11/10/2010

17:09

7509400914

PAGE

01/03

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

North County 325 S. Melrose Vista, CA ~l2081

SHORT TITLE: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association vs. Cornish

CASE 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 mailed follnwinq 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.

Clerk of the Court, by: -..._ _.!:s:;;:R'::"_--_. - - - - - - - - - - - , Deputy .. .. -

RICHARD A CORNISH 1035 E VISTA WAY# 197 VISTA, CA 92084 RANDALL D NAIMAN NAIMAN LAW GROUP 4660 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE # 500 SAN DIEGO, CA 92122

:.;.;?,IP " .....

Additional names and address attached.

CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL

11/10/2010

17:09

7509400914

PAGE

02/03

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MINUTE ORDER

DATE: 10/2812010 COMMISSIONER: Donald Armenta CLERK: Shr~rry Rose REPORTER/ERM: BAILIFF/COURT ATTENDANT: CASE NO: 37201000039667CLUDNC CASE INIT.DATE: 08/2312010 CASE TITLE: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association vs. Cornish CASE CATEGORY: Civil- Limited CASE TYPE: Unlawful Detainer- Residential TIME: 03:54:00 PM DEPT:

APPEARANCES
The Court, t1aving taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 10/07/2010 and having fully considered the arguments of all parties, both written and oral, as well as the evidence presented, now rules as follows: Plaintiff JP Morgan Chase Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment against defendants Cornish came on for 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 of hearing, and the arguments of counsel. . Plaintiff see;<.s summary judgment on the ground there are no triable issues of material fact in this action. The sole carJse of action in the Complaint is for unlawful detainer. Code of Civil Procedure Section 437c(c) states, 'The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Summary adjudication may be granted only if there is no triable issue of material fact as to a particular cause of action, defense, damages claim, or issue of duty involved (CCP Section 437c (f).). Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a(b)(3), a person who holds over and continues in possession of a real property after a three-day written notice to quit the property has been served upon the person, may be removed there from as prescribed in this chapter: ... "Where the property has been s:Jid in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trul'lt executed by such person, or a person under whom such person claims, and the title under the sale has been duly perfected." (CCP 1161a (b)(3).) As a general rule, in an unlawful detainer action, only claims bearing directly upon the right to possession are involved, and issues of title may not be litigated. "It is well established that unlawful detainer actions are wholly created and strictly controlled by statute in California .. The 'mode and measure of plaintiff's recovery' are limited by these statutes. The statute prevails over inconsistent

DATE: 10/28/2010 DEPT:

MINUTE ORDER

Page 1 Calendar No.

11/10/2010

17:09

7509400914

PAGE

03/03

CASE TITL.E: JPMorgan Chase Bank, National CASE NO: 37-201000039667-CLUD-NC Associatior vs. Cornish general principles of law ... because of the special function of unlawful detainer actions to restore immediate 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 of Civil Procedure Sec. 1161a (b) (3) (such as a trustee's sale/, the court must make a limited inquiry into the basis of the Plaintiff's title. Where the plaintiff in an un awful detainer action is the purchaser at a trustee's sale, he or she need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust followed by 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 Court held that in the context of a post non-judicial foreclosure action, the trial court must make a limited inquiry into the issue of title to determine the following three issues: 1) Whether Plaintiff was the purchaser of the property; 2) whether the property has been sold in accordance with Civil Code section 2924; and 3) whether the title obtained by the plaintiff is perfected. See also Vella ys Hudgins 20 Cal. 3d at 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 an unlawful detainer action. Defendant's Opposition is based at least in part upon the Declaration and testimony of Richard Cornish. M. Cornish stated that he signed a Deed of Trust along with certain Riders in 2006 and that Washington 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, JP Morgan Chase Bank ever funded the loan for which he applied. Based on this, he disputes the validity of the Deed of Trust, and of the subsequent foreclosure proceeding based on that DOT. He further contends that California Reconveyance Company did not lawfully succeed as trustee under the Deed of Trust. 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 Trust encumbering the real property at 31427 Golf Club Drive, Bonsall, California, the succession of California Reconveyance Company as trustee under the Deed of Trust, the Notice of Default, the subsequent Trustee'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 for Unlawful Detainer is denied.

DATE: 10/28/2010 DEPT:

MINUTE ORDER

Page 2 Calendar No.