Miner v. Chase Home Finance CA5

Filed 6/3/14 Miner v. Chase Home Finance CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

CAROLYN E. MINER, F066472

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. S-1500-CV-274408)

v. OPINION CHASE HOME FINANCE et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. David R. Lampe, Judge. Carolyn E. Miner, in pro. per.; Consumer Action Law Group, Yelena Gurevich and Lauren Rode for Plaintiff and Appellant. Wargo & French, Mark Block and Jeffrey N. Williams for Plaintiff and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Plaintiff appeals from a judgment entered after defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted. The trial court correctly determined plaintiff failed to raise a

* Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and Detjen, J.

triable issue of material fact and properly granted summary judgment. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff obtained a home loan secured by a deed of trust from Washington Mutual Bank. When she defaulted in payment, defendant, California Reconveyance Company (CRC), as trustee named in the deed of trust, served a notice of default and notice of trustee’s sale, indicating there was an unpaid balance on the loan of approximately $620,000. Plaintiff tendered an International Money Order (IMO) in the amount of $900,000 in payment of the balance due on the loan. Defendant, Chase Home Finance (Chase), successor in interest of Washington Mutual, received the IMO and initially accepted it as payment in full, subject to the bank honoring the IMO. Chase never received any monies from the IMO and determined it was not a legally valid form of payment. Chase notified plaintiff the IMO was invalid and the loan was reinstated. Plaintiff failed to cure the default, a trustee’s sale was held, and Chase purchased the property. Plaintiff sued to set aside the trustee’s sale and cancel the trustee’s deed, alleging the trustee’s sale was improperly held, since she tendered all amounts due and owing. Defendants moved for and were granted summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals the judgment. DISCUSSION A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. (Wolf v. Mitchell, Silberberg & Knupp (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1035.) Summary judgment is properly granted when no triable issue exists as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) In moving for summary judgment, a “defendant … has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action … cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to that cause of 2