EverHome Mortgage Co. v. >Flores>













Filed 7/2/12
EverHome Mortgage Co. v. Flores 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN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 This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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




>

EVERHOME MORTGAGE COMPANY, Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ALMA FLORES, Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

G045449 (Super. Ct. No. 30-2010-00358979) O P I N I O N

Appeal
from a judgment of the Superior Court of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Orange
County, Richard W. Luesebrink, Judge. Affirmed.

Alma
Flores, in pro. per., for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Appellant.

Malcolm
♦ Cisneros, William G. Malcolm, Donald W. Robinson and Brian S. Thomley
for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Respondent.



* * *



Defendant,
cross-complainant, and appellant Alma Flores appeals from a judgment in favor
of plaintiff, cross-defendant, and respondent EverHome Mortgage Company after a
bench trial. Plaintiff filed an action
to cancel an instrument defendant recorded purporting to reconvey a deed of
trust she had previously signed to secure a note. The note had not been repaid in full.

Apparently
misunderstanding the nature of judicial
jurisdiction, defendant attacks the judgment essentially on the basis that
the court lacked jurisdiction. To the
extent that we understand her argument, she appears to claim that she herself
is a court of record and she did not cede jurisdiction to the superior court or
to the judges of that court. Because
defendant is not a court of record or any court at all and because the superior
court can exercise its jurisdiction over her whether she cedes it or not, we
affirm the judgment.



FACTS



EverHome
filed a complaint pleading Flores owned real property on Featherhill Road in Tustin. It alleged that some five
years earlier, Flores executed a note for $625,000, secured by a deed of trust
encumbering the property, in favor of Opteum Financial Services. The note and deed of trust were subsequently
sold to EverHome. Less than three months
before the complaint was filed, Flores caused a full reconveyance of the trust deed to be recorded even
though the note had not been paid in full.
EverHome’s complaint sought cancellation of the instrument recorded by
Flores and declaratory relief. In her
answer to the complaint, Flores claimed to have no knowledge of the reconveyance.

She
also filed a cross-complaint entitled “counterclaim for trespass on the case”
(capitalization omitted). Most of the
cross-complaint is incomprehensible. Flores alleged that she
“[e]xercise[d] her right to hold a free and clear title” to the property by
recording the reconveyance. She also
alleged in an attachment to the cross-complaint that the court lacks
jurisdiction.

After
two rounds of demurrers, Flores filed her second amended “counterclaim for trespass on the case”
(capitalization omitted) wherein she alleged that her recording of the
reconveyance, “satisf[ied] the loan.”
Shortly after EverHome filed an answer to the second amended
cross-complaint Flores filed a “motion for
contempt” (bold and capitalization omitted) wherein she sought to hold the
court (Judge Kirk H. Nakamura) guilty of civil
or criminal contempt because of his adverse rulings. The court denied the motion. Flores then filed a 24-page document entitled “ruling and order re motion
for contempt” (bold and capitalization omitted). Acting as her own tribunal and identifying
herself as “Attornatus Privates,” she took judicial notice of various facts,
and issued a number of findings and conclusions, including adjudging Judge
Nakamura “guilty of contempt of this court.”

The
matter was assigned to Judge Richard W. Luesebrink for trial. At the trial, the original note and deed of
trust were shown to the court, and Flores and the court permitted copies of these documents to be admitted
into evidence. Testimony was introduced
that EverHome acquired the note and deed of trust in 2007. No payments were made on the loan after November
2008 and EverHome did not release the lien.
Flores declined an offer to cross-examine EverHome’s witnesses and did not
offer any evidence. The court ordered
judgment entered for EverHome and characterized the document recorded by Flores as an “egregious
fraudulent conveyance.”



DISCUSSION



In her
briefs, Flores repeats her contention that she is a court of record and a
sovereign. She states “Alma [i.e., Flores] is not subject to the
superior Court but the court is to Alma as one of the
People . . . .” The rest of her opening
brief continues in this manner. She
obviously is confused as to the role of courts and of citizens.

Jurisdiction
may be “‘defined as “the power to hear and determine” the cause.’ [Citation.]”
(Hahn v. Diaz-Barba (2011) 194
Cal.App.4th 1177, 1188.) It is “‘“the
right to adjudicate concerning the subject matter in a given case.”’ [Citation.]”
(Rogers v. Hirschi (1983) 141
Cal.App.3d 847, 851.) And the superior
court undoubtedly had jurisdiction to adjudicate the subject matter of this
litigation and Flores having been properly served, the superior court had
jurisdiction over her. The sole means by
which one can become a regularly constituted incumbent of a court of record is
through election or appointment by the governor to a vacancy. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 16.) Not having been so elected or appointed, it
is obvious that Flores errs when she identifies herself as a “court of record.”

Flores
lists five issues to be decided by this court.
We do so summarily.

The
first issue is “[w]hether [judges] Nakamura and Luesebrink can rule without
jurisdictional consent being granted to the . . . court of record, Alma Flores
opened.” The answer is: Yes.
Flores’s consent is not required for the court to exercise jurisdiction.

Secondly,
she poses “[w]hether any public officer can rule without proper leave of the
court of record that Alma Flores has so decreed.” Again, the answer is: Yes.
Flores is not a court of record or a court of any kind and there is no
requirement that she grant leave for the proper court to exercise its
jurisdiction.

Next
she asks “[w]hether all courts of the state of Californi[a] are courts of
record when decreed so by the people of the state of California.” Article VI, section 1 of the California
Constitution provides the answer to this query:
“The judicial power of this State is vested in the Supreme Court, courts
of appeal and superior courts, all of which are courts of record.” Our Constitution does not recognize any other
“courts of record.”

Flores’s
fourth issue: “[w]hether Alma Flores
yield [sic] any sovereignty when using
any public agencies to aid in the conduct of the people’s business, unless they
expressly reserve that right.” If this
query means whether Flores did, in fact, yield sovereignty, it is immaterial
because no sovereignty needs to be yielded to permit the court to exercise its
jurisdiction.

Finally,
she poses “[w]hether Alma Flores acted accordingly with both writs off [>sic] error and motion for contempt to
preserve the justness of the court of record.”
Answer: Assuming she refers to
herself as “the court of record,” we have already noted she does not qualify
for this status.



DISPOSITION



The
judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall
recover its costs on appeal.









RYLAARSDAM,
J.



WE CONCUR:







O’LEARY, P. J.







ARONSON, J.