Filed 6/28/17 Lopez v. Southland Homes Real Estate and Investment CA4/3







NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE


JUAN LOPEZ,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SOUTHLAND HOMES REAL ESTATE AND INVESTMENT, LLC as Trustee, etc.,

Defendant and Respondent.


G053306

(Super. Ct. No. 30-2015-00786188)

O P I N I O N

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Craig L. Griffin, Judge. Affirmed.
Stephen F. Lopez for Plaintiff and Appellant.
No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.

* * *
This appeal, G053306 (the “306 appeal”) is derivative of the main event, (Lopez v. The Bank of New York Mellon (June 28, 2017, G052857) [nonpub. opn.]) (the 857 appeal). Our opinion in the 857 appeal is being filed concurrently with this opinion.
The 857 appeal arises out of a wrongful foreclosure action challenging the 2015 foreclosure of plaintiff Juan Lopez’s Garden Grove house, based on the theory that the foreclosing entity, The Bank of New York Mellon (Mellon), and by extension RTS Pacific, Inc. (RTS), the trustee who conducted the foreclosure sale on that entity’s behalf, did not have a valid assignment of Lopez’s obligation to repay the mortgage he took out in 2006. Thus, Lopez asserts, Mellon and RTS could not validly foreclose.
This appeal, on the other hand, centers on the buyer of Lopez’s house at the foreclosure sale, Southland Homes Real Estate LLC as trustee for the Woodbury Trust # 11292 (Woodbury).
Both Mellon and Woodbury were named as defendants in the same wrongful foreclosure action (Super. Ct. Orange County, 2016, No. 30-2015-00786188), and both have been dismissed from that action, albeit in separate judgments: Mellon by way of judgment filed January 21, 2016, Woodbury in a judgment filed February 2, 2016. Thus we have two appeals (the 857 appeal & this one) to consider from what is substantively the same case.
Lopez presents no argument not otherwise made in the 857 appeal. Readers who desire the full story should consult the opinion in the 857 appeal. Because Mellon prevails in the 857 appeal, the buyer at Mellon’s foreclosure sale must also prevail here. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
However, in this appeal, Woodbury has not filed a respondent’s brief. There are thus no costs on appeal to allocate to it. In the interests of justice each side will bear its own costs, or lack thereof. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).)



THOMPSON, J.

WE CONCUR:



O’LEARY, P. J.



ARONSON, J.