Yenokian v. Deutsche Bank CA2/4 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/26/15 Yenokian v. Deutsche Bank CA2/4
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
    or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION FOUR
    PIERRE YENOKIAN,                                                     B252814
    Plaintiff and Appellant,                        (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BC517784)
    v.
    DEUTSCHE BANK, N.A.,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles Country, Michael
    L. Stern, Judge. Affirmed.
    Law Offices of Louisa Moritz and Louisa Moritz, for Plaintiff and Appellant.
    Keesal, Young & Logan, David D. Piper and Tyson W. Kovash, for Defendant
    and Respondent.
    ______________________________
    Plaintiff Pierre Yenokian appeals from a judgment of dismissal following an order
    sustaining defendant Deutsche Bank, N.A.’s demurrer without leave to amend the
    complaint. Plaintiff challenges only the trial court’s denial of leave to amend. We find
    no abuse of discretion and affirm the judgment.
    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
    In November 2004, plaintiff obtained a mortgage loan secured by his home from
    Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. (Washington Mutual) and executed a deed of trust with
    power of sale. The recorded deed of trust listed Washington Mutual as beneficiary and
    designated California Reconveyance Company as trustee. Subsequently, plaintiff
    defaulted on his payments. On May 29, 2008, a substitution of trustee was executed,
    designating Quality Loan Service Corporation (Quality) as the trustee. On May 30, 2008,
    Quality recorded a notice of default against plaintiff’s home. In July 2008, the
    substitution of trustee was recorded. In October 2010, Quality conducted a trustee’s sale
    and in December issued a trustee’s deed upon sale to defendant.
    In August 2013, plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory relief and cancellation
    of instruments. Plaintiff claimed the foreclosure sale was invalid because, at the time
    Quality recorded the notice of default against the property, the substitution of trustee
    authorizing Quality to act as a trustee had not yet been recorded.
    Defendant filed a demurrer to the complaint, which was sustained without leave to
    amend. The trial court issued a judgment of dismissal.
    This timely appeal followed.
    DISCUSSION
    The only issue before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion by
    sustaining defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend. “It is an abuse of discretion to
    sustain a demurrer without leave to amend if there is a reasonable possibility that the
    defect can be cured by amendment. [Citation.] The burden is on the plaintiff to
    demonstrate how the complaint can be amended to state a valid cause of action.
    2
    [Citation.]” (Chapman v. Skype Inc. (2013) 
    220 Cal.App.4th 217
    , 226.) “[A] plaintiff
    need not request leave to amend in order to preserve on appeal the issue of whether the
    court abused its discretion in sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend. (Code Civ.
    Proc., § 472c).” (Palm Springs Tennis Club v. Rangel (1999) 
    73 Cal.App.4th 1
    , 7.) But
    the plaintiff still bears the burden of proof on appeal to show “there is a reasonable
    possibility the defect in the pleading can be cured by amendment.” (Ibid.)
    It is unclear how plaintiff would be able to amend his complaint as to sufficiently
    state a cause of action. The record makes clear that the process by which Quality was
    1
    named trustee and recorded the notice of default was lawful. Civil Code section 2934a
    provides that a trustee named in a recorded substitution of trustee is “deemed to be
    authorized to act as the trustee under the mortgage or deed for trust for all purposes from
    the date the substitution is executed by the mortgagee, beneficiaries, or by their
    authorized agents. . . . Once recorded, the substitution shall constitute conclusive
    evidence of the authority of the substituted trustee or his or her agents to act pursuant to
    this section.” (§ 2934a, subd. (d), italics added.) “That statute also provides a substituted
    trustee may record a notice of default before the substitution empowering the trustee to
    act is recorded,” as long as notice of substitution is mailed to the appropriate parties in
    the manner provided in section 2924b and an affidavit of mailing is attached. (Rossberg
    v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013) 
    219 Cal.App.4th 1481
    , 1495; § 2934a, subd. (b).) The
    substitution of trustee designating Quality as trustee was executed on May 29, 2008, and
    notice of the substitution was sent to the appropriate parties on June 5, 2008. The notice
    of default was recorded on May 30, 2008. The substitution of trustee was recorded on
    July 10, 2008, which constitutes “conclusive evidence” of Quality’s authority to act as a
    trustee. (§ 2934a, subd. (d).)
    Based on the record before us, plaintiff has not met his burden of proof to show he
    is entitled to a leave to amend. “[I]t is not sufficient for the [plaintiff] to assert ‘an
    abstract right to amend.’ [Citation.]” (Rossberg v. Bank of America, N.A., supra,
    1
    Subsequent statutory references are to the Civil Code.
    3
    219 Cal.App.4th at p. 1504.) Plaintiff makes no representation that he presented
    arguments in the trial court to show a reasonable possibility of curing the defect through
    amendment. Further, his briefing on appeal does not specify how the defect in his
    complaint can be cured. We find no abuse of discretion by the trial court in sustaining
    the demurrer without leave to amend.
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed. Defendant is entitled to its costs on appeal.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
    EPSTEIN, P. J.
    We concur:
    WILLHITE, J.
    COLLINS, J.
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B252814

Filed Date: 1/26/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021