Acord v. Linde CA1/3

Filed 11/20/24 Acord v. Linde CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

ANGELA ACORD, Plaintiff and Appellant, A169016 v. MARGARET LINDE et al., (Lake County Super. Ct. No. CV423628) Defendants and Respondents.

Angela Acord appeals from the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer — on issue preclusion grounds — to her complaint for quiet title of real property in Middletown (the property).1 The court reasoned Acord actually litigated, and another court necessarily decided, the identical issue here — whether a promissory note had been satisfied such that sale of the property to Margaret Linde after a nonjudicial foreclosure was invalid — in an previous unlawful detainer action. We conclude Acord did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue in the unlawful detainer proceeding so we reverse and remand.

1 Respondents are Margaret Linde and Robert Malcolm Dunshee.

Redwood Trust Deed Services, Inc. (Redwood Trust) was a defendant below but not a party on appeal. Although the parties and the trial court refer to “collateral estoppel,” we use “issue preclusion.” (Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322, 326 [identifying preferred terminology regarding the law of preclusion].) 1

BACKGROUND Acord owned the property in Middletown. In January 2019, Acord signed a deed of trust using the property as security for a $60,000 loan (promissory note) from Dunshee. She made three monthly interest payments and then stopped paying for more than two years. Around December 2020 and January 2021, she discussed selling the property to Linde. Linde agreed to purchase it, with a portion of the purchase amount to be applied toward the promissory note. Meanwhile, Dunshee was paid an agreed settlement amount of $55,000 for the outstanding debt in March or April of 2021. In March 2021, Redwood Trust executed a reconveyance of the deed of trust, noting it “has been paid.” Specifically, Dunshee provided a written request to reconvey the deed of trust “by reason of the satisfaction of the obligations secured by said Deed of Trust.” Acord, however, did not record the deed of reconveyance. In January 2022, Dunshee nonetheless assigned to Linde, in a recorded document, all his rights under his deed of trust to the property. He also executed a rescission of the reconveyance of the deed of trust. Linde thereafter commenced a nonjudicial foreclosure. Redwood Trust recorded a formal notice of default and election to sell the property, and it sold the property to Linde. Linde filed a complaint for unlawful detainer, alleging she owned the property based on a trustee’s sale after foreclosure and Acord failed to vacate the property after being served a notice to quit. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a.) Acord alleged Linde’s complaint was retaliatory and Linde did not possess lawful title because the promissory note, upon which the foreclosure was based, was previously and timely paid in full to Dunshee, extinguishing any