Kuznets v. Nationstar Mortgage CA4/1

Filed 2/28/22 Kuznets v. Nationstar Mortgage CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ANDREI KUZNETS, D078373

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2019- 00067750-CU-OR-NC) NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Timothy M. Casserly, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Andrei I Kuznets, in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant. Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders and Jared D. Bissell for Defendants and Respondent.

Andrei Kuznets appeals after the trial court granted the unopposed motion for judgment on the pleadings of Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper (Nationstar); Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS); and U.S. Bank, National Association, as Trustee for Structured Adjustable Rate Mortgage Loan Trust, Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series

2006-12 (U.S. Bank) (Nationstar, MERS, and U.S. Bank collectively Respondents). Because there is no appealable judgment or order, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 3, 2006, Kuznets obtained a loan for $452,000 from First Magnus Financial Corporation (First Magnus) secured by a deed of trust (the DOT) recorded against certain real property located in Oceanside, California (the Property). The DOT identified MERS as the beneficiary, as nominee for First Magnus and its successors and assigns. The DOT expressly stated that “[t]he Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this [DOT]) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower.” Within the DOT is a “power of sale” provision securing to the lender the repayment of the loan and allowing for the foreclosure sale of the Property in the event of Kuznets’s breach of his obligations. The DOT provides that as beneficiary of the DOT, MERS, “[as nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns], has the right: to exercise any or all of those interests, including, but not limited to, the right to foreclose and sell the Property, and to take any action required of the lender. . . .” MERS assigned the DOT to U.S. Bank via an assignment recorded on September 20, 2016. On September 27, 2016, a Substitution of Trustee was recorded against the Property memorializing the substitution from U.S. Bank to Aztec Foreclosure Corporation (Aztec). On February 7, 2019, a notice of default was recorded against the Property. A notice of trustee’s sale was recorded against the Property in July 2019. On December 20, 2019, Kuznets, proceeding in pro. per., sued Respondents and Aztec, alleging 12 causes of action: (1) intentional