Mack v. All Counties Tr. Servs., Inc.
237 Cal. Rptr. 3d 568
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2018Background
- Novelette Mack acquired title to property at 4601 West Slauson Avenue in 2004 and later recorded a quitclaim deed dated April 22, 2005.
- VII Series (related parties) obtained a loan secured by a deed of trust on the property in favor of Creative Investment (Hoffman’s company); a trustee’s sale followed and third parties obtained title.
- Mack previously obtained a 2007 judgment in her favor for fraud and to quiet title, but that judgment was later modified or reentered for a lesser amount; subsequent litigation led to a 2012 quiet title judgment vesting title in the trustee’s-sale purchasers.
- Mack sued All Counties Trustee Services, Creative Investment, Hoffman, and Abb in 2014 alleging wrongful foreclosure, fraud, conversion, and related claims; the defendants demurred to her first amended complaint and moved to strike an unauthorized second amended complaint.
- On June 2, 2016 the trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend and struck the second amended complaint; on June 22, 2016 it entered a dismissal judgment and later denied Mack’s motion to vacate/reconsider on December 22, 2016.
- The appellate record was incomplete (missing the first amended complaint and other foundational documents); the trial court denied Mack’s motion to vacate under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d), and the appellate court affirmed for lack of a record showing any judgment was void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the June 22, 2016 dismissal judgment is void under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(d) | Mack: the June 2016 judgment is void because the earlier March 2012 quiet title judgment (from the trustee's sale) was fraudulently obtained and conflicts with Mack’s 2007 judgment | Respondents: (implicit) the record does not show any facial voidness; trial court acted properly on demurrer and motion to strike | Court: Affirmed denial of § 473(d) relief — Mack failed to show any judgment was void and provided an inadequate record to challenge validity |
| Whether the appellate court can review the trial court’s December 22, 2016 order denying reconsideration | Mack: argued appeal should be treated as from the December 22, 2016 order denying reconsideration or to vacate | Respondents: (implicit) denial of reconsideration is not independently appealable | Court: Lack of jurisdiction to treat the denial of reconsideration as an appealable order; appeal proceeds only as to the motion to vacate judgment |
| Whether the appellant provided an adequate record to challenge trial-court rulings | Mack: relied on exhibits appended to an unauthorized second amended complaint and filings in her briefs | Respondents: (implicit) appellant must supply the record (pleadings, prior orders) to show error | Court: Held appellant failed to meet duty to provide an adequate record; any issues not supported by record resolved against appellant |
| Whether vexatious-litigant status affected appellate proceedings | Mack: attempted to proceed in propria persona despite prior vexatious-litigant findings | Respondents/Court: argued for enforcement of vexatious-litigant controls | Court: Stayed appeal, required counsel or showing of merit; discharge of OSC when counsel retained; counsel substitutions tracked but did not change merits outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Talley v. Valuation Counselors Group, Inc., 191 Cal.App.4th 132 (2010) (de novo review applies to whether a judgment is void under § 473(d))
- Hotels Nevada v. L.A. Pacific Center, Inc., 203 Cal.App.4th 336 (2012) (appellant’s duty to provide an adequate record; failure resolves issues against appellant)
- Kinney v. Clark, 12 Cal.App.5th 724 (2017) (trial court’s inherent power and procedures to manage vexatious litigants and court proceedings)
- Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, 166 Cal.App.4th 1625 (2008) (denial of motion for reconsideration is not independently appealable)
- Branner v. Regents of University of California, 175 Cal.App.4th 1043 (2009) (same principle: denial of reconsideration not independently appealable)
- ECC Construction, Inc. v. Oak Park Calabasas Homeowners Ass'n, 122 Cal.App.4th 994 (2004) (timeliness rules for notices of appeal)