arrow left
arrow right
  • ANA MACDONALD VS. DUKE PARTNERS, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • ANA MACDONALD VS. DUKE PARTNERS, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • ANA MACDONALD VS. DUKE PARTNERS, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • ANA MACDONALD VS. DUKE PARTNERS, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • ANA MACDONALD VS. DUKE PARTNERS, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • ANA MACDONALD VS. DUKE PARTNERS, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • ANA MACDONALD VS. DUKE PARTNERS, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
  • ANA MACDONALD VS. DUKE PARTNERS, LLC ET AL QUIET TITLE - REAL PROPERTY document preview
						
                                

Preview

1 Tiffany R. Norman (State Bar No. 239873) trn LAW ASSOCIATES 2 ELECTRONICALLY 870 Market Street, Suite 786 San Francisco, California 94102 F I L E D 3 Telephone: (415) 823-4566 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco Facsimile: (415) 762-5490 4 03/02/2020 Attorney for Ana MacDonald Clerk of the Court 5 And Luella Brown BY: BOWMAN LIU Deputy Clerk 6 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO – UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE 10 ANA MACDONALD and LUELLA Case No. CGC-16-552327 11 BROWN, CA 94102 PLAINTIFF ANA MACDONALD AND 12 Plaintiff, LUELLA BROWN’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 vs. OF THEIR OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT DUKE PARTNERS, LLC’S NOTICE OF 14 MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY DUKE PARTNERS, LLC, JUDGMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE 15 SUITE 786  SUMMARY ADJUDICATION NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, 16 BARRETT DAFFIN FRAPPIER TREDER REDACTED 870 MARKET STREET  17 & WEISS, LLP, 18 DATE: MARCH 12, 2020 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. as TIME: 9:30 a.m. 19 Trustee for Banc of America Mortgage DEPT: 501 Securities, Inc. Mortgage Pass- 20 Through Certificates, Series 2005-I, and 21 22 DOES 1 – 30, Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 1 of 1 MacDonald v. Duke Partners, et. al. Case No. CGC-16-552327 San Francisco Superior Court Unlimited Civil Case PLAINTIFFS’ POINTS & AUTHORITIES OPPOSING DUKE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION MOTION 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 PAGE 3 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 4 II. TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS REMAINING ............................................. 2 5 III. PLAINTIFFS’ FACTS........................................................................................................... 3 6 IV. ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................... 4 7 A. Nationstar Fails to Meet the Standard for Summary Judgment/Adjudication............ 4 8 B. Bank of America, N.A. v. La Jolla Group II Resolves This Case. ............................. 5 9 C. The Triable Issues of Material Facts in Section II, And Each of Them, Alone Defeat 10 this MSJ. .................................................................................................................................. 6 11 D. Unclean Hands is Inapplicable to this Case, and Even If It Was, There Is a Triable CA 94102 12 Issue of Material Fact as to Whether Nationstar Knew About What it Claims Constitutes Unclean Hands and Waived this Defense. ........................................................ 6 PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 1. The conduct Nationstar complains about is irrelevant because Nationstar did 14 not base its actions upon such conduct. .......................................................................... 6 15 SUITE 786  2. Nationstar Waived the Complained-About Conduct. ......................................... 7 16 E. The Failure to Return Some Pages of the Loan Modification Contract Did Not 870 MARKET STREET  17 Preclude Formation of a Contract, and Nationstar’s Conduct Estops it From Complaining about Ms. MacDonald’s Completion of the Contract. ................................. 8 18 1. Nationstar’s breach of the contract and failure to ask for the missing page 19 estops it from complaining about purported breaches by Ms. MacDonald. ............... 8 20 2. Nationstar Waived Reliance on the Missing Pages. ........................................... 11 21 3. A contract was formed by performance. ............................................................ 11 22 F. Disputed Material Facts Preclude Summary Judgment / Adjudication for 23 Negligence. ............................................................................................................................. 12 24 1. Nationstar owed Ms. MacDonald at least three duties. ..................................... 12 25 2. Nationstar Breached all of its Duties. .................................................................. 13 26 3. Ms. MacDonald was damaged when the property was foreclosed. .............. 16 27 28 i TABLE OF CONTENTS G. The Wrongful Foreclosure Cause of Action Did Not Require Tender, Was Not Based 1 on Procedural Defects, and the Loan Modification Termination was Waived by 2 Accepting Payments Thereafter. ......................................................................................... 16 3 1. Tender was not required. ..................................................................................... 17 4 2. Nationstar Fails to Address Tender Exceptions. ................................................ 18 5 3. Procedural defects do exist in the foreclosure. ................................................... 18 6 4. The evidence does not show the Loan Modification was denied prior to foreclosure. ...................................................................................................................... 19 7 8 H. The Analysis Above Also Applies to Nationstar’s Cancellation Arguments. ............. 21 9 I. Claims Against Wells Fargo are Not Time Barred. ........................................................ 21 10 J. Because the Other Causes of Action Remain Viable, So Too Does the Cause of Action for Violation of B&PC § 17200................................................................................ 22 11 CA 94102 K. The Statute of Frauds Does Not Apply. .......................................................................... 23 12 PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 V. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 24 14 15 SUITE 786  16 870 MARKET STREET  17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 PAGE(S) 3 Cases 4 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1215 .................................................................................... 5 5 Aceves v. U.S. Bank (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 218, 232 ................................................................................................................... 18 6 Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851 ........................................................................................................... 4 7 Artukovich v. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe Co. (1947) 78 Cal.App.2d 1, 3 ................................................................................... 11 8 Asare v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1991) 1 Cal.App.4th 856, 862 ....................................................................................................... 4 9 Bank of America, N.A. v. La Jolla Group II (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 706, 714 .......................................................................... 5, 10 10 Barroso v. Ocwen Loan Servicing LLC (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1001, 1017 ................................................................................. 17 11 Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 840 ....................................................................................................... 15 CA 94102 12 Cal. Teachers Ass’n. v. Cory (1984) 155 Cal.App.3d 494, 507 ...................................................................................................... 11 PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 Cel–Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180 ........................................... 22 14 Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1052 ................................................................................ 15, 17, 24 15 SUITE 786  Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1061 .................................................................................. 15 16 Chavez v. Indymac Mortgage Services (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1052, 1062 .................................................................................. 17 870 MARKET STREET  17 City of Hollister v. Monterey Ins. Co. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 455, 488 .................................................................................... 9, 10 18 Conn v. National Can Corp. (1981) 124 Cal.App.3d 630, 637 ................................................................................................. 13, 15 19 Corvello v. Wells Fargo Bank NA DBA (9th Cir. 2013) 728 F. 3d 878 ............................................................................................ 24 20 Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1173-84 ........................................................................ 13 21 De La Hoya v. Slim’s Gun Shop (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d Supp. 6 ..................................................................................................... 16 22 Dimock v. Emerald Properties (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 868, 877–878 ............................................................................................ 18 23 E.O.C. Ord, Inc. v. Kovakovich (1988) 200 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1201 .............................................................................................. 11 24 Estate of Housley (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 342, 359; Evidence Code § 411 ....................................................................................... 5 25 General Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1955) 45 Cal.2d 897, 899 ............................................................................................... 6 26 Gray v. Don Miller & Associates, Inc. (1984) 35 Cal.3d 498, 505, 508 ......................................................................................... 16 27 Johnson v. Nationstar (N.D. Cal. 2018) 2018 WL 807370 ............................................................................................................. 23 28 Jones v. Sunset Oil (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 668, 673 .................................................................................................................. 7, 11 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 Lona v. Citibank (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 115 .......................................................................................................................... 18 2 Lona v. Citibank, N.A. (2011) 202 Cal.App.4th 89, 113 ................................................................................................................. 17 3 Lunardi v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 807, 819 .................................................................................... 4 4 McCown v. Spencer (1970) 8 Cal.App.3d 216, 224 .................................................................................................................. 10, 20 5 Moriarty v. Carlson (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 51, 57 .................................................................................................................... 6, 7 6 Moya v. CitiMortgage, Inc. (S.D. Cal. 2014) 2014 WL 1344677 ................................................................................................... 17 7 Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 CA4th 243, 252 .......................................................................................................... 6, 20 8 Orcilla v. Big Sur, Inc. (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 982, 999............................................................................................................... 17 9 Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. v. Olaes Enterprises, Inc. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 466, 483 .................................................. 16 10 Pettus v. Standard Cabinet Works (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 64, 69 .................................................................................................... 5 11 Pfeifer v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1250, 1280 ............................................................................... 17 CA 94102 12 Pond v. Ins. Co. of North Amer (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 280, 290 .................................................................................................. 6 PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 Prentice v. North Amer. Title Guar. Corp. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 618, 620 ........................................................................................... 16 14 Sciarratta v. U.S. Bank National Ass’n. (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 552, 568 .................................................................................... 21 15 SUITE 786  Secrest, 167 Cal. App. 4th at 548 .................................................................................................................................................... 24 16 Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 700, 719 ........................................................................ 23 870 MARKET STREET  17 Sooy v. Peter (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 1305, 1310 ........................................................................................................................... 16 18 Stevens v. Superior Court (1999) 75 Cal.App.4th 594, 603-604 ..................................................................................................... 23 19 Turner v. Seterus, Inc. (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 516, 530 ................................................................................................................. 17 20 Versa Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 237, 240 .................................................................................... 5 21 Western Union Tel. Co. v. Commercial Pac. Cable Co. (1918) 177 Cal. 577, 585 ....................................................................... 6 22 Statutes 23 12 C.F.R § 1024.41(b)(2) (B).................................................................................................................................................... 10, 20 24 Business and Professions Code section 17200 ................................................................................................................................ 22 25 Civil Code § 1584 ........................................................................................................................................................................... 11 26 Civil Code § 2923(c)(3) ............................................................................................................................................................ 19, 23 27 Civil Code § 2923.55(a)(3) ............................................................................................................................................................. 18 28 Civil Code § 2924(a) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 18 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 Civil Code § 2924.11(d)...................................................................................................................................................... 13, 19, 23 2 Civil Code § 2924f(b)(3 ............................................................................................................................................................ 19, 23 3 Evid. Code. Section 641 .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 4 Evidence Code § 623 ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9 5 Rules 6 Eisenberg, Expression Rules in Contract Law and Problems of Offer and Acceptance (1994) 82 Cal. L.Rev. 1127, 1177 ........... 11 7 8 9 10 11 CA 94102 12 PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 14 15 SUITE 786  16 870 MARKET STREET  17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Defendant Duke Partners, LLC’s (“Duke”) Motion for Summary Judgment, in the 3 Alternative, Summary Adjudication (“MSJ”), involves to two causes of action1 asserted by 4 Plaintiff Luella Brown (“Plaintiff Brown”). Duke’s MSJ fails on the law and many disputed facts 5 conveniently left out of its MSJ. 6 1. The Story Starts with Nationstar’s MSJ. 7 It is very important to note in the beginning, the validity of Duke’s MSJ is entirely 8 dependent on the validity of Nationstar’s underlying actions leading up to the foreclosure. Duke’s 9 MSJ is misleading by omitting Nationstar’s failures, which void the sale, also denies Duke’s 10 claimed right to ownership of the 1148 Eddy Street, Unit C, San Francisco, CA 94109 (the 11 “Property”). Duke bought the Property in foreclosure. Metaphorically speaking, this case is no CA 94102 12 different than if someone buys a stolen car. As discussed below, regardless of the buyer’s PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 intentions or knowledge, it would still not have acquired title to the car because the seller had no 14 right to sell the car in the first place. The same is true here. 15 Again, to understand how that “car” was stolen eliminating any possibility for its legal SUITE 786  16 transfer, the analysis starts with Nationstar’s MSJ. Plaintiff Brown strongly recommends that the 870 MARKET STREET  17 Court review Nationstar’s MSJ and Plaintiffs opposition to such before jumping into the second- 18 half of the story with Duke’s MSJ and this Opposition. 19 2. Why Duke Cannot Prevail. 20 The only substantive issue pertinent to both causes of action on this MSJ is whether the 21 foreclosure (and steps to get to the foreclosure) sale by Nationstar sale to Duke was legal: 22  If Duke can meet its burden to show that there are no triable material facts relating to the 23 1 Importantly, Plaintiffs notes that Duke’s MSJ is doomed before even getting into any of the substantive arguments. Crucially, Duke fails to identify the correct causes of action in its Notice of Motion as well as its Memorandum of Points and Authorities (and other supporting documents). 24 The Sixth Cause of Action in the Sixth Amended Complaint is not for Cancellation of Deed. There is no Seventh Cause of Action in the Sixth Amended Complaint, thus it cannot be for Quiet Title. Plaintiffs take the position that such issues are fatal flaws that should stop this Court’s 25 further analysis of Duke’s MSJ. Plaintiffs address the substantive issues in the MSJ merely out of an abundance of caution that the Court does not deny the MSJ outright because of this major flaw and failures to correctly identifying the correct causes of action in the notice and throughout the motion, and Plaintiffs do not waive that position by substantively addressing the MSJ in this Opposition. 26 Also, functionally speaking, when Duke refers to the “Sixth Cause of Action” in the Notice of Motion as well as its Memorandum of Points and 27 Authorities, Plaintiffs will assume that this refers to the “Cancellation of Deed” claim. When Duke refers to the non-existent “Seventh Cause of Action” in the Notice of Motion as well as its Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Plaintiffs will assume that this refers to the “Quiet Title” claim. Again, however, Plaintiffs should never be put in this position to have to make “assumptions” on an MSJ that is aimed at taking out their 28 entire case. This is unfair. This will be further discussed below. MacDonald, et al. v. Duke Partners, LLC, et al. Page 1 of 20 San Francisco Superior Court Unlimited Civil Case No. CGC-16-552327 (and consolidated Case No. 16-654726) PLAINTIFFS’ POINTS & AUTHORITIES OPPOSING DUKE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION MOTION 1 foreclosure (and steps leading to the foreclosure) process (or otherwise) and that its 2 purchase at the foreclosure was not void, Duke prevails. 3  If Duke cannot meet its burden or a there exists a single triable material fact relating to the 4 foreclosure (and steps to get to the foreclosure) or Duke’s purchase at the foreclosure was 5 void, Duke loses. There is no in-between. 6 Unfortunately for Duke, it cannot meet any of its burdens on this MSJ. Put simply, the 7 foreclosure was not legal. Duke has no valid title to the Property because the foreclosure sale from 8 which Duke claims it derives title was void, and a void foreclosure sale transfers no title. Plaintiff 9 Brown wins. Duke loses. 10 The basic reason why the foreclosure sale was void and Duke loses is because had no legal 11 authority to cause the foreclosure sale in the first place. Nationstar’s lacked legal authority due to CA 94102 12 its heavily botched handling of a Loan Modification process on behalf of the Plaintiffs. PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 Further, B of A, N.A. v. La Jolla Group II (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 706, 714 is also a key 14 case this Court must focus on to rule on this MSJ. This case stands for the basic and undisputed 15 principal that a foreclosure sale is improper because the loan was current, and therefore there was SUITE 786  16 no right to conduct a foreclosure sale, the sale is void. Those are the facts here. 870 MARKET STREET  17 II. TRIABLE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACTS REMAINING 18 As this Court is keenly aware, a single triable issue of material fact defeats this MSJ. There 19 are multiple here within Defendants SSUF alone, including, but not only, the following:  Nationstar knew about the Property transfer well-before foreclosure through the 20 following means which entirely debunks their “fraud” theory against Plaintiffs: 21 o Nationstar performed title searches that clearly showed the transfer; o Its agent communicated with Plaintiffs knowing the transfer and never 22 raised it as an issue; and o Plaintiffs directly informed Nationstar of this transfer.[Opp. to NSSUF 4] 2 23  Nationstar failed to send a HAMP compliant modification agreement to Plaintiffs. 24 [PSSDF 35] Not only did Nationstar’s tampering of these documents (against HAMP requirements) confuse things, but left blanks in the agreement that 25 Nationstar was required to fill out: 26 2 The following is a key to this Opposition’s reference to facts and authorities in the separate statements: 27  “DSSUF” = Duke’s Undisputed Material Facts and Supporting Evidence (and coordinating number).  “Opp, to DSSUF” = Plaintiffs’ Opposition (column to the right) to the DSSUF (and coordinating number). 28  “PSSDF” = Plaintiffs Additional Disputed Facts (and coordinating number). MacDonald, et al. v. Duke Partners, LLC, et al. Page 2 of 20 San Francisco Superior Court Unlimited Civil Case No. CGC-16-552327 (and consolidated Case No. 16-654726) PLAINTIFFS’ POINTS & AUTHORITIES OPPOSING DUKE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION MOTION Date of first lien mortgage, deed of trust, or security deed (“Mortgage”) and Note 1 (“Note): ______________ and recorded in Book/Liber N/A, Page N/A, Instrument 2 No. N/A, of the Official Records of _______ County, CA. (emphasis in original)  Nationstar admitted that they never sent any communication alerting anyone that 3 the loan modification paperwork was incomplete. [Opp. to NSSUF 11, 16, 17, 19]  “Borrower” did not misrepresent that the property “was her principal residence in 4 the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) loan modification 5 agreement. [Opp. to NSSUF 7].  Nationstar knew ways to contact Plaintiffs but still did not to notify of the missing 6 pages. [Opp. to NSSUF 9; 11].  Nationstar’s clear internal policies required them to call the borrower within 10 7 days, yet they did not. [Opp. to NSSUF 9]. 8 These are material facts that Duke relies on in this MSJ. Again, any one of these by 9 themselves destroys Duke’s MSJ, let alone all of them. These remaining disputed issues above, 10 and others discussed below, legally make it not possible for the Court to grant Duke’s MSJ. III. PLAINTIFFS’ FACTS 11 CA 94102 In addition to the evidence presented by Nationstar—much of which is disputed by 12 PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES Plaintiffs as stated above and in Plaintiffs’ Separate Statement of Disputed Facts (“PSSDF”)—the SAN FRANCISCO  13 following counter-facts should also be considered by the Court: 14 Plaintiff MacDonald is known as the “aunt” of Plaintiff Brown. (PSSDF 1). Meli Brown is 15 SUITE 786  the mother of Plaintiff Brown. (Id. 2). Meli Brown, Plaintiff Brown and Plaintiff MacDonald were 16 in close contact with each other. (Id. 3). Meli Brown, Plaintiff Brown and Plaintiff MacDonald all 870 MARKET STREET  17 considered the property located at the Property their family home, had the desire to keep the 18 Property in the family and out of foreclosure, and wanted get the Property loan modified to allow 19 them to prevent foreclosure. (Id. 4). Meli Brown agreed to help with securing this loan 20 modification for the Property. (Id. 5). 21 Nationstar Mortgage, LLC’s (“Nationstar”) agent, Ms. Osiemo, worked on the Loan 22 Modification for the Property. (Id. 6). Ms. Osiemo communicated with Plaintiff Brown and Meli 23 Brown relating to the Loan Modification through the telephone and email. Ms. Osiemo told them 24 to work directly with her on behalf of Nationstar. (Id. 7). As part of the loan modification 25 application, Ms. Osiemo, instructed Plaintiff Brown and Meli Brown to submit what they were 26 told were called “hardship” letters. (Id. 9). Plaintiff Brown, Meli Brown, and Plaintiff MacDonald 27 submitted these “hardship” letters to Nationstar. (Id. 10). Nationstar accepted the Loan 28 MacDonald, et al. v. Duke Partners, LLC, et al. Page 3 of 20 San Francisco Superior Court Unlimited Civil Case No. CGC-16-552327 (and consolidated Case No. 16-654726) PLAINTIFFS’ POINTS & AUTHORITIES OPPOSING DUKE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION MOTION 1 Modification Application, and stated that a loan modification was approved. (Id. 12). After 2 accepting the trial payments sent to and received by Nationstar, Ms. Osiemo, and, therefore, 3 Nationstar, also sent a Loan Modification Contract. (Id. 13). Ms. Osiemo was informed that the 4 Loan Modification Contract had not arrived via mail at the Property, and, thus, Ms. Osiemo 5 informed Meli Brown she, Ms. Osiemo, would send all documents for the modification by email 6 since there was an issue with the mail. (Id. 14). 7 Ms. Osiemo instructed Meli Brown how to fill out the Loan Modification Contract and told 8 Meli Brown specifically what information and whose signature needed to be on the Loan 9 Modification Contract despite facts that appeared to Meli Brown and Plaintiff Brown contrary to 10 what was instructed. (Id. 16). On August 25, 2015, Meli Brown mailed the completed and signed 11 (as instructed by Ms. Osiemo) Loan Modification Contract to Nationstar. (Id. 17). Nationstar CA 94102 12 never informed anyone of any missing pages of the Loan Modification Contract in any way. (Id. PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 18-20). Had Plaintiffs known of these missing pages, they would have corrected that issue 14 immediately. (Id. 22). 15 Plaintiff MacDonald did not permanently vacate the Property and/or San Francisco. (Id. SUITE 786  16 23). Plaintiff MacDonald renewed her California license in 2018. (Id. 24). Plaintiff MacDonald 870 MARKET STREET  17 went to New Zealand because of financial difficulty and stayed there to assist her daughter, who 18 was living in that country, after her daughter gave birth. (Id. 25). Plaintiff MacDonald has kept 19 several items and pieces of furniture in the Property, and also in storage while temporarily living 20 in Australia. (Id. 26). Plaintiff MacDonald intends to return from Australia to live at the Property 21 when her finances improve and this lawsuit is finalized. (Id. 27). 22 The payments required in the Loan Modification were made. (Id. 28). The payments 23 required in the Loan Modification deposited by Nationstar. (Id. 29). No one received any notice 24 that the Property was going to be foreclosed upon.3 (Id. 30). 25 3 Additionally, as laid out below, Duke’s arguments fail on as a matter of law as well—i.e. failing to meet its initial 26 burden. See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 851. This includes, but is not limited to, issues on whether a loan modification contract was formed by performance, whether Nationstar waived the missing page 27 “defect” by accepting payments (thus leading to a void foreclosure), and whether Nationstar waived termination of the Loan Modification by accepting payments thereafter (thus leading to a void foreclosure). As discussed in detail 28 below, these are remaining issues, this MSJ cannot be granted. MacDonald, et al. v. Duke Partners, LLC, et al. Page 4 of 20 San Francisco Superior Court Unlimited Civil Case No. CGC-16-552327 (and consolidated Case No. 16-654726) PLAINTIFFS’ POINTS & AUTHORITIES OPPOSING DUKE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION MOTION 1 IV. ARGUMENT 2 A. Duke Fails to Meet the Standard for Summary Judgment/Adjudication. 3 Duke's summary judgment/adjudication motion must be denied if there is a single disputed 4 material fact. Versa Technologies, Inc. v. Superior Court (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 237, 240. Here, 5 since the key fact as to the validity of the foreclosure under which Duke obtained title to the 6 property is disputed, Duke cannot obtain either summary judgment or summary adjudication. 7 If there are any doubts as to the propriety of granting a summary judgment motion, it must 8 be resolved in favor of the party opposing the motion. Asare v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (1991) 1 9 Cal.App.4th 856, 862. In ruling on the motion, the court must consider the evidence and inferences 10 reasonably drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. 11 Aguilar, supra., 25 Cal.4th at 843. Motions for summary adjudication are subject to the same rules CA 94102 12 and procedures as motions for summary judgment. Lunardi v. Great-West Life Assurance Co. PHONE 415 823 4566 FAX 415 762. 5490 TRN LAW ASSOCIATES SAN FRANCISCO  13 (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 807, 819. 14 Accordingly, not much evidence is needed to defeat a summary judgment motion — the 15 sole declaration by a party opposing a summary judgment motion, if it raises a triable issue of fact, SUITE 786  16 will be sufficient to deny the motion. Estate of Housley (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 342, 359; Evidence 870 MARKET STREET  17 Code § 411. The result of these policies is that summary adjudication/judgment lies only where 18 the opponent has no case at all (not merely a weak case). 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court 19 (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 1199, 1215, fn. 12. 20 “Defendant cannot base its “showing” on plaintiff’s lack of evidence to disprove its claimed 21 defense.” Weil & Brown, Civil Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group, 22 Ltd., 2001) [hereinafter “Rutter”] at 10:247. “Plaintiff has no evidentiary burden until defendant 23 “shows” either a complete defense or that an essential element of plaintiff’s claim “cannot be 24 established.” Until that time, defendant has not met its burden of production [] plaintiff therefore 25 has no burden to oppose. Id. at 10:249. “Matters going to the weight of the evidence must be 26 disregarded in ruling on the motion. Thus, one witness’ declaration may effectively controvert a 27 dozen to the contrary. And if the witness discloses sufficient knowledge of a subject to render an 28 MacDonald, et al. v. Duke Partners, LLC, et al. Page 5 of 20 San Francisco Superior Court Unlimited Civil Case No. CGC-16-552327 (and consolidated Case No. 16-654726) PLAINTIFFS’ POINTS & AUTHORITIES OPPOSING DUKE’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT/ADJUDICATION MOTION 1 expert opinion, the court cannot disregard that opinion solely because other, more qualified experts 2 opine to the contrary.” Id. at 10:272. 3 B. Bank of America, N.A. v. La Jolla Group II Resolves This Case. 4 B of A, N.A. v. La Jolla Group II (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 706, 714 is the key case that this 5 Court must focus on to rule on this MSJ. This case stands for the basic and undisputed legal maxim 6 that a foreclosure sale is improper because the loan was current, and therefore there was no right 7 to conduct a foreclosure sale, the sale is void. This is the same scenario here. 8 Put simply, Plaintiffs were up-to date with their payments. The paym