Guliex v. PennyMac Holdings CA5

<p>Filed 10/23/20 Guliex v. PennyMac Holdings CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT FRED GULIEX, F078598 Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. S1500CV280938) v. PENNYMAC HOLDINGS, LLC, OPINION Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Stephen D. Schuett, Judge. J. Wright Law Group and Jamie Wright for Plaintiff and Appellant. Duncan Peterson, Christopher L. Peterson and Michael M. Baker for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Plaintiff Fred Guliex filed an action against defendant, PennyMac Holdings, LLC (PennyMac or defendant), founded on the premise that defendant wrongfully foreclosed on plaintiff’s property because, allegedly, defendant never received the beneficial interest in the deed of trust nor any other interest conferring a right to foreclose. The trial court previously entered a defense judgment in this case stemming from defendant’s successful demurrer to most of the causes of action and a motion for summary judgment disposing of the remainder. Plaintiff appealed from that prior judgment. In 2017, we reversed because the trial court erroneously took judicial notice of the truth of disputable factual matters contained in certain documents in the chain of title. We held that such disputable evidentiary matters went beyond the permissible bounds of judicial notice, were improper considerations on a demurrer, and resulted in a failure by defendant to meet its burden as the moving party on the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded back to the trial court.1 In 2018, after conducting further discovery on remand, defendant filed a new motion for summary judgment seeking to establish all the links in the chain of title to confirm that it had acquired the beneficial interest in the deed of trust and, thus, had authority to foreclose. The trial court held that defendant’s motion succeeded in doing so, and plaintiff’s opposition failed to present evidence demonstrating a triable issue of fact. In other words, under the uncontradicted showing made by defendant, defendant had a right to foreclose—which right defeated plaintiff’s causes of action. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted. Following entry of judgment, plaintiff filed the present appeal challenging the trial court’s order granting summary judgment. Plaintiff’s appeal consists of only cursory argument that error occurred, claiming in broad and conclusory terms that defendant’s showing fell short of adequately establishing the missing links in the chain of title that our 2017 opinion had identified. We find that plaintiff has failed to meet his fundamental burden as an appellant, as shall be explained herein, and thus his appeal fails on that basis alone. Alternatively, we conclude the trial court correctly granted summary judgment because defendant’s motion made a sufficient prima ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4799784/guliex-v-pennymac-holdings-ca5/">Original document</a>

Share Review:
Yes it is. Based on the user review published on YScam.com, it is strongly advised to avoid Guliex v. PennyMac Holdings CA5 in any dealing and transaction.
Not really. In spite of the review published here, there has been no response from Guliex v. PennyMac Holdings CA5. Lack of accountability is a major factor in determining trust.
Because unlike YScam.com, other websites get paid to remove negative reviews and replace them with fake positive ones.
Guliex v. PennyMac Holdings CA5 is rated 1 out of 5 based on the complaints submitted by our users and is marked as POOR.
Never trust websites which offer a shady ‘advocacy package’ to businesses. Search for relevant reviews on Ripoff Report and Pissed Consumer to see more unbiased complaints.
The above complaints and comments against Guliex v. PennyMac Holdings CA5 were submitted by YScam.com user(s) and have been published as-is. YScam.com does not edit, alter or remove content published by it’s users. There’s no amount of money a business can pay to manipulate their complaints and YScam.com will NOT entertain any request to remove the complaint on Guliex v. PennyMac Holdings CA5 at any cost whatsoever.
>