Herrera v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n

Decision Date17 May 2012
Docket NumberNo. E052943.,E052943.
Citation205 Cal.App.4th 1495,2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 6420,12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5366,141 Cal.Rptr.3d 326
CourtCalifornia Court of Appeals
PartiesSalvador HERRERA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Dennis Moore, Corona, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Malcolm Cisneros, Irvine, William G. Malcolm, Donald W. Robinson and Brian S. Thomley for Defendant and Respondent.

OPINION

CODRINGTON, J.

IINTRODUCTION

Salvador Herrera and Diana Herrera(plaintiffs) defaulted on their home loan.Federal National Mortgage Association(Fannie Mae) purchased their property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.Plaintiffs filed suit against Fannie Mae to set aside the sale.The trial court sustained Fannie Mae's demurrer to plaintiffs' second amended complaint (SAC) without leave to amend.Plaintiffs appeal the judgment of dismissal.

Plaintiffs contend the trial court abused its discretion in sustaining Fannie Mae's demurrer to the fifth and sixth causes of action of plaintiffs' SAC, without leave to amend.Plaintiffs argue they should be permitted to amend to allege that Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.(MERS), a nominee beneficiary, lacked authority to assign the note and deed of trust (DOT), since MERS did not have an agency agreement with IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B.(IndyMac Federal) or the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation(FDIC).Plaintiffs assert that, as a consequence, MERS's assignment of the DOT and note to OneWest was void.In turn, OneWest's assignment of the DOT to Fannie Mae was void as well, and Fannie Mae could not foreclose on plaintiffs' property.Plaintiffs also contend the trial court erred in sustaining Fannie Mae's demurrer to the first cause of action for violation of Civil Code section 2932.5.1

We conclude there was no abuse of discretion in sustaining Fannie Mae's demurrer without leave to amend.The courts in California have universally held that MERS, as nominee beneficiary, has the power to assign its interest under a deed of trust.Plaintiffs granted MERS such authority by signing the deed of trust.The judicially noticed documents attached to plaintiffs' SAC established a chain of title in which MERS assigned its interest to OneWest, and OneWest assigned its interest to Fannie Mae.There were no facts alleged in the SAC or raised during the hearing on the demurrer demonstrating a reasonable possibility that an amendment could cure the complaint's defects.Plaintiffs' proposed new facts raised for the first time on appeal do not require reversal, as there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court denying leave to amend.

We also conclude there was no error in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend as to the first cause of action for violation of section 2932.5.Although the trial court previously overruled Fannie Mae's demurrer to this cause of action, this court may review and affirm the ruling if it is correct.We conclude the trial court appropriately sustained the demurrer to the first cause of action without leave to amend since section 2932.5 is inapplicable to deeds of trust.We affirm the judgment.

IIFACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On August 3, 2007, plaintiffs obtained a home loan from Indymac Bank, F.S.B.(Indymac).In furtherance of the loan, plaintiffs signed a promissory note (note) agreeing to repay the loan in the amount of $318,500, plus interest.The note was secured by a DOT signed by plaintiffs.The DOT named Indymac as “Lender,”First American Title Insurance Co.(First American) as trustee, and MERS as beneficiary, acting as nominee for the lender, Indymac.

The DOT specified as to the transfer of property rights to plaintiffs' home on Eric Lane in Riverside that “The beneficiary of this Security Instrument is MERS (solely as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns) and the successors and assigns of MERS.This Security Instrument secures to Lender: (i) the repayment of the Loan, and all renewals, extensions and modifications of the Note; and (ii) the performance of Borrower's covenants and agreements under this Security Instrument and the Note.For this purpose, Borrower irrevocably grants and conveys to Trustee, in trust, with power of sale, the following described property....”

The DOT further states that “Borrower understands and agrees that MERS holds only legal title to the interests granted by Borrower in this Security Instrument, but, if necessary to comply with law or custom, MERS (as nominee for Lender and Lender's successors and assigns) has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property; and to take any action required of Lender including, but not limited to, releasing and canceling this Security Instrument.”

On July 11, 2008, the assets of Indymac were transferred to FDIC, as conservator for IndyMac Federal.On March 19, 2009, IndyMac Federal was placed in receivership and IndyMac Federal's assets allegedly were sold to OneWest, “unless such asset was a Loan in which a foreclosure action began.”

On June 1, 2009, MERS, as nominee beneficiary for IndyMac Federal, signed an assignment of the DOT securing plaintiffs' home loan.The assignment transferred all interest in the DOT, together with the note, to OneWest.JC San Pedro signed the assignment as “Authorized Signatory” for MERS.

On June 2, 2009, a notice of default and election to sell under the DOT (notice of default) was executed and recorded by Trustee Corps, as agent for IndyMac Federal.Plaintiffs owed $15,200.20 on their mortgage.

On July 8, 2009, OneWest executed a substitution of trustee substituting MTC Financial Inc. dba Trustee Corps (Trustee Corps) in place of First American, as trustee of the DOT.JC San Pedro signed the assignment as “Authorized Signatory” for OneWest.

Also on July 8, 2009, OneWest assigned to Fannie Mae all of OneWest's beneficiary interest in the DOT and note.JC San Pedro signed the assignment of the DOT, as “Authorized Signatory” for OneWest.

On September 3, 2009, the substitution of trustee executed on July 8, 2009, was recorded.

Plaintiffs failed to cure the default on their home mortgage.On September 3, 2009, Trustee Corps executed and recorded a notice of trustee's sale, notifying plaintiffs that it intended to sell plaintiffs' property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on September 23, 2009.

On September 23, 2009, plaintiffs' home was sold to Fannie Mae in a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, conducted by Trustee Corps.The trustee's deed upon sale and the July 8, 2009, assignment of the DOT from OneWest to Fannie Mae, were recorded on October 5, 2009.

On December 17, 2009, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Fannie Mae, seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale.Fannie Mae demurred to the complaint.The trial court overruled the demurrer to the first cause of action alleging violation of section 2932.5, and sustained the demurrer with leave to amend as to the remaining causes of action.Plaintiffs amended their complaint and Fannie Mae demurred again to the entire amended complaint.The court sustained the demurrer with leave to amend, as to the entire first amended complaint, including the first cause of action for violation of section 2932.5.

Plaintiffs filed a SAC.Attached to the complaint were various supporting documents, including the DOT, promissory note, assignments of the DOT, notice of default and the trustee's sale, substitution of trustee, and trustee's deed upon sale.Fannie Mae once again demurred.The trial court sustained Fannie Mae's demurrer without leave to amend, as to the entire complaint, including the first cause of action for violation of section 2932.5, the fifth cause of action seeking to set aside the trustee's sale, and the sixth cause of action to void or cancel the trustee's deed upon sale.The trial court thereafter entered a judgment of dismissal.

IIISTANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a ruling on a demurrer, we apply the following standard of review: We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.[Citation.]We also consider matters which may be judicially noticed.”[Citation.]Further, we give the complaint a reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.[Citation.]When a demurrer is sustained, we determine whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.[Citation.]And when it is sustained without leave to amend, we decide whether there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment: if it can be, the trial court has abused its discretion and we reverse; if not, there has been no abuse of discretion and we affirm.[Citations.]The burden of proving such reasonable possibility is squarely on the plaintiff.’[Citations.]( Zelig v. County of Los Angeles(2002)27 Cal.4th 1112, 1126, 119 Cal.Rptr.2d 709, 45 P.3d 1171;Cabesuela v. Browning–Ferris Industries of California, Inc.(1998)68 Cal.App.4th 101, 107, 80 Cal.Rptr.2d 60.)

Where there is a request for leave to amend but it is “wholly insufficient to suggest whether or how the plaintiff could amend[ ]‘the question as to whether or not [the trial] court abused its discretion’ in denying leave to amend remains open on appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 472c.)But it is the trial court's discretion that is at issue; the reviewing court may only determine, as a matter of law, whether the trial court's discretion was abused.In our view an abuse of discretion could be found, absent an effective request for leave to amend in specified ways, only if a potentially effective amendment were both apparent and consistent with the plaintiff's theory of the case.”( CAMSI IV v. Hunter Technology Corp.(1991)230 Cal.App.3d 1525, 1542, 282 Cal.Rptr. 80( CAMSI IV ).)Here, plaintiffs did not state...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
181 cases
  • Tanguma v. Law Offices of Les Zieve
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • Enero 29, 2020
  • Bryer v. U.S. Bank Nat'Lass'N
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • Mayo 23, 2016
    ...C. 11. Id., Ex. D. 12. See Docket No. 67 at ¶¶ 15, 18; id., Exs. C-E. 13. See Docket No. 67 at ¶ 20. 14. See id. at ¶¶ 23-29. 15. Docket No. 62 at 4-5. 16. 205 Cal. App. 4th 1495, 1505-06 (2012), overruled on other grounds by Yvanova, 62 Cal. 4th at 939 n.13. 17. See Docket No. 62 at 6-7. 18. See id. at 7-8. 19. See Docket No. 67 at ¶¶ 33-46. 20. See Docket Nos. 16, 23, 27, 29. 21. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). 22. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). 23.motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 75. In any case, these arguments do not hold much water. The Herrera court considered and rejected the first two issues. See 205 Cal. App. 4th at 1504-06; see also Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 198 Cal. App. 4th 256, 270-71 (2011), overruled on other grounds by Yvanova, 62 Cal. 4th at 939 n.13; Aguirre v. Cal-W. Reconveyance Corp., Case No. 11-cv-06911, 2012 WL 273753, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30, 2012). And even assuming that...
  • Farrens v. Cit Bank, N.A.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • Octubre 25, 2018
    ...Bank, N.A. (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 497, 515, overruled in part by Yvanova, supra, 62 Cal.4th at p. 939; Siliga v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 75, 85-86, overruled in part by Yvanova, supra, at p. 939; Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, 1508, overruled in part by Yvanova, supra, at p. 939.) No California court followed Glaski before our high court...
  • Yvanova v. New Century Mortg. Corp.
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court
    • Febrero 18, 2016
    ...court observed that the plaintiffs, in order to state a wrongful foreclosure claim, needed to show prejudice, and they could not do so because the challenged assignment did not change their obligations under the note. (Herrera, at pp. 1507–1508, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 326.) Even if MERS lacked the authority to assign the deed of trust, "the true victims were not plaintiffs but the lender." (Id. at p. 1508, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 326.) On the narrow question before us—whether a wrongfulSiliga v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., supra, 219 Cal.App.4th 75, 161 Cal.Rptr.3d 500, Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., supra, 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 129 Cal.Rptr.3d 467, and Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn., supra, 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 326, to the extent they held borrowers lack standing to challenge an assignment of the deed of trust as void.14 Plaintiff cites newly added provisions that prohibit any entity from initiating(Id. at p. 324.) Being neither parties nor third party beneficiaries of the pooling agreement, they could not complain of a failure to abide by its terms. (Ibid. )Jenkins also cited Herrera v. Federal National Mortgage Assn. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 1495, 141 Cal.Rptr.3d 326, which primarily addressed the merits of a foreclosure challenge, concluding the borrowers had adduced no facts on which they could allege an assignment from MERS to another beneficiary was...
  • Get Started for Free