UD Judgement Scan PDF

7/29/2019 UD Judgement Scan PDF

1/10

SuperiorCourt of CaliforniaIn and For the Countyof El DoradoSmallClaimsFEDERAL OMELOANMORTGAGEPlaintiff,Vs.LAURIEFLOODDefendant.

UNLAWFUL DETAINERRULINGPCU20100359

JUDGMENTFINDINGS OF FACT

This matter came on for an unlawful detainer rial before Andrew D. Woll, JudgePro-Tem,after having beenduly appointed o serveas such by the SuperiorCourt of ElDoradoCounty. Trial was completedand he casewas argued I -16-2A10.The Court,afterconsideringonly admissibleevidence,makes he followingfactual indings:The case s onewherethe FederalHome Loan MortgageCorporation hereafterreferred o as FHLMC), is suing Laurie Ann Flood, for a writ of possessionn an

unlawful detainerproceeding. Suchproceedings reexpeditedproceedingswhichsignificantly cut down time for discoveryand pleading,as well as imit defenses vailableto the defendant:During trial plaintiff FHLMC, throughcounsel, ubmitted nto evidence sExhibit l, a TRUSTEE'S DEED UPON SALE. Plaintiffalso requested he courrtakejudicial notice of the complaint and defendants nswer hereto. The Court admittedExhibit I and ruled it would take udicial notice as requested. Defendant epresentedherself n pro-perand submittedvarious exhibits which will be referred o in thediscussionherein. From the various exhibitswe learn:The propefiy at issue s commonly referred o as 4957Fin Court,Pollock Pines,CA95726. It is residential ropertyat which defendantesides nd which is or was,ownedby the defendant. Presumably, hepropertywas purchased y the useof cashanda promissorynote securedby a trust deed hat containeda non udicial saleprovision.The note was n favor of Wells Fargo Bank (plaintiff spredecessorn interest). The noteand rustdeedwerenot offered into evidenceby eitherparty,but both partiesagreed hattherewas no issue hat defendantwas the ownerof the propertybeforeforeclosure

rs,EDts\ 2e ?$1$ 4

#


2/10

,.@proceedingsook place. It is uncontestedhatFHLMC was he buyer at the foreclosuresale.

It wasundisputed hat defendant ailed to makea certain number of paymentsbetweenAugust and December,20A9.Eachpaymentwas approximately$908.00. Theexactamountsvaried somewhatdependinguponsumsneeded o keep escrow money nbalance.

After defendant ailed to make her payments,Wells Fargoandplaintiff workedtogether o put togethera refinancingplan called he "HOME AFFORDABLEMORTGAGE PROGRAM". Under this programdefendantwas to make trial paymentsof approximately$637.00per month, and f the paymentswere madewithout a defaultthen her loan would be refinanced n such a way thatpaymentswould be due on amonthlybasisand would remainat the $637.00 evel.Defendantmade her paymentsas required. Shemissedno payments.When

defendant enderedher July 20lA payment t was refused. Wells Fargo correspondenceclaims a numberof reasonshe programwas terminated.None of the reasons tatedappearsegitimate. Plaintiff testifiedshecooperated ompletely with Wells Fargo. Noevidence o the contrary waspresented y the plaintiff.Following Wells'refusal to accept he July 2010payment, he propertywasforeclosedon andthis unlawful detaineraction has now been iled by the purchaser t thesale.

LEGAL ISSUES: There are no legal issues o be decided. On the record, n opencourt,plaintiff statedno monetary damages re sought. The only relief sought s a writ ofpossession ndplaintiff s counselagreed his type of relief is equitable n nature. It is.EQUITABLE ISSUES: The only equitablessue s whetheror not plaintiff is entitled oa writ of possession.EQUITABLE PRINCIPLES: Since he timesof Courtsof Equity' n early'England, ealpropertyhas beenheld to be unique(See3387below) and n England,matters elated oforeclosurewere long within the province of the Courts of Chancety,also referred o asCourtsof Equity. The principlestheseCourtscreatedhave beenhandeddown throughthe centurysand still guide the Courts n today'smodern imes. There areno longerseparateCourts of Law andEquity because he two are merged n America,but many (ifnot all) of the principlesof equity have been ncorporated nto California Codes. See, orinstance: All references re o the Civil Code)

22.2. The common law of England,so far as t is not repugnant o or inconsistentwith the Con stitutionof the United States, rthe Constitutionor lawsof this State, sthe ruleof decision n all the courtsof this State.


3/10

t327q.As a general ule,compensations therelief or remedyprovidedby the awof this State or the violation of privaterights,and the meansof securing heirobservance; nd specific andpreventive elief may be given in no othercases hanthosespecified n this Partof the CIVIL CODE.3275 Whenever,by the terms of an obligation,a party thereto ncursa forfeiture,or a loss n the natureof a forfeiture,by reasonof his failure to comply with itsprovisions,he may be relieved herefrom,uponmaking full compensationo theotherparty, except n caseof a grosslynegligent,willful, or fraudulentbreachofduty.3366.Specificorpreventiverelief may be givenasprovidedby the awsof thisstate.3367 Specific elief s given: I . By takingpossessionf a thing,anddelivering tto a claimant;2. By compelling a party himself to do that which ought o be done;or,3. By declaring and determining he rightsof parties,otherwise hanby anawardof damages.3368.Preventive elief is givenby prohibitinga party from doing that whichought not to be done.3369.Neither specificnor preventive elief canbe granted o enforcea penaltyorforfeiture in any case,nor to enforcea penal aw, except n a caseof nuisanceoras otherwiseprovidedby law.3375 A personentitledto specific real property,by reasoneither of a perfectedtitle, or of a claim to title which ought o be perfected,may recover he same nthe mannerprescribedby the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,eitherby ajudgment for its possession,o be executedby the Sheriff,or by ajudgmentrequiringthe otherparty to perfect he title, and o deliver possession f theproperty.

' Al l of detbndansevidenceu'asobjected o b plaintitTardal l >aidobjections e .'rr rle.j r-ri is..:'.;iiias set orth herein:Exh A - Obj. hearsay nd relevance. loombergNewsArticles- obj. sustained.Exh. B -No obj. lodged.Exh. C - Obj. hearsay,elevance nd oundation.Ltrby FreddieMac.Obj. sustained. Exh. D - Wells Fargo servicing.Obj ovemled. The exhibit corraboratestestimonywhich is admissible nderPG&E -v- ThomasDrayage.Exh. E - No obj. byplaintiff. Exh. F - Obj. relevance,Depositionof Kennerty.Obj. ovemrled. (Kennertysignedpapersn present ase. Issues n depoare dentical.This opinion,however,doesnot rely on anything rom this depo.).Exh.G - Obj. relevance nd hearsay.Obj.ovemled.Docs relate o Home Affordable Plan. Exh.H - Obj. relevance nd hearsay.Obj.ovemrled. phone og and summary f voluminous vidence). xh. I - No Obj.Exh.J. Obj. Relevance.Docs are operative acts,or resgestae.Also admissible nderPG&E-v- Thomas Drayage or corraboration. Exh. K - Obj. hearsayand relevance.Objoverruled.Operative acts, resgestae, nd summaryof cumulativeevidence. The exhibitcorraboratesestimonywhich is admissible nderPG&E -v- ThomasDrayage.

I


4/10

' '&3387 [t is to be presumedhat thebreachof anagreemento transfer ealpropertycannotbe adequatelyelievedby pecuniary ompensation.n the caseof a single-family dwelling which thepartyseekingperformancentends o occupy, hispresumptions conclusive.n all othercases,his presumptions a presumptionaffecting he burdenof proof.3391.Specificperformance annotbe enforced gainsta party to a contract n anyof the following cases: . If he hasnot received n adequate onsiderationor thecontract;2.\f it is not, as o him, ust andreasonable; . If his assentwasobtainedby the misrepresentation,oncealment, ircumvention,or unfair practicesof anyparty to whom performancewould becomedue under he contract,or by anypromiseof suchpartywhich hasnot beensubstantiallyulfilled; or;4.If hisassentwas given under he influence of mistake,misapprehension, r surprise,except hat where he contractprovides or compensationn caseof mistake,amistakewithin the scopeof suchprovisionmay be compensatedor, and thecontractspecifically enforced n otherrespects,f proper o be so enforced.

3392. Specificperformancecannotbe enforced n favor of a party who has notfully andfairly performed all the conditionsprecedent n his part to the obligationof the other party,exceptwherehis failure to perform is only partial,and eitherentirely mmaterial,or capable f being ully compensated,n which casespecif-rcperformancemay be compelled,uponfull compensation eing made or thedefault.

3394.An agreementor the saleof propertycannotbe specificallyenforced nfavor of a sellerwho cannotgive to the buyera title free from reasonable oubt.

3510.When hereason f a ruleceases,o should herule tself.

3512.One mustnot changehispurpose o the njury'of another.

3515.He who consentso an act s notwronged y it .

35 16.Acquiescencen error akesaway he right of objecting o it .

3517.No one can akeadvantage f his own wrong.

3523.For everywrong there s aremedy.


5/10


6/10

supra 04 Cal.App.2d 42.247-248.22 Cal.Rptr.309.) n Abstract nvestment. upra. twasobservedhat An equitabledefenses (a)defenseo an actionon groundswhich.Prior to thepassingof the Common Law Procedure ct (J7and l8 Vict. c. 125)wouldhavebeencognizableonly in a courtof equity.' Citation.)'and hat lt hasalsobeenconstruedo meana defensewhich a court of equitywould recognize r one oundeduponsomedistinctgroundof equitableurisdiction. Citation.)' P. 248.22Cal.Rptr.at313.) In Schubert, upra, he SupremeCourtcited,with approval, anguagen Gray,supra, hat in an unlawful detaineraction the equitablepowersof the court may not beextended into a firll examination f all the equities nvolved, o the end hatexactjusticebedone." 193 Cal. at p.295,223 P. at p. 552.) In Schubert, upra, he defendant aspermitted o raise he equitabledefensehat the tenancywas not a month-to-monthtenancyas allegedby the plaintiff, but that his occupationwasunderan oral agreementolease.Similarly, n Rishwain,supra, hedefendants leaded ndproved hatas a partofthe consideration or the purchase f the plaintiffs' mercantilebusinesshe plaintiffsagreed o lease he building in which the businesswas ocated. n Johnson, upra, hetenantwas perrnitted o show that, beingalready n possession, e was nduced o enterinto the leaseupon which the landlord wasrelying throughdeceptionand mpositionpracticedupon the tenantby the landlord.The equitabledefenseurged n Manning, supra,was that the relationshipwas not that of landlord and enant,but a saleof an interest npropertyand, similarly, n Pico, hat t wasa partnership.Seealso Henderson . Allen,23 Cal.5I9,52l.)" (UnionOi l Co.v. Chandler1970) CaLApp.3d 16,72 -723.)

"The basic eachingof Knowles,Lakeside, nd heentire ine of cases hesedecisionsreflect, [Footnoteomitted.] s thata defense ormallypermittedbecauset'arises out ofthe subjectmatter' of the original suit is generallyexcluded n an unlawful detaineractionif suchdefenses extrinsic to the narrow issueof possession, hich the unlawful detainerprocedure eeks peedily o resolve. Footnote mitted.]Neither Knowles. Lakeside or any otherCaliforniadecision,however,prohibitsa tenant rom interposinga defensewhich doesdirectly relate o the issueof possessionandwhich, f established, ould result n the enant's etentionof thepremises.Thethrustof the Knowles' ine of casess basically o prevent enants rom fiustrating hesumman'statutor)'remedvhroughntroductionf extraneous atter: hedecisionsaccomplish his objectiveby confining he unlawfuldetaineraction o issues irectll'relevant o the ultimatequestionof possession."Green . SuperiorCourt (1974) 0Cal.3d616,632-634.)

In the presentcase,defendantFlood haspresented vidence hat her paymentswere madein accordance ith a refinancingplanproposed y plaintiff andplaintiff s predecessorWells Fargo. Plaintiff haspresented videnceshe was not in default and hatpaymentsmissedbefore he work out plan wasproposedwere to be added o the balancedue on hernote when henote was rewritten.Plaintiff presented o evidence o the contrary. Undersuchcircumstances,t is clear hat o awardplaintiff a writ of possessionefeats heequitable rinciples hatare discussed bovebecauset will clearlywork a forfeitureandit is axiomatic hat "the law abhorsa forfeiture". (See3275above).Becausehe payment


7/10

{..@of sumsduegoesdirectly to the right of possessionuchevidence n thepresent ase sfully admissible ndbearsdirectly on the equitable onsiderationshat heCourt mustmake n order o make ts decisionon whetheror not to grantequitable elief.

DISCUSSIONRE BONAFIDE PURCHASERFOR VALUESection2924of the Civil Codecreates conclusive resumptionn favorof abona ide purchaserat a trustee's ale hat if the trustee's eed ecites hat all requirementsof law havebeencompliedwith regarding he mailingposting,publication,or personaldeliveryof the notice of defaultand he noticeof sale, he recital s conclusive. n otherwords, ailure o comply with the notice equirementss a ground o cancel hesaleonlyasagainst partywho is not a bona ide purchaser. sale o a bona ide purchasers notvoidable."|, lapue . Gor-MeyWest. nc. 1985)175Cal.App.3d 08, 620-621.)Theelements f bona fide purchasearepaymentof value, n good faith. and without acfualorconstructive oticeof another's ights. EmphasisAdded)(SeeTrusts;77 Am.Jur.2d,Vendorand Purchaser 633 et seq.)"4 Witkin, Summaryof California Law (9thed.1987)RealProperty, 206,page 11.)In Li ttle v. CFS ServiceCoip.,supra, 88Cal.App.3d tpages1358-1359,233Cal.Rptr.923, he court reviewed he Californiacaseswhich consideredwhetherdefectsin noticewhich madea foreclosure alevoid or voidable.The court found: "Although heextentof the defect s not determinative,what seems o be determinatives the existenceandeffectof a conclusivepresumption f regularityof the sale.A deedof trust,whichbinds he trustor,may direct the trustee o include n the deed o the propertyrecitals hatnoticewas given as requiredunder he deedof trust andstate hat such recitalsshallbeconclusive roof of the truthfulness ndregularity hereof." Id. atp. 1359,233 Cal.Rptr.923.) Where no such recitals as o the regularityof a saleappear n a deedand therewas a

defect n the notice to the trustor, he deedhasbeen ound void. (Ibid.) Where suchrecitalsappearon the face of a deedbut the deedalsosets orth facts which areinconsistentwith the recital of regularity, he deedhasbeen ound void on thebasis hatthe deedshowed hat the recitalswere not valid. (lbid., citing Holland v. PendletonMtge.Co. 1943) 1 Cal.App.2d 70,576-577, 43P.2d493.)Only whererecitals of regularity appear n the deedand no contrar)- ecitalsaremadehavenotice defectsbeen ound to makea deedvoidable, rather hanvoid. (Little v.CFS ServiceCoip.,supra,188Cal.App.3d t p. 1359,233 Cal.Rptr. 23.) n suchinstances trustor then bears he burdenof showing hat there aregrounds or equitablerelief from the deed suchas fraudor that the buyer was not a bona fide purchaseror

value,and hat herewere alsodefectsn notice, Ibid.)" (Dimocky.EmeraldPropertiesLLC (2001)8 CalAnp.4th 868 877 ) (Emphasis dded).In the instantcase,plaintiff was fully awareof the agreementupon whichdefendantelied o cureher default.Defendant o testifiedandplaintiff presented oevidence o the contrary.Plaintiff had actualnoticeof defendant's ightsunder he"Affordable Home Loan Plan" agreement o redeemandcure he default; and to retaintitle andpossession f saidproperty. Furthermore, uring he trial no evidence t all was


8/10

i

presentedo demonstratehatplaintiff paidanythingof value or thepropertyor thenote.It appears o the Court that defendanthasmet the burdenof showing thatplaintiff was nota bona ide purchaseror value.

DISCUSSIONRE THE TENDER REQUIREMENTPlaintiff presented ointsand authorities hat in essencemake the argument hatdefendant annotproduceany evidenceunlessshe has endered ull paymentof allmonies n arrears.This argumentonly hasmerit if thereare, n fact, any missedpayments;and, even hen, thereare exceptions o the rule. As the Court hasnoted above,any missedpaymentswerewaived whenplaintiff and Wells Fargo nvitedplaintiff toparticipaten their refi plan and hen acted n bad aith in contravention f theveryplantheyproposed.As defendant estified, he paymentsmissedat that time were o be addedto theprincipal sum owned and not paid in one argesum. Defendantwas not in defaultof the proposedplan until plaintiff or Wells Fargo refused o acceptdefendant's endered

payment. It follows that full tenderwas madeand he argumentof plaintiff, to the effectit was not, fails. Defendanthas not moved o cancel he sale. In fact, in an unlawfuldetaineraction, defendantcould not make sucha demand. However, n general n equity" a] valid and viable tenderof paymentof the indebtednesswing is essentialo an actionto cancela voidablesaleundera deedof trust. Shimpones . Stickney,2l9 Cal.637,649,28P.2d673;umboldtSavingsBankv.McClevetry,161Cal.285,290, 19P.82; Copsey . Sacramento ank, 133 CaL659,666,66 . 7,204;Crummerv. Whitehead,230 Cal.App.2d 64,268,40 Cal.Rptr.826;Mack v. Golino,65 Cal.App2d 731,735,213P.2d760;Py v. Pleitne r, 0 Cal.App.2d 76,581--582, 61P.2d393; arpenter.Hamilton,59 Cal.App 2d 149,151,138 P.2d355;Touli v. SantaCruzCountyTitle Co.,20 Cal.App.zd495, 499,67P.2d404.)" Karlsen . AmericanSay.& Loan Assn. 1971)15Cal.App.3d l2, l17.) Theproper orum for this type of issue s a quiet itle suit nthe urisdiction of a Court of GeneralJurisdiction. In such a Court all issues an bejoined includingpotentialcancellationof the foreclosuresale. In an unlawful detaineraction,suchrelief cannotbe granted.

Furthermore.It is thegeneralule hatcourts avepo\\er o vacate, -rec-:=*::salervhere herehas beentiaud in the procurementof the tbreclosuredecreeor rvhere hesalehasbeen mproperly,unfairly or unlawfully conducted,or is tainted by fraud,orwhere herehasbeen sucha mistake hat to allow it to standwould be inequitable opurchaser ndparties.'(Bankof Americaetc.Assn.v. Reidy,supra,15 Cal.2dat p. 248,101P.2d77.)A debtormay apply to a courtof equity o setasidea trust deed oreclosureon allegationsof unfairnessor irregularitythat, coupledwith the inadequacyof priceobtainedat the sale,mean hat it is appropriateo invalidate he sale. Sierra-BayFed.LandBankAssn. . Superior ourt 1991)227Cal.App.3d 18,3371',277 al.Rptr.753;3 Witkin, Sumrnaryof Cal. Law (9th ed. I 987) SecurityTransactionsn RealProperty,$149.)" Jv.Jensen 2001)88 Cal.App.4th 093,1097-1098.)heappellate ourtsupra tpages1097-1099, ffirmed he trial court'sudgmentsettingasidea trustee's ale,eventhough he plaintiff debtordid not tenderpaymentof the arrearsprior to initiating theaction.The appellate ourt found that the udgment tself satisfied he tender equirement


9/10

*

in thatasa conditionof settingaside he trustee's aleand rustee's eed he debtorwasrequired o tender he amount n arrears.Here, he Court s not being asked o setasidethe rustee's aledue o plaintiffs fraud. Rather, heCourthas akenundersubmissionheevidenceandargumentsofferedat trial and has consideredelevant aw, and, under heforegoing actsandauthorities,he Courtwill deny udgment n favor of plaintiff on theunlawfuldetaineractionand orderjudgment or defendantwho is entitled o possessionof thepremises.As indicated, laintiff is not withouta remedysince his udgment swithoutprejudice o the continuation f relevant itigation n theproper orum.(See3523above).

This udgment s madewithout prejudice o eitherparty filing suit n a casewithintheGeneralUnlimited Jurisdictionof the El DoradoCounty SuperiorCourt. Sucha suitcan,and should, esolveal l issueswhich canbe brought o the Courtby eitherpartyu'hileprovidingappropriate iscovery ime limits for the ssues nvolved,someof which wereraised n thepresent rial. It can oin, for instance,Wells Fargo,as an nterested arty,aswell asproviderelief, both egal and equitable,which canresolve he concerns f allparties. t allows for a crosscomplaint,aswell as a complaint.

The presentCourt is not oblivious to the fact that defendant s not entitled ocontinuepossession f thepropertywithoutdoing equity. Equity in this case,as o thedefendant, ill consistof placing he sum of $637.00permonth nto a bank accountwhosepurposeshall be solely o collect undsneededo accumulatemonthlypaymentsthat shouldhavebeenpaid on the revisednotehad Wells Fargonot improperly refuseddefendantsenderof payment.Defendant s to establishhis accountandmaintain t inher name. The distributionof this account halldepend pon funher litigation,agreement etween he parties educed o writing and signedby the parties,or a furtherorder of the Court. Defendant s to makeeachsuchpaymentso that a review of theaccountpaperworkon the 3rd of eachmonth shall show he payment equiredhas beenmade. Defendantshallnot withdraw any fundsfrom this account or any purposewithout court approvalor a stipulationsignedby bothparties. Defendantshallkeep hetaxeson thepropertypaid andcurrent.Since he deposits epresent ITI, with escrowsincluded, he Court expects he parties o agree hat axesdue may be withdrawnandpaid. Defendant hallprovide o plaintiff s counsel roofof depositor each e\ne::made. Plaintiff shall keepdefendant nd he court apprised s o the denti$' of theircounselor agentat all times,and shall do soby certified etter to defendantand apleading iled with the Court. Defendantshallnot be required o place nto the account,any sums epresentinghe paymentsmissedbefore he refinancingplan wasproposed yWellsFargo. Thosemissedpaymentsmay be added o thebalancen her refinancingarrangementf plaintiff decideso finalize he refi plan. This account s to be establishedwithin 30 daysof the date his udgment s served.The nitial depositshallbe $637.00which shall apply to the first monthsmoneydue ollowing thedate his udgment sserved.

The Court shall retain urisdictionover theparties or thepurposeof enforcingormodifying this udgment,but said etention s madewithoutprejudice o the filing of


10/10

further itigationasdescribed bove.Shouldunher itigationbecommenced,his Courtwill welcome motion o consolidate othactionsn a Courtof unlimited urisdiction.

Respectfullyubmitted y:

Dated:l - f f i - ]D _rgdftr^J h"lol]__ANDREw.woLL n lf.b*rqUDGE Ro EM O.1 I

UD Judgement Scan PDF

Documents

Transcript of UD Judgement Scan PDF