Judge Salvatore Sirna, Case Number: 23PSCV03719, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV03719, Date: 2024-03-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03719 Hearing Date: April 15, 2024 Dept: G

Plaintiff Fleet Capital, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Respondent: Defendant Gwendolyn Keene

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff Fleet Capital, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is an unlawful detainer action. In October 2022, Plaintiff Fleet Capital, Inc. (Fleet Capital) acquired ownership of real property in Covina through a nonjudicial foreclosure sale. Fleet Capital alleges the former owner of the Covina property, Defendant Gwendolyn Keene, continues to reside at the Covina property. On November 8, 2023, Fleet Capital served Keene with a three day notice to quit. Subsequently, Fleet Capital alleges Keene failed to vacate the Covina property.

On November 30, 2023, Fleet Capital filed a complaint against Keene; all unknown occupants, tenants, and subtenants, and Does 1-10, alleging a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

On February 27, 2024, Fleet Capital filed the present motion. A hearing on the motion is set for April 15 with a case management conference on May 30.

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

Keene’s evidentiary objections are OVERRULED as to Nos. 1, 2, and 3.

REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Fleet Capital asks the court to take judicial notice of five documents: (1) a notice of delinquent assessment recorded May 18, 2022; (2) a notice of default recorded June 23, 2022; (3) a notice of trustee’s sale recorded September 19, 2022; (4) a certificate of sale recorded November 10, 2022; and (5) a trustee’s deed upon sale recorded January 25, 2023. The existence and factual contents of recorded documents including notices of default and trustee’s sale and trustee’s deeds upon sale can be noticed pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452, subdivisions (c) and (h), and 453. (Yvanova v. New Century Mortgage Corp., 62 Cal.4th 919, 924, fn. 1.) Thus, the court GRANTS Fleet Capital’s request.

ANALYSIS

Fleet Capital moves for summary judgment on their unlawful detainer action. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Fleet Capital’s motion.

Legal Standard

Summary Judgment

With five days’ notice at any time after the filing of an answer in an unlawful detainer action, a motion for summary judgment may be made pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1170.7. The motion “shall be granted or denied on the same basis as a motion under Section 437c.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1170.7.) A motion for summary judgment provides “courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.) It must be granted “if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”¿ (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119, quoting Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) To establish a triable issue of material fact, the opposing party must produce substantial responsive evidence. (Sangster v. Paetkau (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 151, 166.) Courts “liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve doubts concerning the evidence in favor of that party.”¿ (Dore v. Arnold Worldwide, Inc. (2006) 39 Cal.4th 384, 389.)

Unlawful Detainer

When a party has obtained property through a trustee’s sale and title has been perfected, that party may bring an unlawful detainer action against any person who continues possession of the property after a three-day written notice to quit has been served. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a, subd. (b)(3).) To establish grounds for removal, “plaintiff need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust, followed by purchase at such sale.” (Cheney v. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal.2d 158, 160 (Cheney).) Plaintiff must also establish that title was perfected which occurs “when all steps have been taken to make it perfect, i.e., to convey to the purchaser that which he has purchased, valid and good beyond all reasonable doubt.” (Stephens, Partain & Cunningham v. Hollis (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 948, 953, quoting Kessler v. Bridge (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d Supp. 837, 841.)

Discussion

In this case, the following facts are undisputed. On May 18, 2022, California HOA Collection Services (CHCS) recorded a notice of delinquent assessment against the Covina property on behalf of Covina Townhomes HOA. (Plaintiff’s Separate Statement (PSS), ¶ 1; RJN, Ex. 1.) CHCS then commenced foreclosure proceedings against the Covina property by recording a notice of default for nonpayment of the assessment on June 23. (PSS, ¶ 2; RJN, Ex. 2.) On September 19, CHCS recorded a notice of trustee’s sale that set October 25 as the date for the foreclosure sale. (PSS, ¶ 3; RJN, Ex. 3.) On November 10, CHCS recorded a certificate of sale that noted Fleet Capital as the successful bidder and provided that the Covina property could be redeemed within ninety days of the sale. (PSS, ¶ 4-5; RJN, Ex. 4.) On January 25, 2023, CHCS recorded a trustee’s deed upon sale that conveyed title of the Covina property to Fleet Capital. (PSS, ¶ 6; RJN, Ex. 5.) The deed also includes recitals stating that all notice requirements for the notice of default and notice of trustee’s sale have been complied with. (PSS, ¶ 7; RJN, Ex. 5.)

A recital that the notice requirements for a nonjudicial foreclosure were complied with in the trustee’s deed is “prima facie evidence of compliance with these requirements and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value and without notice.” (Civ. Code, § 2924, subd. (c).) Based on the undisputed facts and recital noted above, Fleet Capital established that Fleet Capital acquired title to the Covina property through a properly conducted nonjudicial foreclosure sale. Title has also been perfected by CHCS’s recording of the trustee’s deed on January 25, 2023. Thus, the court finds that Fleet Capital carried its burden of establishing there are no disputed or triable issues of material fact with regards to its ownership of the Covina property.

In opposition, Keene argues Covina Townhomes HOA failed to notify Keene of lien enforcement procedures by certified mail pursuant to Civil Code section 5660, failed to provide an itemized statement by certified mail pursuant to Civil Code section 5660, failed to offer dispute resolution pursuant to the Covina Townhomes HOA’s meet and confer program pursuant to Civil Code sections 5660 and 5670, failed to offer alternative dispute resolution pursuant to Civil Code section 5660, and recorded a notice of delinquent assessment without notice by certified mail as required by Civil Code section 5675. (Opp., p. 2:19-26.)

But in the present summary proceeding, the court is limited to determining if Fleet Capital purchased the Covina property as a sale in compliance with statute and properly perfected the title. (Cheney, supra, 9 Cal.2d at p. 160.) Keene “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 [Fleet Capital’s] title, are neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession, nor are they concluded by the judgment.” (Ibid.) Here, Keene fails to introduce any evidence establishing how the sale of the Covina property itself was noncompliant with statute and instead focuses on the validity of the underlying lien.

Accordingly, Fleet Capital’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court GRANTS Fleet Capital’s motion for summary judgment.