Grant v. Bank of America

107 Grant v. Bank of DEMURRER – SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO America, 2026- AMEND 01560009 The present complaint appears to be the fourth complaint filed by Plaintiffs Gavin and Michelle Grant to avoid nonjudicial foreclosure on their home. This court will take judicial notice of the court’s records in Gavin Grant v. Bank of America, N.A. and Clear Recon, 2017-00898495; Gavin Grant v. Bank of America, N.A. and Clear Recon, 2018-00993609; Gavin & Michelle Grant v. Bank of America, N.A., et al 2023- 01332810. (Evid Code, § 452, subd. (d)(1); Scott v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2013) 214 Cal.App.4 th 743, 752 [court may take judicial notice of its own files on demurrer on its own motion].) Each of those complaints was ultimately dismissed, and the orders of dismissal were affirmed on appeal.

In the present case, Plaintiffs allege Bank of America divested itself of interest in the loan on their property. Plaintiffs also allege Bank of America’s substitution of Clear Recon as trustee was ineffective because Bank of America had no interest and no right to change the trustee. Plaintiffs also allege the notice of trustee’s sale by Clear Recon on February 20, 2026 is a new independent wrongful act (Complaint, ¶9) and therefore the final orders of dismissal in the previous cases does not bar the current complaint.

However, the 2026 notice of trustee’s sale can only be a new wrongful act if Clear Recon was not properly acting as the trustee. And Plaintiffs can only assert this in the present case if they could not have done so in one of the earlier cases. Plaintiffs do not allege when they learned about Bank of America’s divestiture of its interest. The complaint alleges Plaintiffs discovered Bank of America’s internal accounting records in 2022 (¶20), and they “did not discover the chain of title until years later.” (¶53) Plaintiffs also attach to their complaint the declaration of Esquivel which raises the issue of the assignment of the Deed of Trust to the trust claiming interest which cut off Bank of America’s interest. (See also amended complaint in 2023-01332810, ¶¶36-39)

The court’s tentative ruling as to Clear Recon’s demurrer is to sustain the demurrer with leave to amend all causes of action. In addition to addressing the specific issues raised by the demurrer, Plaintiff must also allege when and how they

learned about Bank of America’s alleged divestiture of its interest.

108 Hamidi v. Manheim MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION – TENTATIVE Investment, 2020- POSTED PREVIOUSLY 01145159 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE – APPEARANCES REQUIRED