Opinion
B323489
01-16-2024
U.S. BANK TRUST, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NICHOLAS A. COLACHIS, Defendant and Appellant.
Nicholas A. Colachis, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant. McCarthy & Holthus and Melissa Robbins Coutts for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. 19STCV32678 Rupert A. Byrdsong, Judge. Affirmed.
Nicholas A. Colachis, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
McCarthy & Holthus and Melissa Robbins Coutts for Plaintiff and Respondent.
FEUER, J.
Nicholas A. Colachis appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of the order granting the summary judgment motion filed by U.S. Bank Trust N.A. as trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust (U.S. Bank). Colachis filed the motion for reconsideration 11 days after the trial court entered judgment for U.S. Bank against Colachis and other defendants. Because entry of judgment divested the trial court of jurisdiction to rule on the motion for reconsideration, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. The Complaint and Demurrers
On September 12, 2019 U.S. Bank filed this action against Colachis, the owner of real property located in Los Angeles (the property), and other individuals and entities claiming an interest in the property. On November 6, 2019 U.S. Bank filed a first amended complaint alleging causes of action for declaratory relief, cancellation of instruments, equitable lien, and quiet title. U.S. Bank alleged it had a security interest in the property as the beneficiary of a deed of trust recorded on July 11, 2007. However, on December 12, 2017 a fraudulent deed of trust was recorded on the property identifying Deutsche Mellon National Assets, LLC (Deutsche) as the grantee. On January 11, 2018 Deutsche recorded a substitution of trustee document, substituting BLG PC National as the trustee in place of Quality Loan Service Corporation. Subsequently, Deutsche acquired title to the property pursuant to a fraudulent trustee's deed upon sale recorded on January 17, 2018. U.S. Bank alleged Quality Loan Service Corporation, the actual trustee, had not conducted a trustee's sale. U.S. Bank sought to cancel the fraudulent assignment of deed of trust, substitution of trustee, and trustee's deed upon sale. U.S. Bank also sought a declaration that it held a valid deed of trust that encumbered the property.
After the trial court sustained Colachis's demurrer to the first amended complaint in part with leave to amend, U.S. Bank filed a verified second amended complaint. Colachis again demurred, and the trial court overruled the demurrer.
B. U.S. Bank's Summary Judgment Motion, Colachis's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, and the Judgment
On February 2, 2022 U.S. Bank moved for summary judgment against Colachis. In opposition, Colachis argued U.S. Bank lacked standing to bring the action; the claims were barred by the statute of limitations; and the verification for the second amended complaint was defective. However, Colachis conceded the assignment, substitution of trustee, and trustee's deed upon sale recorded by Deutsche were fraudulent.
On April 19, 2022 Colachis filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings against U.S. Bank. Colachis argued U.S. Bank lacked standing to file the complaint; the causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations, laches, and unclean hands; and the second amended complaint failed to state a cause of action against Colachis.
On April 21, 2022 the trial court granted U.S. Bank's summary judgment motion. On its own motion, the court advanced and vacated the hearing on Colachis's motion for judgment on the pleadings. On June 6, 2022 the court entered judgment against Colachis, Deutsche, and the other defendants. The judgment stated the court had previously entered the defaults of Deutsche and all but two of the other defendants, and U.S. Bank was "entitled to default judgment[s] against these [d]efendants on the same bases and for the same reason that summary judgment was granted against" Colachis. The judgment also declared that U.S. Bank "has a security interest that encumbers" the property based on a valid deed of trust recorded on July 11, 2007. Further, the judgment canceled and declared as void the assignment of deed of trust, the substitution of trustee, and the trustee's deed upon sale recorded by Deutsche.
The two defendants that did not default "consented to entry of judgment for cancellation of instruments."
On July 8, 2022 U.S. Bank served Colachis with the notice of entry of judgment and the judgment.
C. Colachis's Motion for Reconsideration
On June 17, 2022 Colachis filed a motion for reconsideration and "renewal of his unadju[d]icated motion for judgment on the pleadings." (Boldface and italics omitted.) Colachis argued the trial court erred in refusing to hear his motion for judgment on the pleadings. He again argued that U.S. Bank lacked standing; the causes of action were barred by the statute of limitations, laches, and unclean hands; the verification for the second amended complaint was not signed by a party, an attorney, or someone with personal knowledge of the title issues; and U.S. Bank failed to state a cause of action against Colachis.
On our own motion, we augment the record to include Colachis's motion for reconsideration and renewal, which Colachis omitted from the appellate record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)
U.S. Bank opposed Colachis's motion, arguing the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the motion for reconsideration after entry of judgment. U.S. Bank also asserted Colachis failed to comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), because Colachis (1) brought the motion more than 10 days after service of entry of the order granting summary judgment; and (2) failed to present "new or different facts, circumstances, or law" to support reconsideration of the court's order.
After a hearing, on July 27, 2022 the trial court denied Colachis's motion for reconsideration. The court explained in its oral ruling the motion was "untimely in that it was filed more than 10 days after the underlying motion for summary judgment, which was granted on April 21, 2022." The court added, "Moreover, a judgment in the case has already been entered; therefore the court does not have jurisdiction to reconsider any of its previous orders."
D. Colachis's Appeals
On September 16, 2022 Colachis filed two notices of appeal. Colachis appealed from the June 6, 2022 judgment. He separately appealed from the July 27, 2022 order denying his motion for reconsideration, checking the box on the form that the appeal was from "[a]n order after judgment."
On October 13, 2022 this court issued an order requesting Colachis "demonstrate in writing within 15 days" why his appeal from the judgment "should not be dismissed as having been untimely filed." In response, Colachis asserted he had electronically filed his notice of appeal on September 6, 2022. He claimed his notice of appeal was accepted and then "denied due to software compatibility." When he found out, he went in person and filed his notice of appeal on September 16, 2022. U.S. Bank replied that Colachis failed to present any proof that his notice of appeal was electronically accepted on September 6.
On March 10, 2023 this court dismissed Colachis's appeal from the June 6, 2022 judgment as untimely. This court found Colachis did not provide "any supporting documentation that he submitted for filing on September 6, 2022 a timely notice of appeal that the trial court clerk purportedly rejected for filing, which led to Colachis filing the September 16, 2022 notice of appeal." This court also rejected Colachis's assertion "that the time to appeal was extended under [California Rules of Court,] rule 8.108(c) by his filing of the September 8, 2022 motion to vacate the appealed judgment." This court explained, "[T]he deadline to appeal set out by the time prescribed by rule 8.104 was September 6, 2022. Therefore, the motion to vacate filed on September 8, 2022 was filed too late for any extension under rule 8.108(c) to appeal to apply." Similarly, this court reasoned Colachis's June 17, 2022 motion for reconsideration did not extend the time to appeal the judgment under rule 8.108(e) because Colachis sought reconsideration of the April 21, 2022 order granting U.S. Bank's summary judgment motion, which was not an appealable order. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.108(e) ["If any party serves and files a valid motion to reconsider an appealable order under Code of Civil Procedure section 1008, subdivision (a), the time to appeal from that order is extended ...."].) Thus, only Colachis's appeal from the order denying his motion for reconsideration is before us.
Colachis includes in the appellate record his September 8, 2022 motion to vacate the judgment filed in the trial court, but he does not include any court order on the motion.
DISCUSSION
U.S. Bank contends the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider Colachis's June 17, 2022 motion for reconsideration of the trial court's order granting summary judgment because the motion was filed 11 days after the court entered judgment (on June 6). We agree the court correctly found it did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion.
Colachis did not address the trial court's jurisdiction in his opening brief and did not file a reply brief.
"It is well settled law that entry of judgment divests the trial court of authority to rule on a motion for reconsideration." (Safeco Ins. Co. v. Architectural Facades Unlimited (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1477, 1482; accord, Roe v. Hesperia Unified School Dist. (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 13, 23, fn. 2 ["The trial court did lose jurisdiction to rule on plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration once the court entered judgement."]; APRI Ins. Co. S.A. v. Superior Court (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 176, 182 ["Once the trial court has entered judgment, it is without power to grant reconsideration."]; Ramon v. Aerospace Corp. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1233, 1236 ["after entry of judgment, a trial court has no further power to rule on a motion for reconsideration"].)
Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to decide the motion for reconsideration following entry of judgment, we affirm its denial of the motion.
We also have a serious concern whether we have jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the denial of a motion for reconsideration. (See Powell v. County of Orange (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 1573, 1576 ["an order denying a motion for reconsideration is not appealable, even when based on new facts or law"]; People v. Safety National Casualty Corp. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 959, 973 [same].) Rather, an appeal is properly taken from the judgment. As discussed, Colachis did not timely appeal from the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Colachis's motion for reconsideration is affirmed. U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. is entitled to recover its costs on appeal.
We concur: SEGAL, Acting P. J., MARTINEZ, J.