Martin v. Smith CA1/5

Filed 8/26/20 Martin v. Smith CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

KAREN CALDWELL MARTIN, Plaintiff and Respondent, A157129 v. (Alameda County BELINDA LATRICE SMITH et al., Super. Ct. No. RG08393815) Defendants and Appellants; CHICAGO TITLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Karen Caldwell Martin (plaintiff) sued notary Belinda Latrice Smith and real estate agent Jacob Benjamin Winding (collectively, defendants) for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud, alleging they duped her into relinquishing title to—and equity in—her home. Defendants filed a special motion to strike in propria persona (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16).1 The trial court denied the motion. It concluded plaintiff’s claims did not arise out of protected activity; it also determined the motion was frivolous and awarded plaintiff attorney fees.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.

1

Defendants appeal in propria persona. We affirm. We deny plaintiff’s request for an unspecified amount of monetary sanctions for filing a frivolous appeal, but conclude she is entitled to attorney fees and costs incurred on appeal, the amount of which shall be determined by the trial court. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Plaintiff owned her Oakland residence. When plaintiff fell behind on her mortgage payments after her husband died, she sought out the help of Winding, then a real estate agent. Winding suggested plaintiff add the name of his friend, Vanessa King, to the title so plaintiff could refinance her mortgage using King’s credit rating. Winding promised the transaction would preserve plaintiff’s equity in her home. Winding’s wife, Smith, is a notary. Smith assured plaintiff that she was “just adding . . . King to [the] title.” Instead—and unbeknownst to plaintiff—Smith had plaintiff “sign a deed that transferred 100% of [the] title” to King. Smith did not give plaintiff a copy of the deed. King took out a loan on the property but made no payments. The home was sold at foreclosure. Plaintiff lost $200,000 in equity. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendants and others. As relevant here, the operative first amended complaint alleged claims against defendants for fraud and aiding and abetting fraud. Plaintiff alleged defendants promised to help her preserve the equity in her home, but instead tricked her into giving King the title. Defendants filed a special motion to strike in propria persona. They argued plaintiff’s claims arose out of protected activity under section 425.16, subdivisions (e)(1) and (2) because the statements at issue were made during an “official proceeding authorized by law.” According to defendants, the