Ford v. Mortgage Loan Specialists
John J. Ford III and Katherine L. Ford (plaintiffs or the Fords) brought this action against Mortgage Loan Specialists, Inc. (MLS), Richard E. Warren, Jr. (Warren), Myles Hubers and Michelle Renee Hubers (the Hubers), for alleged wrongs arising from two agreements plaintiffs assertedly executed with Warren as they faced foreclosure on real property they owned in Napa County.
This court has affirmed an order as to Warren on a prior appeal in this action, but Warren is not a party to this appeal by plaintiffs, which is from summary judgment granted to MLS and a dismissal of the Hubers granted after the court sustained, without leave to amend, the Hubers special and general demurrer to plaintiffs complaint. The trial court also denied plaintiffs motion to reconsider. The scope of our review is not fully explored by the parties, but the trial courts first ground for denying reconsideration, we note, was: Substantively, this court is without jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs motion [filed March 9, 2006], as judgment was entered as to the Hubers on February 3, 2006 and as to MLS on February 28, 2006. (APRI Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 181 [court loses jurisdiction to consider motion for reconsideration after judgment entered].) An untimely motion for reconsideration would not defeat the timeliness of plaintiffs March 30, 2006, notice of appeal from the judgments, which was filed within the normal 60 days not extended by a motion (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)), but could moot an attack on the merits of the reconsideration ruling. The court also cited plaintiffs failure to serve the motion 16 court days before the hearing (Code Civ. Proc., 1005, subd. (b)), failure to file it 10 days after being served written notice of entry of the demurrer order (id., subd. (a)), and other procedural defects, none of which are addressed by plaintiffs. From plaintiffs failure to address those questions and their focus on agency issues relating to the demurrer and summary judgment rulings, Court conclude they do not fault the handling of the reconsideration motion itself. Court review accordingly and, finding no error in the earlier rulings, affirm.
Comments on Ford v. Mortgage Loan Specialists