Citi Investment Capital v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA4/3

Filed 3/4/26 Citi Investment Capital v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

CITI INVESTMENT CAPITAL, INC., G065152 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 30-2019-01055778) v. OPINION JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Donald F. Gaffney, Judge. Affirmed. Prince, Attorneys at Law and David L. Prince for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Parker Ibrahim & Berg, John M. Sorich and Bryant Delgadillo for Defendant and Respondent. * * * Citi Investment Capital, Inc. (Citi) sued JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Chase) following a trustee sale at which Citi submitted the highest bid, which was accepted by the trustee. Before the trustee recorded a deed of sale, Chase instructed the trustee to rescind the sale. The trustee did so and refunded Citi’s bid amount with interest. Citi then sued Chase in tort alleging the rescission caused it to lose out on an appreciable real estate investment. Chase moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The trial court concluded Citi’s remedy was limited to the return of its purchase price, plus interest. Citi claims error and argues it can maintain a cause of action in tort against Chase. Reviewing the record de novo, we disagree. The Legislature enacted a comprehensive statutory scheme regulating nonjudicial foreclosure sales, such as the one at issue here. (Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496, 503 (Hicks).) Pursuant to this framework, Citi’s remedy, under these facts, was limited to a return of its purchase price, plus interest. (Moeller v. Lien (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 822, 832 (Moeller); Residential Capital v. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corp. (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 807, 818 (Residential Capital).) We therefore conclude the trial court correctly granted Chase’s motion and affirm the judgment in Chase’s favor. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2001, Washington Mutual Bank, F.A. loaned Bruce and Kathy Elieff $1.24 million; the loan was secured by a deed of trust on real property located in Newport Beach. In 2008, Chase acquired the loan from Washington