Paredes

Paredes v. Trinity Financial Services CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 15, 2022B314182California2,850 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

A. Facts1 Paredes owned residential real property in La Puente. She used the property as collateral for two loans she obtained from

1 These facts are derived from the face of the first amended complaint and judicially noticed documents. Pursuant to Trinity’s request, the trial court took judicial notice of ten documents, including documents recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office. A trial court generally cannot take judicial notice of the facts stated in deeds of trust or similar recorded documents. (Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1117 (Poseidon).) But the court may take judicial notice of the existence, recordation, and legal effect of these documents. (Id. at pp. 1117–

2 First Franklin, a division of National City Bank of Indiana (First Franklin). On December 29, 2005, she executed two promissory notes to First Franklin, one for $368,000 and a second for $92,000. Each note was secured by a deed of trust recorded in the county recorder’s office on January 5, 2006. The deeds of trust state that Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS) is the nominee of the lender and beneficiary of the…

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.