Bank of America v. Bailey CA4/1

Filed 3/14/25 Bank of America v. Bailey CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., D084014

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2021- 00043701-CU-CL-CTL) WILLIAM R. BAILEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders and a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Gregory W. Pollack and Charles E. Bell, Jr., Judges. Affirmed. William R. Bailey, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. Nelson & Kennard and Robert Scott Kennard for Plaintiff and Respondent. Bank of America, N.A., sued William R. Bailey to recover unpaid credit card debt. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Bank. Bailey contends the trial court erred in (1) denying his motions to quash service and dismiss, (2) its evidentiary rulings at trial, and (3) ignoring his argument that Bank failed to validate his debt as required by the Fair

Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692-1692p. We affirm by memorandum opinion. (See generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.) I. After Bailey defaulted on his Bank credit card account, he sought debt validation. He contends Bank failed to respond, while Bank claims it provided a debt validation letter. In 2021, Bank sued Bailey. Bank filed two declarations of nonservice in 2021 and 2022. It claims to have served Bailey by substituted service in July 2022 and filed proof of service in August. Bailey moved to quash service in July, contending service was untimely. After hearing argument, the court denied the motion. After initially answering the complaint, Bailey moved to dismiss it. The court denied that motion after oral argument as well. In November 2023, the parties presented their case at a bench trial. Bank’s witness testified that Bank’s trial exhibits—printouts of records of Bailey’s account—were produced in the normal course of business and showed a debt owed by Bailey to Bank. When the witness was unable to answer some of Bailey’s questions on cross-examination, Bailey sought to exclude this testimony as lacking adequate knowledge. The court denied the request. Relying on excerpts from a Bank prospectus prepared for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Bailey testified he believed Bank had transferred or securitized his debt such that it was no longer the holder of his debt. The court excluded the exhibit because it was concerned that the excerpts taken out of context may be misleading.