Herrera v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co.
196 Cal. App. 4th 1366
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Herrera purchased the property at a foreclosure sale in June 2008 and later allege the Bank was the beneficiary and CRC the trustee under the 2003 deed of trust, giving them authority to foreclose.
- CRC recorded a Notice of Default (Feb 27, 2009), a Notice of Trustee’s Sale (May 29, 2009), and a trustee’s deed conveying the property to the Bank (July 6, 2009).
- Plaintiffs claim they repaired, insured, and paid back taxes after purchase, and seeking to set aside the sale and quiet title; they also seek reimbursement if defendants prevail.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment and sought judicial notice of eight recorded documents and Brignac’s declaration; plaintiffs opposed, challenging admissibility and authenticity.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, relying on the judicial notice of the recorded documents and Brignac’s declaration to establish Bank as beneficiary and CRC as trustee.
- The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment as to the first three causes of action, concluding judicial notice of disputed facts in recorded documents was improper; the fourth cause of action (unjust enrichment) was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bank was the beneficiary and CRC the trustee under the 2003 deed of trust | Herrera argues no admissible evidence shows Bank as beneficiary or CRC as trustee. | Bank/CRC rely on recorded assignment and substitution to prove authority to foreclose. | Triable issues of material fact remain; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether the trial court properly took judicial notice of recorded documents to support summary judgment | Judicial notice cannot establish truth of disputed facts contained in records. | Recorded documents show Bank and CRC’s roles and authority. | Judicial notice of the contents was improper; cannot rely on them to grant summary judgment. |
| Whether Brignac's declaration and the business-records exception were properly used to prove the trust chain | Declaration lacks personal knowledge and proper business-record foundation; records are hearsay. | Declaration supported by business-records exception should be admissible. | Brignac’s declaration was insufficient to prove Bank as beneficiary or CRC as trustee; inadmissible as basis for summary judgment. |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the first three causes of action | Disputed authority to foreclose defeats sale validity and title status. | Undisputed facts show default, notice, and proper substitution; sale valid. | Reversed for first three causes; summary judgment improper; affirmed fourth (unjust enrichment). |
Key Cases Cited
- Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC, 152 Cal.App.4th 1106 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (judicial notice of recorded deeds does not justify evidentiary facts stated therein)
- StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.4th 449 (Cal. 1999) (recorded documents' contents are hearsay; cannot be taken as true)
- Mann v. Cracchiolo, 38 Cal.3d 18 (Cal. 1985) (strictly construe moving-party affidavits against them on summary judgment)
- Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort, 91 Cal.App.4th 875 (Cal. App. 2001) (judicial notice defined and scope explained)
- Love v. Wolf, 226 Cal.App.2d 378 (Cal. App. 1964) (public records may be noticed, but truth of contents is disputable)
- Bono v. Clark, 103 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. App. 2002) (summary-judgment standards for establishing facts)
- Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp., 148 Cal.App.4th 97 (Cal. App. 2007) (scope of judicial notice under Evidence Code)
- Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage, 184 Cal.App.3d 369 (Cal. App. 1986) (evidence and foundations for business records; hearsay concerns)
- Cooley v. Superior Court, 140 Cal.App.4th 1039 (Cal. App. 2006) (foundation required for admissibility of evidence in summary judgment)