Jaime Medrano v. Flagstar Bank, Fsb

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 11 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAIME MEDRANO and MARIBEL No. 11-55412
MEDRANO, husband and wife,
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-07285-JHN-PLA
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM *
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, a Federal
Savings Bank; EXODUS FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation
formerly known as Doe 1; JANE
FOWLER KELLEHER, formerly known
as Doe 2; STRATHAM MONTECITO
WEST, a California corporation;
STRATEGIC SALES AND
MARKETING GROUP, a California
corporation; JANIS KIM RANDAZZO,
individually and responsible managing
officer of Strategic Sales and Marketing
Group; FERNANDO CORDERO,
individually and responsible managing
officer of Exodus Financial Corporation;
DORA SENAIDA CORDERO,
Defendants - Appellees,
and
PROTOFUND MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, a California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
corporation,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jacqueline H. Nguyen, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted November 6, 2012
Pasadena, California
Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Jaime and Maribel Medrano appeal the district court’s orders
dismissing their claims against Defendants Flagstar Bank, FSB; Exodus Financial
Corporation; Jane Fowler Kelleher; Stratham Montecito West; Strategic Sales and
Marketing Group; Janis Kim Randazzo; Fernando Cordero; and Dora Senaida
Cordero. On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their federal claim under
12 U.S.C. § 2607 and their state-law claim for reformation and declaratory relief
regarding Maribel’s alleged community-property interest.1 Reviewing de novo,
Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011), we
affirm.
1
Plaintiffs also challenge the district court’s dismissal of their claim against
Defendant Flagstar under 12 U.S.C. § 2605. We address that claim in an opinion
filed on this date.
2
1. The district court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs’ § 2607 claim because
there is no allegation that any defendant received kickbacks or unearned fees.
Non-disclosure of the assignment of an interest in a promissory note is not a
kickback or unearned fee, and the asserted section of the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act does not provide a remedy for non-disclosure. 12 U.S.C. §
2607(a)–(c). Because Plaintiffs’ claim fails on the merits, we need not reach the
question of its timeliness.
2. The district court properly dismissed the state-law claim that Maribel
held a community-property interest in the residence. All relevant documents show
that Jaime owned the house as separate property. In the absence of a plausible
allegation that Maribel did not acquiesce in this result, those documents control.
See Lucas v. Lucas (In re Marriage of Lucas), 614 P.2d 285, 288 (Cal. 1980)
("[T]he affirmative act of specifying a form of ownership in the conveyance of title
. . . removes such property from the more general [community property]
presumption."); Brooks v. Robinson (In re Marriage of Brooks), 86 Cal. Rptr. 3d
624, 631 (Ct. App. 2008) ("[T]he description in a deed as to how title is held is
presumed to reflect the actual ownership interests in the property.").
AFFIRMED.
3