McElroy

McCelroy v. Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp.

Good Law
134 Cal. App. 4th 388·2005 Cal. App. LEXIS 1839·2005 Daily Journal DAR 13653·36 Cal. Rptr. 3d 176·2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10000
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 2005G034588California2,185 words

Opinion

Opinion

Ikola, J.

The McElroys brought an action for quiet title, declaratory relief, and fraudulent foreclosure against their lender, Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corporation, its substituted trustee, Loanstar Mortgage Services (Chase and Loanstar are collectively referred to as Chase), and Charlene Finicle, purchaser of the real property after the foreclosure sale. The court sustained without leave to amend Chase’s and Finicle’s demurrers to the McElroys’ amended complaint. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS

The McElroys’ first amended complaint alleged the following facts: The McElroys defaulted on a loan secured by a deed of trust on their Mission Viejo property (the property). To redeem the loan, the McElroys tendered payment to Chase in the form of a “Bonded Bill of Exchange Order” (the Bill) in the sum required to pay off the loan. Attached to the Bill were instructions on how to process it with the United States Department of the Treasury. The instructions stated, inter alia, that plaintiff Mi McElroy had established a “Personal UCC Contract Trust Account” with the Department of the Treasury, and that the Bill was a negotiable instrument, should be processed as a check, and sent by…

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.