6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/01/08 - Jan 08, 2026

argument

6DCA Oral Argument - 2026/01/08

California Sixth District Court of Appeal 51 min 8 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural steps does the court follow at the start of the oral argument?

Unknown 1:39

The associate justice, the Ottawa Diablo. Morning, please be seated.

Unknown 2:30

Good morning. Welcome to the Sixth District Court of Appeal for oral argument. We have two matters on calendar. Uh the first uh is fully remote and the second uh we have everyone in the courtroom and good morning to you. There is no video uh for you in the audience in the courtroom. If you'd like to see video it's outside, you will hear audio in the courtroom. Uh so we'll start with the first case uh H zero five zero six six four David Merritt at all plaintiffs and appellants versus specialized loan servicing LLC defendant and respondent. mister Merritt, good morning to you, sir. You're on mute, so if you can just unmute yourself, sir.

David Merritt 3:15

Good morning, your honors.

Unknown 3:16

All right, so I have you down for fifteen minutes total, ten to start, five for rebuttal. Is that what you'd like to do?

David Merritt 3:24

Yes, the proc yes.

Unknown 3:25

Okay. And um and for uh respondent specialized loan servicing.

Robert Shaughnessy 3:32

Good morning. This is Robert Shaughnessy on behalf of New Res. Uh Oh. Formerly known as specialized loan servicing and US Bank, yes.

Unknown 3:40

All right, thank you. And do you have a ten minute time estimate?

Robert Shaughnessy 3:44

Yes, I do. Time to respond.

Unknown 3:45

Okay, great. Um, and I for both sides I will keep track of your time here on my laptop and let you know when you have about a minute left on each of your time estimates.

David Merritt 3:56

Thank you. Okay, thank you, Your Honor.

How does appellant Merritt frame the rescission issue in the first case?

Unknown 3:58

Mr Merritt, please go ahead. We look forward to hearing from you this morning.

David Merritt 4:02

Okay, may it please the court. The first and last thing that this court should consider is its opinion found in Merit versus Countrywide Home Loans, which has a case number of H zero four seven six three six, where this court stated twice within that opinion that the appellants rescission was never adjudicated by any trial court nor this court. The unrefuted fact is that in january two thousand twenty nine, the appellants complied with CCP section sixteen eighty nine B and perfected a unilateral rescission of the loan and deed of trust in this case. The evidence further shows that both B of A and the appellants entered into an agreement to rescind the original and modified loan agreements starting from february two thousand twenty nine onward, which complied with section sixteen eighty nine subset.

David Merritt 5:04

Hey. Now the respondent's first argument is that this appeal is mute. Because a foreclosure sell has occurred. However, this court must not allow a party to benefit from a wrongful action that was achieved through the misuse of the vexatious litigant statute. by grossly misrepresenting to the trial court that a rescission had been previously adjudicated through B of A's cross complaint That it itself abandoned. The respondents next present the idea. That the notices of appeal in this case are untimely. The final judgment encompassed every order from two thousand twenty. Particularly the original two hundred and fifty thousand dollar vexatious Litigate order bond. So the question that is raised here today

David Merritt 5:59

If there was never a final adjudication on the merits of rescind. Then how can a judgment stand which held that rest judicata applied in the case and therefore there was no likelihood of success because the rescission was previously adjudicated, which the vexatious litigant order is entirely based. Now the respondents in their brief they have egregiously misrepresented this material fact. And the court The trial court accepted it. It is argued that the notice of appeal with designation of record on appeal does cover each point in the November judgment, dismissing the entire case without prejudice, and was the and was only dismissed for failure to post the two hundred and fifty thousand dollar fixatious litigant bond.

Unknown 6:54

Mr Merritt, I'm sorry to interrupt you here, sir. I just wanna as you know, we're very technical up here and I wanna make sure that I have my dates right. Is it your view that you're appealing from the December twenty seventh, two thousand twenty two judgment?

David Merritt 7:09

That as well as the original one, uh the original ones back in two thousand twenty.

Unknown 7:18

Okay.