Sterling v. First Federal Bank of California
Filed 6/7/06 Sterling v. First Federal Bank of California CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION SEVEN
| STERLING, as Trustee of the MEADOWBROOK TRUST U.D.T. 3-4-02, Defendant and Appellant, v. FIRST FEDERAL BANK OF CALIFORNIA, Defendant and Respondent. | B181491 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC276570) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Emilie H. Elias, Judge. Affirmed.
Ezer Williamson & Brown and Mitchel J. Ezer for Defendant and Appellant.
Epport, Richman & Robbins, Steven N. Richman and David M. Azema for Defendant and Respondent.
_________________________
After a nonjudicial foreclosure sale of real property the buyer and the secured lender of the property both claimed a right of priority to surplus sales proceeds to satisfy awards for attorney's fees and costs incurred post foreclosure defending against the trustor's unsuccessful attempt to invalidate the foreclosure sale. The trial court ruled the secured lender had a priority to the surplus funds as the only entity with a lien against the property. The buyer claims the court's ruling was in error, arguing the secured lender's lien was extinguished with the sale and thus it had no priority or lien rights for post foreclosure costs and fees. The buyer also claims the trial court's order directing surplus funds were not to be distributed except by court order was made for its benefit in lieu of requiring the trustor to post an undertaking and for this reason had a priority right to the funds. We find no prejudicial error and accordingly affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
In 1993 Teresa Randle (Randle) borrowed $197,700 from respondent, First Federal Bank of California (bank), to purchase property located at 1018-1020 Meadowbrook Avenue in Los Angeles. The loan was secured by a deed of trust on the property. In the fall of 2001 Randle defaulted on the loan. The property was sold at a trustee's sale on March 4, 2002. Appellant, Sterling, as Trustee of the Meadowbrook Trust U.D.T. 3-4-02 (buyer), purchased the property for $430,000. Approximately $132,000 in sales proceeds remained after satisfying the bank's senior lien and other junior liens.
Three months later in June 2002 Randle filed an action against the bank, the buyer, the foreclosing trustee and others, seeking to invalidate the sale. Randle filed a lis pendens against the property. In August 2002 the buyer filed an ex parte application for an order requiring Randle to post an undertaking as a condition for maintaining the lis pendens in force.[1] The court did not grant the buyer's ex parte application. Instead, the court issued an order stating:
â€
