Woolfolk v. Countrywide Home Loans CA2/2
Filed 2/25/14 Woolfolk v. Countrywide Home Loans 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
CHARLES ROLAND WOOLFOLK, B241525
Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and (Los Angeles County Appellant; Super. Ct. No. TC021802)
STRENGTH REVIVED, INC.,
Cross-defendant and Appellant,
v.
COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.,
Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. William P. Barry, Judge. Affirmed.
The Law Offices of Julius Johnson & Associates and Julius Johnson for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant.
The Law Offices of Gabrielle C. Woods and Gabrielle C. Woods for Cross- defendant and Appellant.
Cunningham & Treadwell, Francis J. Cunningham III and David S. Bartelstone for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent.
_________________________
In a confusing and largely unintelligible brief, appellants Charles Roland Woolfolk (Charles) and Strength Revived, Inc. (Strength) challenge a trial court judgment in favor of Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (Countrywide), among others. Appellants have not met their burden on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Factual Background Charles and Lena Woolfolk (Lena) are married. According to Charles, Douglas Burch (Burch) approached Lena and asked her to invest monies with him. Because she did not have the money to invest, Burch allegedly convinced Lena to take out a loan on certain real property, which Charles inherited before his marriage to Lena. When Lena signed the loan documents, an unidentified man who had arrived with the notary public signed the documents as though he was Charles. Envision Lending Group, Inc. (Envision) was the independent, approved mortgage broker for the loan. Countrywide made the loan. The net proceeds of the Countrywide loan were $117,000, after the payment of various fees and after the pay off of an existing loan held by World Savings (the World Savings deed of trust). The net proceeds were wired to Lena, who transferred the monies to Burch. Lena has not seen or heard from him since. Meanwhile, at some point thereafter, Strength made a loan to Charles and recorded a deed of trust to secure the debt. When Strength’s chief executive officer, Julius Johnson,1 recorded the Strength deed of trust, it knew of the existence of the Countrywide deed of trust.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)