Professional Documents
Culture Documents
there was a recorded Assignment of Deed of Trust dated March 26, 2008, wherein New Century purported to assign to Deutsche Bank all beneficial interest under the Deed of Trust. However, Plaintiff correctly asserts that this assignment is invalid for the reason it violates CC 1095, in that it was executed solely by Wells Fargo as attorney-in-fact for New Century, without subscribing New Centurys name. See Morrison v. Bowman (1865) 29 Cal. 337, 341, 352; Mitchell v. Benjamin Franklin Bond & Indem. Corp. (1936) 13 Cal.App.2d 447, 448. Regardless, Defendants contend in their reply that Plaintiff has admitted that Deutsche Bank entered into a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA) dated March 1, 2006, and that pursuant to 2.01 of the PSA, Morgan Stanley Capital I, Inc., as Depositor, conveyed to Deutsche Bank, as trustee, the right, title and interest to the subject Deed of Trust and subject Promissory Note. Defendants assert that this concession by Plaintiff alone is sufficient to sustain summary adjudication in Defendants favor. The court disagrees. There is no evidence, submitted by either Plaintiff or Defendants, that the PSA or any of the other documents attached to Plaintiffs request for judicial notice actually involve Plaintiffs mortgage. There is only Plaintiffs assertion to that effect in her opposing argument. The documents provided in Plaintiffs request for judicial notice include only a few select pages from each of the documents, and it is not shown that Plaintiffs mortgage is necessarily included in them. Summary adjudication of the cause of action for declaratory relief is denied for the same reasons applied to the fraud cause of action. Summary adjudication of the cause of action for unjust enrichment is granted. Plaintiff does not dispute that her allegations that Defendants violated the TILA and RESPA lack merit. See evidence in support of Defendants Facts 8 & 9. Plaintiff contends that the unjust enrichment cause of action succeeds because her fraud claims justify her loan rescission, and also because Defendants hold no interest in the note. These arguments fail because they are not supported by the allegations in the cause of action for unjust enrichment. The pleadings serve as the outer measure of materiality in a summary judgment motion, and the motion may not be granted or denied on issues not raised by the pleadings. Weil & Brown, Civ. Proc. Before Trial, 10:10:17. Summary adjudication of Plaintiffs cause of action for quiet title is denied for the reason Defendants fail to address the entire cause of action as alleged. Contrary to Defendants assertion, rescission under the TILA is not the sole basis for Plaintiffs claim, as she also seeks to quiet title at 162 on the ground Defendants claims are without any right, and Defendants have no title, estate, lien, or interest in the Subject Property. Because Defendants have not prevailed in regard to Plaintiffs fraud cause of action, Defendants cannot assert that they have also shown Plaintiff is not entitled to quiet title on this basis. In addition, Defendants fail to address Plaintiffs express allegations that she is excused from tendering the full amount of the loan. ( 164, 165.) Defendants objections are sustained. The parties requests for judicial notice are granted.