Fed. DEPOSIT Ins. Corp. v. DINTINO
Decision Date | 02 October 2008 |
Docket Number | No. D051447.,D051447. |
Citation | 167 Cal.App.4th 333,84 Cal.Rptr.3d 38 |
Parties | FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Richard K. DINTINO, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Charles D. Jarrell, Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Darren J. Quinn, Law Offices of Darren J. Quinn, Del Mar, CA, for Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Richard K. Dintino appeals a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff IndyMac Bank, F.S.B. (Bank) in its action against him arising out of his nonpayment of a home loan. 1 The trial court granted Dintino's motion for summary adjudication of Bank's breach of contract cause of action, but denied his motion for summary adjudication of Bank's causes of action for unjust enrichment and money lent. The parties then stipulated to a bench trial on their briefs on the sole issue of the amount of damages due Bank on its unjust enrichment cause of action. The court entered judgment for Bank in the amount of $268,177.61, plus prejudgment interest of $147,007.30. The court subsequently denied Dintino's motion for an award of attorney fees he incurred in defending against Bank's breach of contract cause of action.
On appeal, Dintino contends the trial court erred by denying: (1) his motion for summary adjudication of Bank's unjust enrichment cause of action because it is barred by the Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (d), 2 three-year statute of limitations; (2) his motion for summary adjudication of Bank's money lent cause of action because it, together with Bank's breach of contract cause of action, is barred pursuant to the one-action rule of section 726; (3) his motion for summary judgment based on his affirmative defense of unclean hands; and (4) his motion for an award of attorney fees incurred in defending against Bank's breach of contract cause of action.
On or about June 11, 1999, Dintino borrowed $270,400 from ICON Mortgage, Inc., (ICON) to fund his purchase of residential real property located at 4755 Panorama Drive, San Diego (Property). The loan was evidenced by Dintino's execution of a note in that amount (Note). The Note was secured by a deed of trust (Trust Deed) on the Property. The Trust Deed was executed by Dintino on June 15 and recorded with the San Diego County Recorder on June 18. On or about June 16, ICON executed a corporation assignment of deed of trust (Assignment), transferring all of its beneficial interest in the Trust Deed (and presumably the Note) to INMC Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (predecessor in interest to Bank). On December 9, the Assignment was recorded with the San Diego County Recorder.
On July 23, 1999, Bank transferred all of its interest in the Note to WAMU Mortgage Securities Corp. (WAMU). 3 On December 6, pursuant to Bank's request, T.D. Service Company, successor trustee of the Trust Deed (Trustee), executed a full reconveyance (Reconveyance) of its interest in the Trust Deed. On December 9, the Reconveyance was recorded with the San Diego County Recorder.
On or about August 18, 2000, Dintino executed a grant deed (Grant Deed) transferring the Property to Paul L. Stricker. On August 30, the Grant Deed was recorded with the San Diego County Recorder. However, on Dintino's sale of the Property to Stricker, none of the sale proceeds were used to pay the unpaid principal balance of the Note (i.e., $268,177.61). Instead, all of the net proceeds from the sale were paid to Dintino.
After paying all prior monthly installments on the Note, Dintino did not pay the monthly installment due on September 1, 2000, which installment was subject to a late charge if not paid by September 15. 4 Prior to that September installment, Dintino had paid all monthly installments between seven and 18 days after their respective due dates. After August 2000, Dintino did not pay any further installments on the Note. On or about October 24, WAMU apparently received a letter from Dintino informing it of his sale of the Property. 5 Bank apparently received a copy of that letter on October 25. In or about May 2003, Bank repurchased the Note from WAMU in response to WAMU's demand based on the absence of a first lien position trust deed.
On September 5, 2003, Bank filed the instant action against Dintino alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2) money lent; and (3) unjust enrichment. Dintino filed an answer, asserting the affirmative defenses that Bank's claims were barred by: (1) applicable statutes of limitations (e.g., §§ 337, 338 & 339); (2) the antideficiency statutes, including the one-action rule (§§ 580 et seq., 726); and (3) the doctrine of unclean hands.
In March 2006, Bank and Dintino each filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication. Dintino argued there were no triable issues of material fact regarding: (1) his section 726 one-action rule defense to Bank's causes of action for breach of contract and money lent; and (2) his statute of limitations defense to Bank's cause of action for unjust enrichment. Bank argued there were no triable issues of material fact regarding all three of its causes of action and that it therefore was entitled to judgment as a matter of law or, at least, summary adjudication on some of its causes of action.
On September 11, the trial court issued a minute order denying Bank's motion and granting, in part, Dintino's motion. The order stated:
of action for money lent or unjust enrichment. [Citations.] Unclean hands does not apply because he who would seek equity must do equity and it is undisputed [Dintino] never paid off the loan.... [Dintino's] legal affirmative defense that a three year Statute of Limitations bars the cause of action for unjust enrichment is not applicable. The applicable Statute of Limitations is four (4) years because this action arises out of a written contract. [§ ]337. Moreover, even if a three (3) year statute could be said to apply, it would not begin to run until [Bank] discovered the fraud or mistake leading to the unjust enrichment, i.e.[,] that Dintino had received proceeds from the sale of the [P]roperty and would not repay the Note. The Bank did not learn of the sale of the [P]roperty until at the earliest 10/25/00. Further, the Bank could not know Dintino was not going to make the 9/00 payment until at least 9/15/00, when such payment would be late.
On October 31, the parties filed with the trial court their stipulation for a bench trial by briefs (Stipulation), which stated in part:
(Italics added.)
On February 14, 2007, following submission by the parties of their trial briefs, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Bank in the amount of $268,177.61 principal, plus...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bierman v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp.
...§ 339; Amen, 58 Cal. 2d at 532-34); (7) for unjust enrichment, three years, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 338 (d); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Dintino, 167 Cal. App. 4th 333, 347-48 (2008); and (8) for an accounting, three years, Jefferson v. J.E. French Co., 54 Cal. 2d 717, 719 (1960) (limitations......