Stewart v. Placer Foreclosure CA3
Filed 6/20/13 Stewart v. Placer Foreclosure CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
RUSSELL STEWART, C069271
Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 39201000238438CUORSTK) v.
PLACER FORECLOSURE, INC. et al.,
Defendants;
SHERMAN PEARL, as Trustee, etc., et al.,
Interveners and Respondents.
Russell Stewart brought this action to quiet title to certain real property, and to enjoin its disposition by a trustee sale proceeding pending resolution of his underlying claim. Following an unreported court trial, the court entered judgment quieting title in favor of interveners Sherman Pearl and Geri Pearl (the Pearls), as trustees of the Pearl Trust. Stewart appeals on the judgment roll. He contends that he was wrongly denied the right to a jury trial, and the trial court erred in relying on a “fraudulent probate spousal order” in ruling in favor of the Pearls. We find no error, and shall affirm the judgment.
1
BACKGROUND We treat this case as an appeal on the judgment roll, because it reaches us based on a clerk’s transcript. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.832 (further references to rules are to the Cal. Rules of Court); cf. Dumas v. Stark (1961) 56 Cal.2d 673, 674; Allen v. Toten (1985) 172 Cal.App.3d 1079, 1082-1083.) When the case is presented in this posture, we presume that the trial court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, and its conclusions of law are binding upon us unless error appears on the face of the record. (Bond v. Pulsar Video Productions (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 918, 924.)1 Stewart initiated this action in April 2010 by filing an ex parte application against Placer Foreclosure, Inc., Jimmie E. Mason, and Carolyn McGuire for a temporary restraining order and order to show cause why a trustee’s sale of real property located on Shilling Avenue in Lathrop should not be enjoined. In his declaration submitted in support of the request, Stewart averred that he is the owner of the property. The grant deed Stewart submitted to show his ownership of the property reflects that Stewart, as “special administrator for Barbara E. Jackson,” transferred the property to himself “as his sole and separate property” in 2004. Stewart further averred that defendants Mason and McGuire fraudulently used the Shilling Avenue property as collateral for a loan sometime prior to April 2007 and recorded a deed of trust against the property. Following a hearing, the trial court entered the requested restraining order against defendants Mason and McGuire.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)