Source: http://stopforeclosurefraud.com/tag/linda-nacif/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:28:16+00:00

Document:
Tag Archive | "Linda Nacif"
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Judith F. Hayes, Judge. Affirmed.
Scott Jacoby purchased property previously owned by J. Ross White-Sorensen at a court-ordered judicial foreclosure sale. White-Sorensen and several entities with interests in two extinguished deeds of trusts brought an action against Jacoby, seeking to invalidate the sale and/or obtain declaratory relief providing that Jacoby holds the property subject to these deeds of trust. Jacoby cross-complained seeking to quiet title to the property and for a judgment that he is the owner of unencumbered title to the property.
The court granted Jacoby’s summary judgment motion on the claims against him and on his affirmative quiet title claim. White-Sorensen and two entities named on the extinguished deeds of trust appeal from the judgment. We affirm.
This appeal arises from an action filed by Linda Nacif against White-Sorensen resulting in a default judgment against White-Sorensen. In the default judgment, the court found Nacif proved her claims and ordered a judicial foreclosure sale of White-Sorensen’s property. The final judgment stated the proceeds of the sale shall be paid to Nacif for the judgment amount ($209,187 plus interest), and any surplus shall be paid to junior secured lenders who recorded interests after Nacif recorded her lis pendens. Accredited was a lienholder who had recorded two deeds of trust securing loans to White-Sorensen after Nacif filed her lis pendens.
As explained in more detail below, White-Sorensen and the Accredited parties then filed claims against Jacoby seeking to set aside the sale or seeking an order that Jacoby purchased the property subject to Accredited’s deeds of trust. Jacoby filed a cross-complaint seeking to quiet title to his property.
Jacoby moved for summary judgment, arguing his purchase at the court-ordered sale was conclusive and could not be challenged. In opposing the motion, the Accredited parties argued the facts showed that before he bid on the property Jacoby had notice of their deeds of trust and that they were in the process of challenging the default judgment in the Nacif action. The trial court found that even assuming Jacoby was aware of these facts, Jacoby was entitled to quiet title to the property because the statutes provide a judicial foreclosure sale to a party other than the judgment creditor is “absolute” and “may not be set aside for any reason.” (§ 701.680, subd. (a).) The court further found Jacoby did not purchase the property subject to Accredited’s deeds of trust because these instruments were not recorded when Nacif commenced her action and recorded the lis pendens. The court thus granted Jacoby summary judgment. As explained below, we agree with the court’s conclusions and affirm the judgment.
We note that we are concurrently filing an opinion in a companion case involving appellants’ disputes with Nacif. (Nacif v. White-Sorensen (August 8, 2011, D056993 (Nacif II).) We also previously filed an opinion involving Accredited’s claims against Nacif. (Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. v. Nacif (July 26, 2007, D048938) (Nacif I).) For clarity, we have made an effort to include facts in this opinion only to the extent they are relevant to the issues and/or appellate contentions asserted in this (the Jacoby) case. A more detailed background of the underlying factual circumstances can be found in the Nacif I and Nacif II opinions.
In April 2004, Nacif filed an action against White-Sorensen, claiming White-Sorensen breached a contract to repay a loan and sought to impose an equitable mortgage on his property (the White-Sorensen property). On the same day, Nacif recorded a lis pendens on the White-Sorensen property, giving notice of her equitable mortgage claim affecting the property.
Five months later, in September 2004, Accredited recorded two deeds of trust on the White-Sorensen property securing Accredited’s $675,000 loan to White-Sorensen. The deeds of trust identified First American as the trustee and MERS as the nominee and nominal beneficiary. White-Sorensen obtained this refinancing loan to fund a settlement with Nacif. Although Nacif and White-Sorensen signed a settlement agreement in August 2004, Nacif later amended her complaint and continued her action against White-Sorensen based on allegations that he engaged in fraud in inducing her to agree to the settlement. White-Sorensen then defaulted on the amended complaint.
Two weeks later, on July 22, 2005, the trustee on Accredited’s deeds of trust recorded a notice of trustee’s sale on the White-Sorensen property, based on claims that White-Sorensen had failed to make required payments on the $675,000 refinance loan.
On August 5, 2005, Nacif recorded an abstract of the July 8, 2005 final judgment, giving notice that the court had determined her judgment lien was superior to all interests in the property recorded after April 2004.
On August 12, 2005, the superior court issued a writ of execution on the July 8, 2005 final judgment.
On September 2, 2005, the Sheriff received instructions to levy upon the White-Sorensen property with a copy of the writ of sale. One week later, on September 9, the Sheriff recorded a Notice of Levy and a copy of the writ of sale.
In November 2005, Accredited filed a separate lawsuit against Nacif seeking a declaration that its deeds of trust had priority over Nacif’s July 8, 2005 final judgment. In January 2006, Accredited filed a motion in Nacif’s case against White-Sorensen, seeking to vacate the entry of default and default judgment against White-Sorensen and for leave to intervene in this action. Superior Court Judge Linda Quinn presided over the Nacif/White-Sorensen action.
While Accredited’s motions were pending in the Nacif/White-Sorensen action, on February 23, 2006, the Sheriff held a judicial foreclosure sale. Jacoby, a third party, offered the highest bid at $222,524. Based on Jacoby’s bid, the Sheriff determined Jacoby was the purchaser of the property. One of Accredited’s attorneys (Neal) did not receive prior notice of the precise date of the sale.
Two weeks after the sale, on March 10, 2006, Judge Quinn issued a tentative ruling granting Accredited’s motion to set aside the White-Sorensen entry of default and default judgment, and granting Accredited’s motion for leave to file a complaint in intervention.
On March 15, 2006, the Sheriff recorded a “Sheriff’s Deed Under Execution” reflecting the conveyance of the White-Sorensen property to Jacoby.
While Nacif’s appeal was pending, in May 2006, Accredited, White-Sorensen and MERS filed a complaint in intervention against Jacoby, seeking declaratory relief that the “Sheriff [never had], and did not pass, good title” of the White-Sorensen property to Jacoby; Jacoby was “not a good faith purchaser for value”; and Jacoby did not acquire any valid interest in the property. These parties alternatively sought a declaration that Jacoby’s ownership of the property was subject to Accredited’s deeds of trust. The next month, Jacoby filed a cross-complaint seeking to quiet title against the Accredited parties and White-Sorensen, and seeking to confirm the validity of the Sheriff’s sale.
In opposing the summary judgment, appellants did not dispute the chronology of events presented by Jacoby, but submitted additional facts in an attempt to create a basis for an exception to the general finality rules pertaining to judicial foreclosure sales.
First, appellants argued that the sale could be set aside because Jacoby was not a good faith purchaser based on facts showing: (1) an appraisal in 2004 (about 18 months before the sale) valued the White-Sorensen property at $690,000 and Jacoby purchased the property for $222,524; (2) before the sale Jacoby knew of Nacif’s lis pendens and that Accredited had two deeds of trust on the property; and (3) before the sale Jacoby asked Nacif’s attorney about the priority of Accredited’s liens, and Nacif’s attorney responded that the Accredited parties had filed a motion challenging the White-Sorensen default judgment.
After considering the parties’ memoranda and supporting submissions, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Jacoby. The court found the applicable statutes are “crystal clear” that when a third party purchases property at a judicial foreclosure sale, the sale “may not be set aside ‘for any reason.’ ” The court also rejected appellants’ arguments that Jacoby held the property subject to Accredited’s deeds of trust, finding these arguments were not legally supported. The court thereafter entered a judgment that Jacoby is the “owner of unencumbered title” of the White-Sorensen property, and that the opposing parties had “no right, title, estate, lien or interest in the Property adverse to” Jacoby.
White-Sorensen and the Accredited parties filed an appeal. This court later stayed the appeal after Accredited advised the court it had filed for bankruptcy. About one year later, Accredited and appellants requested that Accredited be dismissed from the appeal and “MERS and First American be substituted as appellants in Accredited’s place.” We granted the request that Accredited be dismissed from the appeal, but denied the request that MERS and First American be substituted in Accredited’s place. We found that the documents presented did not support a basis for a substitution in the case, but noted that MERS and First American were existing appellants in the appeal.
Jacoby moved for summary judgment on his affirmative pleadings and on the claims asserted against him.
The only exception to this rule is that a judgment debtor may challenge the sale if: (1) “the purchaser at the sale [was] the judgment creditor” and (2) “the sale was improper because of irregularities in the proceedings, because the property sold was not subject to execution, or for any other reason . . . .” (§ 701.680, subds. (a), (c)(1); see First Federal Bank of California v. Fegen, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at pp. 800-801.) This exception is inapplicable here because the purchaser at the sale was a third party (Jacoby) and not the judgment creditor (Nacif).
In seeking to avoid this rule, respondents rely on two cases that were decided long before section 701.680 was enacted. (See Riley v. Martinelli (1893) 97 Cal. 575; Hansen v. G & G Trucking Co. (1965) 236 Cal.App.2d 481.) In 1982, the Legislature enacted section 701.680 as part of a comprehensive revision to the enforcement of judgments law, seeking to protect the purchaser’s title and ensure the finality of judicial foreclosure sales, and thus encourage fair bidding at judicial foreclosure sales. (See Arrow Sand, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 890-891; Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 149 CalApp.4th at p. 1018; Gonzalez v. Toews, supra, 111 Cal.App.4th at p. 980.) Because the pre-1982 law did not contain provisions similar to section 701.680 barring all challenges to judicial foreclosure sales, Riley and Hansen, decided in 1893 and 1965, are unhelpful here.
Appellants additionally contend that if Jacoby had conducted a reasonable investigation, he would have discovered that appellants had intervened in the action and had moved to set aside the equitable judgment. However, as recognized by the California Supreme Court, there is no exception to section 701.680, subdivision (a) based on facts showing the purchaser was aware of an existing challenge to the underlying judicial foreclosure judgment. (See Arrow Sand, supra, 38 Cal.3d at pp. 887-891.) In Arrow Sand, the issue was whether the fact that an appealing defendant has no statutory right to record a lis pendens pertaining to an appeal of a judicial foreclosure judgment violates the defendant’s equal protection rights because the applicable statutes permit plaintiffs and cross-complainants to record a lis pendens. (Id. at p. 887.) Relying on section 701.680, subdivision (a), the high court found no denial of equal protection because a lis pendens giving notice of an appeal of a judicial foreclosure judgment has no practical effect. (Arrow Sand, supra, at pp. 890-891.) The court explained that section 701.680, subdivision (a) “completely eliminate[s] the possibility that judicial sales [can] be set aside on reversal of the underlying judgment . . . .” (Id. at p. 890.) Thus, “unless a defendant titleholder seeks and receives a statutory stay of enforcement or supersedeas from a higher court, the judicial sale may proceed” (id. at p. 891), and thus “[a] recorded notice of lis pendens would not serve to vitiate the title of a purchaser at a judicial foreclosure sale” (id. at p. 887). Under this holding, the fact that a third party purchaser knew of an existing challenge to a judicial foreclosure judgment is not a valid basis to later set aside the court-ordered judicial foreclosure sale.
Here, the statutory language is clear: section 701.680, subdivision (a) bars all challenges to a third party purchase at a judicial foreclosure sale. (See Amalgamated Bank v. Superior Court, supra, 149 Cal.App.4th at p. 1018.) Thus, even if the legislative history shows the Legislature was concerned primarily with the prior rule that provided debtors with expansive redemption rights and enacted the new legislation to limit these rights, this does not mean the Legislature did not also intend to bar other types of challenges to a purchase at a judicial foreclosure sale. In this regard, appellants’ reliance on Yancey v. Fink (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1334 is misplaced. Although the Yancey court discussed section 701.680, subdivision (a) in the context of a debtor’s statutory redemption rights, this does not mean the statute is limited to this subject matter.
Under these statutes, the general rule is that a judicial foreclosure sale extinguishes the lien under which the property is sold and all subordinate liens. (See Little v. Community Bank (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 355, 360; Mitchell v. Alpha Hardware & Supply Co. (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 52, 57.) However, an exception to this rule applies if the subordinate lienholder was not made a party to the judicial foreclosure action and this lien “appear[ed] of record . . . at the time of the commencement of the action.” (§ 726, subd. (c), italics added.) If these requirements are satisfied, the purchaser holds the property subject to the subordinate liens.
In this case, the undisputed facts show Accredited’s deeds of trust were not recorded in April 2004 when Nacif first commenced her action against White-Sorensen. Thus, the section 726, subdivision (c) exception does not apply. Appellants nonetheless urge us to hold that this statutory exception governs because Nacif filed the amended complaint after Accredited’s deeds of trust were recorded. They posit that because the amended complaint did not “relate back” to the original complaint, the amended complaint—and not the original complaint—should be the operative pleading for purposes of determining when the action commenced under the section 726 subdivision (c) exception.
In the original complaint, filed in April 2004, Nacif sued White-Sorensen for breach of contract and sought an order permitting her to foreclose on an equitable mortgage on the White-Sorensen property. The caption on this original complaint stated: “COMPLAINT TO FORECLOSE UNDER EQUITABLE MORTGAGE.” The same day that she filed this complaint, Nacif recorded a lis pendens on the White-Sorensen property, giving notice of this foreclosure action.
In the amended complaint filed in November 2004, Nacif realleged her claims against White-Sorensen for breach of the loan agreement and again sought an equitable mortgage/judicial foreclosure of White-Sorensen’s property. She also added new fraud allegations pertaining to the settlement. The only substantive difference between the original complaint and the first amended complaint with respect to the equitable mortgage/judicial foreclosure cause of action, is that Nacif alleged she had been given a partial payment ($115,000), and thus that she was seeking only the remaining portion of the secured debt.
On this record, Nacif’s first amended complaint related back to the original complaint, at least with respect to the claim at issue here (the breach of contract claim seeking to impose an equitable mortgage and a judicial foreclosure sale). The only factual difference between the complaints on this claim was the $115,000 payment made by White-Sorensen towards his debt. Although this payment may have raised legal issues regarding Nacif’s ability to enforce the contract (see Myerchin v. Family Benefits, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1526), this new legal issue did not preclude a finding that the Accredited parties had notice of the equitable mortgage claim when they recorded their deeds of trust.
Appellants argue that under the unique facts of this case, we should interpret section 726, subdivision (c) to mean that Nacif’s amended complaint was the “commencement” of the action because Nacif benefited from Accredited’s funding of her initial settlement with White-Sorensen and there were facts showing she wrongly refused to dismiss the complaint and withdraw the lis pendens. However, under the statutory scheme, the issues regarding the propriety of Nacif’s conduct vis-à-vis Accredited does not affect the rights of Jacoby, who was a third party purchaser. Moreover, the undisputed facts show that although Accredited may have disagreed with Nacif’s actions, the Accredited parties had actual knowledge of Nacif’s continuing lawsuit and judgment against White-Sorensen and of the fact that Nacif never withdrew the lis pendens. Accredited’s counsel acknowledged in the proceedings below that based on this knowledge, the Accredited parties filed a declaratory relief action against Nacif and petitioned to intervene in Nacif’s continuing action against White-Sorensen before the judicial foreclosure sale took place. Under these circumstances, the Accredited parties had the ability to protect themselves by filing for a stay of the judicial foreclosure sale and/or seeking some form of preliminary injunctive relief.
Finally, we find unavailing appellants’ challenge to the trial court’s statement at the conclusion of its summary judgment order that “the Accredited parties had ample notice of the pending judicial foreclosure sale, but took no action to protect its interests and did not seek a stay of the proceedings.” Appellants assert that because in moving for summary judgment Jacoby did not specifically rely on the evidence that the Accredited parties had notice of the pending foreclosure sale, the court erred in relying upon this fact. However, because the undisputed evidence established that Accredited had notice of the “pending judicial foreclosure sale” and had challenged the pending sale through a declaratory relief action, the court’s observation was appropriate.
Appellants argue that this notice finding contradicts statements in the Nacif I decision in which we observed that the trial court had a “sufficient factual basis” to conclude that Accredited did not unreasonably delay in filing its motion to vacate the default judgment and noted that the trial court could have credited evidence that Accredited denied receiving timely notice of the judgment or of the sale of the property. (Nacif I, supra, D048938.) These statements, however, were directed to Accredited’s notice of the precise date of the sale. The fact that Accredited may not have had actual knowledge of the sale date is different from a conclusion that Accredited (and the parties asserting rights based on Accredited’s deeds of trust) knew or should have known that a sale was pending and they needed to act if they wanted to prevent a sale. (Ibid.) Moreover, our statement in the Nacif I decision was based on the limited record before us. In the Nacif I opinion, we admonished that we were not intending to rule on any of the substantive issues pertaining to other matters in the case, including Nacif’s lis pendens and the effect of the lis pendens on the rights of the other parties. (Ibid.) Under these circumstances, we find unpersuasive appellants’ attempt to use a statement from the Nacif I opinion to suggest they had no notice of the pending foreclosure sale, when the undisputed facts show they did know of a pending sale and/or they had constructive knowledge of the pending sale based on recorded documents and their involvement in the lawsuit.
Judgment affirmed. Appellants to bear respondent’s costs on appeal.
 These two entities are nominee/beneficiary Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) and trustee First American Title Company (First American). The original creditor/beneficiary on the deeds of trust, Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., also appealed from the judgment, but later filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. We have since granted Accredited’s motion to be dismissed from the appeal. For ease of reference, we collectively refer to Accredited, First American, and MERS as the Accredited parties. We collectively refer to White-Sorensen, First American, and MERS as appellants.
 All further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Linda B. Quinn and Judith F. Hayes, Judges. Reversed and remanded with directions.
This now complicated case arose out of a simple matter: Linda Nacif loaned $258,000 to her then-boyfriend, J. Ross White-Sorensen, who failed to repay the loan. Nacif sued White-Sorensen and his companies (collectively White-Sorensen). After White-Sorensen defaulted, the court entered judgment in Nacif’s favor and ordered White-Sorensen’s property sold at a foreclosure sale (White-Sorensen had agreed to secure the loan with property he owned). A third party then purchased the property at the court-ordered sheriff’s sale.
On remand, the trial court disregarded this order and once again vacated the entry of default against White-Sorensen. After permitting White-Sorensen to file a cross-complaint against Nacif, the court ultimately found in favor of White-Sorensen on each of Nacif’s claims against him and in favor of White-Sorensen on each of his affirmative claims against Nacif. The trial court also granted summary judgment in favor of two parties who had intervened or had been brought into the action: the trustee (First American Title Company (First American)) and a nominee/beneficiary (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS)) on the deeds of trust that secured Accredited’s loan to White-Sorensen. The court also permitted these parties to amend the pleadings to be substituted in Accredited’s place after Accredited was dismissed from the action upon filing for bankruptcy. The court awarded First American and MERS $675,000 against Nacif.
The court also granted the anti-SLAPP motion filed by White-Sorensen, MERS, and First American. The court awarded these parties $300,000 in attorney fees as prevailing parties on their contract claims and on their anti-SLAPP motion.
Nacif appeals. Respondents are White-Sorensen, MERS, and First American. We determine the court erred in several ways. We reverse and remand with directions.
Linda Nacif loaned $258,000 to White-Sorensen, who promised to repay the money and agreed to secure the loan with property he owned (the White-Sorensen property). White-Sorensen then failed to pay the amounts owed.
In April 2004, Nacif sued White-Sorensen for breach of contract and sought an order permitting her to foreclose on an equitable mortgage on the White-Sorensen property. The same day that she filed her complaint, Nacif recorded a lis pendens on the White-Sorensen property, giving notice of her equitable mortgage claim.
To fund the settlement, White-Sorensen applied for a secured loan from Accredited to refinance his existing secured loans on the property. As part of this loan application, White-Sorensen stated he had a monthly income of more than $34,000. During the escrow on the refinance, White-Sorensen (and/or his agents) refused to disclose to Nacif the name of the lender, escrow company, or title company involved in the refinance transaction. But in a letter to Nacif’s counsel, White-Sorensen’s counsel said the lender did not require the release of the lis pendens before the loan would be approved and merely required a payoff demand letter. Nacif’s counsel told White-Sorensen’s counsel and a mortgage broker he would record a lis pendens release at the close of the settlement, but because he was concerned with the lack of disclosure of the identity of the lender and escrow company, he would exchange the release document only when the $115,000 funds were available. When the escrow closed, neither the escrow company nor the lender requested the withdrawal of the lis pendens as a condition to the payoff demand. Accredited recorded its two deeds of trust on the White-Sorensen property in September 2004.
After Nacif was paid the $115,000 and before releasing the lis pendens and dismissing her lawsuit against White-Sorensen, Nacif’s counsel discovered information leading him to believe that White-Sorensen had not been honest regarding his assets. Nacif then filed a first amended complaint, realleging her claims against White-Sorensen for breach of the loan agreement and adding allegations of fraud, claiming she would not have agreed to the settlement if she had known these facts. Nacif did not return the $115,000, but sought to recover only the balance of the loan principal plus interest. Although White-Sorensen was served with, and had notice of, the amended complaint, he elected not to defend the action, and the court entered his default.
Several weeks later, on July 22, 2005, First American, Accredited’s trustee on its deeds of trust, recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale, based on Accredited’s claims that White-Sorensen had failed to make required payments on his $675,000 refinance loan.
Three weeks later, Nacif recorded an Abstract of Judgment, which reflected that her judgment lien was superior to Accredited’s deeds of trust. Nacif advised Accredited and/or its agents of her priority lien and asserted a right to proceed with the sale. Accredited objected to Nacif’s claim of priority. After attempting to negotiate a resolution of its dispute with Nacif, Accredited filed a separate lawsuit in November 2005 against Nacif seeking to protect its priority interest in the White-Sorensen property. The action was assigned to a different department of the superior court.
Two months later, in January 2006, Accredited filed a motion in the Nacif/White-Sorensen case to vacate the entry of default and default judgment and for leave to intervene in this action. Accredited was represented by the same counsel who had previously represented White-Sorensen (S. Todd Neal). White-Sorensen did not join in the motion to vacate the default or default judgment.
While Accredited’s motions were pending, the White-Sorensen property was sold at a February 23, 2006 sheriff’s sale. Accredited (and/or its agents) had actual notice of a pending foreclosure sale more than 90 days before the sale, but took no steps to delay or prevent the sale, other than to file its declaratory relief and intervention actions. A third party (Scott Jacoby) purchased the property for $222,524 (the approximate amount of Nacif’s judgment against White-Sorensen) and these funds (minus administrative costs) were paid to Nacif.
In thereafter opposing Accredited’s motions to set aside White-Sorensen’s default, Nacif’s counsel argued that Accredited’s remedies were now limited to a damage action against Nacif because the property had been sold to a third party (after notice to Accredited), and these claims should have no effect on White-Sorensen’s default in the action.
Unfortunately, as respondents acknowledge in their appellate brief, on remand the trial court “did not consider” our appellate opinion. Instead, the court allowed White-Sorensen to relitigate the entry of default, which was not only contrary to our specific instructions but inconsistent with the law of the case doctrine. The court also erroneously required Nacif to name MERS and First American in amended pleadings. These errors led to a flurry of additional pleadings and motions, and ultimately to the court erroneously granting respondents’ summary judgment and anti-SLAPP motions without a proper showing they were entitled to this relief. To explain these conclusions, we first summarize the three pleadings that were before the court on remand and then briefly describe the motion proceedings and the court’s rulings on respondents’ motions. In the Discussion section, we shall more fully discuss the facts and arguments before the court when it made the rulings.
While the Nacif I appeal was pending, Accredited, White-Sorensen, and MERS filed a first amended complaint in intervention. The named defendants were Nacif and Scott Jacoby, the individual who purchased the White-Sorensen property at the court-ordered foreclosure sale.
This first amended intervention complaint asserted six causes of action against Nacif, each based primarily on allegations that Nacif breached the 2004 Settlement Agreement with White-Sorensen by failing to adhere to her promise to remove the lis pendens once she was paid the $115,000 in settlement funds. The first cause of action sought a judicial declaration that Nacif “was not entitled to a default, a default judgment, or any equitable mortgage on the Property” and Accredited’s deeds of trust have priority over Nacif’s “right to an equitable mortgage.” The second through fourth causes of action alleged breach of contract and fraud against Nacif. The fifth cause of action alleged equitable subrogation and subordination. The sixth cause of action sought to quiet title.
Nacif’s first amended complaint against White-Sorensen (alone) was also before the trial court after the remand. This was the same complaint upon which this court held the trial court had erred in vacating the entry of default against White-Sorensen. (Nacif I, supra, D048938.) Shortly after the remand, four parties (White-Sorensen, Accredited, MERS, and First American) moved for judgment on this complaint, arguing that Nacif’s failure to name these additional parties rendered the complaint defective as a matter of law because these other parties were “indispensible parties” on a foreclosure action. Nacif vigorously opposed the motion, raising several arguments, including that: (1) there was no need for her to name these other parties because they had already raised all of the issues in their amended intervention complaint; and (2) it would be improper to grant a judgment on the pleadings in favor of White-Sorensen because it was on this pleading that the Nacif I court explicitly held White-Sorensen had defaulted and that the default could not be vacated.
After a hearing, the trial court rejected these arguments, and granted the motion. The court’s written order stated: “The motion of Plaintiffs-in-Intervention Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., [MERS] and . . . White-Sorensen for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED. The court finds [these] moving parties are indispensible to the determination of plaintiff [Nacif]’s first amended complaint.” (Italics added.) The court provided Nacif 10 days’ leave to amend to add the necessary parties. Nacif later unsuccessfully challenged this ruling in a writ petition in this court.
In Nacif’s second amended complaint (filed in response to the court’s order granting judgment on the pleadings), Nacif named White-Sorensen, Accredited, MERS, and First American. As discussed more fully below, Nacif’s allegations against White-Sorensen were virtually identical to the allegations alleged in her first amended complaint. To avoid any argument that she reopened White-Sorensen’s default, Nacif included a paragraph in the new pleading stating she “specifically denies any intention to allege any new or different causes of action against [White-Sorensen]” and “intends to preserve [his] status as [a] defaulted [party] . . . .” With respect to the other named defendants, Nacif added a fraud cause of action against Accredited and sought declaratory relief against Accredited, MERS, and First American.
The third pleading before the court was respondents’ cross-complaint against Nacif, filed after Nacif filed her second amended complaint. The plaintiffs on this pleading—Accredited, MERS, White-Sorensen, and First American—alleged essentially the same six causes of action as were alleged in the first amended intervention complaint.
White-Sorensen, Accredited, MERS, and First American then sought summary judgment on each of the three pleadings before the court (Nacif’s second amended complaint, the first amended intervention complaint, and respondents’ cross-complaint). These parties also filed an anti-SLAPP motion to strike Nacif’s second amended complaint. We summarize the evidence and argument presented by respondents with respect to these pleadings.
On their own affirmative pleadings (cross-complaint and first amended intervention complaint), White-Sorensen, Accredited, MERS and First American argued they were entitled to recover as a matter of law on their contract, fraud, and equitable relief claims because the undisputed evidence showed: Nacif is bound by her settlement with White-Sorensen because he paid her the $115,000; Nacif breached the 2004 Settlement Agreement by failing to release her lis pendens; and Nacif’s failure to release the lis pendens shows she made a material misrepresentation of fact without an intention to perform and misrepresented to White-Sorensen and Accredited that she would withdraw the lis pendens.
These parties argued they were entitled to damages of $675,000 as a matter of law based on: (1) a declaration filed by the mortgage broker involved in the Accredited refinance loan, who stated that a July 2004 appraisal valued the White-Sorensen property at $690,000; (2) Accredited’s deeds of trust showing it loaned $675,000 to White-Sorensen; and (3) evidence that the property had been sold to a third party.
In moving for summary judgment on Nacif’s second amended complaint, the defendants named in this pleading (White-Sorensen, Accredited, MERS and First American) argued that Nacif could not recover as a matter of law because the basis of her claims against White-Sorensen was legally flawed as she did not return the $115,000 she received as part of the settlement. (See Myerchin v. Family Benefits, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1526, 1529 [“a party offered a monetary settlement of a lawsuit may accept the money or reject it, but may not take the money and continue the lawsuit”].) These defendants also argued Nacif would be unable to prove her claims against White-Sorensen or the other defendants based on Nacif’s deposition testimony in which she was unable to identify a factual basis for many of her claims.
White-Sorensen, Accredited, MERS, and First American alternatively moved to strike Nacif’s second amended complaint under the anti-SLAPP statute. They argued that Nacif’s “entire suit” is based on White-Sorensen’s false statements made to induce Nacif to settle the action, and is thus subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. They further argued Nacif would not prevail on any of her affirmative claims against them.
In response, Nacif’s counsel strenuously objected, arguing in part that counsel has “just confirmed what I’ve been saying for three years, that he doesn’t have a client. He has . . . three parties, none of whom own the right . . . which is the basis for being in this action.” The trial judge dismissed these concerns, saying she was “not worried about” these issues.
The court thereafter provided Nacif’s counsel additional time to file responses to the summary judgment motion to cure procedural deficiencies in the initial opposition. On the same day that Nacif filed the supplemental opposition, respondents moved to dismiss Accredited from the action and asked that they be permitted to amend their affirmative pleadings to substitute First American and MERS in place of Accredited as real parties in interest. They argued that MERS could be substituted for Accredited because MERS was a named beneficiary on the White-Sorensen deeds of trust. They sought First American’s substitution based on their counsel’s declaration and letters from a senior counsel of Wells Fargo and a vice president of Solace Financial, LLC, who claimed that these entities had current rights in the White-Sorensen notes and deeds of trust and that First American (as title insurer) was an subrogee/assignee for “collection” purposes to Accredited’s rights on White-Sorensen’s notes.
Based on these papers, the court granted the substitution request. The court thus dismissed Accredited from the action and permitted First American and MERS to be “substituted in ACCREDITED’s stead” as plaintiffs on the first amended intervention complaint and on the cross-complaint.
The court then ruled against Nacif on respondents’ summary judgment and anti-SLAPP motions.
On the affirmative pleadings filed by White-Sorensen, MERS, and First American, the court found the undisputed facts showed these parties proved each of their claims against Nacif, including breach of contract, fraud, and equitable subrogation. The primary basis for this ruling was the evidence showing Nacif failed to comply with the 2004 Settlement Agreement provision requiring her to release the lis pendens and that her attorney provided assurances to Accredited’s agent that she would withdraw the lis pendens once she received the settlement money. The court further found that First American and MERS met their summary judgment burden to prove they were damaged in the amount of $675,000 and were entitled to recover this amount from Nacif plus prejudgment interest.
The court later awarded attorney fees of $300,000 to White-Sorensen, MERS, and First American on their anti-SLAPP motion and as prevailing parties on the breach of contract action.
The court granted summary judgment against Nacif on respondents’ claims asserted against her and on Nacif’s affirmative pleadings.
In applying these principles to this case, we first consider the propriety of the summary judgment granted in favor of White-Sorensen on Nacif’s second amended complaint and on White-Sorensen’s affirmative pleadings against Nacif. We then examine the summary judgment granted in favor of MERS and First American on these parties’ affirmative pleadings (cross-complaint and complaint in intervention) and on Nacif’s second amended complaint against these respondents.
Nacif contends the court erred in granting summary judgment to White-Sorensen on Nacif’s second amended complaint. We agree.
In August 2004, Nacif filed a first amended complaint against White-Sorensen. White-Sorensen defaulted on those claims, and the court entered White-Sorensen’s default. Although the trial court later vacated the entry of default, this court found the court erred and ordered the court to reinstate the entry of default. (Nacif I, supra, D048938.) This ruling constitutes law of the case.
The law of the case doctrine provides that ” ‘the decision of an appellate court, stating a rule of law necessary to the decision of the case, conclusively establishes that rule and makes it determinative of the rights of the same parties in any subsequent retrial or appeal in the same case.’ ” (Nally v. Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278, 301.) Under this doctrine, the holding in Nacif I that there was no legal or factual basis to set aside White-Sorensen’s entry of default was binding on the trial court on remand with respect to White-Sorensen. Thus, the trial court erred in vacating White-Sorensen’s default after the remand and requiring Nacif to file a second amended complaint against this defendant.
White-Sorensen contends the court properly vacated the entry of default because Nacif voluntarily reopened the default by filing her second amended complaint. The argument is unavailing because Nacif’s filing of the second amended complaint was not a voluntary act on the part of Nacif.
Nacif strongly opposed respondents’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on her first amended complaint, and specifically asserted that a court order requiring her to file a second amended complaint would be inconsistent with the Nacif I court’s decision affirming the entry of default against White-Sorensen. For reasons that are not entirely clear, the trial court rejected these arguments and granted the motion, providing Nacif with 10 days to file a second amended complaint against White-Sorensen and the other moving parties. Had Nacif failed to file a new pleading against White-Sorensen in response to the court’s directive, the court would have dismissed her action and she would have lost her rights in the default. Under these circumstances, Nacif’s filing of the second amended complaint was in response to an erroneous ruling by the trial court and does not constitute an intention to reopen the default.
White-Sorensen argues the court’s ruling was proper because the other moving parties (Accredited and MERS) were indispensable parties. However, even if the court was required to grant the motion of these parties, it was not required to grant the motion on the pleadings as to White-Sorensen. Because White-Sorensen’s default had already been affirmed on appeal, the court was required to adhere to that ruling.
White-Sorensen alternatively contends Nacif reopened the default by adding new allegations in the second amended complaint. (See Ostling v. Loring (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1731, 1744.) The argument is not factually supported.
In the second amended complaint, only the first, second, and third causes of action name White-Sorensen as a defendant. They are titled exactly the same as the causes of action in the first amended complaint, and contain identical factual allegations. Moreover, at the outset of the second amended complaint, Nacif included a paragraph expressly stating that she was not intending “to allege any new or different cause of action against [White-Sorensen]” and intends to preserve the entry of default against White-Sorensen, and that she was filing the second amended complaint pursuant to the court’s ruling that she must do so.
White-Sorensen argues Nacif nonetheless reopened the default because she added two paragraphs in the “General Allegations” section of the complaint. However, these paragraphs merely add brief background information regarding Nacif’s original loan to White-Sorensen and are not material to Nacif’s substantive claims against White-Sorensen. White-Sorensen also contends Nacif reopened the default because she named other parties in the second amended complaint. However, there is no authority that allegations against other parties reopens an entry of default, particularly where, as here, the court ordered the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add these parties. Further, contrary to White-Sorensen’s assertions, the fact that Nacif mentioned White-Sorensen in the causes of action against other parties does not support a different result. Because the joinder of these parties derive from White-Sorensen’s actions, it was reasonable for Nacif to identify White-Sorensen when alleging the claims against the other parties and does not suggest she was intending to reopen the lawsuit against him.
Nacif also contends the court erred in granting summary judgment on White-Sorensen’s affirmative claims against her, including breach of contract, two types of fraud, declaratory relief, and equitable subrogation/subordination. Each of these claims was based on White-Sorensen’s allegations that Nacif committed fraud and breached the 2004 Settlement Agreement by failing to withdraw the lis pendens and by filing the amended complaint seeking to rescind the settlement agreement.
Thus, once the trial court entered default on Nacif’s complaint against White-Sorensen, and this court reversed the vacation of that default, White-Sorensen was precluded from asserting affirmative claims that related to Nacif’s causes of action. By failing to prosecute the causes of action on a cross-complaint in response to Nacif’s first amended complaint, White-Sorensen forfeited his right to assert related claims and cannot revive them merely because Accredited was given the opportunity to litigate its claims against Nacif.
To avoid this result, White-Sorensen argues that Nacif voluntarily reopened the default when she filed her second amended complaint. However, as explained above, this argument is not supported by the record.
MERS and First American asserted affirmative claims against Nacif in the cross-complaint and the first amended intervention complaint. These claims included breach of contract, fraud, and equitable relief. The court awarded these parties summary judgment based on their own claims and on their assertions they were entitled to recover for Accredited’s losses. We preliminarily discuss the issue of these parties’ right to recover for Accredited’s losses because this issue is foundational with respect to their right to recover on their affirmative pleadings. We then discuss the summary judgment with respect to each cause of action asserted by these parties. In engaging in this analysis, we agree with respondents that they are not necessarily bound by White-Sorensen’s default with respect to their rights to recover for their own alleged losses.
But regardless of the extent of MERS’s rights as a named nominal beneficiary under California law, MERS’s status as a beneficiary on the deeds of trust in this case did not support a finding it was entitled to recover for Accredited’s claimed losses. As we conclude in the companion Jacoby appeal, at the time of the summary judgment motion, the deed of trust had been extinguished by the third party sale. (Jacoby, supra, D054010; see Code Civ. Proc., § 701.630.) Thus, the only remaining legal instrument was White-Sorensen’s promissory note owed to Accredited (or its successors in interest). There was no showing MERS had any financial interest in Accredited’s loan or that it received an assignment of the loan or claim. Without more, MERS’s mere identification as a nominee or beneficiary on a deed of trust that had been extinguished did not confer real party in interest status on MERS with respect to the lender’s affirmative breach of contract and tort claims against a third party. There is no factual or legal basis in the summary judgment record for the court to have permitted MERS to recover for injuries suffered by Accredited based on Accredited’s contract and fraud claims against Nacif.
In taking judicial notice of the relevant superior court files, we are aware that in moving to amend the pleadings, First American submitted its counsel’s declaration (with attached letters) asserting that, in addition to its role as trustee, First American served as the title insurer on White-Sorensen’s refinancing loan and that, as the title insurer, First American was subrogated to certain successor lenders’ rights. However, the trial court’s decision to permit an amendment of the pleadings based on these claims did not relieve the parties of presenting admissible evidence in the context of moving for summary judgment that it was a proper party to recover on Accredited’s behalf. Because a summary judgment deprives a party of a fundamental trial right, a summary judgment may be granted only if the moving party presents supporting facts showing it is entitled to a judgment in its favor as a matter of law. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) Absent admissible, competent evidence in the summary judgment proceedings showing First American had a valid assignment or was subrogated to Accredited’s rights and that the scope of any such subrogation/assignment entitled First American to recover for Accredited’s losses, the court had no basis to grant summary judgment to First American based on claims that Nacif damaged Accredited’s rights.
First American and MERS contend a trustee, nominee, and beneficiary on a deed of trust are indispensible parties in an action involving a foreclosure of the particular deed of trust. (See Washington Mutual Bank v. Blechman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 662, 668.) We agree with this principle, but it is inapplicable to establish real party in interest status in this case. The judicial foreclosure had already taken place, and the Accredited deeds of trust extinguished. (See Jacoby, supra, D054010.) The fact that a trustee on Accredited’s deeds of trust may be an indispensible party in an action involving the foreclosure of that deed of trust does not establish First American or MERS were real parties in interest on contract and fraud claims asserted by the lender/creditor against a third party.
We also reject respondents’ arguments that Nacif waived her right to assert the standing issue because she did not “object to MERS and First American being substituted into Accredited’s place.” The record makes clear that Nacif’s counsel objected to the substitution, and repeatedly argued that neither First American nor MERS were proper parties in the action. Moreover, a party moving for summary judgment must establish all of the facts necessary to support a judgment in its favor even if the opposing party makes no objections to the moving party’s evidence and produces no evidence of its own. (Rincon v. Burbank Unified School Dist., supra, 178 Cal.App.3d at pp. 954, 956.) Because MERS and First American had no direct relationship with Nacif, it was incumbent on them to submit facts showing they had a right to recover for the lender’s claimed losses.
We now turn to examine the summary judgment with respect to each cause of action asserted by MERS and First American against Nacif.
In moving for summary judgment on this claim, MERS and First American presented evidence showing the 2004 Settlement Agreement required Nacif to withdraw her lis pendens, she did not do this or return the settlement funds, and this conduct caused Accredited to lose its security interest in the property after Jacoby purchased the property at the foreclosure sale. They further presented the declaration of a mortgage broker involved in the refinance who stated that the White-Sorensen property was appraised at approximately $690,000 when White-Sorensen’s loan was refinanced in July 2004.
This evidence did not meet respondents’ summary judgment burden to prove their contract claims as a matter of law.
In moving for summary judgment, MERS and First American relied on the terms of the 2004 Settlement Agreement as well as communications between Nacif’s counsel and a mortgage broker (Neal Melton) to establish they were third party beneficiaries of the contract. This evidence was insufficient to meet their summary judgment burden.
First, the 2004 Settlement Agreement does not identify the refinancing lender (Accredited), and instead pertains exclusively to the settlement between Nacif and White-Sorensen. The only portion of the agreement that relates to the refinancing loan is a sentence that states that Nacif’s counsel shall deliver a release of the lis pendens to the escrow officer “[i]f the release is required as a condition to funding a refinance . . . .” (Italics added.) However, the evidence showed that Accredited did not require the release as a precondition to funding the refinance and the escrow company did not require the release before paying the funds to Nacif.
With respect to the communications between Nacif’s counsel and mortgage broker Melton, respondents submitted Melton’s declaration who said he was Accredited’s agent during the refinancing process. Melton said that because Accredited was “concerned about the lis pendens,” Melton requested written confirmation from Nacif’s counsel that the lis pendens would be removed. According to Melton, Nacif’s attorney provided a copy of the 2004 Settlement Agreement to Melton, and “confirmed both orally, and in writing, that the lis pendens would be removed upon payment of the $115,000″ to Nacif. Melton said Accredited relied on these assurances in agreeing to refinance the loan and Accredited would not have refinanced the property without these assurances.
Moreover, even assuming the evidence established the lender (Accredited) was an intended third party beneficiary, this does not confer third party beneficiary status on MERS or First American. These parties presented no evidence to show that Nacif had any intent to benefit these parties, who were suing in their role as trustee of Accredited’s deeds of trust and as nominee and beneficiary on the deeds of trust. Although a party may establish third party beneficiary status if the party was a member of a class of entities ” ‘for whose benefit [the contract] was made’ ” (Spinks, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 1023), the parties presented no evidence that Nacif intended to benefit a class of trustees or a nominee/beneficiary on a deed of trust. In fact, at the time Nacif and White-Sorensen entered into the 2004 Settlement Agreement, the deeds of trust were not yet in existence.
This evidence does not establish these parties suffered damages resulting from Nacif’s breach of contract. First, although they seek to be compensated for the loss of the security for the two loans totaling $675,000, there is no evidence that either owned the rights to the proceeds of the loan. Essentially, the court awarded each of these parties $675,000 without any evidence they lost this amount or, more importantly, that they would have received this amount if Nacif had fulfilled the claimed contractual obligations.
Additionally, even if these parties could assert Accredited’s alleged loss as a basis for their claim, the record does not show Accredited was entitled to recover $675,000 as a matter of law. Melton’s assertion that the property was appraised at $690,000 at the time of the refinancing (August 2004) does not necessarily mean it had this same value at the time of the foreclosure sale 18 months later (February 2006). There was no competent evidence before the court showing the value of the property was at least $675,000 at the time it was sold, and thus that Nacif’s actions were a substantial factor in causing this amount of lost security.
We similarly conclude the court erred in granting summary judgment on the fraud claims brought by First American and MERS.
MERS and First American asserted two fraud claims against Nacif. First, they alleged Nacif falsely represented she would withdraw the lis pendens and dismiss her claims against White-Sorensen upon receipt of the settlement funds. Second, they alleged promissory fraud, i.e., that Nacif made a promise to withdraw the lis pendens and dismiss the action without an intent to perform these promises. With respect to both, they alleged the false promises induced White-Sorensen to pay her $115,000 and caused MERS to be nominated as the beneficiary under the deeds of trust. They alleged that this fraud resulted in Nacif obtaining a fraudulent equitable mortgage and judgment of subordination and that she was unjustly enriched from the proceeds of the sheriff’s sale.
In moving for summary judgment on these claims, MERS and First American relied primarily on the evidence showing that during the escrow process, mortgage broker Melton spoke with Nacif’s attorney, and Nacif’s attorney confirmed that the lis pendens would be withdrawn upon payment of the $115,000 to Nacif. Based on these assurances, Accredited funded the $115,000 settlement payment and paid it to Nacif’s attorney directly from escrow. Melton said Accredited relied on Nacif’s attorney’s assurances and would not have refinanced the property without Nacif’s statements that the lis pendens would be released upon payment of the $115,000.
MERS and First American did not satisfy their summary judgment burden to establish that there were no triable issues of fact on these elements and that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. First, there was no showing that Nacif made any misrepresentations to them. At most, Nacif’s counsel made a false statement to Accredited’s agent (Melton). The evidence did not show Melton was acting on behalf of the trustee or nominee/beneficiary on the deeds of trust. Moreover, there was no evidence that Nacif owed any duty to these parties to disclose material information. Further, there was no showing the parties suffered a loss from the alleged fraud. Neither First American nor MERS presented any evidence that they suffered damages. Additionally, even if these parties could recover for misrepresentations made to Accredited’s agent, the evidence did not compel a finding that Accredited justifiably relied on Nacif’s representations to its detriment. The evidence showed that the lis pendens remained recorded at all times and the parties knew about (or were on inquiry notice of) the ongoing superior court action and the fact that the court-ordered sheriff’s sale had been scheduled. The evidence also showed that Accredited did not require the lis pendens withdrawal as a condition of the refinancing, and that White-Sorensen represented on the loan application that he earned $34,000 per month.
On this record, a factfinder could reasonably infer that the promise to withdraw the lis pendens was not the primary (or even a relevant) factor in Accredited’s decision to lend money to White-Sorensen. A jury could find that it was just as likely that Accredited agreed to loan White-Sorensen the funds because White-Sorensen’s income provided an adequate source of funds for loan repayment and/or Accredited understood it could immediately bundle the secured notes with other notes and sell the loan to other entities, regardless of the value of the security. Further, a jury could reasonably find that Accredited knew about the pending judicial foreclosure and could have taken steps to prevent the sale, and thus Nacif’s representation about her intention to remove the lis pendens was not the sole or primary cause of Accredited’s loss.
Nacif also challenges the court’s summary judgment in favor of First American and MERS on their equitable subrogation and declaratory relief claims. We agree the court erred in these rulings.
To the extent the equitable relief was based on the court’s findings on the breach of contract and fraud claims, we have concluded the court erred in granting summary judgment on these claims. Further, to the extent the equitable relief pertains to priority of the deeds of trust and/or equitable mortgage, there was no basis to award this relief because these parties’ rights to assert priority issues based on the Accredited deeds of trust had been extinguished after the sale of the property to a third party. (See Jacoby, supra, D054010.) On the summary judgment record before us (and viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Nacif), Accredited had notice of the foreclosure sale, but took no timely action to prevent the sale or to offer a bid at the sale to preserve its rights. Because Accredited no longer had an interest in the property at the time of the summary judgment motion, First American and MERS could not assert priority issues based on Accredited’s former deeds of trust.
On appeal, Nacif does not directly challenge the court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of these parties on these claims. We thus affirm the court’s judgment with respect to these parties. Because the same issues are raised in the intervention complaint and the cross-complaint, there is no need for these claims to be litigated in this pleading.
Nacif contends the court erred in granting respondents’ motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (section 425.16) to strike Nacif’s second amended complaint against White-Sorensen, MERS, and First American.
Under these principles, we conclude the court erred in granting respondents’ anti-SLAPP motion.
First, with respect to Nacif’s claims against White-Sorensen, the record showed Nacif had a probability of prevailing on those claims. In fact, this court had already determined that Nacif had prevailed because of White-Sorensen’s default. This ruling was law of the case. (Nally, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 301.) Thus, even if Nacif’s claims against White-Sorensen were subject to the anti-SLAPP statute, the court erred in granting the motion because Nacif met her burden to show a probability of prevailing on her claims.
Second, with respect to Nacif’s claim against MERS and First American (a single declaratory relief claim), this claim is not subject to the anti-SLAPP statute. Nacif brought the declaratory relief claim against MERS and First American solely in response to arguments brought by these parties that they were indispensible parties. In adding these parties in the second amended complaint, Nacif did not allege any wrongful conduct on the part of MERS or First American. Instead, she merely sought declaratory relief that her actions in foreclosing on the equitable mortgage (that had been previously approved by the trial court) were proper and that neither MERS nor First American had a legal basis to challenge these actions. This cause of action essentially mirrored the claims brought against her by First American and MERS. On this record, Nacif’s claim did not arise from protected petitioning or free speech activity by MERS or First American.
Nacif requested that this court take judicial notice of: (1) the record, court docket, and Court of Appeal opinion in the Nacif I case; (2) the record on appeal, court docket, and court file in the Jacoby case; and (3) the petition, record, court docket, court file and disposition in Nacif’s earlier writ petition to this court in this case. We grant the request with respect to our prior Nacif I opinion. We deny the remainder of the request because the documents are either already contained in the existing appellate record or are not relevant to the specific appellate issues raised in this case.
On our own motion, we have also taken judicial notice of documents contained in the superior court files in this case. (Evid. Code, §§ 459, subd. (a), 452, subd. (d); see Litmon v. Superior Court (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1156, 1162, fn. 3; Becker v. McMillin Construction Co. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1493, 1496, fn. 3.) We have relied on those records only to the extent they are relevant to the appellate issues and discussed in this opinion.
Based on the law of the case doctrine and the compulsory counterclaim rules, the court erred in granting White-Sorensen’s summary judgment motion on Nacif’s second amended complaint and on White-Sorensen’s affirmative pleadings against Nacif. The court further erred in granting White-Sorensen’s anti-SLAPP motion. We thus reverse these rulings and instruct the court to find in favor of Nacif and against White-Sorensen on these motions. The court is further ordered to reenter White-Sorensen’s entry of default as it was directed to do in Nacif I (see Nacif I, supra, D048938), and to enter a default judgment against White-Sorensen.
With respect to the affirmative claims brought by MERS and First American against Nacif, the court erred in granting summary judgment. In reaching this conclusion, we have not intended to opine on whether these parties will ultimately prevail on their claims at trial. Our conclusions are based solely on the summary judgment record before us. Because a summary judgment in favor of a plaintiff is a particularly drastic procedure that eliminates a defendant’s right to defend itself at a trial, a moving party plaintiff must establish each element of the cause of action and show there are no triable factual issues with respect to each element. (See Aguilar, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 851.) Although MERS and First American produced some evidence supporting their claims, they did not meet their burden to show that each element has been established and thus that there was no defense to the claims.
With respect to Nacif’s second amended complaint against MERS and First American, Nacif did not challenge the summary judgment on this pleading. We thus conclude the court properly granted summary judgment on this pleading.
(1) The court shall vacate the summary judgment in favor of White-Sorensen on Nacif’s second amended complaint, and enter a new order denying White-Sorensen’s summary judgment motion with respect to this pleading. The court shall also vacate its order granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to White-Sorensen, and enter a new order denying the motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to White-Sorensen. Thus, on remand Nacif’s first amended complaint is the operative pleading against White-Sorensen. The court shall withdraw its order vacating the entry of default with respect to this pleading, and shall enter a new order reinstating the entry of default as to White-Sorensen on Nacif’s first amended complaint and enter judgment in Nacif’s favor.
(2) The court shall enter a new order denying the summary judgment motion by White-Sorensen, MERS, First American on their cross-complaint filed on March 27, 2009.
(3) The court shall enter a new order denying the summary judgment motion by White-Sorensen and MERS on their first amended intervention complaint filed on May 24, 2006.
(4) The court shall enter an order granting the summary judgment motion filed by First American and MERS on Nacif’s second amended complaint. The court shall dismiss Nacif’s claims against these parties, and dismiss Nacif’s second amended complaint.
(5) The court shall vacate its order granting respondents’ anti-SLAPP motion and enter a new order denying this motion.
(6) The court shall reinstate its order dismissing Accredited from the case.
(7) The court shall vacate its attorney fees award in favor of respondents.
(8) On remand, any further rulings in this case shall be consistent with the holdings in this opinion and in Nacif I.
Respondents are ordered to pay appellant’s costs on appeal.
 The third party purchaser, Scott Jacoby, was brought into this action by Accredited and related parties. The court had earlier granted Jacoby summary judgment. In a companion appellate opinion filed today, we uphold this summary judgment. (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Jacoby (August 8, 2011, D054010) (Jacoby.) We discuss facts relevant to Jacoby in this opinion only to the extent they are relevant to the issues raised in this appeal.
 Nacif also named the mortgage broker and several other entities, but the court later granted a motion to strike these parties from the complaint and Nacif does not challenge this ruling on appeal.
 Because we have concluded respondents did not meet their summary judgment and anti-SLAPP burdens with respect to their affirmative pleadings, we focus primarily on their evidence and do not detail Nacif’s opposition.
 First American and MERS also alleged Nacif was liable because she “proceed[ed] with a sheriff’s sale of the property without proper notice to Accredited, MERS or First American.” However, because these parties did not move for summary judgment based on this allegation, we omit it from our discussion of the propriety of the summary judgment on the contract claims.
 At oral argument, respondents’ counsel complained that Nacif had not specifically raised the third party beneficiary issue in the proceedings below. However, it was respondents’ burden to show each element of their contract cause of action to prevail on summary judgment, and this burden obviously includes a third party beneficiary showing where, as here, there is no evidence MERS or First American had a contractual relationship with Nacif. In any event, we have concluded the court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of these parties on numerous grounds, and our discussion of the third party beneficiary issue is also intended to assist the parties and court on remand.
 Although the court initially issued an order signed by the presiding justice denying the motion in its entirety, we later notified the parties that the merits panel would reconsider the order after a full review of the record and arguments. (See Delmonico v. Laidlaw Waste Systems, Inc. (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 81, 83, fn. 1 [a ruling on a motion by a single appellate justice may be reconsidered by merits panel].) We deny respondents’ motion to strike Nacif’s reply brief based on our earlier ruling.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 701
 § 437
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.