Wilson v. Hynek
207 Cal. App. 4th 999
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Pergola, a Nevada LLC, obtained a $1.6 million loan arranged through Coast and Polo Fund, secured by a deed of trust on Carlsbad vacant land and by the Wilsons’ Amberwood residence and a condo.
- Pergola also secured an additional $1.25 million from Aztec Financial on the Carlsbad vacant land and a further $500,000 from the Hyneks on the same land.
- Foreclosure proceedings were initiated when Pergola defaulted; before sale, Hyneks purchased the Polo 1 and Aztec loans.
- Wilsons allege oral representations by Coast and Polo Fund’s agent Joe Monte promised that foreclosure would first target the vacant land, with residence foreclosure only for any deficiency, and that residence would be released upon appraisals showing sufficient land value.
- Allegations further claim the Hyneks conspired to foreclose on the residence, and that the Amberwood property was foreclosed on November 19, 2008, while Carlsbad land foreclosures proceeded.
- The Wilsons’ second amended complaint raised only unfair business practices under §17200 and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and demurrers were sustained; on appeal, the judgment of dismissal was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the §17200 unfair competition claim is adequately pled | Wilson—argues claim is properly pled as unfair | Coast/Polo Fund—claim inadequate under Cel‑Tech framework | Demurrer affirmed; §17200 claim fails as a matter of law |
| Whether the IIED claim is adequately pled | Wilson—claims conduct was extreme and outrageous | Defendants—foreclosure conduct not outrageous | Demurrer affirmed; IIED not pled with outrageous conduct |
| Whether leave to amend was proper to challenge the notice of default recording | Wilson—could amend to challenge nonrecording by nonoriginal trustee | Statutory scheme allows agent recording; defect not stated | No reversible error; amendment not warranted; recording proper under Civil Code §2924 |
Key Cases Cited
- Durell v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal.App.4th 1350 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (Cel‑Tech unfairness tethered to statutory/antitrust policy)
- Scripps Clinic v. Superior Court, 108 Cal.App.4th 917 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (unfair competition standard under Cel‑Tech framework)
- Byars v. SCME Mortgage Bankers, Inc., 109 Cal.App.4th 1134 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003) (Cel‑Tech test applied to unfair competition claims)
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Superior Court, 45 Cal.App.4th 1093 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) (unfairness analysis in §17200 context requires tether to policy/legislation)
- Klein v. Earth Elements, Inc., 59 Cal.App.4th 965 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (unfairness as to deceptive/sharp practices; public policy considerations)