Lopez-Farooq v. Breckenridge Property Fund 2016 CA2/1
B333940
Cal. Ct. App.Jun 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs Lopez-Farooq and Farooq sued multiple financial entities in 2017 for alleged fraudulent conduct leading to wrongful foreclosure on their Santa Clarita home.
- A lis pendens was recorded on the property by Lopez-Farooq in 2018, which is a notice of pending litigation affecting real property.
- Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC purchased the property at a trustee’s sale in 2022 and later substituted in as a defendant.
- Breckenridge successfully moved for expungement of the lis pendens after the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice; no writ was sought by plaintiffs from this expungement.
- Plaintiffs then moved to vacate the expungement order, arguing fraud and legal error; the motion was denied.
- Plaintiffs appealed from the denial of their motion to vacate, not from the expungement order itself.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of order denying motion to vacate expungement | The denial is appealable under CCP §§ 663 and 473(d), citing Jackson v. Kaiser. | The order is nonappealable; only writ review is permitted. | Denial is not appealable; dismissal required under controlling law. |
| Substantial grounds for vacating expungement | Expungement improper; Breckenridge’s title was procured by fraud. | Plaintiffs presented no evidence of forgery or court error. | No evidence warranted vacatur; fraud argument not substantiated. |
| Properness of expungement after case dismissal | Dismissal didn’t justify expungement; claims remain. | Dismissal with prejudice means no real property claim left. | Expungement proper because all underlying claims were dismissed. |
| Application of CCP § 473(d) for fraud on the court | Fraud on the court justifies set aside under § 473(d). | § 473(d) does not cover extrinsic fraud, only void orders. | § 473(d) inapplicable; motion not supported by statute's grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 25 Cal.4th 688 (Cal. 2001) (statutes control appealability of orders and judgments)
- Spellens v. Spellens, 49 Cal.2d 210 (Cal. 1957) (a party cannot do indirectly what is not permitted directly, i.e., appeal order by motion to vacate)
- Rooney v. Vermont Investment Corp., 10 Cal.3d 351 (Cal. 1973) (denial of motion to vacate appealable only if underlying judgment/order is appealable)
- Woodridge Escondido Property Owners Assn. v. Nielsen, 130 Cal.App.4th 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (order on motion to expunge lis pendens is not appealable)
- Park 100 Inv. Group II v. Ryan, 180 Cal.App.4th 795 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009) (review of expungement is by writ, not appeal)