Mannarino v. Bank of America CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Jul 31, 2013 No. B243803Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the plaintiffs' second amended complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend. Many of the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, and the plaintiffs failed to establish standing or a legal duty owed by the defendants.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend.
Whether the plaintiffs' causes of action were barred by applicable statutes of limitation.
Whether the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged facts to state a cause of action against the defendants.
Whether the plaintiffs had standing to pursue all alleged causes of action.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“In the exercise of our independent judgment, we conclude that Mannarino's complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute any cause of action.”

“Moreover, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Mannarino further opportunity to amend the complaint.”

“A complaint that discloses that the statute of limitations has expired regarding one or more causes of action is subject to demurrer.”

Filed 7/31/13 Mannarino v. Bank of America CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

LORI MANNARINO et al., 2d Civil No. B243803 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2011-00407097- Plaintiffs and Appellants, CU-OR-SIM) (Ventura County) v.

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Lori Mannarino and Sam Treihaft appeal a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to their second amended complaint without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581d.) We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On November 18, 2011, Mannarino and Treihaft filed a complaint in propria persona against the Bank of America, N.A., ReconTrust Company, N.A., Flor Valerio, and T. Sevillano, regarding Mannarino's purchase of real property in Ventura County, and its subsequent foreclosure.1 Bank demurred, and prior to the hearing regarding the demurrer, Mannarino filed a first amended complaint. Bank again demurred. The trial court sustained the demurrer and permitted Mannarino leave to amend the complaint.

1 We shall refer to plaintiffs as "Mannarino" and defendants as "Bank" except where clarity demands that we draw a distinction.

On May 18, 2012, Mannarino filed a 111-page second amended complaint naming 16 causes of action in a chain-pleading manner.2 The complaint is in part unintelligible and states many factual and legal conclusions. Mannarino alleges that on March 28, 2007, she applied for a loan from Bank of America, N.A. to purchase a home. Two bank employees accepted her application and informed her that she would receive a 30-year fixed rate loan, but she received a 10-year interest only adjustable rate loan instead. She then executed loan documents without further explanation from the employees, and did not read the documents she executed. The bank soon sold the loan to "CIG HFI 1st Lien Mortgage," which became the "true lender." Following the sale, the bank serviced the loan. On March 18, 2010, trustee ReconTrust Company, N.A. (ReconTrust) recorded a notice of default against the property asserting that Mannarino was in default of her loan obligation. ReconTrust later recorded a notice of sale, and a non-judicial foreclosure sale occurred in 2010. Mannarino alleges that only CIG HFI 1st Lien Mortgage, the true lender, can declare her in default and foreclose upon her property. Mannarino also alleges that Treihaft, now her husband, assisted her in payment of her mortgage and became an owner of the property. Sevillano and Valerio are notaries who notarized certain documents. Mannarino challenges the trial court's order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend. DISCUSSION On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action following the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, our standard of review is de novo, i.e., we exercise our independent judgment whether the complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action under any possible legal theory. (Lafferty v. Wells Fargo Bank (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 545, 564.) We treat the demurrer as admitting all material facts

Mannarino v. Bank of America CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

AI Brief