Filed 8/21/15 Quality Loan Service Corp. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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 ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,

Defendant and Respondent; 

STEVEN WIERZBA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A142603

 (Alameda County

 Super. Ct. No. RG12659614)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Steven Wierzba, in pro. per., appeals an order distributing surplus proceeds from 

the nonjudicial foreclosure sale of his residence. Wierzba does not assert he is entitled to 

a share of the surplus proceeds. Instead, he asserts the foreclosure sale should be set 

aside and his property returned to him because the foreclosure proceedings were 

fraudulent. We affirm. While Wierzba is free to challenge the propriety of the 

foreclosure proceedings, he may not do so in this action, which was instituted for the 

limited purpose of determining the proper distribution of the surplus. 

As the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we review them in 

brief. Quality Loan Service Corp. (QLS) instituted nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings 

against Wierzba’s residence and, on August 9, 2012, the property was sold to a third 

 

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards 

of Judicial Administration, section 8.1(1), (3).
2

party through a trustee’s sale. After using the sale proceeds to satisfy the unpaid debt on 

a senior deed of trust, a surplus of $226,161.77 remained. QLS determined there was a 

conflict between potential claimants to the surplus and therefore petitioned to deposit the 

sum with the court pursuant to Civil Code2section 2924j. The trial court directed the 

clerk to receive the surplus and discharged QLS from further responsibility for 

disbursement. 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan), which purports to hold the second 

priority lien on the subject property, filed a claim for the surplus proceeds. On May 1, 

2014, Wierzba filed a document with the trial court contesting QLS’s status as trustee and 

asserting JPMorgan had no interest in the property. Attached to the document is a 

declaration by Wierzba stating he does not request any distribution from the surplus, but 

he considers the foreclosure proceedings fraudulent and void. The trial court 

subsequently entered an order distributing $207,720.37 of the surplus to JPMorgan.3 

Wierzba filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the court. At a hearing 

on the motion for reconsideration, the court explained JPMorgan had shown it had a lien 

on the property and “the only issue before th[e] court is who gets the surplus proceeds.” 

On appeal, Wierzba does not challenge the trial court’s reasoning. He merely 

reasserts his claim that the underlying foreclosure proceedings were improper. But the 

trial court was not in a position to adjudicate such a claim in an action to distribute 

surplus proceeds from a foreclosure sale pursuant section 2924j. The statute merely 

requires a court to consider all timely filed claims and distribute the deposited funds to 

any and all claimants entitled thereto. (§ 2924j, subds. (c)–(d).) Nothing in the statute 

authorizes the court to void a foreclosure sale or return a property to its original owner. 

Yet this is the only relief Wierzba sought. Additionally, because Wierzba has expressly 

stated he does not seek any portion of the surplus, he could not have been harmed by the 

 

2 All statutory references are to the Civil Code.

3

The remainder of the surplus was held by the court, and if not claimed by a party, 

shall escheat to the State of California. 
3

trial court’s decision to distribute proceeds to JPMorgan. Accordingly, he also lacks 

standing to appeal.

As Wierzba’s request is procedurally improper, the trial court did not err in 

granting JPMorgan’s claim to the surplus. Nor did it err in denying Wierzba’s motion for 

reconsideration. Accordingly, we affirm. 4 Respondents are entitled to their costs on 

appeal.

_________________________

Margulies, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Humes, P.J.

_________________________

Banke, J.

 

4 Wierzba is free to pursue his claims in a separate action. Indeed, it appears he 

has already done so by filing two separate suits against JPMorgan and QLS in federal 

court.