CA Appeal Court Reverses Judgment "CRC VP Deborah Brignac Affidavit Fail" | Herrera v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

CA Appeal Court Reverses Judgment “CRC VP Deborah Brignac Affidavit Fail” | Herrera v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust

CA Appeal Court Reverses Judgment “CRC VP Deborah Brignac Affidavit Fail” | Herrera v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust

UPDATE: Filed 5/31/11; partial pub. cert. & mod. 6/28/11 (see end of opn.)

The opinion in the above-entitled matter filed on May 31, 2011, was not certified for publication in the Official Reports. For good cause it now appears that the opinion should be partially published in the Official Reports and it is so ordered.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(El Dorado)
—-

ROBERT HERRERA et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
DEUTSCHE1 BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY
et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.

EXCERPT:

Defendants also relied on Brignac’s declaration, which declared that the 2003 deed of trust permitted the beneficiary to appoint successor trustees. Brignac, however, did not simply declare the identity of the beneficiary and the new trustee under the 2003 deed of trust. Instead, she declared that an Assignment of Deed of Trust and a Substitution of Trustee were recorded on February 27, 2009. These facts add nothing to the judicially noticed documents; they establish only that the documents were recorded.

Brignac further declared that “[t]he Assignment of Deed of Trust indicates that JPMorgan Bank [sic], successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank, successor in interest to Long Beach Mortgage Company, transfers all beneficial interest in connection with the [deed of trust] to Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-4.” (Italics added.) This declaration is insufficient to show the Bank is the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust. A supporting declaration must be made on personal knowledge and “show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (d).) Brignac’s declaration does not affirmatively show that she can competently testify the Bank is the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust. At most, her declaration shows she can testify as to what the Assignment of Deed of Trust “indicates.” But the factual contents of the assignment are hearsay and defendants offered no exception to the hearsay rule prior to oral argument to make these factual matters admissible.

At oral argument, defendants contended that the recorded documents were actually business records and admissible under the business record exception. We note that Brignac did not provide any information in her declaration establishing that the sources of the information and the manner and time of preparation were such as to indicate trustworthiness.

….

[ipaper docId=56885717 access_key=key-1rfy00ej1uibn7jeincn height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8690 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

One Response to “CA Appeal Court Reverses Judgment “CRC VP Deborah Brignac Affidavit Fail” | Herrera v. Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust”

  1. Jimmy Rivera says:

    How does this decision to me? it appears I can’t use it.
    Document Reads:

    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

    California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives