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.
Disposed - Judgment Entered
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Los Angeles, California
BRIAN S. CURREY
REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS INC.
ESTATE OF MAGGIE MATHIS CALDWELL THE
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SECRETARY
UNKNOWN HEIRS AND DEVISEES OF MAGGIE
DOES 1-25 INCLUSIVE
WALDRUP SAMENA (DOE 1)
CASTRELLON FRANK SR.
WALDRUP SAMENA DOE 1
COMPTON SUPERIOR COURT
TAIT ROBINSON P.S.
ANDRE BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
GILLIGAN MICHAEL J.
8/14/2018: Substitution of Attorney
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 PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Substitution of Attorney; Filed by REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Substitution of AttorneyRead MoreRead Less
at 4:00 PM in Department A; Court Order (Court Order; Court Makes Order) -Read MoreRead Less
at 04:00 pm in Department A, Brian S. Currey, Presiding; Court Order - Court Makes OrderRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 AM in Department A; Unknown Event Type - HeldRead MoreRead Less
at 08:30 am in Department A, Brian S. Currey, Presiding; Order to Show Cause (OSC RE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TOPROSECUTE OR DEFAULT JUDGMENT) - CompletedRead MoreRead Less
Default JudgmentRead MoreRead Less
Default Judgment; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Request to Enter Judgment; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Disclaimer; Filed by THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SECRETARY (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
Disclaimer; Filed by Attorney for DefendantRead MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Proof-Service/Summons; Filed by Attorney for PlaintiffRead MoreRead Less
Notice of Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Complaint; Filed by REVERSE MORTGAGE SOLUTIONS, INC. (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
Notice-Case Management Conference; Filed by ClerkRead MoreRead Less
Summons FiledRead MoreRead Less
Complaint FiledRead MoreRead Less
Summons; Filed by nullRead MoreRead Less
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
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.
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.)
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.
The motion to vacate the judgment and any amended judgments is granted.
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases