Walker v. Citibank CA3

Filed 8/22/14 Walker v. Citibank CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

RICKIE LYNN WALKER, C072247

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. SCV0030536)

v.

CITIBANK, N.A., as Trustee, etc., et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

After plaintiff Rickie Lynn Walker defaulted on his home loan, he sought to halt foreclosure proceedings initiated by a substitute trustee, contending the notice of default was void since defendants lack standing to foreclose. According to Walker, defendants are not the true beneficiaries under the deed of trust. Walker filed suit against

1

defendants, alleging fraud, quiet title, and violation of Business and Professions Code section 17200, and seeking declaratory relief. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer without leave to amend. Walker appeals, renewing the arguments he presented to the trial court. We shall affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In his amended complaint, Walker describes the circumstances surrounding his loan as “tainted with Defendants’ intentional and negligent conduct involving missteps in the assignment of the deed of trust; substitution of trustees, and transfer of the note. The lack of clarity as to who the actors are and when, if ever they obtained authority to act is a convoluted mystery.” Walker alleges defendant Citibank, N.A. (Citibank), has no secured interest in the note because defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), could not transfer any interest in the deed of trust to Citibank. According to Walker, “there still remains utter confusion as to who is entitled to ‘enforce the note.’ ” With these allegations in mind, we review the facts underlying the loan transaction. In November 2006 Walker took out a loan for $1,076,250.00 from Bayrock Mortgage Corporation (Bayrock) to purchase a residence. The loan was secured by a deed of trust listing defendant MERS as the beneficiary and Financial Title Co. as the trustee. Defendant EMC Mortgage LLC was the initial servicer of the loan. JPMorgan Chase Bank subsequently acquired the servicing rights to the loan. At the same time, Walker obtained a second loan from Bayrock in the amount of $287,000, secured by a second deed of trust on the property. Only the initial loan is at issue in the present case. In May 2008 a notice of default was recorded and then rescinded. In June 2008 another notice of default was recorded. In August 2008 MERS recorded a substitution of trustee, substituting Quality Loan Service Corporation (Quality) as trustee under the deed of trust. Subsequently, Walker defaulted on the loan and Quality recorded a notice of default in December 2009.