Geier v. Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office CA2/6
Filed 12/22/14 Geier v. Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Office CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.111.5.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
PAT GEIER, 2d Civil No. B255956 (Super. Ct. No. 1439378) Plaintiff and Appellant, (Santa Barbara County)
v.
SANTA BARBARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Pat Geier appeals from a judgment on demurrer to his taxpayer's suit against respondents, Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office (SBCO), Sheriff Bill Brown, Santa Barbara County Clerk Recorder's Office, County Clerk/Recorder Joseph E. Holland, and county clerk/recorder employees Melinda Greene and Mary Rose Bryson. Appellant claims that he is the victim of wrongful foreclosure. He also claims that fraudulent foreclosure documents were recorded that can be used to oust him from the property if and when an unlawful detainer action is filed. The trial court sustained respondents' demurrer without leave to amend. We affirm. The complaint is brought 1 under the guise of a taxpayer suit statute (Code Civ. Proc., § 526a) and is a collateral
1 All statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure unless otherwise stated. Section 526a provides in pertinent part: "An action to obtain a judgment, restraining and preventing any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to, the estate, funds, or other
attack on the trustee's sale. (Garfinkle v. Superior Court (1978) 21 Cal.3d 268, 280-282 (Garfinkle).) This appeal, and a similar spate of appeals in what is known as the Santa Barbara foreclosure cases, is frivolous. (See Lyons v. Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office (Dec. 3, 2014, B256041) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2014 DJDAR 15971].) In 2012, appellant defaulted on a $510,000 deed of trust encumbering his home at 3673 Pine Street, Santa Ynez. A notice of trustee's sale was recorded stating that the property would be sold on November 5, 2012. On December 24, 2013, appellant filed a taxpayer's suit for declaratory and 2 injunctive relief. The complaint alleges that fraudulent documents were recorded to carry out the foreclosure and "there is a very good likelihood" that the recorded documents will be used in an unlawful detainer action to obtain a writ of possession. Should those events come to pass, appellant believes SBSO will serve a writ of possession to oust appellant from the property. The complaint prays for an order that respondents' acts are "null and void" and that respondents be enjoined "from recording, housing, maintaining, and disseminating fraudulent title documents . . . ."
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)