Cal-Western Reconveyance v. Brown CA2/1

Filed 9/29/15 Cal-Western Reconveyance v. Brown CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE B251840 CORPORATION, as Trustee, etc., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff, Super. Ct. No. PS015025)

v.

RICHARD W. BROWN et al.,

Defendants and Appellants;

CHASE BANK USA, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Randy Rhodes, Judge. Affirmed. Randall A. Spencer for Defendants and Appellants. McCarthy & Holthus, Melissa Robbins Coutts and Matthew B. Learned for Defendant and Respondent.

_________________________________________

In this appeal appellants Richard and Diane Brown (the Browns) argue the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept a bank’s late claim as a junior lienholder to a portion of surplus funds received after a trustee’s nonjudicial foreclosure sale and abused its discretion in awarding the bank a portion of the surplus equal to its lien. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 2011, Citimortgage, the senior lienholder on the Browns’ property, foreclosed on its lien. Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation (CWRC) administered the foreclosure sale as the trustee, which resulted in a surplus of $256,233.77 after it paid Citimortgage’s senior lien. CWRC could not determine how to disburse the surplus among Chase Bank USA, N.A. (Chase), the Browns, and other parties, and deposited the funds with the superior court for the court to disburse the surplus. The court set a hearing date and ordered the parties to file all claims to the surplus within 15 days of the hearing date. The Browns timely filed a claim. Chase filed a claim late, two days before the scheduled hearing. The court subsequently continued the hearing several times and did not hear the case until more than two months after the hearing was originally scheduled. Despite an objection by the Browns, the court accepted Chase’s claim and awarded Chase its requested portion of the surplus. The court disbursed the remainder of the surplus to the Browns. The Browns appealed. DISCUSSION The Browns contend the order awarding Chase a portion of the surplus should be reversed because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept Chase’s late claim or, if the court did have jurisdiction, it abused its discretion. We disagree and affirm. A. The court had jurisdiction over Chase’s late claim. The Browns argue the court did not have fundamental jurisdiction over Chase’s late claim under Civil Code sections 2924j and 2924k.1 We disagree.