Vasquez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. CA2/6

Filed 3/26/14 Vasquez v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SARITA VASQUEZ, 2d Civil No. B246473 (Super. Ct. No. 1402601) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST CO., as Trustee, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Sarita Vasquez appeals a judgment of dismissal entered after the trial court sustained a demurrer to her first amended complaint without leave to amend. (Code Civ. Proc., § 581d.) We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On July 5, 2012, Vasquez filed a complaint in propria persona against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for American Home Mortgage Assets Trust 2006-5, Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-5 ("Bank"), and Power Default Services, Inc. ("Power").1 Vasquez attempted to allege causes of action for rescission, cancellation of recorded documents, quiet title, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. She also requested injunctive relief and damages.

1 We shall refer to defendants jointly as "Bank," except where clarity demands that we draw a distinction.

Vasquez alleged that she purchased real property at 222 East Calle Laureles in Santa Barbara in May 2005. On August 15, 2006, she refinanced the purchase of the property by application to American Brokers Conduit ("ABC"). As part of the refinance, Vasquez executed a promissory note for $928,000 and a deed of trust securing that obligation. She later learned that the deed of trust was assigned to the Bank without her knowledge or consent. Vasquez alleged that she discovered her causes of action on March 4, 2012, and then sent ABC and the Bank a unilateral notice of rescission pursuant to Civil Code section 1691. Specifically, Vasquez complained that ABC did not make a "loan" to her. Instead, she alleged that they induced her to execute a promissory note and "later monetized [her] signature to create some sort of 'Bearer Instrument' which [ABC] later sold to third party-investors." ABC thus deposited Vasquez's obligation "in a transaction account for the purpose of creating new money for itself without disclosure to [Vasquez]." Vasquez alleged that ABC's practice was an "investment transaction scheme" that "duped [her] into loaning herself her own 'money.'" On July 18, 2012, the Bank demurred to Vasquez's complaint, asserting that the complaint did not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action and also was uncertain. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subds. (e) & (f).) The Bank requested and the trial court agreed to take judicial notice of recorded documents evidencing the refinancing transaction, as well as a recent federal court ruling dismissing a similar lawsuit brought by Vasquez. (Evid. Code, § 452, subds. (c) & (d).) The Bank also provided recorded documents evidencing that, in 2011, Vasquez defaulted in her loan payments and that trustee Power sold the property at a nonjudicial foreclosure sale conducted on January 27, 2012. The promissory note and deed of trust executed by Vasquez in favor of ABC expressly stated that ABC could transfer or sell the promissory note without prior notice to Vasquez. The promissory note also provided that "[t]he Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to receive payments under this Note is called 'the Note Holder.'"