Jackson v. Sage Point Lender Services CA2/8

Filed 8/26/15 Jackson v. Sage Point Lender Services CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

NANCY ALSPAUGH JACKSON et al., B255662

Plaintiffs and Appellants, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC501944) v.

SAGE POINT LENDER SERVICES, LLC,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from the judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Robert L. Hess, Judge. Affirmed.

Nancy Alspaugh Jackson and H. Read Jackson, in pro. per.; Law Office Of Kenneth Townsend and Kenneth Townsend for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Barrett, Daffin, Frappier, Treder & Weiss and Chris C. Chapman for Defendant and Respondent.

**********

Plaintiffs and appellants Nancy Alspaugh Jackson and H. Read Jackson appeal from the judgment of dismissal entered in favor of defendant and respondent Sage Point Lender Services, LLC following an order sustaining defendant’s demurrer without leave to amend plaintiffs’ second amended complaint. Plaintiffs’ only contention is that the first cause of action for violation of Civil Code sections 2923 and 2924 is viable as pled. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On appeal from a judgment dismissing an action after the sustaining of a demurrer without leave to amend, our review is de novo. (Aubry v. Tri-City Hospital District (1992) 2 Cal.4th 962, 966-967 (Aubry); accord, Aryeh v. Canon Business Solutions, Inc. (2013) 55 Cal.4th 1185, 1191.) For the limited purpose of reviewing the propriety of the trial court’s ruling, we accept as true all well-pled factual allegations in the operative complaint, as well as any facts that may be reasonably implied or inferred from those expressly alleged. (Aubry, at pp. 966-967; accord, Schifando v. City of Los Angeles (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1074, 1081 (Schifando).) We do not “however, assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.” (Aubry, at p. 967.) Our factual summary is drawn from the allegations of the operative second amended complaint, including the attached exhibits, according to this well-established standard. (See Barnett v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 500, 505 [“[T]o the extent the factual allegations conflict with the content of the exhibits to the complaint, we rely on and accept as true the contents of the exhibits and treat as surplusage the pleader’s allegations as to the legal effect of the exhibits”].) Because plaintiffs have expressly limited their appeal to the viability of the first cause of action (expressly waiving consideration of any other claims stated against defendant), we have summarized only those facts material to the first cause of action. 1. The Operative Second Amended Complaint Plaintiffs are the owners of real property located at 23672 Oakfield Road in Hidden Hills, California (hereafter “the property”). Plaintiffs occupy the property as their