## Facts

- In 1962, Antonio Aguilar retained attorney Thomas Bocci to defend him against a criminal charge and agreed to pay a $10,000 fee.
- As part of the fee arrangement, Aguilar executed and delivered to Bocci a deed to Aguilar’s home, which was recorded.
- Aguilar then owned only a one-half interest in the property; his wife owned the other one-half. Aguilar later acquired his wife’s one-half interest.
- In 1970, Aguilar sued to quiet title, alleging the deed was procured by fraud and in violation of duties arising from the attorney–client relationship.
- Bocci asserted the statute of limitations and cross-complained to quiet title to an undivided one-half interest and to recover the unpaid portion of the $10,000 fee.
- At trial and on appeal, it was conceded the deed was given only as security for payment of the agreed fee, not as an outright transfer of ownership.
- The trial court found the fee was reasonable; the deed was executed voluntarily, without undue influence, and with full understanding; and Aguilar remained in possession of the property.
- The trial court also found Bocci’s fee claim was barred by the statute of limitations, yet treated the parties as tenants in common, awarded Bocci a one-half interest, and ordered partition by sale (with an option for Aguilar to buy Bocci’s half).

## Issues

1. Whether a deed given solely as security for a fee obligation can be enforced as an ownership interest when the underlying fee claim is barred by the statute of limitations.
2. Whether a creditor holding only a security interest may obtain quiet title or partition/sale as a substitute for enforcing a time-barred debt.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment granting Bocci a one-half ownership interest and partition/sale relief.
- The court treated the deed as a security instrument (mortgage-like) because it was undisputed the deed was given only as security for the fee.
- Because the underlying fee obligation was time-barred, the security interest could not be enforced.
- Bocci therefore could not quiet title in himself, could not be treated as a cotenant, and could not compel partition/sale to obtain value from the property.

## Legal Principles

- A conveyance intended solely as security is construed as creating a lien or mortgage-like security interest, not a present ownership interest.
- A security interest is incidental to the debt it secures; when enforcement of the underlying obligation is barred by the statute of limitations, enforcement of the security interest is likewise unavailable.
- A creditor may not use quiet title or partition remedies to obtain the economic equivalent of foreclosure or collection on a debt that is time-barred.

## Conclusion

Because the deed functioned only as security for an attorney-fee obligation that was barred by limitations, the creditor had no enforceable basis to claim co-ownership or to force partition/sale, and the judgment awarding a one-half interest and partition relief was reversed.


Aguilar v. Bocci, 39 Cal. App. 3d 475 (Ct. App. 1974)