Grant v. Clear Recon Corp. CA4/3

Filed 11/24/20 Grant v. Clear Recon Corp. CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

GAVIN LESTER GRANT,

Plaintiff and Appellant, G058076

v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2018-00993609)

CLEAR RECON CORP., OPINION

Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Charles Margines, Judge. Affirmed. Gavin Lester Grant, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Aldridge Pite and Fred T. Winters for Defendant and Respondent. * * *

Describing the operative complaint as “garbled, highly repetitive, full of citations to irrelevant laws and doctrines, and overlaid with a layer of ‘sovereign citizen’ references,” the court sustained a demurrer to plaintiff Gavin Lester Grant’s complaint arising from an attempted nonjudicial foreclosure of his residence. It sifted through the chaff to discern two causes of action against defendant Clear Recon Corp. (Clear Recon), the trustee under the deed of trust: trespass and fraud. It held neither was properly pleaded and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The court did not err. The complaint primarily revolves around plaintiff’s gimmicky ploy to avoid paying his mortgage. When plaintiff defaulted, he concocted a “Banker’s Promissory Note,” which, according to plaintiff, extinguished the note and deed of trust on his residence in exchange for an unsecured debt. In a companion appeal involving Bank of America, the holder of the note, we concluded the “Banker’s Promissory Note” was an unacceptable tender of the debt plaintiff owed. The trespass claim against Clear Recon does not involve the “Banker’s Promissory Note,” however, because the alleged trespass—posting a notice of trustee’s sale on plaintiff’s garage door—occurred before plaintiff created the “Banker’s Promissory Note.” On what basis, then, was Clear Recon’s entry a trespass? It is unclear. Plaintiff’s complaint includes various conclusory allegations about the original note and deed of trust being void, but he makes no attempt to support them with specific facts or legal authorities. As to the fraud claim, plaintiff does not allege Clear Recon committed fraud, but instead alleges it was a coconspirator in Bank of America’s fraud. Once again, plaintiff’s allegation is wholly conclusory—he has not alleged any facts to suggest such a conspiracy (assuming there was a fraud by Bank of America in the first place). As to both causes of action, the complaint failed to state a cause of action.