Stanton v. Bank of New York Mellon CA4/3

Filed 6/3/15 Stanton v. Bank of New York Mellon CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

DAVID STANTON et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants, G050913

v. (Super. Ct. No. RIC1206406)

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Paulette Durand-Barkley, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed. Rodriguez Law Group, Patricia Rodriguez and George M. Hill for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Akerman LLP, Justin D. Balser and Christopher R. Fredrich for Defendant and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION The financial markets’ collapse and the recession have generated a cottage industry in complaints against lenders and related entities based on the workings of the secondary markets for mortgages and deeds of trust. Many of these complaints allege that a foreclosure or an impending foreclosure was or is improper because the foreclosing entity does not have an interest in the debt, owing to the way the note and deed of trust were sold or bundled for resale. Such lawsuits have been repeatedly rejected, both by California courts and by federal courts applying California law. Lack of success, however, has not diminished the enthusiasm for them. This is just such a complaint. Borrowers David and Donita Stanton sued their lender and various other entities on the theory they were the victims of predatory loan practices in the financing of the loan for their house. They have made the customary allegations regarding the sale of their note and deed of trust and have alleged that, in effect, nobody owns their debt. Most of their first amended complaint was dismissed after the trial court sustained demurrers without leave to amend. This appeal deals with the judgment entered after a demurrer to the sole remaining cause of action against respondent Bank of New York Mellon (BofNY) in the second amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. The Stantons alleged a violation of the federal Truth in Lending Act against BofNY for failing to give proper notice of the sale or assignment of a mortgage loan. We can find no such defect in the record the Stantons have provided us. We therefore affirm the judgment in favor of BofNY. FACTS The Stantons borrowed $600,000 from First Horizon Loan Corporation in 2005, secured by a house in Norco in Riverside County. When they were unable to make payments on the loan, they applied for loan modification with First Horizon. They