Hahn v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/6

Filed 2/25/16 Hahn v. Wells Fargo Bank CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

NEVANKA HAHN, 2d Civil. No. B259984 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2013-00444339- Plaintiff and Respondent, CU-OR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Nevanka Hahn appeals from a judgment in favor of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., respondent. The judgment was entered after the trial court had sustained, without leave to amend, respondent's demurrer to appellant's complaint. Appellant does not contest the sustaining of the demurrer. She argues that the trial court abused its discretion in not granting leave to amend the complaint. We affirm. Facts Proceeding in propria persona, appellant filed a complaint against respondent and Cal-Western Reconveyance, LLC (Cal-Western). The complaint consists of six causes of action. It seeks to enjoin defendants from foreclosing on a deed of trust encumbering appellant's residence. The deed of trust secures a $544,000 loan evidenced by a promissory note. The complaint alleges that respondent is the "successor by merger" to the original lender, Wachovia Mortgage FSB. Respondent substituted Cal-Western as the

trustee under the deed of trust. In October 2013 Cal-Western recorded a notice of default. According to the notice, appellant's past due payments totaled $70,052.10. The complaint asserts that the promissory "[n]ote and [d]eed [of trust] have taken two distinctly different paths." The "[n]ote was securitized," i.e., it was packaged together with other loans and transferred to a trust that sold securities to investors with the loans as collateral. As a result of the securitization, "[t]he promissory note . . . became trust property." Thus, respondent does "not own [appellant's] loan or the corresponding note" and does not have "the right to collect payments from [appellant]" or foreclose on the deed of trust. In addition to seeking to enjoin defendants from foreclosing on the deed of trust, the complaint seeks to quiet appellant's title to the property. Appellant claims that she "holds an interest in the Property free and clear of any interest of [respondent], in that the lien evidenced by the Deed of Trust has no value since . . . it . . . is wholly unsecured, and that accordingly the Deed of Trust is null and void." The complaint also alleges that respondent violated California's unfair competition law. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200 et seq.) Appellant seeks "an order of restitution requiring [respondent] to disgorge all revenues" that it acquired from her in violation of that law. Respondent's Demurrer and the Trial Court's Ruling Respondent demurred to the complaint on the ground that it "fails to state any claim for relief." Respondent asserted, "Each claim is preempted by regulations promulgated under the federal Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) and is unauthorized under California law." Respondent requested that the court take judicial notice of Exhibits A through L, which comprise 53 pages of the Clerk's Transcript. The record does not include a ruling on the request for judicial notice. On June 17, 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing on the demurrer. Appellant was represented by counsel. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.