This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 03/30/2019 at 00:25:38 (UTC).

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS VS. THE ESTATE OF MAGGIE MATHIS

Case Summary

On 08/31/2012 REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS filed a Property - Foreclosure lawsuit against THE ESTATE OF MAGGIE MATHIS. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Compton Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judges overseeing this case are WILLIAM BARRY and BRIAN S. CURREY. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****6864

  • Filing Date:

    08/31/2012

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Foreclosure

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Compton Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judges

WILLIAM BARRY

BRIAN S. CURREY

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC.

Defendants

ESTATE OF MAGGIE MATHIS CALDWELL THE

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SECRETARY

UNKNOWN HEIRS AND DEVISEES OF MAGGIE

DOES 1-25 INCLUSIVE

JOHNSON WILLENA

WALDRUP SAMENA (DOE 1)

CASTRELLON FRANK SR.

WALDRUP SAMENA DOE 1

Other

COMPTON SUPERIOR COURT

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

TAIT ROBINSON P.S.

Defendant Attorneys

ANDRE BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

GILLIGAN MICHAEL J.

 

Court Documents

Substitution of Attorney

8/14/2018: Substitution of Attorney

 

Docket Entries

  • 08/14/2018
  • Substitution of Attorney (REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC. MAKES THE FOLLOWING SUBSTITUTION: FORMER ATT: ROBINSON TAIT, P.S. NEW ATT: MICHAEL J. GILLIGAN ); Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • Substitution of Attorney; Filed by REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/14/2018
  • Substitution of Attorney

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • at 4:00 PM in Department A; Court Order (Court Order; Court Makes Order) -

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/23/2018
  • at 04:00 pm in Department A, Brian S. Currey, Presiding; Court Order - Court Makes Order

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • at 08:30 AM in Department A; Unknown Event Type - Held

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • at 08:30 am in Department A, Brian S. Currey, Presiding; Order to Show Cause (OSC RE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TOPROSECUTE OR DEFAULT JUDGMENT) - Completed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Default Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/15/2017
  • Default Judgment; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/02/2017
  • Request to Enter Judgment; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
317 More Docket Entries
  • 10/05/2012
  • Disclaimer; Filed by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SECRETARY (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/05/2012
  • Disclaimer; Filed by Attorney for Defendant

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/07/2012
  • Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for Plaintiff

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • Complaint; Filed by REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC. (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • Summons Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • Complaint Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2012
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: TC026864    Hearing Date: March 03, 2020    Dept: A

# 8. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. v. Estate of Maggie Mathis Caldwell, et al.

Case No.: TC026864

Matter on calendar for: Motion to Vacate Judgment

Tentative ruling:

  1. Background

This is a mortgage foreclosure action. Reverse Mortgage Solutions, Inc. (“RMS”), is attempting to judicially foreclose on a reverse mortgage. The Estate of Maggie Mathis Caldwell, Deceased was initially named as a defendant on August 31, 2012. A Request for Dismissal without prejudice for The Estate of Maggie Mathis Caldwell, Deceased was entered on January 14, 2014, and Judgment was entered on September 11, 2015, which did not reference the Estate of Maggie Caldwell, Deceased. However, the Sheriff was not satisfied with the order and would not foreclose on the property.

A Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed on May 4, 2017. This named the Estate of Maggie Mathis Caldwell, deceased, unknown heirs and devisees, as well as Frank Castrellon Sr., Willena Johnson, and Samena Waldrup as defendants. The SAC requested an order that the property be sold by the County Sheriff and that RMS has a superior claim to the property over Castrellon, Johnson, and Waldrup. Default judgment was obtained on November 15, 2017. However, the Sheriff found RMS’s new form JUD-100 judgment to be insufficient as well. Plaintiff amended the judgment once again, but the Sheriffs pointed out that the issue was in that Plaintiff sued the estate of Maggie Caldwell, and not the representative of the estate.

Plaintiff now moves to vacate its judgment. The motion is unopposed.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the motion.

  1. Standard

Code of Civil Procedure § 473(d), which allows a court to set aside any void judgment or order. The procedure under subsection (d) depends on whether the judgment is void on its face. (Trackman v. Kenney (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 175, 181.) A judgment is void on its face if its “invalidity appears on the face of the record, including the proof of service. [Citation.] (Ibid.) A facially void judgment may be set aside either by a separate action or via motion. (Ibid.) When a judgment is facially valid, a motion to set aside under subsection (d) must be brought within two years. (Id. at 180.) This is because courts have adopted by analogy the statutory limitation of Code of Civil Procedure § 473.5(a). (Ibid.)

  1. Analysis

    Plaintiff cites the case of Meleski v. Estate of Albert Hotlen (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 616, 624–625, in which the court reiterates the law that estates are not legal entity: “ ‘The “estate” of a decedent is not an entity known to the law. It is neither a natural nor an artificial person. It is merely a name to indicate the sum total of the assets and liabilities of a decedent. . . . [Citation.] In order for a civil action to be prosecuted, there must be some existing entity aimed at by the processes of the law, and against whom the court’s judgment will operate.’ [Citation.]” The representative usually serves this function. (Ibid.) As this action did not name the representative, the judgment is void on the face of its record.

    Accordingly, the motion to vacate the judgment/amended judgment is granted.

  2. Ruling

    The motion to vacate the judgment and any amended judgments is granted.

    Next dates:

    Notice: