NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al.

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Newrez LLC dba Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing’s (“Plaintiff”) motion for judgment on the pleadings against defendant in pro per Brandon Kyle McElhaney, Trustee of the Sylvan Grove Trust (the “Trust”), is DENIED.

Plaintiff filed its Verified Complaint on June 3, 2024, alleging causes of action for quiet title, cancellation of written instrument, and declaratory relief to cancel the Grant Deed and Mechanic’s Lien recorded as to the real property located at 7337 Sylvan Grove Way, Citrus Heights, CA 95610 (the “Subject Property”) and to declare Plaintiff’s ownership in the same. The Verified Complaint includes the following allegations.

Plaintiff alleges that on or about April 3, 2018, the prior owner of the Subject Property, Thomas A. Stevens Jr., executed a deed of trust in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as nominee for Ditech Financial LLC and encumbering the Subject Property as security for a promissory note in the amount of $361,550 (the “Deed of Trust”). The Deed of Trust was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County on April 16, 2018, as Document Number 201804160088. (Compl. ¶ 7, Ex. 1.)

On or about October 13, 2020, a Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust was executed, transferring the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust to Plaintiff. The Corporation Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County on October 16, 2020, as Document Number 202010160919. (Compl. ¶ 8, Ex. 2.)

After the borrower failed to make the required payments, on or about May 18, 2022, Quality Loan Service Corporation executed a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust (the “Notice of Default”). The Notice of Default was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County on May 18, 2022, as Document Number 202205180872. (Compl. ¶ 10, Ex. 4.)

On or about August 23, 2022, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale (the “Notice of Sale”) was executed after the borrower failed to cure the default. The Notice of Sale set a sale date of September 20, 2022. The Notice of Sale was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County on August 24, 2022, as Document Number 202208241481. (Compl. ¶ 11, Ex. 5.)

On or about December 5, 2022, a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was executed, evidencing that a sale was held on October 18, 2022, and title of the Subject Property transferred to Plaintiff, the foreclosing beneficiary. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County on December 6, 2022, as Document Number 202212060971. (Compl. ¶ 12, Ex. 6.)

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54

On or about December 13, 2022, Brandon Kyle McElhaney (“Brandon”) recorded a document titled “Notice of Nonacceptance of a Recorded Deed” (the “Notice of Nonacceptance”), self-declaring that he does not accept the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale without any further explanation or legal basis. The Notice of Nonacceptance of a Recorded Deed was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County on December 13, 2022, as Document Number 202212130599. (Compl. ¶ 13, Ex. 7.)

On or about December 20, 2022, a Special Warranty Deed was executed by Plaintiff, transferring title to the Subject Property to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, an Officer of the United States (the “VA”). The Special Warranty Deed was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County on March 3, 2023, as Document Number 2023030381. (Compl. ¶ 14., Ex. 8.).

On or about April 21, 2023, Brandon, as Grantor for the Sylvan Grove Trust, purported to transfer the Subject Property to himself as Trustee of the Sylvan Grove Trust. The Grant Deed was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County on May 23, 2023, as Document Number 202305230758. (Compl. ¶ 15, Ex. 9.). At the time the Grant Deed was executed and recorded, the Trust held no legal or equitable interest in the Subject Property. As a result, Plaintiff's ownership interest is not free and clear, as the Grant Deed constitutes an improper cloud on title. (Compl. ¶¶ 16-17.) Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges that Brandon is an illegal occupant. Since execution of the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale, all property taxes and utility bills have been paid by Plaintiff and the VA. (Compl. ¶18.)

As a result of the improper Grant Deed clouding title to the Subject Property, on November 28, 2023, the VA transferred the Subject Property back to Plaintiff via a Quitclaim Deed. The Quitclaim Deed was recorded in the Official Records of Sacramento County on April 19, 2024, as Document Number 202404190727. (Compl. ¶ 19, Ex. 10.) Additionally, on or about September 25, 2023, defendant Roddie McElhaney (“Roddie”), the mother of defendant Brandon, sent a letter to the VA titled “Notice of Intent to File Mechanic’s Lien,” in which she claims that $42,864.00 is owed for repair work she completed at the Subject Property. When asked by Plaintiff who authorized this work, she stated that it was her son Brandon. (Compl. ¶ 20, Ex. 11.)

On July 17, 2024, the Trust filed Answer to the Complaint. The Answer claimed the Sylvan Grove Trust is the rightful owner because the Subject Property was abandoned by the prior owner’s family and therefore the beneficiaries of the Trust took possession. (Answer at ¶ 30.) Plaintiff now seeks judgment on the pleadings because Plaintiff has stated a claim for relief and the Trust's answer fails to assert any defenses.

Legal Standard

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54

When the moving party is the plaintiff, there is only one ground for a motion for judgment on the pleadings: “the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause or causes of action against the defendant and the answer does not state facts sufficient to constitute a defense to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 438(c)(1)(A).) The Court must disregard all controverted allegations in the complaint and accept all facts properly pleaded in the answer. (Sebago, Inc. v. City of Alameda (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 1372, 1379-1380.) “A motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings is in the nature of a general demurrer, and the motion must be denied if the defendant’s pleadings raise a material issue or set up affirmative matter constituting a defense.” (MacIsaac v.

Pozzo (1945) 26 Cal.2d 809, 812-813.) The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how improbable. (Sisemore v. Master Financial, Inc. (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 1386, 1397.)

As noted, in ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court “may consider matters that may be judicially noticed, including a party’s admissions or concessions which cannot reasonably be controverted.” (Pang v. Beverly Hosp., Inc. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 986, 989-990 (citing to Evans v. Cal. Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 548-549.) It is proper for this Court to take judicial notice of its own records. (Code Civ. Proc. § 452(d).)

Discussion

To state a claim for cancellation of written instrument, a plaintiff must allege (1) a reasonable apprehension that the instrument might cause serious injury; (2) it is invalid on its face; (3) it is void or voidable; (4) it was in existence or under defendant’s possession and control when plaintiff filed the action; and (5) if the interest is voidable rather than void, that plaintiff acted promptly to rescind. (Civ. Code §§ 3412, 3413; Hironymous v. Hiatt (1921) 52 Cal.App. 727, 731.)

To quiet title, a plaintiff must set forth the following: (1) a legal description and street address of the subject real property; (2) the title of plaintiff as to which determination is sought and the basis of the title; (3) the adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought; (4) the date as of which the determination is sought; and (5) a prayer for the determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims. (Cal. Code Civ. P. § 761.020.)

Finally, a party may obtain declaratory relief with respect to the rights and duties of the parties to a written contract if there is an actual controversy as to such rights and duties. (Civ. Code § 1060.) Declaratory relief action is not proper where it seeks only a declaration regarding past wrongs, without any “occasion to define respective rights which would govern the future conduct of the parties.” (Travers v. Louden (1967) 254

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54

Cal.App.2d 926, 932.)

The Trust has opposed, but on grounds that are inapplicable to this motion. For example, the Trust argues the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action because it is related to a trust dispute and should be in Probate Court. The Trust asks that this action be transferred to the Probate Court. This request is denied. Probate Code section 17000 gives the Probate Court exclusive jurisdiction of proceedings between a trustee and a beneficiary concerning the internal affairs of trusts. (Prob.

Code § 17000(a).) However, this action does not involve internal trust affairs, such as modification of the terms of the trust, changes in a designated successor trustee, or other deviation from trust provisions. (Harnedy v. Whitty (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1345.) The action is between the Trust and a third party that is not a party to the Trust. Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded that it lacks jurisdiction to hear the claims for quiet title, cancellation of instrument, and declaratory relief regarding the ownership of the Subject Property.

The Trust also refers to this motion as a motion for summary judgment. Nothing in the Trust’s opposition is relevant to the standards applied to a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Plaintiff contends the failure to oppose any of the substantive arguments in opposition constitutes an admission and the motion should, therefore, be granted. The Court disagrees. Despite the opposition’s misguided arguments, the Trust’s opposition cannot be construed as a concession on the merits. Having reviewed the denials contained in the Answer, the Court concludes they are sufficient to dispute the allegations in the Verified Complaint.

The Trust denies all of the allegations in the Verified Complaint, except for the allegations found at paragraphs 4-5, 7-11, and 21, as well as admitting that all of the exhibits are accurate copies of those found in the record. Specifically, the Trust denies that it holds no legal or equitable interest in the Subject Property and that, as a result, the Grand Deed is void, that the Grant Deed constitutes an improper cloud on title, that Brandon is an illegal squatter, that the Mechanic’s Lien is void and of no legal effect, and that the Mechanic’s Lien is a cloud on title. The Court assumes the truth of all material allegations in the challenged pleading no matter how improbable. (Sisemore, supra, 151 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is DENIED.

The notice of motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Plaintiff is directed to contact the Trust and advise of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure and the manner to request a hearing. If Plaintiff is unable to contact the Trust prior to hearing, moving counsel is ordered to appear at the hearing.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV011015: NEWREZ LLC vs MCELHANEY, et al. 06/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Department 54

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312, or further notice is required.

NOTICE:

Consistent with Local Rule 1.06(B), any party requesting oral argument on any matter on this calendar must comply with the following procedure:

To request limited oral argument, on any matter on this calendar, you must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615 by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing and advise opposing counsel. At the time of requesting oral argument, the requesting party shall leave a voice mail message: a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and c) confirming that it has notified the opposing party of its intention to appear and that opposing party may appear via Zoom using the Zoom link and Meeting ID indicated below. If no request for oral argument is made, the tentative ruling becomes the final order of the Court.

Unless ordered to appear in person by the Court, parties may appear remotely either telephonically or by video conference via the Zoom video/audio conference platform with notice to the Court and all other parties in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure 367.75. Although remote participation is not required, the Court will presume all parties are appearing remotely for non-evidentiary civil hearings. The Department 53/54 Zoom Link is https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept53.54 and the Zoom Meeting ID is 161 4650 6749. To appear on Zoom telephonically, call (833) 568-8864 and enter the Zoom Meeting ID referenced above. NO COURTCALL APPEARANCES WILL BE ACCEPTED.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.