#### Jaime MEDRANO and Maribel Medrano, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB, a Federal Savings Bank; Exodus Financial Corporation, a Nevada corporation formerly known as Doe 1; Jane Fowler Kelleher, formerly known as Doe 2; Stratham Montecito West, a California corporation; Strategic Sales and Marketing Group, a California corporation; Janis Kim Randazzo, individually and responsible managing officer of Strategic Sales and Marketing Group; Fernando Cordero, individually and responsible managing officer of Exodus Financial Corporation; Dora Senaida Cordero, Defendants-Appellees, and Protofund Mortgage Corporation, a California corporation, Defendant.

No. 11-55412.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 6, 2012.

Filed Dec. 11, 2012.

*646Jerome Zamos, Law Offices of Jerome Zamos, Woodland Hills, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Carol Lynn Vallely, Law Office of Carol L. Vallely, Verdugo City, CA, Frederick Haist, Esquire, Roland P. Reynolds, Palmer, Lombardi & Donohue LLP, Dale A. Arakawa, Esquire, Lisa Gruen, Esquire, Ericksen, Arbuthnot, Kilduff, Day & Lind-strom, Los Angeles, CA, Donald W. Fisher, Esquire, Andrew K. Ulich, Esquire, Ulich & Terry, LLP, Newport Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs Jaime and Maribel Medrano appeal the district court’s orders dismissing their claims against Defendants Flags-tar Bank, FSB; Exodus Financial Corporation; Jane Fowler Kelleher; Stratham Montecito West; Strategic Sales and Marketing Group; Janis Kim Randazzo; Fernando Cordero; and Dora Senaida Cordero. On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of their federal claim under 12 U.S.C. § 2607 and their state-law claim for reformation and declaratory relief regarding Maribel’s alleged community-property interest.1 Reviewing de novo, *Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson,*640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir.2011), we affirm.

*6471. The district court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs’ § 2607 claim because there is no allegation that any defendant received kickbacks or unearned fees. Non-disclosure of the assignment of an interest in a promissory note is not a kickback or unearned fee, and the asserted section of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act does not provide a remedy for non-disclosure. 12 U.S.C. § 2607(a)—(c). Because Plaintiffs’ claim fails on the merits, we need not reach the question of its timeliness.

2. The district court properly dismissed the state-law claim that Maribel held a community-property interest in the residence. All relevant documents show that Jaime owned the house as separate property. In the absence of a plausible allegation that Maribel did not acquiesce in this result, those documents control. *See Lucas v. Lucas (In re Marriage of Lucas),*27 Cal.3d 808, 166 Cal.Rptr.853, 614 P.2d 285, 288 (1980) (“[T]he affirmative act of specifying a form of ownership in the conveyance of title ... removes such property from the more general [community property] presumption.”); *Brooks v. Robinson (In re Marriage of Brooks),*169 Cal. App.4th 176, 86 Cal.Rptr.3d 624, 631 (2008) (“[T]he description in a deed as to how title is held is presumed to reflect the actual ownership interests in the property.”).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. Plaintiffs also challenge the district court’s dismissal of their claim against Defendant Flagstar under 12 U.S.C. § 2605. We address that claim in an opinion filed on this date.