1

Filed 10/19/22 Patterson v. Laings First Edition

- Ontario Center HOA CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ord ered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

REGENA M. PATTERSON, Plaintiff and Appellant,

v. LAINGS FIRST EDITION

- ONTARIO CENTER HOA, Defendant and Respondent. E078131 (Super.Ct.No. CIVDS1609944)
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Janet M. Frangie, Judge. Dismissed. Regena M. Patterson, in pro. per., for Plaintiff and Appellant. Tinnelly Law Group, Cang N. Le, and Joshua D. Mendelsohn for Defendant and Respondent.

Plaintiff Regena Patterson filed a notice of app eal purporting to appeal from an order denying her motion to vacate the judgment dismissing he r lawsuit against Laing’s2

First Edition

– Ontario Center Homeowners Association ( Laing’s ). We conclude the notice
of appeal is untimely and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction

. I FACTS
A. Summary Judgment In 2017, Patterson sued Laing’s for wrongful foreclosure, alleging the
homeowner s association had improperly refused her tender of partial payment of the
assessments and related costs she owed on her condominium

. Laing’s filed a motion for summary judgment arguing, among other things, t hat Patterson lacked standing to sue for wrongful foreclosure because she had transferred her interest in the property prior to
foreclosure. In support, they submitted deeds reflecting the transfers , as well as deposition testimony from Patterson confirming the deeds had transferred her interest in the propert y. On January 19, 2021, San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Janet Frangie concluded Patterson lacked standing based on the pre

- foreclosu re transfers and granted summary judgment in favor of Laing’s

. On January 21, 2021, Laing’s served Patterson by
mail with notice of entry of the order granting summary judgment

. On April 13, 2021, the judge entered judgment in favor of Laing’s and dismisse d
the lawsuit. Laing’s served Patterson with the notice of entry of judgment on May 10,
2021

.3

B. Patterson’s Untimely Motion to Vacate the Judgment
On July 19, 2021, Patterson filed a motion to vacate the judgment based on the same unsuccessful arguments she had raised in her opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Specifically, she argued the deeds were ineffective because she didn’t record
them and because she lacked an intent to transfer title when she executed them

. At a hearing on August 9, 2021, t he judge dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction under California Code of Civil Procedure section 663a. (Unlabeled statutory citations refer to this code.) The judge based this conclusion on the fact th at (1) Patterson
had filed the motion after the 15

- day deadline in section 663a, subdivision (a)(2) had passed and (2) the hearing on the motion did not take place until after the jurisdictional
deadline in section 663a, subdivision (b). Under that provision, the court ’s power to rule on a motion to vacate the judgment expires 75 days after the moving party is serv ed by any party with the notice of entry of the judgmen t . Because Laing’s served Patterson on May 10, 2021 , the August 9 hearing took plac e well outside the 75

- day window . (§ 663a, subd. (b).)4

C. Patterson’s Untimely Motion to Reconsider On October 8, 2021, Patterson filed a nother post

- judgment motion, which she incorrectly styled as a section 473 , subdivision (b) motion for relief from mistake. In substance, Patterson’s motion was a motion to reconsider the judgment under section
1008 because she argued the judgment was the product of the judge ’s mistake of giving legal effect to the deeds. On November 15, 2021, t he judge deemed Patterson’s motion a motion for reconsideration and denied it as untimely because Patterson had not filed it within 10 days of service of n otice of e ntry of the relevant o rder , as the statute requires

. (§ 1008,
subd. (a).) The judge also co ncluded the motion failed on its merits because Patterson failed to present new facts or law entitling her to relief

. Patterson filed a notice of appea l on November 30, 2021.
II ANALYSIS As a threshold matter, Laing’s argues we lack jurisdiction to decide the appeal
because Patterson’s notice of appeal i s untimely. We agr ee
.

“ T he time for appealing a judgment is jurisdictional; once the deadline expires, the appellate court has no power to entertain the appeal. [Citation.]” ( Van Beurden Ins. Services, Inc. v. Customized Worldwide Weather Ins. Agency, Inc. (1997) 15 Cal.4th 51,
56 ; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(b) , unlabeled rule citations refer to the California
Rules of Court .) Here, the notice of appeal ident ifies the order being appealed as the5

November 15, 2021 order denying Patterson’s “Motion to Set Aside and/or Vacate Judgment.” As we’ve seen, however, the judge d ismissed Pa tterson’s motion to vacate the judgment on August 9, 202 1 , not on November 15, 20 21 . T he order dated November
15 is the one denying her ( incorrectly titled ) moti on for reconsideration

. Confusing matters further, Patterson’s opening brief challenges the jud gment only and doesn’t
address either of the orders denying he r postjudgment motions. In any event, the notice of appeal is untimely whichever way we construe it

. A notice of appeal from a judgment must be filed on or before the earliest of (1) 60 days after the trial court ’ s mailing of the notice of entry of judgment; (2) 60 days after a party ’ s service of the notice of entry of judgment; or (3) 180 days after entry of judgment . ( R ule 8.10 4 (a ) .) Rule 8.108 extends this deadline in the event a timely mot ion to vacate the judgment or to reconsider an appealable order has been filed . (Rule 8.108(c)
& (e).) Late filed motions do not trigger rule 8.108 . ( In re Marriage of Eben

- King & King (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 92, 108

- 109; English v. IKON Business Solutions, Inc. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 130, 135

- 136; Starpoint Properties, LLC v. Namvar (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1107

- 1109.) Applying these rules here, i f we construe the November 30 , 2021 notice as appealing from the judgment , Patterson was required to file her notice of appeal by July
9 , 2021. That date is 60 days after May 10, 2021, when Laing’s served Patterson with the notice of entry of the judgment. (Rule 8.104 (a)(1) ( B ) .) November 30 is well past that 60

-6

day deadline ; it’s even past the 180

- day deadline , which, had it applie d , would have
fallen on November 6

. The deadline to appeal is the same

— July 9, 2021

— e ven if we construe the notice of appeal as appealing from either of the orders denying Patterson’s unsuc cessful postjudgment motions . This is because Patterson filed both motions late and therefore the
extensions in rule 8.108 do not apply

. A motion to vacate the judgment must be filed within 15 days of service of the notice of entry of judgment (May 10, 202 1). (§ 663a, subd. (a).) In order to be timely, Patterson’s motion needed to be filed by May 25, 2021, but she didn’t file it until July 19,
2021 . And Patterson’s motion to reconsider was even later . Such motions must be filed within 10 days of the notice of entry of the relevant order , which here was January 21,
2021

— the date Laing’s served Patterson with notice of entry of the order granting summary judgment. (§ 1008, subd. (a).) Patterson didn’t file the motion until nearly 10
months later , on October 8, 2021

. We conclude Patterson’s appeal is untimely no matter how we construe her notice of appeal and that neither of her postjudgment motions extended the deadline to appeal.
As a result , we have no jurisdiction to consider the merits of her challenge and must dismiss the appeal

.7 III DISPOSITION We dismiss the appeal as untimely

. In the interests of justice, the parties shall bear
their own costs on appeal. ( R ule 8.278(a)(5).)
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

SLOUGH J.
We concur:

CODRINGTON

Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL J.