U.S. Bank v. Abadi CA2/6

Filed 8/24/22 U.S. Bank v. Abadi CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

U.S. BANK NA, 2d Civil No. B315520 (Super. Ct. No. 56-2020- Plaintiff and Respondent, 00541900-CU-OR-VTA) (Ventura County) v.

DAVID ABADI et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appellants David and Ofra Abadi (the Abadis) appeal from the judgment after the trial court granted respondent U.S. Bank, NA’s (U.S. Bank) motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Abadis contend the trial court erred in (1) granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings and (2) denying leave to amend. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Abadis owned real property (Property) in Bell Canyon. They obtained a loan secured by a deed of trust on the Property. Several years later, the Abadis defaulted on the loan. At a trustee’s sale in June 2017, U.S. Bank purchased the Property.

After the sale, there were several fraudulent instruments recorded against the Property (i.e., a notice of rescission of the trustee’s deed upon sale executed in May 2018, trustee’s deed upon sale executed in April 2019, and a quitclaim deed transferring title of the Property executed in September 2019). U.S. Bank sought to clear title on the Property. It filed a verified complaint against the Abadis, alleging causes of action (1) for cancellation of instruments recorded against the Property, (2) to quiet title, (3) for slander of title, and (4) for a permanent injunction. The Abadis filed an unverified answer to the complaint. The Bank moved for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the answer was unverified and that it only asserted a general denial to the allegations in the complaint. The trial court granted the motion with leave to amend. The Abadis filed an amended answer to the complaint. U.S. Bank filed a second motion for judgment on the pleadings, alleging that the amended answer again only asserted a general denial of the allegations. The trial court granted the motion without leave to amend on the ground that the Abadis failed to file a verified answer, as required pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 446.1 Judgment was entered in favor of U.S. Bank. DISCUSSION The Abadis contend the trial court erred in granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings. We disagree.