Vos v. Reconstruct Co. CA3

California Court of Appeal Jun 7, 2016 No. C078848Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the judgment, finding that while the postjudgment order was appealable, the appellant's substantive challenges to the judgment and procedural claims were either forfeited for lack of legal authority or lacked merit. Specifically, the court rejected the appellant's claim regarding the validity of the judge's signature on the judgment.

Issues

Whether the January 29, 2015 minute order was an appealable postjudgment order.
Whether the appellant's procedural contentions were forfeited for failure to provide reasoned argument and legal authority.
Whether the appellant's challenge to the judge's signature on the judgment had merit.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude Vos appealed from an appealable postjudgment order. But many of his contentions are forfeited, we will not consider others, and the one that remains lacks merit.”

“A court may treat as forfeited any claim that fails to contain reasoned argument and legal authority in support.”

“It is true that a copy of the judgment had “/S/ Michael Jones” handwritten on the signature line. But the record also contains a copy of the November 17, 2014 judgment with the judge’s original signature.”

Filed 6/7/16 Vos v. Reconstruct Co. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

SELWYN D.J. VOS,

Plaintiff and Appellant, C078848

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCV0034268)

RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent.

Selwyn D.J. Vos, representing himself, filed this lawsuit against Recontrust Company, N.A. (Recontrust), asserting negligence and fraud in connection with a foreclosure proceeding. It is Vos’s fourth lawsuit arising from the same foreclosure. The trial court sustained Recontrust’s demurrer to the first amended complaint without leave to amend. After judgment was entered, Vos filed an opposition to notice of entry of judgment. The trial court held a hearing, determined that Vos could not identify any authority in support of his opposition, and issued a January 29, 2015 minute order ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Vos’s opposition. Vos now appeals from that minute order.

Vos raises various contentions on appeal under the heading “Placer County Superior Court Procedural Inconsistencies.” Recontrust counters that (A) Vos appeals from a nonappealable order, (B) any purported appeal was untimely, and (C) Vos’s contentions lack merit. We conclude Vos appealed from an appealable postjudgment order. But many of his contentions are forfeited, we will not consider others, and the one that remains lacks merit. We will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Unlike the normal appeal from an order sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend, here the facts alleged in the first amended complaint are not relevant to Vos’s contentions on appeal. Rather, his appellate contentions focus on procedural issues, and thus we set forth the procedural background of the case. Vos brought three previous suits in November 2011, June 2012, and January 2014. They were dismissed. He filed the original complaint in this case on February 7, 2014. Thirteen days later, he filed an amended complaint. Nevertheless, Recontrust demurred to the original complaint on March 26, 2014. On August 21, 2014, the trial court dropped the demurrer from the calendar as moot, finding that the original complaint was no longer the operative pleading. That same day, Recontrust demurred to the amended complaint. Eight days later, Vos moved for default judgment, arguing the demurrer to the amended complaint was not timely. The trial court held a hearing on September 25, 2014. The next day, the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, ruling that res judicata barred the action and the amended complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support either cause of action. The trial court also noted that Vos had not filed a written opposition, had not challenged the demurrer’s substance at oral argument, and had not identified an ability to amend the complaint. Addressing Vos’s arguments at the hearing, the trial court said the determination that the prior demurrer was moot did not preclude Recontrust from

Vos v. Reconstruct Co. CA3

AI Brief

SELWYN D.J. VOS,

RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief