Robbins v. Deutsche Bank CA2/6

Filed 3/27/14 Robbins v. Deutsche Bank CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

VINCENT ROBBINS et al., 2d Civil No. B246880 (Super. Ct. No. 1397052) Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY,

Defendant and Respondent.

Vincent and Virginia Robbins and Vincent and Virginia Robbins as Trustees of the Robbins Family Trust 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 April 20, 2012, the Robbinses filed a complaint in propria persona against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company ("Bank"), to allege causes of action for rescission and cancellation of recorded documents. They requested declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages. The Robbinses alleged that on February 2, 2007, they refinanced their residential property at 25 Conejo Road, Santa Barbara, by application to Americorp

Funding ("Americorp"). As terms of the refinancing, they executed a promissory note for $1,493,000 and a deed of trust securing that obligation. Specifically, the Robbinses complained that Americorp did not make a "loan" to them. They alleged that Americorp instead "induced [them] into . . . signing the 'promissory note' and later monetized [their] signature to create some sort of 'Bearer Instrument' which [Americorp] later sold to third party-investors." Americorp then deposited the Robbinses' obligation "in a transaction account . . . to create new money for itself without disclosure to [the Robbinses]." The Robbinses alleged that this practice was an "investment transaction scheme" that "duped [them] into loaning themselves their own 'money.'" The Robbinses further alleged that they received a notice of default and additional documents regarding foreclosure from RSM&A Foreclosure Services ("RSM&A"), on behalf of the beneficiary. RSM&A was not a party to the refinance agreement. They alleged that these "attempts to collect a debt" without "a contractual nexus" constituted fraud. On June 8, 2012, the Bank demurred to the Robbinses' complaint, asserting that it did not state facts sufficient to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) The Bank requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the recorded trustee's deed upon sale, reflecting that RSM&A, as trustee, conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure sale on September 29, 2011, at which the Bank, as beneficiary, made a full credit bid of $1,577,905.01. The trial court sustained the Bank's demurrer with leave to amend. On July 20, 2012, the Robbinses filed a first amended complaint similar to the original complaint, but attempting to allege an additional cause of action for slander of title. The Bank again demurred. The trial court sustained the demurrer to the first amended complaint and granted the Robbinses leave to amend. On October 24, 2012, the Robbinses, represented by counsel, filed a second amended complaint against Americorp, RSM&A, and the Bank. The Robbinses alleged