Sumter

Sumter v. Bank of America CA2/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 5, 2026B347332California1,037 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

From the limited record provided on appeal, we glean the following: On March 3, 2025, Sumter filed the FAC, claiming that Bank of America committed “conversion [and] theft” of surplus proceeds from its 2011 foreclosure sale of Sumter’s property. (Capitalization and bolding omitted.) Sumter alleged that she submitted a surplus claim to Bank of America on March 9, 2023, and had yet to receive a response. On April 10, 2025, Bank of America filed a demurrer and a motion to request judicial notice of several documents associated with the 2011 foreclosure and a related bankruptcy proceeding. Sumter opposed the motion and objected to the request for judicial notice. The trial court posted a tentative ruling, which largely granted Bank of America’s request for judicial notice and sustained the demurrer. Among other things, the court found that “the cause of action for conversion and theft is time barred[,]” as documents from the bankruptcy case indicated that

“‘Orders sustaining demurrers are not appealable.’” [Citation.] ‘Nevertheless, in the interest of judicial economy, we may construe [an] order sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend as a final appealable…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.