Neilsen

Wells Fargo Bank v. Neilsen

Good Law
178 Cal. App. 4th 602
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 10, 2009A122626California5,973 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haerle, J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant is the former owner of a residence located at 1725 Van Burén Street in San Mateo. Respondents Wells Fargo Bank (WFB) and PHH Mortgage Corporation (PHH) are two of the former three holders of deeds of trust on that property. Respondent Robert Curtis, an attorney, was the foreclosure trustee for the property, which was sold at public auction in March 2007 to WFB. Subsequent to that sale and the payment of the sum owing to the third lienholder, a dispute arose as to the proper allocation of the remaining funds, some $368,000. Appellant claimed that most of those funds should be distributed to him, but respondent lienholders disagreed. Respondent Curtis accordingly filed a petition for instructions to determine the priority of the liens in the San Mateo County Superior Court. The trial court determined that the remaining funds were properly allocated to the other two lienholders, a determination which left nothing for appellant. He appeals, claiming (1) he was entitled to those funds and (2) respondent Curtis was not entitled to his attorney fees and costs. We disagree with both contentions and thus affirm judgment of the trial court.

II. FACTUAL…

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.