Brock Williams v. Bank of America
701 F. App'x 626
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brock and Sylvia Williams sued U.S. Bank and Bank of America alleging the assignment(s) of their deed of trust were forged or unauthorized and sought to quiet title and cancel the instruments.
- The district court dismissed the First Amended Complaint without leave to amend; Williamses appealed.
- It was undisputed that Bank of America no longer asserted an adverse interest in the property (a reconveyance had been recorded).
- No nonjudicial foreclosure sale had occurred at the time of this appeal.
- The district court relied on California law limiting pre-foreclosure claims (including restrictions on quiet title, cancellation, wrongful foreclosure, and certain preemptive declaratory relief).
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed dismissal, finding proposed amendments would be futile.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quiet title | Williams says the recorded assignments are forged so they should quiet title and cancel instruments. | Banks contend plaintiffs cannot quiet title without paying the secured debt and Bank of America no longer claims an interest. | Dismissed — quiet title requires payment/offer to pay; no antagonistic interest from Bank of America. |
| Cancellation of instruments (pre-foreclosure) | Williams seeks cancellation of allegedly forged instruments. | Banks rely on California precedent that pre-foreclosure cancellation claims are unavailable. | Dismissed — borrower cannot obtain cancellation in a preemptive pre-foreclosure suit. |
| Claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 2924(a)(6) (injunction of future sale) | Williams argues §2924(a)(6) could bar an unauthorized foreclosure. | Banks point to cases holding §2924(a)(6) cannot be used to enjoin a future nonjudicial sale. | Dismissed — amendment to assert §2924(a)(6) would be futile; cannot enjoin future sale under that provision. |
| UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) | Williams alleges deceptive business practices (recording without authority) causing economic injury. | Banks argue any injury is not causally connected to the alleged recording defects — plaintiffs would still owe the debt. | Dismissed — no causation shown; plaintiffs would suffer same harm regardless of alleged recording defects. |
| Wrongful foreclosure tort | Williams asserts wrongful foreclosure theories based on fraud/forgery. | Banks: wrongful foreclosure requires that an unlawful sale already occurred. | Dismissed — tort requires an actual foreclosure sale; no sale had occurred. |
| Declaratory relief to identify note holder | Williams seeks declaration identifying who holds the note/beneficial interest. | Banks rely on California rule barring preemptive suits that interfere with nonjudicial foreclosure scheme. | Dismissed — preemptive declaratory relief of this type is not permitted under California law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 646 F.3d 1214 (9th Cir.) (standard of review: de novo for dismissal)
- Lueras v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, 163 Cal. Rptr. 3d 804 (Ct. App.) (borrower cannot quiet title against secured lender without paying debt)
- Saterbak v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 790 (Ct. App.) (limits on preemptive pre-foreclosure cancellation and declaratory relief)
- Lucioni v. Bank of Am., N.A., 207 Cal. Rptr. 3d 418 (Ct. App.) (§2924(a)(6) cannot be used to enjoin a future nonjudicial foreclosure sale)
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 246 P.3d 877 (Cal. 2011) (UCL requires causal connection between unlawful conduct and economic injury)
- Thinket Ink Info. Res., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 368 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir.) (denial of leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile)