8/3/2019 Foreclosure Jpmorgan Chase Bank v Cornish Thu 28 Oct 2010

1/3

11/10/2010 17:09 7509400914 PAGE 01/0

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGONorth County325 S. MelroseVista, CA ~ l 2 0 8 1

SHORT TITLE: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association vs. CornishCASE NUMBER:

ClERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL 37-2010..00039667 CLUDNC

I certify that I am nat a party to this cause. I certify that a true copy of the attached minute order was mailedfollnwinq standard court practices in a sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid, addressed as indicated below.The mailing and this certiflcation occurred at \Lim, California, on 1D/29/201 0.

RICHARD A CORNISH1035 E VISTA WAY# 197VISTA, CA 92084

:.;.;?,IP...."Clerk of the Court, by: ..._._. :s:;;:R'::"_--._.------------ , DeputyRANDALL D NAIMANNAIMAN LAW GROUP4660 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE # 500SAN DIEGO, CA 92122

D Additional names and address attached.CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

8/3/2019 Foreclosure Jpmorgan Chase Bank v Cornish Thu 28 Oct 2010

2/3

11/10/2010 17:09 7509400914

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

DATE: 10/2812010COMMISSIONER: Donald ArmentaCLERK: S h r ~ r r y RoseREPORTER/ERM:BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT:

MINUTE ORDERTIME: 03:54:00 PM DEPT:

CASE NO: 37201000039667CLUDNC CASE INIT.DATE: 08/2312010CASE TITLE: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association vs. CornishCASE CATEGORY: Civil- Limited CASE TYPE: Unlawful Detainer- Residential

APPEARANCES

PAGE 02/0

The Court, t1aving taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 10/07/2010 and having fullyconsidered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, nowrules as follows:Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment against defendants Cornish came onfor hearing en October 7, 2010 at 1:15 p.m. in Dept. 8, San Diego Superior Court, North County Branch,Han. Donald F. Armenta presiding.The court read and considered the moving papers, opposition papers filed with the court on the date ofhearing, and the arguments of counsel. .Plaintiff see;

8/3/2019 Foreclosure Jpmorgan Chase Bank v Cornish Thu 28 Oct 2010

3/3

11/10/2010 17:09 7509400914 PAGE 03/0

CASE TITL.E: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National CASE NO: 37-201000039667-CLUD-NCAssociatior vs. Cornishgeneral principles of law ..because of the special function of unlawful detainer actions to restoreimmediate possessions of real property." (Biassy v:s, Superior Court (1986) 181 CaLApp.3d 1148,1151 ).However, there is a limited exception; where title is acquired through proceedings described in Code ofCivil Procedure Sec. 1161a (b) (3) (such as a trustee's sale/, the court must make a limited inquiry intothe basis of the Plaintiff's title. Where the plaintiff in an un awful detainer action is the purchaser at atrustee's sale, he or she need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust followedby purchase at such sale, and Defendant may raise objections only on that phase of the title. (See, Q.Ld.National Eioancial Services, Inc. vs. Seibert (1987) 194 Cai.App.3td 460). In Seibeu:t, supra., the Courtheld that in the context of a post non-judicial foreclosure action, the trial court must make a limitedinquiry into the issue of title to determine the following three issues: 1) Whether Plaintiff was thepurchaser of the property; 2) whether the property has been sold in accordance with Civil Code section2924; and 3) whether the title obtained by the plaintiff is perfected. See also Vella ys Hudgins 20 Cal. 3dat 255; Kelliher ys. Helliher (1950) 101 Cai.App.2d 226, 232. other than that limited exception,Defendant may not raise issues of defect in the Plaintiffs title or the validity of the trust deed in anunlawful detainer action.Defendant's Opposition is based at least in part upon the Declaration and testimony of RichardCornish. M. Cornish stated that he signed a Deed of Trust along with certain Riders in 2006 and thatWashington Mutual Bank, his then lender, did not fund the loan which was secured by the Deed of Trust.See Declaration of Cornish, paragraph 5. Cornish disputes that Washington Mutual or Its successor, JPMorgan Chase Bank ever funded the loan for which he applied. Based on this, he disputes the validityof the Deed of Trust, and of the subsequent foreclosure proceeding based on that DOT. He furthercontends that California Reconveyance Company did not lawfully succeed as trustee under the Deed ofTrust. He also contends plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action.The court finds there are triable issues of material fact regarding the validity of the Deed of Trustencumbering the real property at 31427 Golf Club Drive, Bonsall, California, the succession of CaliforniaReconveyance Company as trustee under the Deed of Trust, the Notice of Default, the subsequentTrustee's Sale, and the Trustee's Deed Upon Sale.Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment as to the sole cause of action in the Complaint fo rUnlawful Detainer is denied.

DATE: 10/28/2010DEPT: MINUTE ORDER

Page 2Calendar No