Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document: Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2014-01-23
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2650742/nativi-v-deutsche-bank-national... ↗

Full Text

2,463 chars

6
Respondents objected to Officer Harnett's declaration concerning statements made
to him on grounds of hearsay and lack of personal knowledge. Insofar as he was merely
reporting what was said to him and the statements were not being proffered for the truth
of matter stated, the objections were meritless. (See Evid. Code, §§ 702, 1200.)
48
D. Triable Issues of Material Fact
The evidence is uncontroverted that appellants were living in a garage unit on the
Stoneylake property under a year-long lease at the time of foreclosure, their belongings
were taken out of the unit and dumped outside, and each of them was turned away and
directed to leave when they separately tried to return after a temporary absence.
Respondents presented evidence that with respect to the Stoneylake property, the
Bank was acting through AHMSI, which hired Advisors. The evidence showed that
AHMSI, Advisors, and those acting on their behalf with respect to the Stoneylake
property, did not take appellants' personal property out of the garage unit or instruct any
of the post-foreclosure occupants of the main residence or anyone else to do so.
Respondents produced evidence that AHMSI, Advisors, and those acting on their behalf,
did not change the locks to the garage unit or deny appellants access to the unit. Their
evidence showed that neither AHMSI nor Advisors rented the main house to any of the
groups of post-foreclosure occupants. Respondents also produced evidence showing that
Diaz only learned of the September 2009 incident in which Luis had called the police
after it occurred and Diaz had not instructed the police to exclude appellant Perez from
the property. Further, their evidence indicated that Diaz did not instruct the police to
exclude appellant Nativi from the property at the end of October 2009. Accordingly,
respondents made a sufficient showing to meet their burden and shift the burden to
appellants to produce sufficient admissible evidence to show the existence of a triable
issue of material fact. (See § 437c, subds. (d) & (p)(2); Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.,
supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 850-851, 853-854.)
On appeal, appellants claim that triable issues of material fact remain with respect
to the Bank's liability for breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment on the following
theories: (1) by offering cash for keys deals to occupants of the Stoneylake property, it

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text