Greenfield v. U.S. Bank, NA CA2/6

Filed 11/15/21 Greenfield v. U.S. Bank, NA CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

JOAN GREENFIELD, 2d Civil No. B311887 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2020- Plaintiff and Appellant, 00539719-CU-OR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

U.S. BANK, NA, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Joan Greenfield appeals from the judgment after the trial court sustained the demurrer to her complaint filed by U.S. Bank, NA, and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (collectively, Respondents), without granting leave to amend. Greenfield requests that we reverse the judgment because the court below did not resolve every issue raised in her complaint. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1 In 2006, Greenfield and her now-deceased husband obtained a $672,000 loan secured by the deed to their Westlake Village home. The loan was transferred among several interests over the following decade, eventually to U.S. Bank. By late 2017, Greenfield was in default by nearly $342,000. A notice of trustee’s sale was recorded early the following year, followed by a second notice a year later. Greenfield’s Westlake Village home sold at a trustee’s sale in April 2019. The new homeowner filed an unlawful detainer action against Greenfield in May. She turned over possession of the home in July. Seven months later, Greenfield’s son sued Respondents, alleging that the trustee’s sale was invalid and that his mother’s former home had been sold via a “fraudulent conveyance.” He also alleged that Select Portfolio should have granted his mother’s request for a loan modification, that she did not have proper notice of the sale, and that the sale was barred by the statute of limitations. He later amended his complaint, essentially repeating the same substantive allegations. The trial court sustained Respondents’ demurrer to the amended complaint, but granted leave to amend.

1 Greenfield’s brief makes factual and procedural assertions without citations to the record, in violation of the rules of court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B) & 8.204(a)(1)(C).) This summary is taken from Respondents’ brief. (See Warren- Guthrie v. Health Net (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 804, 808, fn. 4, disapproved of on another ground by Cronus Investments, Inc. v. Concierge Services (2005) 35 Cal.4th 376, 393, fn. 8.)