Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Unlawful Detainerappeal

Unlawful Detainerappeal

Ratings: (0)|Views: 310|Likes:
Published by Elena Blank

More info:

Published by: Elena Blank on Jul 20, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/22/2014

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIACOUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,APPELLATE DIVISION
Elena Gross,Appellant, Defendant DCA No: APP1100259 vs Riverside Superior Court :INC 1106105Riverhawk Funding LLCRespondent, Plaintiff 
 ___________________________________________________________________________ 
APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEFAppeal from Orders of the Superior Court of CaliforniaCounty of RiversideHonorable Arjuna T. Saraydarian, Judge11/4/2011, INC 1106105
Elena GrossPO Box 11146San Bernardino CA 92423Appellant Pro Per 
1 APPELANT'S OPENING BRIEF
 
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Pursuant to California Rules of Court 8.208 Appellant declares that there are no interested parties or entities to this appeal.Appellant declares under the penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.Elena GrossAppellant Date
2 APPELANT'S OPENING BRIEF
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certificate of Interest 2Table of Authorities4Introduction5Statement of the case7 Nature of the case and Summary of Material fact 7Statement of appelability7Standard of Review8Facts, Trial Court's Rulings 8Argument9ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT CAN ADJUDICATE POSSESSION OFPROPERTY ONLY WHEN EVIDENCE OF AN IRREGULARLY CONDUCTED SALEWAS PRESENTED AND THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY DID NOT COMPLY WITHCIVIL CODE § 2924 AND THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PRESENTED THATCOMPLIED WITH CCP § 1116a.9A. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE12B. PLAINTIFF IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITHTHESE STATUTES.12ISSUE 2: WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ABUSES ITS DISCRETION IN HOLDINGTHE TRIAL WITH 2 DAY VERBAL NOTICE WITHOUT THE MANDATORYREQUIRED 5 DAY NOTICE, AND WHETHER THE COURT ABUSED ITSDISCRETION IN DENYING APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR JURY TRIAL WHICHCONTAINED A REQUEST TO TRANSFER VENUE TO AN UNLIMITED CIVILDIVISION.12A. APPELLANT HAS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL.13B. APPELLANT HAD THE RIGHT TO A 5 DAY NOTICE OF TRIAL.13C. THE COURT NEVER RULED ON APPELLANT'S EXPARTE MOTION TOTRANSFER VENUE TO SUPERIOR COURT UNLIMITED CIVIL DIVISION.16CONCLUSION 18CERTIFICATION OF WORD COUNT183 APPELANT'S OPENING BRIEF

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->