .) Possession of land imparts to the intending purc

1989(Dreyfus v. Hirt (1890) 82 Cal. 621, 625 [ 23 P. 193 ]; High Fidelity Enterprises, Inc. v. Hull (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 279, 281 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 654 ]; Pacific Fruit Exchange v. Schropfer (1929) 99 Cal.App. 692, 694 [ 279 P. 170 ]; 2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:55, pp. 86-87.) This latter rule should apply where, as here, a possessor asserts that notice of additional rights contained in an unrecorded, unreferenced document is implied from possession consistent with a recorded lease. 7 If a tenant is in possession of leased premises, and the circumstances are such

1989(Dreyfus v. Hirt (1890) 82 Cal. 621, 625 [ 23 P. 193 ]; High Fidelity Enterprises, Inc. v. Hull (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 279, 281 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 654 ]; Pacific Fruit Exchange v. Schropfer (1929) 99 Cal.App. 692, 694 [ 279 P. 170 ]; 2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:55, pp. 86-87.) This latter rule should apply where, as here, a possessor asserts that notice of additional rights contained in an unrecorded, unreferenced document is implied from possession consistent with a recorded lease. 7 If a tenant is in possession of leased premises, and the circumstances are such

2022Garrett Co. v. States (1935) 3 Cal.2d 379, 381 ; accord, Pell v. McElroy (1868) 36 Cal. 268, 273 [“The simple, independent fact of possession is sufficient to raise a presumption of interest in the premises on behalf of the occupant.”].) 11 “ ‘The possession required to impart notice to a subsequent purchaser must be open, notorious, exclusive and visible, and not consistent with the record title.’ [Citation.] If either a tenant or a stranger is in possession of leased premises, the purchaser is charged with all those facts which might have been ascertained had a reasonably diligent inquiry be

2022Garrett Co. v. States (1935) 3 Cal.2d 379, 381 ; accord, Pell v. McElroy (1868) 36 Cal. 268, 273 [“The simple, independent fact of possession is sufficient to raise a presumption of interest in the premises on behalf of the occupant.”].) 11 “ ‘The possession required to impart notice to a subsequent purchaser must be open, notorious, exclusive and visible, and not consistent with the record title.’ [Citation.] If either a tenant or a stranger is in possession of leased premises, the purchaser is charged with all those facts which might have been ascertained had a reasonably diligent inquiry be

1989(Claremont Terrace Homeowners’ Assn. v. United States, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d 398, 408 ; Basch v. Tidewater etc. Co., supra, 49 Cal.App.2d Supp. 743 , 748.) “ ‘Possession is notice not only of whatever title the occupant has but also of whatever right he may have in the property, and the knowledge chargeable to a person after he is put on inquiry by possession of land is not limited to such knowledge as would be gained by examination of the public records.’ ” (Claremont Terrace Homeowners’ Assn. v. United States, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d 398, 409 .) Possession of land imparts to the intending purc

1989(Claremont Terrace Homeowners’ Assn. v. United States, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d 398, 408 ; Basch v. Tidewater etc. Co., supra, 49 Cal.App.2d Supp. 743 , 748.) “ ‘Possession is notice not only of whatever title the occupant has but also of whatever right he may have in the property, and the knowledge chargeable to a person after he is put on inquiry by possession of land is not limited to such knowledge as would be gained by examination of the public records.’ ” (Claremont Terrace Homeowners’ Assn. v. United States, supra, 146 Cal.App.3d 398, 409 .) Possession of land imparts to the intending purc

1989(Dreyfus v. Hirt (1890) 82 Cal. 621, 625 [ 23 P. 193 ]; High Fidelity Enterprises, Inc. v. Hull (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 279, 281 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 654 ]; Pacific Fruit Exchange v. Schropfer (1929) 99 Cal.App. 692, 694 [ 279 P. 170 ]; 2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:55, pp. 86-87.) This latter rule should apply where, as here, a possessor asserts that notice of additional rights contained in an unrecorded, unreferenced document is implied from possession consistent with a recorded lease. 7 If a tenant is in possession of leased premises, and the circumstances are such

1989(Dreyfus v. Hirt (1890) 82 Cal. 621, 625 [ 23 P. 193 ]; High Fidelity Enterprises, Inc. v. Hull (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 279, 281 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 654 ]; Pacific Fruit Exchange v. Schropfer (1929) 99 Cal.App. 692, 694 [ 279 P. 170 ]; 2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:55, pp. 86-87.) This latter rule should apply where, as here, a possessor asserts that notice of additional rights contained in an unrecorded, unreferenced document is implied from possession consistent with a recorded lease. 7 If a tenant is in possession of leased premises, and the circumstances are such

1989(Dreyfus v. Hirt (1890) 82 Cal. 621, 625 [ 23 P. 193 ]; High Fidelity Enterprises, Inc. v. Hull (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 279, 281 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 654 ]; Pacific Fruit Exchange v. Schropfer (1929) 99 Cal.App. 692, 694 [ 279 P. 170 ]; 2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:55, pp. 86-87.) This latter rule should apply where, as here, a possessor asserts that notice of additional rights contained in an unrecorded, unreferenced document is implied from possession consistent with a recorded lease. 7 If a tenant is in possession of leased premises, and the circumstances are such

1989(Dreyfus v. Hirt (1890) 82 Cal. 621, 625 [ 23 P. 193 ]; High Fidelity Enterprises, Inc. v. Hull (1962) 210 Cal.App.2d 279, 281 [ 26 Cal.Rptr. 654 ]; Pacific Fruit Exchange v. Schropfer (1929) 99 Cal.App. 692, 694 [ 279 P. 170 ]; 2 Miller & Starr, Current Law of Cal. Real Estate, supra, § 11:55, pp. 86-87.) This latter rule should apply where, as here, a possessor asserts that notice of additional rights contained in an unrecorded, unreferenced document is implied from possession consistent with a recorded lease. 7 If a tenant is in possession of leased premises, and the circumstances are such

1942(Garber v. Gianella, 98 Cal. 527, 529 [ 33 P. 458 ].) It is also settled that if the circumstances as to possession are such as to put a purchaser on inquiry he is chargeable with knowledge of all that a reasonably diligent inquiry as to the rights and claims of the occupant might have disclosed. (25 Cal. Jur., pp. 834-836.) The same *749 must on principle be applicable when the prospective purchaser knows of an outstanding lease on the property although the lessee is not in possession of the property.

1942(Garber v. Gianella, 98 Cal. 527, 529 [ 33 P. 458 ].) It is also settled that if the circumstances as to possession are such as to put a purchaser on inquiry he is chargeable with knowledge of all that a reasonably diligent inquiry as to the rights and claims of the occupant might have disclosed. (25 Cal. Jur., pp. 834-836.) The same *749 must on principle be applicable when the prospective purchaser knows of an outstanding lease on the property although the lessee is not in possession of the property.