This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Real Estate
Foreclosure

Marina De La Luz Muralles v. Max Capital Investments LLC, Parker Foreclosure Services LLC, and Daniel Park

Published: May 18, 2013 | Result Date: Feb. 19, 2013 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: BC459723 Bench Decision –  $329,000

Court

L.A. Superior Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Richard I. Wideman
(Law Office of Richard I. Wideman)


Defendant

Frank W. Chen

Kirk J. Grossman
(Law Office of Kirk J. Grossman)


Experts

Plaintiff

Michael Corominas
(technical)

Roger Bernhardt
(technical)

Defendant

Ryo Takei
(technical)

Facts

Saehan Bank issued a $2 million commercial loan to Marina De La Luz Muralles in 2008, secured by property owned by Muralles' business, Marina's Building Materials Corp. A notice of default and election to sell the property was recorded by Chicago Title Co. in July 2009, and the property was sold in November 2010 to Max Capital Investment LLC. Parker Foreclosure services LLC was appointed as foreclosure trustee by Max Capital.

Parker recorded a notice of trustee's sale in December 2010, sending Muralles a demand payoff letter for $75,657. Muralles subsequently filed for bankruptcy.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Muralles filed suit against Max Capital, Parker, and its employee, Daniel Park, alleging wrongful foreclosure. She further contended the notice of default for $1.9 million was false, and she was only delinquent for $23,000 at the time of foreclosure.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Max Capital separately filed suit against Muralles, alleging unlawful detainer. The defense contended that no prejudice occurred as a result of the foreclosure process, and that Muralles was aware of the loan default.

Settlement Discussions

There was a demand of $600,000 and an offer of $300,000.

Damages

Muralles sought damages of $329,000, as well as cancellation of the deed of sale and restoration of title.

Result

Muralles dismissed Park as a defendant prior to ruling. The court rendered a verdict against Max Capital, finding the foreclosure sale void and awarding Muralles $329,000 in damages.


#87999

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390