U.S. Bank v. Elstead CA1/2

Filed 2/27/24 U.S. Bank v. Elstead CA1/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

U.S. BANK et al., Plaintiffs, Cross-Defendants and Respondents, A165202

v. (Alameda County JOHN CLIFTON ELSTEAD, Super. Ct. No. RG07346492) Defendant, Cross-Complainant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is the fourth time we consider issues in the long-running dispute between homeowner John C. Elstead and various financial institutions over the defaulted home loan he took out nearly 40 years ago, in 1988, and which he has been fighting for decades to have reinstated in order to avoid foreclosure.1

1We resolve this case by memorandum opinion. (Cal. Stds. of Jud. Admin., § 8.1.) We do not recite the factual and procedural background because our opinion is unpublished and the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851 [unpublished opinion merely reviewing correctness of trial court’s decision “does not merit extensive factual or legal statement”].) 1

Previously, in a separate case that Elstead initiated in April 2002 against the servicer of his home loan, JPMorgan Chase Bank (“Chase”), over the alleged mishandling of his loan, we affirmed a grant of summary judgment in Chase’s favor on all causes of action but one, and in a subsequent appeal affirmed a judgment entered in Chase’s favor after a bench trial on the remaining cause of action and an award of $744,204 to Chase in prevailing party legal fees. (See Elstead v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (Nov. 30, 2009, Nos. A1117521, A119606) [nonpub. opn.] (Elstead I); Elstead v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (Mar. 3, 2017, Nos. A140069, A141247) [nonpub. opn.] (Elstead II.) Meanwhile, this case for judicial foreclosure was filed in 2007 by the original lender’s successor, Wachovia Bank, N.A. (Wachovia). The case was stayed for many years pending the outcome of Elstead’s 2002 lawsuit. After the stay was lifted, Elstead filed a cross-complaint against Wachovia, Chase and American Security Insurance Company, alleging they conspired to deny him payment of homeowners’ insurance proceeds for damage caused by falling trees. Later, U.S. Bank, National Association as Successor Trustee By Merger to Wachovia Bank, N.A. (US Bank) was substituted as a party for Wachovia. By the time of the summary judgment rulings at issue in this appeal, the operative pleadings were the first amended complaint for judicial foreclosure filed on September 27, 2007, and Elstead’s fifth amended cross- complaint filed on December 27, 2019. On May 2, 2022, following the grant of summary judgment, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of US Bank on its complaint for judicial foreclosure and in favor of US Bank and Chase on all the claims in Elstead’s cross-complaint. Likewise, on February 25, 2022, it entered a judgment in