Kajeh v. Select Portfolio Servicing CA4/1 (2014) · DecisionDepot
Kajeh v. Select Portfolio Servicing CA4/1
California Court of Appeal May 14, 2014 No. D064426Unpublished
Filed 5/14/14 Kajeh v. Select Portfolio Servicing CA4/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RAY KAJEH, D064426
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2012-58421-CU- OR-NC) SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC. et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Earl H.
Maas III, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Offices of Herbert Papenfuss and Herbert Papenfuss for Plaintiff and
Appellant.
Locke Lorde, Conrad V. Sison and Daniel A. Solitro for Defendants and
Respondents.
Plaintiff Ray Kajeh appeals from a judgment entered against him after the trial
court sustained, without leave to amend, the demurrer to his complaint brought by
defendants Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (SPS) and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as trustee,
on behalf of the holders of the Harborview Mortgage Loan Trust Mortgage Loan Pass-
Through Certificates, Series 2006-12. In his complaint, Kajeh asserted a single cause of
action for "Foreclosure Prevention" based on alleged oral negotiations for a loan
modification. On appeal, Kajeh contends the court erred in sustaining the demurrer
respectively, permit a court, in its discretion, to take judicial notice of "[o]fficial
acts . . . of any state of the United States" and "[f]acts and propositions that are not
reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by
resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy." Accordingly, courts may take
judicial notice of the existence and recordation of real property records, including deeds
of trust, when the authenticity of the documents is not challenged. (Fontenot v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 256, 264 (Fontenot).)
9
Where judicial notice is requested of a legally operative document—like a
contract—the court may take notice not only of the fact of the document and its recording
or publication, but also facts that clearly derive from its legal effect. (Fontenot, supra,
198 Cal.App.4th at p. 265.) Further, whether the fact derives from the legal effect of a
document or from a statement within the document, the fact may be judicially noticed
where the fact is not reasonably subject to dispute. (Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
(2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 743, 754.)
2. Analysis
On May 10, 2010, Kajeh entered into a loan modification agreement that was
recorded with the county recorder's office. The loan modification agreement stated Kajeh
was required to "make all payments, taxes, insurance premiums, assessments, escrow
items, impounds, and all other payments" relating to his property.
In his complaint, Kajeh alleges he was not notified of his obligation to pay
property taxes under the loan modification agreement. However, Kajeh's allegations are
refuted by the express language in the loan modification agreement itself. For this
additional reason, the trial court properly sustained defendants' demurrer to the
complaint.1
1 Kajeh does not challenge the denial of further leave to amend by the trial court. Therefore we need not decide this issue. 10
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. Costs on appeal are awarded to respondents.
NARES,Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
AARON, J.
11
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, holding that he failed to state a cause of action for promissory estoppel because he did not allege a clear and unambiguous promise or reasonable detrimental reliance, and his allegations were contradicted by judicially noticeable documents.
Issues
Did the trial court err in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint without leave to amend?
Did the plaintiff sufficiently plead the elements of promissory estoppel?
Were the plaintiff's allegations refuted by judicially noticeable public records?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The complaint fails to state a cause of action against defendants.”
“Kajeh has not shown that defendants breached a promise to delay foreclosure or that Kajeh detrimentally relied on defendants' purported representations”