CHARLES SCOTT BAILEY et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITIBANK, N.A., Defendant and Appellant., 66 Cal. App. 5th 335

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-The trial court erred in setting aside a default and judgment against a bank under the mandatory relief provision of Code Civ. Proc., § 473. It was undisputed that the bank's default was entered on November 14, 2018, but the bank's attorney was not referred or assigned to act as attorney on this case until January 10, 2019. Because attorney error could not possibly have caused the default, mandatory relief was unavailable as a matter of law; [2]-Plaintiffs' adverse possession claim failed as a matter of law because the undisputed record showed that plaintiffs' possession was not adverse or hostile to the bank for the required five-year period. Alternatively, even if plaintiffs could have prevailed on their adverse possession claim, the title they would have acquired would have been subject to a 2005 deed of trust of which the bank was the foreclosing beneficiary in 2018.