Wells Fargo Bank v. Golding CA4/2
Opinion
Opinion
INTRODUCTION
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Wells Fargo) appeals from a judgment in favor of
defendants Dane and Michelle Golding following the sustaining of their demurrer to
Wells Fargo’s second amended complaint without leave to amend. Wells Fargo contends
(1) it adequately stated its causes of action for quiet title and declaratory relief; (2) its
complaint was not barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) it can amend its complaint
to state a cause of action for equitable lien.
We find no error, and we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
We set forth the underlying facts consistent with the standard that governs our
review of a judgment of dismissal entered upon the sustaining of a demurrer: “[W]e
assume the truth of all facts properly pleaded by the plaintiff, and those that may be
inferred therefrom, as well as relevant facts appearing in exhibits attached to the
complaint; we may also consider matters subject to judicial notice.” (Van Horn v.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1287, 1292.)
In October 2011, Wells Fargo filed a verified complaint against Dane A. Golding,