Judge Joel R Wohlfeil, Case 37-2023-00045355-CU-OR-CTL 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Joel R Wohlfeil, Case: 37-2023-00045355-CU-OR-CTL, Date: 2024-01-26 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - January 25, 2024

01/26/2024 09:00:00 AM C-73 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Joel R. Wohlfeil

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited Other Real Property Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00045355-CU-OR-CTL RANDY ACORD AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE ACORD TRUST AGREEMENT VS MEKS CAPITAL CORPORATION [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion - Other, 12/13/2023

The Motion (ROA # 11) of Plaintiff, RANDY ACORD as Successor Trustee of the Acord Trust Agreement ('Plaintiff') for an order consolidating the actions San Diego Superior Court, Case No.

37-2023-00045355-CU-OR- 4 CTL and Case No. 37-2023-00045063- CL-UD-CTL for all purposes, is DENIED.

Consolidation of actions involving 'a common question of law or fact' is permissible in order to avoid unnecessary costs or delay. Code Civ. Proc. 1048(a).

Actions may be consolidated, in the discretion of the Court, whenever it can be done without prejudice to a substantial right. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1956) 47 Cal. 2d 428, 430.

'... [I]t is possible that actions may be thoroughly 'related' in the sense of having common questions of law or fact, and still not be 'consolidated,' if the trial court, in the sound exercise of its discretion, chooses not to do so.' Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal. App. 4th 942, 964.

In unlawful detainer proceedings, ordinarily the only triable issue is the right to possession of the disputed premises, along with incidental damages resulting from the unlawful detention. Martin-Bragg v. Moore (2013) 219 Cal. App. 4th 367, 385.

Ordinarily, issues respecting the title to the property cannot be adjudicated in an unlawful detainer action. Id. The denial of certain procedural rights enjoyed by litigants in ordinary actions is deemed necessary in order to prevent frustration of the summary proceedings by the introduction of delays and extraneous issues. Id. The opinion continues: 'However, the trial court has the power to consolidate an unlawful detainer proceeding with a simultaneously pending action in which title to the property is in issue. That is because a successful claim of title by the tenant would defeat the landlord's right to possession .... When an unlawful detainer proceeding and an unlimited action concerning title to the property are simultaneously pending, the trial court in which the unlimited action is pending may stay the unlawful detainer action until the issue of title is resolved in the unlimited action, or it may consolidate the actions .... If it does neither and instead tries the issue of title under the summary procedures that constrain unlawful detainer proceedings, the Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3061406 10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RANDY ACORD AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE ACORD TRUST 37-2023-00045355-CU-OR-CTL parties' right to a full trial of the issue of title may be unfairly expedited and limited ....' Id. (internal citations omitted).

The opinion in Old National Financial Services, Inc. v. Seibert (1987) 194 Cal. App. 3d 460 involved an unlawful detainer action filed after the forced sale of Defendant's residence under a first deed of trust.

The Court denied a defense motion to stay proceedings pending resolution of a separate action by defendant alleging fraud and deceit by plaintiff in connection with third party construction loans. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the Court properly denied the motion to stay the proceedings. The alleged fraud in connection with loans to third parties did not have any bearing on the issues to be determined in the unlawful detainer action: As a general rule, in unlawful detainer proceedings, only claims bearing directly upon the right to possession are involved .... However, where title is acquired through proceedings described in Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, courts must make a limited inquiry into the basis of the plaintiff's title....

Our Supreme Court explained that where the plaintiff in the unlawful detainer action is the purchaser at a trustee's sale, he or she 'need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by purchase at such sale, and the defendant may raise objections only on that phase of the issue of title. Matters affecting the validity of the trust deed or primary obligation itself, or other basic defects in the plaintiff's title, are neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment.' (Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal. 2d 158, 160, italics added ....) Further, the pendency of another action concerning title is immaterial to the resolution of an unlawful detainer proceeding. (Evans v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 171 ....) Application of these principles to Seibert's argument demonstrates that the trial court correctly denied the motion to stay the unlawful detainer proceedings. The only points at issue in Old National's unlawful detainer action were whether the Piedmont property had been sold in accordance with Civil Code section 2924 and whether the title obtained by Old National had been perfected. Seibert's Alameda County complaint charged that Old National's fraud relative to the Terrell loans caused his delinquency and the eventual trustee's sale on his house. Alleged fraud in connection with two unrelated loans by Old National to third parties does not have any bearing on the issues to be determined in the unlawful detainer action. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, these complex fraud charges are beyond that phase of title which may be litigated in an unlawful detainer proceeding.' Id. at 465 (emphasis added, most internal citations omitted).

'The defenses noted above raised by each of the real parties ... are inappropriate in an unlawful detainer action, as is Shirley's cross-complaint .... Not only do they raise questions of title unrelated to compliance with section 2924 of the Civil Code, but they raise issues which would have been unavailable to their predecessor in interest ... ¶ ... Real parties are not left without a remedy. The issues which they seek to litigate can be pursued by way of quiet title actions .... Those issues not being cognizable in unlawful detainer, the judgments in the pending matters will not be res judicata as to them .... Nor is the pendency of the unlawful detainer actions a bar to the simultaneous maintenance of quiet title actions ....' Evans v. Superior Court (1977) 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 171 (internal citations omitted).

The Acord lawsuit is not a simple action challenging title to the Antiem Drive property. Instead, it essentially challenges the manner in which title was obtained. This is a complex issue alleging a multi-party fraudulent and predatory lending scheme by which Plaintiff was deceived into entering into one or more onerous loans, resulting in default and foreclosure. These issues have nothing in common with the process through which the foreclosure occurred. The issues raised in the Acord action will take time to resolve such that consolidation will completely derail the summary nature of an unlawful detainer action.

Rather than consolidate the actions, the unlawful detainer action will be permitted to proceed Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3061406 10 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE: RANDY ACORD AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE ACORD TRUST 37-2023-00045355-CU-OR-CTL independently. If Defendants obtain a judgment of possession, then Plaintiff can record a notice of pendency of action protecting the Trust's interest in the property, and thereafter litigate its action seeking to quit title in favor of the Trust. See Gonzales v. Gem Properties, Inc. (1974) 37 Cal. App. 3d 1029 (subsequent action not barred under the doctrine of res judicata; Legislature did not intend to require a defendant to litigate the elements of an action for affirmative equitable relief in such summary proceedings or to be forever barred from suit).

Calendar No.: Event ID: TENTATIVE RULINGS

3061406 10