Anda di halaman 1dari 7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE APPELLATE DIVISION DENNIS L. NELSON and DIANE K. NELSON, Petitioners, v THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELON, as Trustee ete., Real Party in Interest, JOHNNY MELTON, Petitioner, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, Respondent; THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELON, as Trustee ete., Real Party in Interest. wELLED ‘at 202 Case No: APP1200089 (Frial Court: INC1200747) ORDER Case No: APP1200090 (Trial Cou : INC1200747) 2 Fi nore n ih IL Petitions for writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Michael J. Naughton, Judge. (Retired judge of the Orange County Sup. CL. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal, Const.) Petitions granted. Clifford Casey for Petitioners Dennis L. Nelson and Diane K. Nelson. George $. Wass for Petitioner Johnny Melton. ‘No appearance for Respondent. Miles, Bauer, Bergstrom & Winters, Fred Timothy Winters and Wayne A, Rash, for Real Party in Interest. THE COURT In this unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff and Real Party in Interest Bank of New York Mellon (“Bank”), as trustee for certain holders of mortgage pass-through instruments filed a verified complaint seeking possession of real property located in Palm Springs purchased at a trustee’s sale, The complaint alleges the original holders of the deed, Defendants and Petitioners Dennis and Diane Nelson (collectively the Nelsons), and other unnamed occupants are in possession of the property. The central issue in this proceeding is whether the trial court erred by granting an application from the Bank to serve the summons and complaint by posting and mailing pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure! section 415.45, | Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Code of Civil Procedure. We conclude the Bank did not satisfy its evidentiary showing for purposes of obtaining permission to serve by posting and meiling, and therefore we also conchide the trial court erred by denying the Nelsons’ and Defendant and Petitioner Jobnny Melton’s motions to quash service. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Bank’s application to serve the summons and complaint by posting and mailing includes a brief declaration of counsel asserting, “Every reasonable attempt has been made to personally serve DENNIS L. NELSON, DIANE K. NELSON and all occupants. The business address is unknown to Plaintiff. Defendants are necessary parties to this action.” In support of the application, counsel for the Bank attached three declarations of due diligence from a process server.” The process server declared that on February 1, 2, 3, and 5, 2012, she attempted to serve Petitioners at the Palm Springs residence at varying times of the day. On each occasion, she received no answer at the door and noticed a White Yukon vehicle parked in the driveway and a dog inside the residence, Based on this showing, Commissioner Gregory granted the application. In their neatly identical motions to quash service of the summons and complaint, the Nelsons and their tenant Melton argued they were never properly served because the Bank did not make a sufficient evidentiary showing to support service by posting and mailing. Petitioners objected to the declaration of counsel submitted with the Bank's 2 Petitioners do not include the declarations of due diligence in their exhibits, so on our ‘own motion we take judicial notice of the full application and supporting declarations found in the original case file. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)