Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05057/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05057-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MTC FINANCIAL INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-05057-JCS 

ORDER GRANTING UNITED STATES' 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 34

I. INTRODUCTION

This case was brought pursuant to California Civil Code section 2924j by Plaintiff MTC 

Financial Inc. (“MTC” or “Trustee”) to determine the proper recipient of surplus proceeds from a 

nonjudicial foreclosure. The action was originally filed in California Superior Court and was 

subsequently removed to federal court by the United States Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (“HUD”). The only remaining claimants to the surplus proceeds are HUD and 

Nicole Shaw-Owens. MTC, HUD and Ms. Shaw-Owens all have consented to the jurisdiction of 

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Presently before the Court is 

HUD’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”). For the reasons stated below, the Motion is 

GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

On March 9, 2015, MTC, as trustee, conducted a nonjudicial foreclosure or trustee’s sale 

of the property located at 288 Louette Court, Hayward, California 94541 (“the Property”). See 

Petition and Declaration Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus 

Proceeds of Trustee’s Sale (“Petition”) (Docket No. 1-1), attached to Notice of Removal (Docket 

Case 3:15-cv-05057-JCS Document 40 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 7
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No. 1), pp. 6-7, ¶¶ 1, 2, 4.

1

 The total sale price of the Property was $370,000.00. Petition, p. 8, ¶ 

16(a). After payment of amounts due to the foreclosing mortgage lien holder and to the Trustee, 

surplus proceeds of $40,726.15 remained. Petition, p. 8, ¶ 16(f). 

Other than the foreclosing mortgage lien holder, the Property at the time of foreclosure was 

encumbered by a $64,087 senior mortgage lien held by HUD, see Claim of United States 

Department of Housing and Urban Development to Surplus Funds (“HUD Claim”) (Docket No. 

5), and a $20,530 junior mortgage lien held by the California Housing Finance Agency Mortgage

Assistance Corporation (“CalHFA MAC”). Petition, p. 28. Nicole Shaw-Owens was the

borrower to the promissory notes underlying the above-mentioned three mortgages, as well as the 

title owner to the Property at the time of foreclosure. Petition, pp. 6 and 28; HUD Claim. More 

specifically, Nicole Shaw-Owens became indebted to HUD when she executed a Promissory Note 

in favor of HUD on April 23, 2011, in the amount of $64,087.21, which was secured by a 

Subordinate Mortgage executed by Shaw-Owens on April 23, 2011, and recorded on May 6, 2011. 

HUD Claim. HUD Claim. According to HUD, Ms. Shaw-Owens remains liable to HUD on the 

Note for $64,087.21. Id. Ms. Shaw-Owens does not dispute that this balance remains unpaid. 

HUD Claim.

In conjunction with the nonjudicial foreclosure on the Property, the Trustee obtained a 

Trustee’s Sale Guarantee. Petition, p. 7, ¶ 5. The Trustee’s Sale Guarantee was attached as 

Exhibit 5 to the Petition. Petition, pp.10-19. The Trustee’s Sale Guarantee listed HUD’s $64,097 

mortgage as senior to CalHFA MAC’s mortgage. Petition, p. 13. The Trustee stated in the Petition 

that “[a]ttorneys for the trustee are unable to determine how to proceed since the Secretary of 

Housing and Urban Development would be entitled to the surplus funds if they had filed a claim 

given the priority of their recorded lien.” Petition, p. 24. As a result of the $40,726.15 surplus 

proceeds, the Trustee sent written notice of the surplus proceeds under California Civil Code § 

2924j(a) to HUD, CalHFA MAC, and Nicole Shaw-Owens (“Notice of Surplus Proceeds”). 

Petition, p. 7, ¶ 8, and p. 20. Both CalHFA MAC and Ms. Shaw-Owens submitted written claims 

 

1

The Court cites to the page numbers assigned to the Petition by the Court’s electronic filing 

system, CM/ECF.

Case 3:15-cv-05057-JCS Document 40 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 7
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

to the Trustee. HUD did not submit any claim to the Trustee. Petition, p. 24.

Subsequently, on August 26, 2015, the Trustee sent a Notice of Intent to Deposit

Funds Pursuant to California Civil Code section 2924j(d) ( “Notice of Intent to Deposit Funds”) to 

HUD, CalHFA MAC, and Shaw-Owens. Petition, p. 21. On October 7, 2015, the Trustee filed its 

Petition and Declaration Regarding Unresolved Claims and Deposit of Undistributed Surplus 

Proceeds of Trustee’s Sale with the Alameda County Superior Court under Case No. HG15788647 

(“State Court Action”). Petition. The Trustee also deposited $40,291.15 of net surplus proceeds 

with the clerk of the court, after deducting $435 for filing fees. Petition, p. 8, ¶16(g-h).

On November 4, 2015, and before any claimant filed a claim for the surplus proceeds with 

the state court, the United States removed the State Court Action to this Court. On November 19, 

2015, HUD filed its claim (Docket No.5). On February 10, 2016, CalHFA MAC filed its notice of 

disclaimer of interest in the surplus proceeds (Docket No. 22). On March 21, 2016, Ms. ShawOwens filed her claim and declaration in support of claim (hereinafter collectively referred to as 

“Shaw-Owens Claim”) (Docket Nos. 27-28). Thus, the only remaining claimants to the surplus 

proceeds are HUD and Ms. Shaw-Owens.

HUD filed its summary judgment motion on June 17, 2016. Ms. Shaw-Owens filed a 

response on August 26, 2016. Although the response was untimely, the Court will consider it in 

light of the fact that Ms. Shaw-Owens is not represented by counsel and because HUD will not be 

prejudiced by the Court’s consideration of the late response. The Court notes in particular that 

HUD addressed in its Motion the main argument advanced by Ms. Shaw-Owens in her opposition 

brief, namely, that her claim to the surplus proceeds has priority of HUD’s because HUD did not 

submit a claim to the Trustee when the trustee originally issued its written notice of surplus 

proceeds under California Civil Code Section 2924j(a). Therefore, no further briefing is necessary 

to decide the Motion. 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Statutory Framework for Disbursing Surplus Proceeds from Trustee’s Sale

1. California Civil Code section 2924j

California Civil Code section 2924j sets forth the procedures for trustees to process surplus 

Case 3:15-cv-05057-JCS Document 40 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 7
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

proceeds from nonjudicial foreclosure sales. A trustee may either file an interpleader action or 

follow the procedures set forth in § 2924j. Cal. Civ. Code § 2924j(e). Section 2924j(a) provides 

that unless the trustee decides to interplead the surplus proceeds, “the trustee shall send written 

notice to all persons . . . entitled to notice” of surplus proceeds from a nonjudicial foreclosure sale 

of property. Section 2924j(a) further provides that the notice of surplus proceeds shall “inform”

each person entitled to such notice that, among other things, “before the trustee can act, . . . [t]he

noticed person shall also submit a written claim to the trustee . . . [within] 30 days after the date

the trustee sends notice to the potential claimant.”

If the trustee proceeds under § 2924j(a), then § 2924j(b) sets forth the provisions and

conditions under which the trustee may determine priority among the claims submitted and

disburse the surplus proceeds. Section 2924j(b) provides, in its entirety, as follows:

The trustee shall exercise due diligence to determine the priority of 

the written claims received by the trustee to the trustee’s sale surplus 

proceeds from those persons to whom notice was sent pursuant to 

subdivision (a). In the event there is no dispute as to the priority of 

the written claims submitted to the trustee, proceeds shall be paid 

within 30 days after the conclusion of the notice period. If the 

trustee has failed to determine the priority of written claims within 

90 days following the 30-day notice period, then within 10 days 

thereafter the trustee shall deposit the funds with the clerk of the 

court pursuant to subdivision (c) or file an interpleader action 

pursuant to subdivision (e). Nothing in this section shall preclude 

any person from pursuing other remedies or claims as to surplus 

proceeds.

Cal. Civ. Code § 2924j(b).

If the trustee is not able to determine claim priority, or if there is a conflict between

potential claimants, the trustee may deposit the surplus proceeds with the clerk of the court and

send a new notice to potential claimants. Cal. Civ. Code § 2924j(c). Section 2024j(d) requires this

second notice to inform the potential claimants, among other things, that the trustee intends to

deposit the surplus proceeds with the clerk of the court and that they must file a claim for the

proceeds with the court within 30 days from the date of the notice. Cal. Civ. Code § 2924j(d). 

Section 2924j(d) further provides for the court to determine claim priority based on the filed 

claims, and distribute the surplus proceeds to the claimants entitled thereto. 

Thus, there are two instances under § 2924j where a potential claimant must make a claim 

Case 3:15-cv-05057-JCS Document 40 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 7
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

for the surplus proceeds. The first instance is where the potential claimant must “submit a written 

claim to the trustee” under § 2924j(a)(4). The second instance is where the potential claimant 

must “file[] [a claim] with the court” under § 2924j(d). In this case, both HUD and Ms. ShawOwens filed their claims with the court in the second instance, after the Trustee deposited the 

surplus proceeds with the clerk of the state court and after the state court action was removed to 

federal court; in the first instance, however, only Ms. Shaw-Owens submitted her claim to the

Trustee.

2. Civil Code section 2924k

California Civil Code section 2924k sets forth the order of distribution of sale proceeds 

from nonjudicial sales. The pertinent part of the statue is as follows:

(a) The trustee, or the clerk of the court upon order to the clerk pursuant 

to subdivision (d) of Section 2924j, shall distribute the proceeds, or 

a portion of the proceeds, as the case may be, of the trustee’s sale 

conducted pursuant to Section 2924h in the following order of 

priority:

(1) To the costs and expenses of exercising the power of sale and of 

sale, including the payment of the trustee’s fees and attorney’s 

fees permitted pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 2924d and 

subdivision (b) of this section.

(2) To the payment of the obligations secured by the deed of trust or 

mortgage which is the subject of the trustee’s sale.

(3) To satisfy the outstanding balance of obligations secured by any 

junior liens or encumbrances in the order of their priority.

(4) To the trustor or the trustor’s successor in interest. In the event 

the property is sold or transferred to another, to the vested owner 

of record at the time of the trustee’s sale.

Cal. Civ. Code § 2924k(a).

3. Whether HUD’s Mortgage Lien Has Priority Over Ms. Shaw-Owens’ Claim 

Even Though HUD Did Not Submit Its Claim To The Trustee Under § 

2924j(a)

Ms. Shaw-Owens contends her claim has priority over HUD’s because while HUD filed a 

claim in this Court pursuant to section 2924j(d), it did not file a claim with MTC under section 

2924j(a)(4). The Court disagrees.

Case 3:15-cv-05057-JCS Document 40 Filed 09/02/16 Page 5 of 7
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

First, HUD’s lien is senior to Ms. Shaw-Owens’ claim under section 2924k, which applies 

to lien prioritization conducted by a court. In particular, section 2924k provides that “the clerk of 

the court, upon order to the clerk pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 2924j, shall distribute” 

surplus proceeds from nonjudicial sales to satisfy junior liens or encumbrances before any such 

proceeds are distributed to the trustor. Here, there is no dispute that HUD filed its claim with the 

court. Therefore, under section 2924k HUD’s lien is senior to Shaw-Owens’ claim.

Second, the Court concludes that because claim priority determination under § 2924j(d) is 

based on claims filed with the court under § 2924j(c), claims submitted to the trustee under section

2924j(a) have no effect on such determination. In this case, the Trustee did not distribute funds 

under section 2924j(b) but instead deposited the surplus proceeds with the clerk of the court under 

section 2924j(c) for the court to determine claim priority and distribute the surplus proceeds under 

section 2924j(d). Section 2924j(b) provides that the trustee should deposit surplus proceeds with 

the court if, after exercising due diligence that is to include “research[ing] the written claims 

submitted or other evidence of conflicts,” section 2924j(f) (emphasis added),” it is unable to 

determine claim priority. Here, the Trustee knew that HUD had a claim senior to other claimants 

and in any event would have been entitled to the surplus proceeds had HUD submitted a claim to 

the Trustee under section 2924j(a) based on the Trustee’s Sale Guarantee that it had obtained in 

connection with the nonjudicial foreclosure sale. Since the statute provides that the court’s claim 

priority determination of funds deposited with it will be based not on claims submitted to the 

trustee under 2924j(a), but on claims filed with the court under 2924j(d), HUD’s failure to submit 

its claim to the Trustee under 2924j(a) is of no consequence. See Quality Loan Service Corp. v. 

24702 Pallas Way, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, 635 F.3d 1128, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Texaco, 

Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 118 F.3d 1367, 1370 (9th Cir. 1997)) (once an action has been filed in state court 

under section 2924j(c), priority of the federal government’s lien must be determined at the time 

the action is initiated).

Although sections 2924j(a) and 2924j(b) provide a scheme for the trustee to disburse 

surplus proceeds in a nonjudicial process, the statute contains no provision suggesting that failure 

to submit a claim to the trustee impairs a claimant’s right to seek surplus proceeds under the 

Case 3:15-cv-05057-JCS Document 40 Filed 09/02/16 Page 6 of 7
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

judicial procedure once the funds have been deposited with the court. To the contrary, § 2924j(b)

expressly provides that “[n]othing in this section shall preclude any person from pursuing other

remedies or claims as to surplus proceeds.” Further, Ms. Shaw-Owen’s reliance on Banc of 

America Leasing & Capital, LLC, v. 3 Arch Trustee Services, Inc., 180 Cal. App. 4th 1090 (2009) 

is misplaced. In that case, the court held only that a trustee owes no duty to search for junior 

lienholders whom it is not required to notify under § 2924j(a) before distributing surplus funds 

under § 2924j(b). The court addressed only the narrow issue of a trustee’s “duty to search for, 

verify, prioritize, and distribute the surplus funds to a junior lienholder,” and did not address more 

broadly the effect of the trustee’s actions on potential claimants’ rights. Id. at 1095.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that HUD’s claim to the surplus proceeds in 

this action has priority over the claim of Ms. Shaw-Owens. Accordingly, the Motion is 

GRANTED. The record in this case reflects that $40,291.15 in surplus proceeds was deposited 

with the Alameda County Superior Court, see Docket No. 1-1, and that those funds were not 

transferred to this Court when the case was removed. Accordingly, the clerk for the Alameda 

County Superior Court is ordered to disburse all of the surplus proceeds to claimant United States 

Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Clerk for this Court is instructed to serve a 

copy of this Order on the Alameda County Superior Court and to close the file in this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2016

______________________________________

JOSEPH C. SPERO

Chief Magistrate Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05057-JCS Document 40 Filed 09/02/16 Page 7 of 7