Karyn Mehus, Brian Mehus v. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc., ABS Loan Trust VI, and Does 1 through 20, inclusive
Published: Mar. 5, 2021 | Result Date: Feb. 8, 2021 | Filing Date: Oct. 7, 2019 |Case number: 19CV03041 Bench Decision – Defense
Judge
Court
Santa Cruz County Superior Court
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Matthew D. Mellen
(Mellen Law Firm)
Defendant
Thomas A. Woods
(Stoel Rives LLP)
Facts
Plaintiffs Karyn Mehus and Brian Mehus formerly owned a property in Soquel, CA. Plaintiffs refinanced their loan on their property with Bank of America and executed a promissory note secured by a deed of trust to the property. This lien was recorded and took first in position. On the same that plaintiff refinanced their property, plaintiffs took out a second mortgage with Bank of America, executing a separate promissory note deed of trust to their property. This lien was then recorded and took second in position. Subsequently, Bank of America assigned the deed of trust for the first lien to Nationstar Mortgage, LLC. After on March 25, 2019, Bank of America assigned the deed of trust for the second lien to ABS Loan Trust VI. Plaintiff submitted a loss mitigation application to Nationstar. Without providing plaintiff a determination of plaintiff's loss mitigation application, Nationstar recorded a Notice of Trustee Sale and scheduled a foreclosure sale of the property. During the auction, defendant, Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., servicer to plaintiff's second lien instructed the auctioneer to read a disclosure statement. After the auctioneer read the disclosure statement, potential bidders did not bid on the property. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. in relation to defendant's actions of instructing the auctioneer to read the disclosure statement.
Contentions
PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that the defendant purposely instructed the auctioneer to read the disclosure statement with the intent to confuse potential bidders and ultimately dissuade the bidders from bidding on the property. Plaintiffs contended that defendant actions constituted an illegal bid-rigging in violation of Civil Code Section 2924(h). Plaintiffs contended that defendant was unjustly enriched because defendant's illegal bid rigging resulted in receiving the property for far less than its value.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied plaintiff's contentions. Defendant contended that plaintiff failed to satisfy the elements for a violation of Civil Code Section 2924(h) claim.
Result
The court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390