Patterson v. Laings First Edition-Ontario Center HOA CA4/2

Filed 10/19/22 Patterson v. Laings First Edition-Ontario Center HOA CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
REGENA M. PATTERSON,
Plaintiff and Appellant, E078131
v. (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1609944)
LAINGS FIRST EDITION-ONTARIO OPINION
CENTER HOA,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Janet M. Frangie,
Judge. Dismissed.
Regena M. Patterson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Tinnelly Law Group, Cang N. Le, and Joshua D. Mendelsohn for Defendant and
Respondent.
Plaintiff Regena Patterson filed a notice of appeal purporting to appeal from an
order denying her motion to vacate the judgment dismissing her lawsuit against Laing’s
1
First Edition–Ontario Center Homeowners Association (Laing’s). We conclude the notice
of appeal is untimely and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
I
FACTS
A. Summary Judgment
In 2017, Patterson sued Laing’s for wrongful foreclosure, alleging the
homeowners association had improperly refused her tender of partial payment of the
assessments and related costs she owed on her condominium. Laing’s filed a motion for
summary judgment arguing, among other things, that Patterson lacked standing to sue for
wrongful foreclosure because she had transferred her interest in the property prior to
foreclosure. In support, they submitted deeds reflecting the transfers, as well as
deposition testimony from Patterson confirming the deeds had transferred her interest in
the property.
On January 19, 2021, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Janet Frangie
concluded Patterson lacked standing based on the pre-foreclosure transfers and granted
summary judgment in favor of Laing’s. On January 21, 2021, Laing’s served Patterson by
mail with notice of entry of the order granting summary judgment.
On April 13, 2021, the judge entered judgment in favor of Laing’s and dismissed
the lawsuit. Laing’s served Patterson with the notice of entry of judgment on May 10,
2021.
2
B. Patterson’s Untimely Motion to Vacate the Judgment
On July 19, 2021, Patterson filed a motion to vacate the judgment based on the
same unsuccessful arguments she had raised in her opposition to the motion for summary
judgment. Specifically, she argued the deeds were ineffective because she didn’t record
them and because she lacked an intent to transfer title when she executed them.
At a hearing on August 9, 2021, the judge dismissed the motion for lack of
jurisdiction under California Code of Civil Procedure section 663a. (Unlabeled statutory
citations refer to this code.) The judge based this conclusion on the fact that (1) Patterson
had filed the motion after the 15-day deadline in section 663a, subdivision (a)(2) had
passed and (2) the hearing on the motion did not take place until after the jurisdictional
deadline in section 663a, subdivision (b). Under that provision, the court’s power to rule
on a motion to vacate the judgment expires 75 days after the moving party is served by
any party with the notice of entry of the judgment. Because Laing’s served Patterson on
May 10, 2021, the August 9 hearing took place well outside the 75-day window. (§ 663a,
subd. (b).)
3
C. Patterson’s Untimely Motion to Reconsider
On October 8, 2021, Patterson filed another post-judgment motion, which she
incorrectly styled as a section 473, subdivision (b) motion for relief from mistake. In
substance, Patterson’s motion was a motion to reconsider the judgment under section
1008 because she argued the judgment was the product of the judge’s mistake of giving
legal effect to the deeds.
On November 15, 2021, the judge deemed Patterson’s motion a motion for
reconsideration and denied it as untimely because Patterson had not filed it within 10
days of service of notice of entry of the relevant order, as the statute requires. (§ 1008,
subd. (a).) The judge also concluded the motion failed on its merits because Patterson
failed to present new facts or law entitling her to relief.
Patterson filed a notice of appeal on November 30, 2021.
II
ANALYSIS
As a threshold matter, Laing’s argues we lack jurisdiction to decide the appeal
because Patterson’s notice of appeal is untimely. We agree.
“The time for appealing a judgment is jurisdictional; once the deadline expires, the
appellate court has no power to entertain the appeal. [Citation.]” (Van Beurden Ins.
Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51,
56; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(b), unlabeled rule citations refer to the California
Rules of Court.) Here, the notice of appeal identifies the order being appealed as the
4
November 15, 2021 order denying Patterson’s “Motion to Set Aside and/or Vacate
Judgment.” As we’ve seen, however, the judge dismissed Patterson’s motion to vacate
the judgment on August 9, 2021, not on November 15, 2021. The order dated November
15 is the one denying her (incorrectly titled) motion for reconsideration. Confusing
matters further, Patterson’s opening brief challenges the judgment only and doesn’t
address either of the orders denying her postjudgment motions. In any event, the notice of
appeal is untimely whichever way we construe it.
A notice of appeal from a judgment must be filed on or before the earliest of (1)
60 days after the trial court’s mailing of the notice of entry of judgment; (2) 60 days after
a party’s service of the notice of entry of judgment; or (3) 180 days after entry of
judgment. (Rule 8.104(a).) Rule 8.108 extends this deadline in the event a timely motion
to vacate the judgment or to reconsider an appealable order has been filed. (Rule 8.108(c)
& (e).) Late filed motions do not trigger rule 8.108. (In re Marriage of Eben-King & King
(2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 108-109; English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc. (2001) 94
Cal.App.4th 130, 135-136; Starpoint Properties, LLC v. Namvar (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th
1101, 1107-1109.)
Applying these rules here, if we construe the November 30, 2021 notice as
appealing from the judgment, Patterson was required to file her notice of appeal by July
9, 2021. That date is 60 days after May 10, 2021, when Laing’s served Patterson with the
notice of entry of the judgment. (Rule 8.104(a)(1)(B).) November 30 is well past that 60-
5
day deadline; it’s even past the 180-day deadline, which, had it applied, would have
fallen on November 6.
The deadline to appeal is the same—July 9, 2021—even if we construe the notice
of appeal as appealing from either of the orders denying Patterson’s unsuccessful
postjudgment motions. This is because Patterson filed both motions late and therefore the
extensions in rule 8.108 do not apply.
A motion to vacate the judgment must be filed within 15 days of service of the
notice of entry of judgment (May 10, 2021). (§ 663a, subd. (a).) In order to be timely,
Patterson’s motion needed to be filed by May 25, 2021, but she didn’t file it until July 19,
2021. And Patterson’s motion to reconsider was even later. Such motions must be filed
within 10 days of the notice of entry of the relevant order, which here was January 21,
2021—the date Laing’s served Patterson with notice of entry of the order granting
summary judgment. (§ 1008, subd. (a).) Patterson didn’t file the motion until nearly 10
months later, on October 8, 2021.
We conclude Patterson’s appeal is untimely no matter how we construe her notice
of appeal and that neither of her postjudgment motions extended the deadline to appeal.
As a result, we have no jurisdiction to consider the merits of her challenge and must
dismiss the appeal.
6
III
DISPOSITION
We dismiss the appeal as untimely. In the interests of justice, the parties shall bear
their own costs on appeal. (Rule 8.278(a)(5).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
SLOUGH
J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON
Acting P. J.
RAPHAEL
J.
7