Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank | Cal. Ct. App. - We reverse the judgment because appellant has stated a claim for equitable subrogation, which is not subject to that statute.

Categorized | STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUD

Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank | Cal. Ct. App. – We reverse the judgment because appellant has stated a claim for equitable subrogation, which is not subject to that statute.

Bank of New York Mellon v. Citibank | Cal. Ct. App. – We reverse the judgment because appellant has stated a claim for equitable subrogation, which is not subject to that statute.

Thanks to Dubin Law Offices

Filed 2/16/17

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,
Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

CITIBANK, N.A.,
Defendant and Respondent.

Bank of New York Melon appeals from the judgment of
dismissal of its lawsuit against respondent Citibank, N.A.
The case arose out of the simultaneous refinancing of a home
equity line of credit by two different lenders in 2006, which
resulted in a dispute over the priority of their recorded deeds
of trust. Appellant challenges the orders sustaining
respondent’s demurrers to appellant’s first and second
amended complaints. The demurrers alleged that all of
appellant’s causes of action were barred by the three-year
statute of limitations in Code of Civil Procedure section 338
(hereafter, section 338). We reverse the judgment because
appellant has stated a claim for equitable subrogation, which
is not subject to that statute.

[…]

Down Load PDF of This Case

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



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8480 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

Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives