Judge Blaine K. Bowman, Case Number: 37-2024-00004826-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Blaine K. Bowman, Case: 37-2024-00004826-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-05-24 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - May 23, 2024

05/24/2024 08:30:00 AM C-74 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Blaine K. Bowman

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other Real Property Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2024-00004826-CU-OR-CTL SUNRISE EQUITY PURCHASERS LLC VS UNITED FUNDING INVESTMENTS LLC CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

The court advances the hearing on this motion to 8:30am.

The court addresses the evidentiary issues. Defendants United Funding Investments LLC and FCI Lender Services, Inc.'s request for judicial notice is GRANTED as to Exhibits 4 and 5 and DENIED as to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3. Plaintiff's evidentiary objections to Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are SUSTAINED. Absent certified copies, Defendants' Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 are inadmissible.

The court then rules as follows. Defendants United Funding Investments LLC and FCI Lender Services, Inc.'s demurrer to Plaintiff's complaint is OVERRULED.

Assignment Defendants' demurrer to all causes of action under CCP § 430.10(f) ['uncertain'] is OVERRULED.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing because the alleged assignments are vague and ambiguous. The court finds the allegations of ¶ 2 and ¶ 3 sufficient to withstand demurrer on this basis.

The specificity Defendants seek as to the terms of the assignments is more properly the subject of discovery. See, Khoury v. Maly's of California, Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616. ['A demurrer for uncertainty is strictly construed, even where a complaint is in some respects uncertain, because ambiguities can be clarified under modern discovery procedures.'] Violation of Civil Code § 2924g(a)(4) Wrongful Foreclosure Cancellation of Written Instrument/Rescission of Trustee Sale Defendants' demurrer to the first, second and fifth causes of action under CCP § 430.10(b) ['lacks legal capacity to sue'] is OVERRULED. Defendants argue that Plaintiff lacks standing because of the absence of assertions that Plaintiff holds an interest in the real property at issue. As above, the court finds the allegations of ¶ 2 and ¶ 3 sufficient to withstand demurrer. The issue of whether the assignments include an assignment of a real property interest is an issue that can be clarified in discovery.

Violation of Civil Code § 2924g(a)(4) Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3102892 24 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: SUNRISE EQUITY PURCHASERS LLC VS UNITED FUNDING 37-2024-00004826-CU-OR-CTL Defendants' demurrer to the CC § 2924g(a)(4) cause of action under CCP § 430.10(e) ['pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action'] is OVERRULED.

Pursuant to CC § 2924g [Conduct of sale; time; place; interested parties; postponement; order of sale]: - . . . .

(4) Notwithstanding any other law, a sale of property under the power of sale contained in any deed of trust or mortgage shall be subject to the following restriction: a trustee shall not bundle properties for the purpose of sale and each property shall be bid on separately, unless the deed of trust or mortgage requires otherwise.

To the extent Defendants rely on the Deed of Trust, Notice of Sale and Trustee's Deed (Defendants' Exhibits 1, 2 and 3) such exhibits are not properly before the court. Even if these exhibits were admissible, the result would not change. Defendants rely on the Deed of Trust as encumbering three parcels with three separate assessor parcel numbers. Defendants argue that subsection (a)(4) prohibits only the foreclosure of multiple deeds of trust as one sale item, not foreclosure of one deed of trust encumbering three parcels. Relying on the terms of the Deed of Trust, Defendants argue that only one property was foreclosed upon as one sale item because that is how the property was defined in the Deed of Trust. The Complaint alleges: 21. Because of the wrongful foreclosure of three parcels in one sale, the opening bid amount was never properly set – thus, essentially, causing the opening bid of each parcel to be nearly $2 million.

Accordingly, in essence, the LENDER wrongfully was able to credit bid $6 million ($2 million times 3 parcels) when the balanced owed, even when adding in the illegal liquidated damages, was approximately $2 million. This improper bundling precluded fair bidding at each of the three sales - and nullifies each of the sales.

The court finds such allegations sufficient to state a cause of action for violation of CC § 2924g(a)(4) based on improper bundling. The court is not persuaded by Defendants' reliance on the 'unless the deed of trust . . . requires otherwise' language of subsection (a)(4). Defendants fail to establish that the Deed of Trust requires that all three parcels be sold as one. Defendants also argue that the properties were not improperly bundled because two of the parcels are vacant land and worthless unless sold together, and because the third parcel was subject to a first lien raise, and also because inclusion of all three parcels in the Deed of Trust was negotiated as part of the original transaction. However, such arguments raise factual issues not properly resolved on demurrer.

Defendants shall answer within 10 days of this ruling.

If this tentative ruling is confirmed the Minute Order will be the final order of the court and the parties shall not submit any further order on this motion.

Unless the ruling(s) above indicate that an appearance is necessary, parties who wish to submit, who are satisfied with the above tentative ruling(s), and/or who do not otherwise wish to argue the motion(s) are encouraged to give notice to the Court and each other of their intention not to appear.

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3102892 24