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
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS COLLABORATIVE DEFINES IMPORTANCE OF THE PRECIADO CASE IN 2013 -- TWO DIFFERENT TRUSTEES--NON COMPLIANCE WITH 2924

CALIFORNIA HOMEOWNER BILL OF RIGHTS COLLABORATIVE DEFINES IMPORTANCE OF THE PRECIADO CASE IN 2013 -- TWO DIFFERENT TRUSTEES--NON COMPLIANCE WITH 2924

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,290|Likes:
Published by 83jjmack
Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado | Here, the trustee’s deed upon sale identifies one trustee, but the DOT identifies another. The trial court erred in accepting the recorded trustee’s deed upon sale as conclusive evidence of compliance with § 2924, and the appellate division reversed.
Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado | Here, the trustee’s deed upon sale identifies one trustee, but the DOT identifies another. The trial court erred in accepting the recorded trustee’s deed upon sale as conclusive evidence of compliance with § 2924, and the appellate division reversed.

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: 83jjmack on Sep 11, 2013
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

11/19/2014

pdf

text

original

 
SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado | Here,the trustee’s deed upon sale identifies onetrustee, but the DOT identifies another. Thetrial court erred in accepting the recordedtrustee’s deed upon sale as conclusiveevidence of compliance with § 2924, and theappellate division reversed.
 
CCP § 1162 Notice Requirements;CCP § 1161a’s Required Compliance with CC § 2924
 
Bank of New York Mellon v. Preciado
, Nos. 1-12-AP-001360 & 1-12-AP-001361 (Cal. App. Div.Super. Ct. Aug. 19, 2013): To be effective, UD notices to quit must be properly served: 1) by personalservice; 2) or if personal service failed, by leaving the notice with a person of “suitable age anddiscretion” at the residence or business of the tenant (or former borrower) and then mailing a copy;3) or if the first two methods failed, by posting a notice at the residence and mailing a copy. CC §1162. Here, the process server’s affidavit stated that “after due and diligent effort,” he executed “postand mail” service. The trial court accepted this statement as evidence of compliance with CC § 1162, but the appellate division reversed. The statute indicates that “post and mail” is the
last 
availablemethod of service, not the first. Since the affidavit does not specifically assert that personal service was ever attempted, the trial court erred in assuming that service complied with CC § 1162. Further,defendants’ appeal based on defective service was not barred because they failed to assert it as anaffirmative defense. Proper service is an “essential [UD] element” and tenants’ “general denial” of each statement in the complaint put service at issue.
 
Post-foreclosure UD plaintiffs must also demonstrate duly perfected title and compliance with CC §2924 foreclosure procedures. CCP § 1161a. “Duly” perfected title encompasses all aspects of purchasing the property, not just recorded title. The trial court relied on plaintiff’s trustee’s deedupon sale, showing plaintiffs purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. The court ignoredcontradicting testimony alleging that the property was sold to the loan’s servicer, not plaintiff.Further, “to prove compliance with section 2924, the plaintiff must necessarily prove the sale wasconducted by the trustee.”Here, the trustee’s deed upon sale identifies one trustee, but the DOTidentifies another. The trial court erred in accepting the recorded trustee’s deed upon sale asconclusive evidence of compliance with § 2924, and the appellate division reversed. 
 
Generated by CamScanner
15
6
7
,
9
10II
12
13
1415
1617
IS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2627
28
COL
?\
iY
OF
SASTA
C
L\RA
APPELL
\T
E
1>1\
'1510;';
THE
BANK
OF
I\CW
YORK.
~
·
tELLON,
Pl
aintiffand
Respond~nt,
v.
VIDAL
A.
PRECIADO,
ET
AL
Dden
dantsandAppellants.
Case
N
os.
\-12
-:\1'-
00
136
0
nnd
1-
12
-
:\
1'
-00
\)6\
ORDER
TheappcJ!
by
app
ellants
Vidal
Pr
eciado("Preciado"),Ro
la
nd
Luke
("Luke"),
nnd
Kenm:th I-[cnderson("Henderson") (collectively,"Appellants")
fromthe
un!lIwfu!
detainerjudgmentsenter
ed
on
M:lfCh
Hi,
2012,
C;l.mc
on
regubrly
for
hearing
and
wa
shearda
nd
submittedon August1
6.
20
1
3.
Wehe
r
eby
h
ol
d asfo
llow
s:
I'r
o
cedur
a
ill
is
tory
This is:m
app
e
al
from
IWO
related
un
l
awful
detaineractions.
1
Re
spondent'
1l1e
B
an
k
of
New York Mellon("Bank")
is
theowner
of
1343 State Street, in
Alv
iso,California.OnJ
uly
25,20
11
,B
.lnk
(lcq
uiredtitle
to
t
his
propert
y
(It
a trustee's
sale
pu
rs
uant
toforeclosureupon a det'd
of
tr
usl.
TIle
property
W(lS
previouslyowned
by
Precbdo
and
occupied
by
Appe
ll
ants.
,
Sep:lfn
:~
C1~fk
's
TrJnscript~
"efe
:l:pnf~d
for
Case
~os
.
l-
ll
-
CV
-215285
(
A~t1e~1
:':0.,.I2 AI'·QO1360)
i!.
'
<:!
I.I I·CV·215
25
S(
"preJI
1"
0.1·12·:\ N
)O
13
61).
I
~
order
10
avoid to:lfusio
:l.
th
e Ckrk' sTrar\lcrip:.sin
Ih~
rN
O
el
ses"
ill
be eileJ
as
""CT
-
2S6""
nrod
""CT-2SS.~
respectively.A
sir.gl
e
Rep
o
:-.er·
s
Tr
a.""lsc:i;J:
("RT
')
"ns
p
r
e~ued
as
the
tri
alstook pbee
althe
SJme
l
ime.
ORDER

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)//-->