4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/09/17 - Sep 17, 2026

argument

4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2026/09/17

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One 1h 48m 8 chapters transcribed 3 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What are the facts and key issues in the Cortez‑Marmolejo mortgage dispute?

Unknown 24:56

it's likely to be harmful to anyone. If you told me just totally in the abstract, there was an elderly person who owned a piece of property and then because of what happened, they didn't, that seems it's likely to be harmful to them. I appreciate that, Your Honor. And I think with that very simple question, though, ignores the underlying facts of this case. And I think that this case is Different in the extent that Mr. Cortez was already on title with Ruby, his daughter, but also under the heel of a mortgage that he could not pay. He was in arrears on that mortgage. every month absent his junk sales that he did. He was being leaned. His Social Security was being leaned. I'm sorry, let me push back on that.

Unknown 25:49

Perhaps I missed it. He was in arrears. I know that he used what he had, which is, I guess, his Social Security check and then money that he made through his separate sales. But was he in arrears on the mortgage? No, he would have been in arrears. basically the difference between the mortgage and his income was not sufficient to meet that mortgage. But I want to make sure I understand. So when this transaction happened, was the mortgage in arrears or was it being paid? I thought he paid it every month. That is correct, Your Honor. It was being paid every month. But then what happened was that the robbery that occurred through Mr. Cortez's quote-unquote friends, that took away the balance of what he called his life savings.

Unknown 26:39

And those monies were used to bridge the gap between his Social Security and the mortgage. So he was very concerned about losing the house. But he wasn't in imminent danger of it because he was current on his mortgage. Well, he was not in arrears at the time of the transaction. That much is true. I would say that he was in imminent danger of losing the home because of the inability to continue bridging that gap. Does the fact that he had $15,000 in cash, does that undermine your position that somehow he was... about to lose the mortgage or was unable to bridge the gap? That's a substantial amount of money. It is, and that's the amount that was stolen. Correct, but it's an amount of money that he was able to save based on the sale of the goods that he sold at the house.

Unknown 27:43

Well, there was no established underlying fact as to how that $15,000 was raised. But you don't dispute that he had $15,000, right? He did and then he didn't, correct. At the time of the transaction, he did not have the $15,000. Can I ask you a follow-up question regarding the, in your briefing, there's an argument about that he, in essence, had a life estate after this transaction? Correct. Is that accurate, given that there was an unlawful detainer action filed afterwards in order to remove him from the house? Correct. So at the time of the transaction, the agreement, the idea was to, you know, refinance, use the funds to pay off Mr. Cortez's debts, renovate the house and then get two renters. At that point, the belief was the new mortgage amount would be sufficiently covered by the two renters of the other two bedrooms.

Unknown 28:43

And so the idea was that Mr. Cortez would be able to stay there for the rest of his life and not have to pay rent, not have to pay anything. And the agreement was that if there was a deficient... Wait, hold on. I apologize. Wait, hold on. But wasn't there evidence that he was still paying rent? There was, because the agreement was that if there was a shortfall in the rent to meet the mortgage, Mr. Cortez would fill that balance, which I think we provided an example, you know, one month it was $180. Thank you. Okay. So, uh, again, one of the things is at trial that there was not an identified, you know, kind of, uh, well, an articulated loss, you know, uh, the, the court identifies loss appreciation, tax benefits, equity, stability.

Unknown 29:41

Uh, but there was, there was no evidence of what that loss appreciation was of those tax benefits were any equity, et cetera. Uh, by contrast, there was evidence given of the substantial benefits that accrued to Mr. Cortez. Again, being free of all of those liens that encompass the property and that were Mr. Cortez's debts, including the child support lien.