Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank
214 Cal. App. 4th 743 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court may take judicial notice of a legally operative document, such as a contract, and facts deriving from its legal effect at the demurrer stage, provided the document's authenticity and its legal effect are not reasonably subject to dispute.
Facts:
- In August 2005, Michael D. Scott obtained a $975,000 construction loan from First Magnus Financial Corporation (Magnus), secured by a deed of trust on his property.
- In November 2007, Magnus assigned its beneficial interest under the deed of trust to Washington Mutual Bank (WaMu).
- On September 25, 2008, the federal Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) placed WaMu into receivership under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
- On that same day, the FDIC entered into a Purchase and Assumption (P&A) Agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (JPMorgan).
- Under the P&A Agreement, JPMorgan acquired substantially all of WaMu's assets, including loans and deeds of trust.
- Section 2.5 of the P&A Agreement explicitly stated that JPMorgan did not assume any of WaMu's liabilities related to borrower claims arising from WaMu's lending activities.
- After the acquisition, Scott defaulted on his loan.
- In January 2009, foreclosure proceedings were initiated, and a notice of default was recorded, followed by a notice of trustee's sale in April 2009.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael D. Scott filed a complaint against JPMorgan and others in California superior court (trial court).
- After JPMorgan filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings to Scott's first amended complaint, the court granted the motion with leave to amend.
- Scott filed a second amended complaint asserting numerous causes of action, including wrongful foreclosure.
- JPMorgan filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint, arguing that the judicially noticed P&A Agreement shielded it from liability.
- The trial court sustained JPMorgan's demurrer to the second amended complaint without leave to amend.
- Scott (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the California Court of Appeal, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court err in taking judicial notice of the legal effect of a Purchase and Assumption (P&A) Agreement between a federal receiver and an acquiring bank to determine the bank's rights and liabilities for the purpose of ruling on a demurrer, when the agreement's authenticity is undisputed and its terms are unambiguous?
Opinions:
Majority - Needham, J.
No, the trial court did not err. A court may properly take judicial notice of a legally operative document and facts that clearly derive from its legal effect, especially when those facts are not reasonably subject to dispute. The P&A Agreement is a legally operative document whose authenticity was not credibly challenged by Scott and was verifiable through an official government source (the FDIC website). Its terms unambiguously transferred WaMu's assets, including Scott's loan, to JPMorgan while expressly excluding liabilities for borrower claims like Scott's. Therefore, the court could deduce the agreement's legal effect—that JPMorgan possessed the beneficial interest in the deed of trust with standing to foreclose but was shielded from liability for the original lender's alleged misconduct—and correctly sustained the demurrer based on these judicially noticed facts.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the power of trial courts to resolve successor liability issues at the pleading stage through judicial notice. It clarifies that for legally operative documents like contracts or deeds, judicial notice extends beyond the mere existence of the document to its clear legal effect, provided there is no reasonable dispute over authenticity or meaning. This precedent is significant for financial institutions that acquire assets from failed banks, as it provides a robust procedural mechanism to dismiss lawsuits early by establishing that they did not assume the liabilities associated with the acquired assets.
Unlock the full brief for Scott v. JPMorgan Chase Bank