IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT"

Transcription

1 Filed 12/23/10 Singh v. Cal. Mortgage and Realty CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule (a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule (b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT NARESH P. SINGH, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, H (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No CV ) v. CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE AND REALTY, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. Plaintiffs, the trustees of two living trusts, were junior lienholders in leasehold interests in a San Jose hotel. In this appeal they seek review of a summary judgment granted to 2720 Uridias Ranch, LLC (Uridias) and California Mortgage and Realty, Inc. (California Mortgage) following the foreclosure sale of the leasehold interests by a senior lienor. Plaintiffs contend that Uridias improperly added the amount attributable to an advance it had previously made to the foreclosing lienor; consequently, they were deprived of the "surplus proceeds" they should have received when the foreclosure sale occurred. Plaintiffs further argue that the notice of default and notice of trustee's sale were defective for failing to identify Uridias's advance. We find no merit in either contention and therefore must affirm the judgment. 1

2 Background In 2005 the Clarion Hotel, located in San Jose, was operated by the Delta Hotel Group, LP (Delta), which was a sublessee of Rosemary Land Company, LLC (Rosemary), also a sublessee. In February 2004 plaintiffs loaned $1.5 million to Rosemary, Delta, and Liberty Properties, LLC, 1 secured by a deed of trust in the leaseholds. In subsequent years the amount was increased to $2 million. Plaintiffs' lien was originally in third position. First in line among the secured lenders was True North Management Group (True North), while the second position was occupied by Redwood Mortgage Investors VIII (Redwood). In October 2005 CMR Mortgage Fund II, LLC (CMR II) made a $6 million loan, also secured by deeds of trust in the leasehold interests held by Rosemary and Delta. That transaction was facilitated by respondent California Mortgage, which was the trustee and loan servicing agent. Plaintiffs agreed to subordinate their position to CMR II, leaving them in fourth position. The successor in interest to CMR Fund II was respondent Uridias, which thus became the third lienholder. On January 29, 2007, CMR Fund II recorded the default of the borrowers on the $6 million note of October On October 22, 2007 Rosemary and Delta declared bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, listing California Mortgage as a creditor. As to both debtors, California Mortgage obtained relief from the automatic stay in bankruptcy court. California Mortgage recorded a Notice of Trustee's Sale on June 12 and 13, By this time the notes payable to True North and Redwood were fully due and payable, and default interest on second-place Redwood's loan was accumulating at a rate of 18 percent. The payoff figure for True North was approximately $9.85 million as of 1 All three of these entities were managed by Noorudin Billawala, who was also the general partner of Delta. 2

3 May 31, Redwood's payoff amount was approximately $5.2 million as of June 6, On July 2, 2008, Uridias and Redwood entered into a Workout/Forbearance Agreement, under which Redwood agreed to postpone the foreclosure sale, in consideration of Uridias's payment on the existing debt of "no less than" $1.5 million. The next day Uridias advanced $3,527,460 to Redwood. Ajay Shingal, the Uridias partner who authorized the payment, testified that Uridias wanted to pay as much as it could under the forbearance agreement in order to reduce the amount of interest, given the applicable 18 percent rate, as well as other expenses. Relying on the terms of its note and deed of trust, Uridias added the advance to the principal balance of its note, along with a 10 percent "advance fee" of $352,746. An accounting by Uridias listed $9,980, as the total amount owed on its note. Plaintiffs initiated this action on July 7, 2008 to enjoin the foreclosure sale. They obtained an emergency temporary restraining order the same day, but their application for a preliminary injunction was denied two weeks later, on July 21, The foreclosure sale took place the following week, on July 28, Uridias made a successful credit bid of $3,600,500 for the Delta lease. The Rosemary leasehold was sold to the Etessam Family Trust for $6,330,350. The sale thus yielded $9,930,850, creating a shortfall of about $50,000. The Etessam proceeds were paid to Uridias, and, as no surplus emerged from the sale, plaintiffs as junior lienors received nothing. Having been unsuccessful in their pursuit of injunctive relief, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on August 14, 2008, naming Uridias and California Mortgage as defendants and seeking declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement, and damages. On April 3, 2009, the trial court denied plaintiffs' application for a writ of attachment, finding that they had "not met their burden of establishing the probable validity of their claim(s)." In July 2009 Uridias, California Mortgage, and plaintiffs each filed a motion for summary judgment. None of the material facts asserted by any party was disputed. On 3

4 October 30, 2009, the superior court denied plaintiffs' motion and granted the motions of California Mortgage and Uridias. The court determined that Uridias, having made the advance to protect its security, had priority over the junior lien of plaintiffs. From the ensuing judgment on November 17, 2009, plaintiffs brought this timely appeal. Discussion 1. Standard and Scope of Review When reviewing a trial court summary judgment ruling, we " 'independently determine the construction and effect of the facts presented to the trial court as a matter of law.' " (Washington Mut. Bank v. Jacoby (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 639, 643, quoting Kolodge v. Boyd (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 349, 356.) If the facts are undisputed, as in this case, the motion may be resolved as a matter of law in accordance with the general principles governing summary judgment. (Adams v. Paul (1995) 11 Cal.4th 583, 592; Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 18 Cal.4th 739, 751.) Accordingly, the motion must demonstrate that the material facts are undisputed and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subds. (b)(1) & (c).) When the moving party is the defendant, the motion will be granted if one or more of the elements of the cause of action cannot be separately established or the defendant establishes a complete defense to that cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subds. (o), (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850 (Aguilar); Truong v. Glasser (2009) 181 Cal.App.4th 102, 109.) Conversely, a plaintiff who moves for summary judgment must establish that there is no defense to the causes of action asserted. (Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subds. (a), (p)(1).) The moving party, whether plaintiff or defendant, bears the burden of persuasion that there are no triable issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 850; Padilla v. Rodas (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 742, ) 4

5 2. Priority of Liens Plaintiffs' first amended complaint contained one substantive claim, that plaintiffs were entitled to a declaration that Civil Code section 2924k, subdivision (a), 2 "governs the priority of the distribution of [the] proceeds" of the foreclosure sale. Consequently, plaintiffs asserted, there was a surplus of the proceeds that should have been distributed to the junior lienors pursuant to the statute. In their summary judgment motion plaintiffs invoked sections 2903, 2904, and 2876, for the proposition that Uridias was not permitted to be subrogated to the rights of Redwood because Uridias had not "satisfied or paid off or remedied or cured the entire debt to Redwood." Uridias responded that section 2876, the primary statute on which plaintiffs relied, was "a subrogation rule, and where necessary, a priority reversal statute. It is not a statute limiting the right of junior lienholders to make optional advances to senior lienholders." Uridias was not seeking priority reversal, but was only adding an advance to a senior lienor to its junior position. "It did not take a subrogated position to Redwood's second position and did not need to. There was no intervening lien." Subrogation concepts and the statutes cited by plaintiffs were therefore irrelevant. Uridias maintained that it had the right to add the advance to its note and deed of trust, not only under common law but under the terms of its note and deed of trust. On appeal, these two parties resume their respective arguments. Plaintiffs again cite sections 2903 through 2905, and they assert section 2876 as a specific limitation on Uridias's ability to add the advance to its lien that is, Uridias could not do so because it had not satisfied the Redwood lien. Addressing the note and deeds of trust, plaintiffs continue to assert that the advances had to cure or remedy the default on the senior (Redwood) lien. Plaintiffs claim entitlement to $3,074,406.70, the amount they represented to be the outstanding debt to them as of the foreclosure sale on July 28, All further statutory references are to the Civil Code unless otherwise stated. 5

6 The cited statutes do not help plaintiffs. Sections 2903 through confer upon the junior lienor the right, but do not impose a duty, to redeem the lienor's interest, and they accord to that party subrogation rights in the superior lien. (See United States Cold Storage v. Great Western Savings & Loan Assn. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1224.) Subrogation is not at issue in this case. Section 2876 provides: "Where the holder of a special lien is compelled to satisfy a prior lien for his own protection, he may enforce payment of the amount so paid by him, as a part of the claim for which his own lien exists." This provision permits the junior lienor to add the amount of the senior lien he or she has satisfied to the amount of his or her own lien. It does not foreclose such addition when circumstances have not "compelled" full satisfaction of the senior lien. No other authority cited by plaintiffs precludes the making of advances short of full satisfaction of the senior lien or limits the parties' ability to do so by contract. Here the note and deed of trust authorized Uridias to make such advances in order to avert the senior lienor's foreclosure and to reduce the rapidly accumulating interest debt, which indisputably would have eliminated the interests of both junior lienors, Uridias and plaintiffs. Paragraph 9 of the note stated: "9. Additional Advances: The Holder shall be entitled to advance such further sums as necessary, in the Holder's sole discretion, to cure any default(s) on any senior lien(s) including property tax liens. Any 3 Section 2903 states: "Every person, having an interest in property subject to a lien, has a right to redeem it from the lien, at any time after the claim is due, and before his right of redemption is foreclosed, and, by such redemption, becomes subrogated to all the benefits of the lien, as against all owners of other interests in the property, except in so far as he was bound to make such redemption for their benefit." Section 2904 provides: "One who has a lien inferior to another, upon the same property, has a right: [ ] 1. To redeem the property in the same manner as its owner might, from the superior lien; and, [ ] 2. To be subrogated to all the benefits of the superior lien, when necessary for the protection of his interests, upon satisfying the claim secured thereby." Section 2905 provides: "Redemption from a lien is made by performing, or offering to perform, the act for the performance of which it is a security, and paying, or offering to pay, the damages, if any, to which the holder of the lien is entitled for delay." 6

7 sum or sums so advanced shall be considered additional advances under this Note and the Deed of Trust by which this Note is secured and shall bear interest at the Default Rate set forth above from the date of the advance(s) until paid by the Borrower. Further, Maker shall pay to Holder as liquidated damages an additional fee equal to ten percent (10.00%) of any sum(s) advanced hereon for services rendered in connection with such advance(s)." Paragraph 20 of the corresponding deed of trust provided, "Right to Cure Defaults. If an Event of Default occurs, Beneficiary may, but is not required to, and without notice to or demand on Trustor and without releasing Trustor from any obligation, make or do the same in such manner and to such extent as Beneficiary may deem necessary or advisable to protect the security hereof. Beneficiary is authorized to enter upon the Trust Property for such purposes, or appear in, defend, or bring any action or proceeding to protect its interest in the Trust Property or to foreclose this Deed of Trust or collect the Debt, and the cost and expense thereof (including attorneys' fees and expenses) with interest as provided in this Paragraph, shall be due upon demand from Beneficiary to Trustor. All such costs and expenses incurred by Beneficiary in remedying such Event of Default or in appearing in, defending, or bringing any such action or proceeding shall be paid at the Default Rate as stated and defined in the Note and secured by this Deed of Trust." These provisions entitled Uridias to cure the borrower's default "to such extent" as Uridias deemed "necessary or advisable" to protect its security interest. Nothing in the language of either the promissory note or the deed of trust required the advanced funds to cure the borrower's default completely before Uridias could recapture the advance by adding it (plus the advance fee) to the balance. Neither statutory nor common law invalidated Uridias's action. (See, e.g., Manning v. Queen (1968) 263 Cal.App.2d 672, 674.) If such partial cures were restricted in the manner that plaintiffs envision, few creditors in Uridias's position would step forward to prevent the loss of security interests 7

8 and many more foreclosure sales would take place. Such a result would benefit neither the borrower nor any of the lienors junior to the foreclosing lender, including those in plaintiffs' position. Plaintiffs simply cannot avoid the consequences of being fourth in priority. (See 5 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Est. 11: 1, 11:100.) They did not act to protect their own interests, as did Uridias, and they are not now permitted to enrich themselves with $3 million of the money Uridias advanced to protect both itself and plaintiffs from losing their entire interests through foreclosure. 3. Adequacy of Notice Plaintiffs further contend that "defendants are estopped" from collecting the proceeds attributable to the Uridias advance because neither Uridias nor California Mortgage provided notice of the advance, "either in the Notice of Default or the Notice of Trustee's Sale, or even directly to those present at the July 28, 2008 foreclosure sales." They again rely on section 2876, and in their reply brief they invoke section 2924, misquoting that statute for the proposition that the notice of default "must 'set forth the nature of such breach.' " 4 Neither that statute nor the case authority they cite, Little v. Harbor Pacific Mortgage Investors (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 717, enhances their position. As the court stated in Little, " 'A purpose of the required statement in the notice of default is to afford the debtor an opportunity to cure the default and obtain reinstatement of the obligation within three months after the notice of default as provided in section 2924c of 4 Plaintiffs' citation of "section 2924(c)" is assumed to be a reference to section 2924, subdivision (a)(1)(c), which requires the notice of default to include a "statement setting forth the nature of each breach actually known to the beneficiary and of his or her election to sell or cause to be sold the property to satisfy that obligation and any other obligation secured by the deed of trust or mortgage that is in default." The misquoted text was not part of the court's holding in Little v. Harbor Pacific Mortgage Investors (1985) 175 Cal.App.3d 717, either, but was an assertion made by the appellant debtors. (Id. at p. 720.) 8

9 the Civil Code. [Citation.]' [Citation.] The debtor is to be given enough information so the default can be cured. '[T]he statute is sufficiently complied with if the notice of default contains a correct statement of some breach or breaches sufficiently substantial in their nature to authorize the trustee or beneficiary to declare a default and proceed with a foreclosure.' [Citation.]" (Id. at p. 720, italics added.) As respondents point out, inadequate notice was not pleaded in plaintiffs' complaint as a ground for invalidating the foreclosure sale. In their initial complaint they alleged that they were "now 'sold-out' juniors," who had no recourse to recoup their debt unless they had enough time to secure the cash and financing to purchase the leasehold estates. Plaintiffs wanted a declaration that the CMR II note had been reinstated and was not currently in default. In their first amended complaint, they contested Uridias's accounting and claimed that out of the proceeds of the foreclosure sales, they were entitled to $3,074,406.70, which was the "outstanding balance of obligations" to them as "first-in-line junior lienors." Plaintiffs did not complain of lack of notice. But even if this issue is cognizable for purposes of summary judgment analysis, and even if plaintiffs were able to show that the notice was legally insufficient for failing to include the advance, 5 they nevertheless cannot obtain the relief they seek. The chief flaw in plaintiffs' claim is the absence of any nexus between the insufficient notice and the distribution of the sale proceeds. In other words, even if a detailed statement of the breach had been given to them, plaintiffs still would not have been entitled to $3 million from the foreclosure sale. As discussed earlier, this did not constitute "surplus proceeds" but was part of the amount properly advanced by Uridias. Furthermore, there is no 5 Plaintiffs cannot avoid the fact that the June 17, 2008 "Notice of Trustee's Sale" specified a balance owing of $5,879, Additional sale information was available by contacting the resources identified in the notice itself. Plaintiffs apparently did not attempt to obtain details of the amount claimed; instead, they focused on opposing the foreclosure sale, distributing a copy of their complaint and threatening to include anyone participating in the sale in the lawsuit. 9

10 indication in the record that plaintiffs took the initiative to discover the basis for the representation in the Notice of Trustee's Sale that the unpaid balance was $5.88 million, nor evidence that they attempted to cure the default of the senior liens. Instead, they relied on the premise that any default had been cured and simply opposed the foreclosure sale on that ground. There is no ground for overturning the sale, nor any remedy available to plaintiffs for the assertedly inadequate notice. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. Disposition The judgment is affirmed. ELIA, J. WE CONCUR: RUSHING, P. J. PREMO, J. 10

Bank of America, N.A., v. La Jolla Group II

Bank of America, N.A., v. La Jolla Group II Select 'Print' in your browser menu to print this document. 2005 ALM Properties, Inc. Page printed from: Cal Law Back to Decision Bank of America, N.A., v. La Jolla Group II C.A. 5th 05-20-2005 F045318

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT Filed 9/13/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT EUGENIA CALVO, B226494 v. Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B156171

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B156171 Filed 5/16/03 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE STEPHEN M. GAGGERO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B156171 (Los Angeles County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Filed 7/10/12 Obhi v. Banga CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 7/29/16 Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage CA2/1 Opinion on remand from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 8/24/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO GRAMERCY INVESTMENT TRUST, Plaintiff and Respondent, E051384 v. LAKEMONT

More information

1. Recording a notice in the office of the recorder of each county where the trust property is situated.

1. Recording a notice in the office of the recorder of each county where the trust property is situated. California Statutes 33-808. Notice of trustee's sale A. The trustee shall give written notice of the time and place of sale legally describing the trust property to be sold by each of the following methods:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 11/1/05; pub. order 11/28/05 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE TERRY MCELROY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CHASE

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed 1/31/17 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B204853

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B204853 Filed 1/23/09 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE PRO VALUE PROPERTIES, INC., Cross-Complainant and Respondent, v. B204853

More information

Filed 8/ 25/ 16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

Filed 8/ 25/ 16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS Filed 8/ 25/ 16 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered

More information

PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST. Date: City of Milpitas, CA 95035

PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST. Date: City of Milpitas, CA 95035 PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST Date: City of Milpitas, CA 95035 $10,335,400 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Milpitas Unified School District, a public school district organized and existing

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D058284

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D058284 Filed 7/19/11; pub. order 8/11/11 (see end of opn.) COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA In re the Marriage of DELIA T. and ISAAC P. RAMIREZ DELIA T. RAMIREZ, Respondent,

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 10/23/14 Barbee v. Bank of America CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Wells Fargo Bank, NA v. Parrish, 2015-Ohio-4045.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Wells Fargo Bank, NA, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 15AP-243 (C.P.C. No. 12CV-3792) v.

More information

2018 CO 12. No. 16SC666, Oakwood Holdings, LLC v. Mortgage Investments Enterprises, LLC Foreclosure Redemption , C.R.S. (2017) Right to Cure.

2018 CO 12. No. 16SC666, Oakwood Holdings, LLC v. Mortgage Investments Enterprises, LLC Foreclosure Redemption , C.R.S. (2017) Right to Cure. Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado

More information

Session of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Judiciary 2-1

Session of HOUSE BILL No By Committee on Judiciary 2-1 Session of 0 HOUSE BILL No. 0 By Committee on Judiciary - 0 0 0 AN ACT concerning civil procedure; relating to redemption of real property; amending K.S.A. 0 Supp. 0- and repealing the existing section.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Filed 11/29/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DANIEL R. SHUSTER et al., v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, 2d Civil No. B235890

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 6/25/14; pub. order 7/22/14 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE WILLIAM JEFFERSON & CO., INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT B185841

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT B185841 Filed 7/28/06 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT CARRIE BURKLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B185841 (Los Angeles County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (San Joaquin) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (San Joaquin) ---- Filed 8/30/11 CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION * IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ---- HACIENDA RANCH HOMES, INC., Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) Filed 12/23/14 Certified for Publication 1/20/15 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) STOCKTON MORTGAGE, INC. et al., C071210 v. Cross-complainants

More information

DEED OF TRUST. County and State Where Real Property is located:

DEED OF TRUST. County and State Where Real Property is located: When Recorded Return to: Homeownership Programs or Single Family Programs, Arizona, DEED OF TRUST Effective Date: County and State Where Real Property is located: Trustor (Name, Mailing Address and Zip

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Filed 11/18/14 Escalera v. Tung CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

Vermont Bar Association 55 th Mid-Year Meeting

Vermont Bar Association 55 th Mid-Year Meeting Vermont Bar Association 55 th Mid-Year Meeting Seminar Materials Foreclosure: Warning! Proceed with Caution!! Faculty: S. Stacy Chapman, III, Esq., Moderator Grace B. Pazdan, Esq. David Rath, Esq. Susan

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 11/19/15 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO FIRSTMERIT BANK, N.A., Plaintiff and Appellant, E061480 v. DIANA L. REESE,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 7/29/16 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL SECOND DIST. MOSHE YHUDAI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DIVISION ONE B262509

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ---- Filed 10/20/14 Cabral v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Page 1 of 17 STOCKTON MORTGAGE, INC. et al., Cross-complainants and Appellants, v. MICHAEL TOPE et al., Cross-defendants and Respondents. No. C071210. Court of Appeals of California, Third District, San

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE Filed 12/21/11 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE PIONEER CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B225685 (Los Angeles

More information

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking association, Plaintiff/Appellant,

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking association, Plaintiff/Appellant, IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national banking association, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. FELCO BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN, Ira S. Feldman, Trustee;

More information

Referred to Committee on Judiciary. SUMMARY Revises provisions relating to the Foreclosure Mediation Program. (BDR 9-488)

Referred to Committee on Judiciary. SUMMARY Revises provisions relating to the Foreclosure Mediation Program. (BDR 9-488) REQUIRES TWO-THIRDS MAJORITY VOTE (, ) S.B. 0 SENATE BILL NO. 0 COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY MARCH, 0 Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY Revises provisions relating to the Foreclosure Mediation Program.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE Filed 3/5/12 Mercator Property Consultants v. Sumampow CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on

More information

ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee,

ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE ZB, N.A., a National Banking Association, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. DANIEL J. HOELLER, an individual; and AZAR F. GHAFARI, an individual, Defendants/Appellants.

More information

CHAPTER DEEDS OF TRUST

CHAPTER DEEDS OF TRUST [Rev. 9/24/2010 3:29:07 PM] CHAPTER 107 - DEEDS OF TRUST GENERAL PROVISIONS NRS 107.015 NRS 107.020 NRS 107.025 NRS 107.026 NRS 107.027 Definitions. Transfers in trust of real property to secure obligations.

More information

PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST Condominium Conversion BMR Program

PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST Condominium Conversion BMR Program DO NOT DESTROY THIS NOTE: WHEN PAID, THIS NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST SECURING THE SAME MUST BE SURRENDERED TO CITY FOR CANCELLATION BEFORE RECONVEYANCE WILL BE MADE. PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY DEED OF TRUST

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX Filed 1/24/2017 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SIX DOUGLAS GILLIES, Plaintiff and Appellant, 2d Civil No. B272427 (Super.

More information

6. Finding on the mortgage or lien, including priority and entitlement to foreclose.

6. Finding on the mortgage or lien, including priority and entitlement to foreclose. Sample Proposed Decision (Revised 10-19-2016) The following provides a framework. 1. List of pleadings and dispositive motions. 2. Finding that all who are necessary to the action have been joined and

More information

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS Rel: June 1, 2018 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate

More information

(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May 17, 2017) SECOND REPRINT S.B. 33. Referred to Committee on Judiciary

(Reprinted with amendments adopted on May 17, 2017) SECOND REPRINT S.B. 33. Referred to Committee on Judiciary (Reprinted with amendments adopted on May, ) SECOND REPRINT S.B. SENATE BILL NO. COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY (ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR) PREFILED NOVEMBER, Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A146745

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO A146745 Filed 9/29/17 Rosemary Court Properties v. Walker CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions

More information

John Cottle and Jay Roberts of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Walton Beach, for Appellant.

John Cottle and Jay Roberts of Becker & Poliakoff, P.A., Fort Walton Beach, for Appellant. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA WATERVIEW TOWERS YACHT CLUB - THE ULTIMATE, OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, INC., NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION

More information

TITLE 25. RESIDENTIAL FORECLOSURE AND EVICTION LAW CHAPTER 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE

TITLE 25. RESIDENTIAL FORECLOSURE AND EVICTION LAW CHAPTER 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE TITLE 25. RESIDENTIAL FORECLOSURE AND EVICTION LAW CHAPTER 1. SHORT TITLE, FINDINGS, AND PURPOSE 25 M.P.T.L. ch. 1 1 Section 1. Short Title This Law shall be known as the Residential Foreclosure and Eviction

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D062874

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA D062874 Filed 7/31/14 Getsen Acquisitions v. Zapf CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION Case 6:11-cv-06390-HO Document 25 Filed 02/29/12 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#: 272 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON EUGENE DIVISION RYAN BELL, Plaintiffs, Civil No. ll-6390-ho v.

More information

RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR (DIRECT)

RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED NO CA MR (DIRECT) RENDERED: JUNE 14, 2002; 2:00 p.m. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED C ommonwealth Of K entucky Court Of A ppeals NO. 2001-CA-000662-MR (DIRECT) INTREPID INVESTMENTS, INC. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT

More information

1 of 3 DOCUMENTS B COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO Cal. App. LEXIS 630

1 of 3 DOCUMENTS B COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION TWO Cal. App. LEXIS 630 Page 1 1 of 3 DOCUMENTS SHAOXING CITY MAOLONG WUZHONG DOWN PRODUCTS, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. KEEHN & ASSOCIATES, APC, et al., Defendants and Respondents. B256988 COURT OF APPEAL OF

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 2/23/15 Cummins v. Lollar CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 1/27/15 opinion on remand CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE GRAY1 CPB, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SCC ACQUISITIONS,

More information

CA Foreclosure Law - Civil Code 2924:

CA Foreclosure Law - Civil Code 2924: CA Foreclosure Law - Civil Code 2924: 2924. (a) Every transfer of an interest in property, other than in trust, made only as a security for the performance of another act, is to be deemed a mortgage, except

More information

Senate Bill No. 306 Senators Ford and Hammond

Senate Bill No. 306 Senators Ford and Hammond Senate Bill No. 306 Senators Ford and Hammond CHAPTER... AN ACT relating to commoninterest communities; revising provisions governing a unitowners association s lien on a unit for certain amounts due to

More information

Bayview Loan Servicing v. Simmons, 275 Va. 114, 654 S.E.2d 898 (2008) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC v.

Bayview Loan Servicing v. Simmons, 275 Va. 114, 654 S.E.2d 898 (2008) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA. BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC v. Bayview Loan Servicing v. Simmons, 275 Va. 114, 654 S.E.2d 898 (2008) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC v. JANET SIMMONS Record No. 062715 Decided: January 11, 2008 Present:

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR Filed 5/31/16 Lee v. US Bank National Assn. CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PRAMILA KOTHAWALA, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED June 22, 2006 v No. 262172 Oakland Circuit Court MARGARET MCKINDLES, LC No. 2004-058297-CZ Defendant-Appellant. MARGARET

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE B195211

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE B195211 Filed 6/9/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CALIFORNIA GOLF, L.L.C., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. B195211 (Los Angeles

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 38022 VERMONT TROTTER, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, f/k/a BANK OF NEW YORK AS TRUSTEES FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF CWALT, INC.,

More information

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 2/26/19 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE CITY OF SIERRA MADRE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B284550 Los Angeles

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) Filed 5/28/13: pub. order 6/21/13 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ROSINA JEANNE DRAKE, Plaintiff and Appellant, C068747 (Super.

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed 6/6/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VON BECELAERE VENTURES, LLC, D072620 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JAMES ZENOVIC, (Super.

More information

ARMC 2011, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant,

ARMC 2011, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION

More information

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION 0 0 Filed // (ordered published by Supreme Ct. //) SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA APPELLATE DIVISION THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellate Division No. --AP-000 Plaintiff and Respondent,

More information

Case: 3:14-cv wmc Document #: 404 Filed: 06/21/17 Page 1 of 15

Case: 3:14-cv wmc Document #: 404 Filed: 06/21/17 Page 1 of 15 Case: 3:14-cv-00513-wmc Document #: 404 Filed: 06/21/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, v. Plaintiff, Case No. 3:14-cv-00513

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 6TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO: XXX MORTGAGE CORPORATION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 6TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA GENERAL JURISDICTION DIVISION CASE NO: XXX MORTGAGE CORPORATION This is a sample of an actual mortgage complaint. Note there was a second and third mortgage on this property and the first mortgage holder is foreclosing their interest too. Also note the many variations

More information

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v Bank of New York Mellon 2014 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v Bank of New York Mellon 2014 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v Bank of New York Mellon 2014 NY Slip Op 30177(U) January 17, 2014 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 653441/2012 Judge: Marcy S. Friedman

More information

DEED OF TRUST, ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (City of Morgan Hill Affordable Housing Program Below Market-Rate Units)

DEED OF TRUST, ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (City of Morgan Hill Affordable Housing Program Below Market-Rate Units) RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Morgan Hill City Clerk s Office 17575 Peak Avenue Morgan Hill, CA 95037 Attention: Community Development Agency - Housing EXEMPT FROM RECORDING

More information

IC Chapter 7. Foreclosure ) Redemption, Sale, Right to Retain Possession

IC Chapter 7. Foreclosure ) Redemption, Sale, Right to Retain Possession IC 32-29-7 Chapter 7. Foreclosure ) Redemption, Sale, Right to Retain Possession IC 32-29-7-0.2 Application of certain amendments to prior law Sec. 0.2. (a) The amendments made to IC 32-8-16-1 (before

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 97-CV Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 97-CV Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

Reprinted in part from Volume 22, Number 4, March 2012 (Article starting on page 403 in the actual issue)

Reprinted in part from Volume 22, Number 4, March 2012 (Article starting on page 403 in the actual issue) MILLER & STARR R E A L E S T A T E N E W S A L E R T Reprinted in part from Volume 22, Number 4, March 2012 (Article starting on page 403 in the actual issue) A R T I C L E SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS: SALES AND

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA February 4 2014 DA 13-0389 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 32N ZACHARY DURNAM and STEPHANIE DURNAM for the Estate of ZACHARY DURNAM, v. Plaintiffs and Appellants, BANK OF AMERICA N.A.;

More information

Case: HRT Doc#:79 Filed:08/13/14 Entered:08/13/14 15:27:11 Page1 of 11

Case: HRT Doc#:79 Filed:08/13/14 Entered:08/13/14 15:27:11 Page1 of 11 Case:11-39881-HRT Doc#:79 Filed:08/13/14 Entered:08/13/14 15:27:11 Page1 of 11 UNITED STATED BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Honorable Howard R. Tallman In re: LISA KAY BRUMFIEL, Debtor.

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO [Revised 2-03-15] IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO Home Loan Pooling and Servicing Agreement -VS- Plaintiff Home Owner et al., CASE NO.: JUDGE: MAGISTRATE: JUDGMENT ENTRY ADOPTING MAGISTRATE

More information

Extinguishment of Personal Liability on Mortgage Notes by Merger

Extinguishment of Personal Liability on Mortgage Notes by Merger Chicago-Kent Law Review Volume 10 Issue 3 Article 1 June 1932 Extinguishment of Personal Liability on Mortgage Notes by Merger Glen W. McGrew Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE SUMMERHILL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS No. 66455-7-I ASSOCIATION, Respondent, v. DAWN M. ROUGHLEY and JOHN DOE ROUGHLEY, wife and husband and their

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE Filed 12/28/12 Hong v. Creed Consulting CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

DEED OF TRUST (WITH ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RIDER)

DEED OF TRUST (WITH ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RIDER) When Recorded Mail to: *** DEED OF TRUST (WITH ABSOLUTE ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RIDER) This Deed of Trust is dated *** The TRUSTOR is by *** ( Trustor ). The Trustor s address is The TRUSTEE is Medallion Servicing

More information

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Filed 10/2/18 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- Filed 8/2/17 Topete v. Sutter Health Sacramento Sierra Region CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

Attorneys for Plaintiff ABIGAIL SMITH SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF GRANITE

Attorneys for Plaintiff ABIGAIL SMITH SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF GRANITE 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION Chapman et al v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. et al Doc. 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION BILL M. CHAPMAN, JR. and ) LISA B. CHAPMAN, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) )

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ----

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT. (Sacramento) ---- Filed 12/29/08; pub. order 1/23/09 (see end of opn.) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ---- SIXELLS, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, C056267 (Super.

More information

DECISION AND ORDER. Ford Motor Credit Company ( Ford ) has filed a Complaint for Foreclosure

DECISION AND ORDER. Ford Motor Credit Company ( Ford ) has filed a Complaint for Foreclosure Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Natural Bridge Holdings, LLC, No. 32-1-10 Bncv (Wesley, J., Dec. 30, 2010) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original.

More information

COUNSEL JUDGES OPINION

COUNSEL JUDGES OPINION 1 ROMERO V. STATE, 1982-NMSC-028, 97 N.M. 569, 642 P.2d 172 (S. Ct. 1982) ELIU E. ROMERO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ALEX J. ARMIJO, Commissioner of Public Lands, Defendants-Appellants.

More information

Defendants. of appearance, on the plaintiffs attorneys within 20 days after the service of this summons,

Defendants. of appearance, on the plaintiffs attorneys within 20 days after the service of this summons, FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 06/28/2016 07:15 PM INDEX NO. 707625/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/28/2016 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF QUEENS TCG LGA HOLDINGS LLC, Plaintiff,

More information

Shirley S. Joondeph; Brian C. Joondeph; and CitiMortgage, Inc., JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS

Shirley S. Joondeph; Brian C. Joondeph; and CitiMortgage, Inc., JUDGMENT REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07CA0995 Arapahoe County District Court No. 06CV1743 Honorable Valeria N. Spencer, Judge Donald P. Hicks, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Shirley

More information

PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT. THIS PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is executed to be

PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT. THIS PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (this Agreement) is executed to be PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT THIS PLEDGE AND SECURITY AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is executed to be effective as of, 20, by, a, with a mailing address of (together with its successors, ("Limited Partner"),

More information

In re AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC. 388 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008) STATEMENT OF FACTS

In re AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC. 388 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008) STATEMENT OF FACTS In re AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC. 388 B.R. 69 (Bankr. D. Del. 2008) CHRISTOPHER S. SONTCHI, Bankruptcy Judge. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts relevant to this dispute center on a structured finance

More information

The 2008 Florida Statutes

The 2008 Florida Statutes The 2008 Florida Statutes CHAPTER 702 FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGES, AGREEMENTS FOR DEEDS, AND STATUTORY LIENS 702.01 Equity. 702.03 Certain foreclosures validated. 702.035 Legal notice concerning foreclosure

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B237295

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN B237295 Filed 5/1/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN AFSHAN MULTANI et al. Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. B237295 (Los Angeles

More information

CITY OF ATLANTA, SPRING STREET (ATLANTA), LLC, as Purchaser. THE ATLANTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, as Purchaser DRAW-DOWN BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT

CITY OF ATLANTA, SPRING STREET (ATLANTA), LLC, as Purchaser. THE ATLANTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, as Purchaser DRAW-DOWN BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT CITY OF ATLANTA, SPRING STREET (ATLANTA), LLC, as Purchaser THE ATLANTA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, as Purchaser DRAW-DOWN BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT Dated as of 1, 2018 Relating to City of Atlanta Draw-Down Tax

More information

BY-LAWS OF ORINDA DOWNS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I

BY-LAWS OF ORINDA DOWNS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I BY-LAWS OF ORINDA DOWNS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARTICLE I Section 1. Principal Office. The principal office of the corporation is fixed and located in the area known as Orinda Downs in the County of Contra

More information

COUNSEL JUDGES. Federici, J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: WILLIAM RIORDAN, Chief Justice, MARY C. WALTERS, Justice. AUTHOR: FEDERICI OPINION

COUNSEL JUDGES. Federici, J., wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: WILLIAM RIORDAN, Chief Justice, MARY C. WALTERS, Justice. AUTHOR: FEDERICI OPINION 1 KIMURA V. WAUFORD, 1986-NMSC-016, 104 N.M. 3, 715 P.2d 451 (S. Ct. 1986) TOM KIMURA, MARY KIMURA and KAY TAIRA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, vs. JOE WAUFORD, Defendant-Appellant. No. 15551 SUPREME COURT OF

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION MEMORANDUM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION MEMORANDUM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION LORRIE THOMPSON ) ) v. ) NO. 3-13-0817 ) JUDGE CAMPBELL AMERICAN MORTGAGE EXPRESS ) CORPORATION, et al. ) MEMORANDUM

More information

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO Filed 6/15/10 Greer v. Safeway, Inc. CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, SUCCESSOR- IN-THE INTEREST TO THE PARK AVENUE BANK, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee H. JACK MILLER, ARI

More information

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CV-14-1074 STEVEN J. WILSON and CHRISTINA R. WILSON APPELLANTS V. Opinion Delivered APRIL 22, 2015 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-2014-350-6]

More information

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR OKEECHOBEE COUNTY, FLORIDA Plaintiff(s), CASE NO. v. Defendant(s). / FINAL JUDGMENT OF FORECLOSURE This action was heard before the court

More information

I. DEFENDANT CAN AND MUST CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER. Plaintiff must "prove a sale in compliance with the statute

I. DEFENDANT CAN AND MUST CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER. Plaintiff must prove a sale in compliance with the statute I. DEFENDANT CAN AND MUST CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER Plaintiff must "prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by purchase at such sale and

More information

BYLAWS OF WOODBRIDGE PARK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A NORTH CAROLINA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION

BYLAWS OF WOODBRIDGE PARK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A NORTH CAROLINA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION BYLAWS OF WOODBRIDGE PARK PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., A NORTH CAROLINA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION ARTICLE I Association of Owners Section l. Purpose: These Bylaws ( Bylaws ) are established to govern

More information

GENERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT 1

GENERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT 1 GENERAL SECURITY AGREEMENT 1 1. Grant of Security Interest. 999999 B.C. Ltd. ( Debtor ), having its chief executive office at 999 Main Street, Vancouver B.C., V1V 1V1 as continuing security for the repayment

More information