Sumter v. Bank of America CA2/2

Filed 3/5/26 Sumter v. Bank of America CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

TERRI SUMTER, B347332

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. v. 23TRCV02195)

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Tamara Hall, Judge. Affirmed.

Terri Sumter, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Stinson, Jan T. Chilton and Elizabeth C. Farrell for Defendant and Respondent.

______________________________

Plaintiff and appellant Terri Sumter, appearing in propria persona, appeals from the trial court’s order sustaining a demurrer and dismissing, with prejudice, Sumter’s first amended complaint (FAC) against defendant and respondent Bank of America, N.A. (Bank of America).1 We affirm. BACKGROUND From the limited record provided on appeal, we glean the following: On March 3, 2025, Sumter filed the FAC, claiming that Bank of America committed “conversion [and] theft” of surplus proceeds from its 2011 foreclosure sale of Sumter’s property. (Capitalization and bolding omitted.) Sumter alleged that she submitted a surplus claim to Bank of America on March 9, 2023, and had yet to receive a response. On April 10, 2025, Bank of America filed a demurrer and a motion to request judicial notice of several documents associated with the 2011 foreclosure and a related bankruptcy proceeding. Sumter opposed the motion and objected to the request for judicial notice. The trial court posted a tentative ruling, which largely granted Bank of America’s request for judicial notice and sustained the demurrer. Among other things, the court found that “the cause of action for conversion and theft is time barred[,]” as documents from the bankruptcy case indicated that