Our Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence
Transcript of Our Motion in Limine to Exclude All Evidence
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ. SBN 147715LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS1881 Business Center Drive, Ste. 9ASan Bernardino, CA
(909) 890-9192 Telephone(909) 382-9956 Facsimile
Attorney for Defendant ANTHONY J. MARTIN
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF STANISLAUS
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as successor in interest to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Including Any Assignors or Successors In Interest,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANTHONY J. MARTIN and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 645068
DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND SECOND IN LIMINE MOTION TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE (RE: FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM)
DATE: August 5, 2010TIME: 8:30 a.m.DEPT: 22
To the Court, to Plaintiff, U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as
successor in interest to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Including Any Assignors
or Successors In Interest [hereinafter “U.S. BANK” ] and its attorney of record:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on Thursday, August 5, 2010, 2010, at 8:30
AM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Defendant, ANTHONY J. MARTIN,
will in limine judicii move the court, and hereby does move, for an order excluding from trial
all evidence proffered by Plaintiff U.S. BANK.
The motion will be heard in Department 22 of the Stanislaus Superior Court.
1_____________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The motion will be brought pursuant to Evidence Code sections 353 and 400 et seq.,
Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(b), and related decisional law.
The ground of the motion will be that the Unlawful Detainer Complaint, fails to
disclose the reason why Plaintiff supposedly complied with Civil Code section 2932.5 and
Civil code section 2924; and accordingly the Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief
may be granted, and thus there remain no issues of fact for which relevant evidence might be
adduced at trial.
More importantly, it is acknowledged that banks, lenders and third party buyers have
a secured interest in deed which was assigned and recorded as mandated by Civil Code
Section 2932.5. In this case, plaintiff did not have the power of sale as mandated by Civil
Code Section 2924 because there is no evidence that the secured interest of the current
beneficiary has been properly acknowledged and recorded. Though Plaintiff may argue that
the FDIC “may” have conveyed the secured interest of Downey Savings and Loan to plaintiff
U.S. BANK, the Receiver Deed was never recorded by U.S. Bank regarding the subject
property.
The motion will be based upon this notice of motion and motion, the attached
Memorandum of Points and Authorities, on the pleadings and other papers on file for the
above-captioned case, and upon such other and further evidence as the court may deem fit.
//
DATED: August 4, 2010. ________________________________________ LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L.
MCCANDLESS By: Timothy P. McCandless, Esq.Attorney for DEFENDANT ANTHONY J.
MARTIN
2_____________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant Anthony J. Martin was the title owner of the Subject Property by virtue of
a Deed of Trust dated February 23, 2006 between defendant and the now defunct bank
DOWNEY SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION F.A. [hereinafter “DOWNEY”] until
Plaintiff conducted an invalid non-judicial foreclosure proceeding on May 15, 2009. The
Trustee’s Deed Upon sale was recorded on May 22, 2009 showing DSL SERVICE
COMPANY granting and conveying the subject property to the now defunct bank
DOWNEY.
The court’s records for this case will show that Plaintiff U.S. BANK filed its
Complaint on or about November 6, 2009. The instant case was then filed as a “limited
jurisdiction” case by the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff alleges that the assets of Downy were sold by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation [hereinafter “FDIC”] to plaintiff U.S. BANK, N.A. on or about November 21,
2008 under the Purchase and Assumption Agreement. Because of this, U.S. Bank was
conveyed either a Receiver’s Deed or Receiver’s Bill of Sale. However, there is no such
document recorded with the Stanislaus Recorder’s office. As of November 21, 2008,
Downey Savings & Loan was no longer the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust regarding the
subject property, which was recorded on February 23, 2006.
There is no Receiver’s Deed recorded by U.S. BANK N.A. as the new beneficiary of
the Deed of Trust executed by Defendants thus, under California Civil Code Section 2924,
plaintiff could enforce the power of sale.
Moreover, there is no evidence, or any recorded documents at the Stanislaus
Recorder’s office that an assignment of the Deed of Trust regarding this subject property was
ever executed and recorded. Attached as See Exhibit “1” to this Motion in Limine is a true
and correct copy of the printout of all documents recorded pertaining to Defendant
ANTHONY J. MARTIN. No Assignment was ever recorded by Downey, the FDIC or
plaintiff U.S. BANK. See Exhibit “1” to this Motion in Limine and Exhibit “2” which is the
court’s ruling for Summary Judgment which states in pertinent part:
3_____________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment - DENIED. The Plaintiff as moving party has established a prima facie showing that it is entitled to judgment for possession against Defendant as a matter of law. However, Defendant's objections Nos. 1, 3-6, 8, 9, and 11 to the Johnson Declaration are overruled; and objections Nos. 2, 7 and 10 are sustained, based on a lack personal knowledge and/or hearsay, regarding the alleged transfer of the beneficial interest to Plaintiff and as to the reasonable rental value. Further, the Court finds the Defendant has met his burden of establishing triable issues of fact to rebut the presumption of validity of the sale and the issue of whether Plaintiff had the right to proceed with foreclosure. Namely the evidence of a gap in title and security interest from Downey Savings & Loan through the FDIC to Plaintiff during the time of the foreclosure proceeding, as well as missing evidence to show whether the Trustee, DSL Service Company, was authorized to act as Plaintiff’s agent in continuing to pursue the sale once Downey Savings & Loan had lost its security interest. (See Plaintiff’s undisputed fact # 7 and Defendant’s objection thereto; and Declaration of Defense counsel, McCandless, paragraphs 2, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13). As such, triable issues of material fact remain and the motion for summary judgment is denied.”
After November 11, 2008, DOWNEY did not own a secured interest in the subject
property. DOWNEY did not have the power to continue with the foreclosure of the subject
property after the FDIC took over. More importantly, the agent of DOWNEY was not
lawfully empowered to execute a Trustee’s Deed After Sale because they did not own a
security interest and U.S. BANK did not record the Receiver’s Deed.
Thus, this non-judicial foreclosure of this particular property is invalid and plaintiff
U.S. BANK is not the lawful owner of this property and not entitled to obtain possession
pursuant to California Civil Procedure Section 1161a.
II.
THE COURT HAS POWER TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE FROM TRIAL, ON
GROUNDS ANALOGOUS TO A GENERAL DEMURRER.
The court has power to consider and grant an objection to all evidence under
Evidence Code sections 353 and 400 et seq. If no cause of action or defense is stated by the
respective pleading, then no “factual issue” any longer exists, and therefore no evidence may
be admitted on grounds of “relevance” under Evidence Code sections 400 et seq.
It is well established that a party may bring an in limine objection in order to exclude
4_____________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
all evidence, as a sort of general demurrer or “motion for judgment on the pleadings”.
“Although not in form a motion, this method of attacking the pleading is identical in purpose
to a general demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings and is governed by the same
rules. [Citations.]” 5 WITKIN, Cal.Proc.3rd page 386, “Pleading” at §953. See also 6
WITKIN, Cal.Proc.3rd pages 571-573, “Proceedings Without Trial” at §§272-273.
According to 5 WITKIN, Cal.Proc.3rd page 340, “Pleading” at §899, a “general”
demurrer concerns only the defense that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action or defense. That is precisely what defendant contends here: the
Unlawful Detainer Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, because
it fails to plead a necessary element of compliance with Civil Code sections 2932.5 and 2924
et al.
III.
THE COURT MUST STRICTLY ENFORCE
THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A FORECLOSURE.
The harshness of non-judicial foreclosure has been recognized. “The exercise of the
power of sale is a harsh method of foreclosing the rights of the grantor.” Anderson v. Heart
Federal Savings (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 202, 6 215, citing to System Inv. Corporation v.
Union Bank (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 137, 153. The statutory requirements are intended to
protect the trustor from a wrongful or unfair loss of his property Moeller v. Lien (1994) 25
Cal.App.4th 822, 830; accord, Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496,
503; Lo Nguyen v. Calhoun (6th District 2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 428, 440, and a valid
foreclosure by the private power of sale requires strict compliance with the requirements of
the statute. Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.), Deeds of Trust and Mortgages,
Chapter 10 §10.179; Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn., 208 Cal. App. 3d 202,
211 (3d Dist. 1989), reh'g denied and opinion modified, (Mar. 28, 1989); Miller v. Cote (4th
Dist. 1982) 127 Cal. App. 3d 888, 894; System Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank (2d Dist. 1971) 21
Cal. App. 3d 137, 152-153; Bisno v. Sax (2d Dist. 1959) 175 Cal. App. 2d 714, 720.
It has been a cornerstone of foreclosure law that the statutory requirements,
intending to protect the trustor from a wrongful or unfair loss of the property, must be
5_____________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
complied with strictly. Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.), Deeds of Trust and
Mortgages, Chapter 10 §10.182. “Close” compliance does not count. As a result, any
trustee’s sale based on a statutorily deficient Notice of Default is invalid (emphasis
added). Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.), Deeds of Trust and Mortgages,
Chapter 10 §10.182; Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. (3dDist. 1989) 208 Cal.
App. 3d 202, 211, reh'g denied and opinion modified, (Mar. 28, 1989); Miller v. Cote (4th
Dist. 1982) 127 Cal. App. 3d 888, 894; System Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank (2d Dist. 1971) 21
Cal. App. 3d 137, 152-153; Saterstrom v. Glick Bros. Sash, Door & Mill Co.(3d Dist. 1931)
118 Cal. App. 379.
It is a fundamental precept of property law that in order to enforce the power of sale,
the beneficiary of a deed of trust must be able to prove the existence of their secured interest
in the subject property. Here, U.S. Bank has never demonstrated that it ever had such a
secured interest.
There are triable issues of fact which exist as to whether the F.D.I.C. ever conveyed
an interest in this particular property to U.S. Bank, N.A. by Receiver’s Deed, whether U.S.
Bank, N.A. made any efforts to record such Receiver’s Deed, why the Receiver’s Deed was
not recorded, if in fact it even exists.
Additionally, any trustee’s sale based on a statutorily deficient Notice of Trustee Sale
is invalid. Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. (3d Dist. 1989) 11 208 Cal.App. 3d
202, 211, reh'g denied and opinion modified, (Mar. 28, 1989). The California Sixth District
Court of Appeal observed, “Pursuing that policy [of judicial interpretation], the courts have
fashioned rules to protect the debtor, one of them being that the notice of default will be
strictly construed and must correctly set forth the amounts required to cure the default.”
Sweatt v. The Foreclosure Co., Inc. (1985 - 6th District) 166 Cal.App.3d 273 at 278, citing to
Miller v. Cote (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 888, 894 and SystemInv. Corp. v. Union Bank (1971)
21 Cal.App.3d 137, 152-153.
The same reasoning applies even to a notice of a trustee’s sale. Courts will set aside a
foreclosure sale when there has been fraud, when the sale has been improperly, unfairly, or
unlawfully conducted, or when there has been such a mistake that it would be inequitable to
let it stand. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n v. Reidy (1940) 15 Cal. 2d 243, 248;
6_____________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Whitman v. Transtate Title Co.(4th Dist. 1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 312, 322-323; In re
Worcester (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1224, 1228. See also Smith v. Williams (1961) 55 Cal.
2d 617, 621; Stirton v. Pastor (4th Dist. 1960) 177 Cal. App. 2d 232, 234; Brown v. Busch (3d
Dist. 1957) 152 Cal.App. 2d 200, 203-204.
In this case, there is no evidence whether U.S. Bank recorded the Receiver’s Deed
and if there is no record at the Stanislaus Recorder’s office, they did not maintain a properly
acknowledged and recorded security instrument in the subject property, anytime during the
non-judicial foreclosure process.
A primary concern in this matter is the fact that the apparently-foreclosing
predecessor-in-interest, U.S. BANK, had no legal right to foreclose upon the home of
Defendant MARTIN, even if he had not paid as required, if the same U.S. BANK has not
fully complied with Civil Code section 2932.5 and 2924. The basis for its noncompliance,
and why this precludes a finding that Plaintiff’s title was “duly perfected”, is set forth below.
IV.
SINCE 2008, THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE POWER OF SALE OF A SECURED
INSTRUMENT IN REAL PROPERTY IS MANDATED BY CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 2932.5 WHICH ALLOWS AN ASSIGNEE TO PROCEED WITH
A NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE PROVIDING THAT THE ASSIGNMENT IS
PROPERLY ACKNOWLEDGED AND RECORDED.
In 2008, the California Legislature added Civil Code section 2932.5. The previous
section is of particular relevance here:
Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.
There is no assignment ever recorded by DOWNEY, THE FDIC OR PLAINTIFF
U.S. BANK. See also Code of Civil Procedure section 459: “it is not necessary to state the
facts showing such performance, but it may be stated generally that the party duly performed
7_____________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
all the conditions on his part required thereby; if such allegations be controverted, the party
pleading must establish on the trial the facts showing such performance.”
Nonetheless, this pleading of compliance that “[o]ne of the below necessary
requirements was met by the Beneficiary:” violates another rule of pleading, namely, that
allegations be made positively. “Pleading in the alternative is not permitted. The opposing
party is entitled to a distinct statement of the facts claimed by the pleader to exist, and a
statement in the alternative is uncertain and ambiguous. It is no answer to an objection to
averments made alternatively to say that, if either of the averments is true, a cause of action
is alleged. Such a pleading is vulnerable to special demurrer, and there is authority that the
defect cannot be cured by verdict or by judgment by default. But where the point is raised
for the first time on appeal, it is not ground for reversal if the appellant was not prejudiced by
the uncertainty.” 49 Cal.Jur.3d (1979 ed.), pages 412-413, “Pleading” at §51.
The noncompliance with California’s law of pleading here is prejudicial. The issue of
whether or not the lender recorded a receiver’s deed is expected to be a major factual issue at
the trial. It is true that defendant MARTIN might use contention interrogatories and other
specially worded interrogatories to find out what factual theory, exactly, underlies the cryptic
alternative statement that “[o]ne of the below necessary requirements was met by the
Beneficiary:”. And defendant MARTIN must still then, at that point, discover the evidence
upon which Plaintiff (or, more precisely, Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest) relies in
contending that there was compliance with California Civil Code subsection 2932.5.
CONCLUSION
The public record shows, as a matter of law, that PLAINTIFF U.S. BANK and
Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest did not comply with the requirement to disclose according
to Code of Civil Procedure subsection 2932.5 Although the Plaintiff could supply this
information and cure the pleading error here, yet such an reparative measure will not cure the
invalidity of that there is no Receiver’s Deed or Receiver’s Bill of Sale that was recorded
with the Office of the County Recorder in Stanislaus County. Until that defect is repaired,
there cannot be any “duly perfected title” that serves as the basis for Plaintiff’s Unlawful
Detainer case. The case must be stopped, and that may be done by an exclusion of all
evidence, as prayed for above.
8_____________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: 08/03/2010 LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY MCCANDLESS ESQ.
_____________________________________Timothy L. McCandless, Esq., Attorney for DefendantsANTHONY J. MARTIN
9_____________________________________________________________________________________
MOTION IN LIMINE