![]() Bank as Trustee for the Trust were defendants in the underlying action but are not parties to this appeal. The Pertinent Provisions of the Trust Deed and Promissory Note Plaintiff’s promissory note identifies Washington Mutual Bank as the “Lender,” and the note states the lender or anyone who takes the note by transfer and is entitled to payments under the note is the “Note Holder.” Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. Plaintiff appealed, and we affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend. The Chase Defendants (and the others) demurred to the operative complaint. The operative complaint asserted four causes of action: (1) a request for stay of nonjudicial foreclosure and injunctive relief predicated on an asserted violation of Civil Code section 2923.5, (2) quiet title, (3) unlawful debt collection practices, and (4) declaratory and injunctive relief. ![]() 1 She filed the operative third amended complaint in September 2015. Plaintiff sued the Chase Defendants (and others) to stop the foreclosure sale in June 2014. So far as the record reveals, plaintiff’s property has not yet been sold at a foreclosure auction. CRC recorded the first notice of trustee’s sale in September 2010, and additional notices thereafter. In June 2010, as permitted by the trust deed she signed, CRC recorded a notice of default and election to sell her property. Plaintiff fell behind on payments due under the promissory note. Chase subsequently assigned its beneficial interest in the 2 deed of trust to Bank of America, successor by merger to La Salle Bank, as trustee for the Trust. In 2008, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seized the assets of Washington Mutual Bank and transferred them to Chase. Plaintiff’s promissory note was placed into a mortgage-backed security trust entitled “WaMu Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR9 Trust” (the Trust). Washington Mutual Bank, FA was the initial lender, and CRC was the initial trustee. Repayment of the loan was secured by a deed of trust on plaintiff’s property. Non-Judicial Foreclosure and Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Plaintiff refinanced her home in 2006 and executed a promissory note for approximately $1,700,000. We consider whether CRC and Chase (collectively, the Chase Defendants) can invoke these attorney fees provisions despite having assigned the trust deed to another financial institution, whether the trial court properly ordered payment of fees rather than ordering the fees added to the loan balance due, and whether the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (Rosenthal Act) separately authorizes a fee award. (Chase) and California Reconveyance Company (CRC), finding certain provisions in the deed of trust she signed authorized a fees award. The trial court then ordered plaintiff to pay the attorney fees of defendants and respondents JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. Plaintiff sued to stop the foreclosure process and the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal after sustaining demurrers to plaintiff’s suit-a judgment we affirmed. ∗ Plaintiff and appellant Melody Chacker (plaintiff) refinanced a loan on her home and then failed to make required loan payments, which triggered non-judicial foreclosure proceedings. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 8.1105(b) and 8.1110, this opinion is certified for publication with the exception of Parts II.A–II.B and Part II.D. Sorich, Bryant Delgadillo and Mariel Gerlt-Ferraro, for Defendants and Respondents. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephanie M. BC547853) JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants and Respondents. 2 Filed 9/19/18 (unmodified opinion) CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION ∗ IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE MELODY CHACKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Appellant’s petition for rehearing is denied. 4.) The addition of new footnote 6 will require renumbering of all subsequent footnotes. ![]() (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 322 (Hart) analyzed a provision identical to section 9 and construed it essentially as we have the Hart case did not analyze the import of a provision identical to section 14 in the trust deed here because it concluded the plaintiffs in that case were not “borrowers” and thus the provision could not be invoked by the successor to the lender. THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed on September 19, 2018, be modified as follows: On page 15, in the second sentence of the second full paragraph, the following new footnote number 6 is added immediately after the comma: Hart v. BC547853) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING Defendants and Respondents. et al., B281874 (Los Angeles County Super. Filed 10/17/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE MELODY CHACKER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |