Steve and Marta Weinstein owned some vacant land and got a $450,000 loan from Cathleen Robin and Michael Fontes, and in return, Ms. Robin and Mr. Fontes secured the loan with a deed of trust on one of the Weinsteins' parcels. But Al Crowell had previously loaned the Weinsteins $250,000 and had a deed of trust, so that'd be senior. But the Weinsteins told Ms. Robin and Mr. Fontes that this was a "mistake" and got Mr. Crowell to execute a partial (but not complete) reconveyance. Then the Weinsteins and Crowell -- without the knowledge of Robin or Fontes -- record a second deed of trust that secured Crowell's old loan.
Eventually, Ms. Robin judicially forecloses on the property, and obtains it via a credit bid, but Crowell's not named in the lawsuit. Thereafter, Crowell and Robin litigate against each other, with Crowell saying that he's got an interest in the property and Robin saying that he doesn't.
Ms. Robin wins in the trial court, but Mr. Crowell prevails in the Court of Appeal.
The interesting thing (to me) is that Mr. Crowell represents himself on appeal. That doesn't usually happen in cases like this one, which involves complicated legal doctrine. Or at least typically doesn't happen successfully.
So I looked up to see whether "Al Crowell" was an attorney. ('Cause sometimes these people are able to successfully represent themselves.) Yes, there's an "Alton Crowell" who's an attorney (albeit inactive). That could potentially be the "Al" Crowell in the opinion. But Alton is in Laguna Beach, the litigation here is in Tuolumne County, and the "Al Crowell" who's listed on the docket in the Court of Appeal is in on Clipper Street in San Francisco. Doesn't seem like a match.
Plus I then look at the respondent's brief, available on Westlaw. Apparently "Al Crowell" is actually "Alois Crowell." So not Alton, for sure. So how does Alois write a sufficiently good brief to prevail?
I'm able to find Alois in San Francisco -- or at least think I do -- who lists himself as retired and the vice president of the "U.S. Alliance to End the Hitting of Children." Fair enough. Not exactly a background full of legal expertise, but apparently someone with enough time and interest to write a brief to try to ensure that he gets repaid for a loan that he long ago made to the Weinsteins.
Successfully.
I must say that, having read the respondent's brief, I can see why the trial court might have ruled as it did. If only because of the "equities" given the respective situations of the parties (e.g., Crowell, the Weinsteins, and Robin). That said, I wasn't able to read the opening and reply briefs, and don't really have strong opinions on the legal principles on which the Court of Appeal relies.
Regardless, a retired non-attorney represents himself and prevails in a California appeal that results in a published opinion about the limitations period for judicial foreclosure suits. That's something you don't see every day.
