Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Boyce v. T.D. Service Co.

California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division

March 23, 2015

F. WOOD BOYCE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
T.D. SERVICE COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

[REVIEW GRANTED BY CAL. SUPREME COURT]

Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, No. 1438504 Thomas P. Anderle, Judge

Page 430

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 431

COUNSEL

Law Office of and Ronald H. Freshman for Plaintiff and Appellant.

The Dreyfuss Firm and Lawrence J. Dreyfuss for Defendant and Respondent T.D. Service Company.

Law Office of Lisa Edgar-Dickman and Lisa Edgar-Dickman for Defendants and Respondents PMG Mortgage Inc., dba Pacific Mortgage Group and Sandeep Bhasin.

Shulman Bunn; Stephanie J Shulman and Patricia M. Snyder for Defendant and Respondent Dave Kerr.

Locke Lord and Nina Huerta for Defendants and Respondents Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Homeward Residential, Inc., and Power Default Services, Inc.

OPINION

YEGAN, J.

"There are no free houses." These are the words of the bankruptcy judge who allowed the instant home foreclosure to go forward. It rejected appellant's theory of "wrongful foreclosure." Thereafter, the same theory was rejected in an unlawful detainer proceeding. Undeterred, appellant F. Wood Boyce sued his lender for "wrongful foreclosure" because the $1.155 million deed of trust was placed in a mortgage investment pool before

Page 432

the foreclosure. Appellant also sued the transferees/assignees to the promissory note and deed of trust, the foreclosure trustee and the company that processed the foreclosure documents, and the person who purchased the property.

The trial court ruled that the action was subject to a res judicata/collateral estoppel bar and sustained, without leave to amend, demurrers to the First Amended Complaint. We affirm. The doctrine of res judicata, of which collateral estoppel is a part, encompasses both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. (Mycogen Corp. v Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 896-897, fn. 7 [123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297].) "The best way of remembering these doctrines clearly is to view collateral estoppel as a miniature of res judicata; the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.