Rivera v. PHH Mortgage Corp. CA2/1

Filed 10/29/26 Rivera v. PHH Mortgage Corp. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE VICTOR ORLANDO RIVERA B348531 et al., (Los Angeles County Plaintiffs and Appellants, Super. Ct. No. 24SMCV02733) v. PHH MORTGAGE CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark A. Young, Judge. Affirmed. Victor Orlando Rivera and Maria Louise Rivera in propria persona for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Klinedinst, Ian A. Rambarran, Robert M. Shaughnessy, and Neeru Jindal for Defendants and Respondents. __________________________________  Appellants Victor Orlando Rivera and Maria Louise Rivera refinanced their home several times with various companies. In 2006, they refinanced with EMC Mortgage and in 2007 they refinanced again with Option One Mortgage Corporation. In March 2007, EMC recorded a full reconveyance, noting the EMC loan was repaid. In this action, the Riveras essentially contend that because EMC noted its loan was repaid, they no longer had to repay the Option One loan and held title to their home free and clear of the deed of trust securing the Option One loan. Based on this contention, the Riveras filed a complaint against respondents PHH Mortgage Corporation, Newrez, and Western Progressive, LLC among others, alleging 12 causes of action. One cause of action was to quiet title—the Riveras sought a declaration that they owned their home free of encumbrances. The trial court sustained respondents’ demurrer to the operative complaint without leave to amend. As to the quiet title cause of action, the court found that judicially noticed documents along with the complaint’s allegations demonstrated the Riveras did not own their home free of encumbrances. The Riveras’ only contentions on appeal are that the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer to their quiet title cause of action and in denying them leave to amend that cause of action. They argue that the court overlooked two documents, and that they can allege facts showing they own their home free of encumbrances. Although we normally would find the Riveras forfeited their arguments on appeal by failing to include any record citations in their brief and by failing to provide reasoned argument or cite pertinent legal authority, we do not do so here because we did not need to scour the record to locate the 2 pleadings and documents to which the Riveras referred.1 However, we conclude the Riveras failed to demonstrate error and therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. The Riveras File a First Amended Complaint In June 2024, the Riveras filed a verified complaint against respondents, among others. In October 2024, two and a half weeks after respondents demurred, the Riveras filed an unverified first amended complaint (FAC). As relevant to this appeal, the FAC (the operative complaint) alleged: 1. The Riveras Refinance Several Times In September 2000, First Franklin lent the Riveras money to buy their home. In 2005 and 2006, they refinanced their loan with Chase Bank, with America’s Servicing Company, and with EMC Mortgage. In February 2007, they refinanced again with Option One Mortgage Corporation for $875,000. On March 6, 2007, Option One recorded a Deed of Trust (Instrument No. 20070488689) securing the $875,000 loan (the 2007 DOT) with the property.2 1 (Cf. WFG National Title Ins. Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 881, 894 [“In order to demonstrate error, an appellant must supply the reviewing court with some cogent argument supported by legal analysis and citation to the record. Rather than scour the record unguided, we may decide that the appellant has forfeited a point urged on appeal when it is not supported by accurate citations to the record”].) 2 The 2007 DOT was attached to the original complaint but omitted from the FAC. 3  Unbeknownst to the Riveras, on March 15, 2007, EMC caused to be recorded “a Full Reconveyance Receipt and a thank you letter stating the loan was paid.” The document states that the trustee “under Deed of Trust dated July 25, 2006, made by VICTOR RIVERA AND MARIA RIVERA, Trustor and recorded as Instrument No. 06 1698106 on August 01, 2006” (the 2006 DOT) reconveyed “to the person or persons legally entitled thereto, the entire estate held thereunder.” On May 15, 2007, “[t]he Full Reconveyance Receipt” and a “letter from EMC Mortgage, Inc.” were “sen[t] to Plaintiffs by the former lender EMC Mortgage, Incorporated.” 2. The Riveras Default In June 2007, the Riveras defaulted on the Option One loan. “Since Plaintiffs had a Certified Copy of the Reconveyance Receipt stating the loan was paid by its former lender EMC Mortgage, Inc., Plaintiffs assumed no mortgage payments needed to be made.” On February 22, 2008, an Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded as Instrument No. 20080311335. Option One assigned to “WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT1, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-OPT1 all beneficial interest under that certain Deed of Trust dated as of February 22, 2007 executed by VICTOR RIVERA AND MARIA RIVERA . . . as Trustor, to PREMIER TRUST DEED SERVICES, INC., as Trustees; and Recorded on March 6, 2007 with recorder’s reference 20070488689.” In other words, Option One assigned its interest under the 2007 DOT to Wells Fargo. 4  3. Ocwen Cancels Some Debt Sometime between 2011 and 2017, “Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC., got a hold of a copy of Plaintiffs[’] loan documents and claimed to be the lien holder in due course of the note.” “Plaintiffs defended their property through litigation in the Bankruptcy Court through Adversary Proceeding and through the United States Court of Appeals,” alleging Ocwen “had no rights to the note.” In 2018, Ocwen “decided to Cancel its alleged debt on the subject property providing Plaintiffs an IRS 1040 Form 1099-C Cancellation of Debt for the 2017 tax year.” The Riveras alleged that the “notice states that Plaintiffs were not personally responsible for the ‘Original Loan’ in the amount of $892,691.27 and not personally responsible for any other debt arising from the canceled debt as per IRS Pub. 4681 Cancellation of Debts.”3 In November 2018, Ocwen claimed the Riveras “owed a total debt of $1,601,266.57 and that a principal balance was waived in the amount of $892,691.27.” The Riveras “signed a loan modification in the amount of $700,496.00 (called modified principal balance) with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC., claimed as additional debt on Plaintiffs[’] property.” But the Riveras 3 The FAC defined the “Original Loan” as the loan the Riveras took out from Option One in 2007. Although the 1099-C form states $892,691.27 as the “Amount of debt discharged,” it does not mention anything about an “Original Loan.” It also does not state the plaintiffs were not responsible for any other debt arising from the canceled debt. On the form itself, under “Instructions for Debtor,” the form states: “Box 5. Shows whether you were personally liable for repayment of the debt when the debt was created or, if modified, at the time of the last modification. See Pub. 4681 for reporting instructions.” 5 “considered the Loan Modification voided by the Cancellation of the ‘Original Loan’.” They alleged that “[o]n the IRS 1040 Form 1099-C which states Plaintiffs were not personally responsible for the debt, based on the IRS Tax Rules on the explanation of Box Number 5 of the IRS form 1099-C for the 2017 tax year, that explains that Plaintiffs were not personally responsible of the Original debt of $892,691.27 and not personally responsible of any other debt created from [sic]. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC., transferred the Loan Modification agreement to PHH Mortgage Services, a branch for Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC., and was assigned for service to NEW REZ C/o PHH Mortgage Services. Defendants, Ignored [sic] that the debt has been canceled in its entirety.” The Riveras also alleged Ocwen was “well known” for having “bad lending practices,” and was “not the Lawful Owner of Plaintiffs[’] property.” In March 2019, a “Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust” was recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder, stating that “SAND CANYON CORPORATION FKA OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION hereby grants, assigns and transfers to WELLS FARGO BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS TRUSTEE FOR SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007- OPT1, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-OPT1 at C/O OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC . . . all its interest under that certain Deed of Trust dated 02/22/2007, in the amount of $875,000, executed by VICTOR RIVERA AND MARIA RIVERA . . . to OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION and Recorded: 03/06/2007 as Instrument No.: 2007-0488689” (i.e., the 2007 DOT). The document explains that “THE PURPOSE OF THIS CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST IS TO CORRECT THE EXECUTION DATE, NOTARY DATE, 6 ASSIGNOR AND ASSIGNEE ON THE ASSIGNMENT RECORDED ON 02/22/2008 AS INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20080311335.” 4. NewRez / PHH Forecloses In September 2022, “NewRez, LLC acting as servicer for PHH Mortgage Corporation” contacted the Riveras “presenting an offer for Loan Modification on the debt that was canceled in the year 2018 by Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.” The Riveras rejected the offer, telling a “Relationship Manager” that they “would like to apply for a loan modification for . . . lower payments.” In November 2022, the Riveras submitted a “complete Loan Modification Package” that was rejected in December 2022 due to a disagreement about the “Net Property Value.” On January 24, 2023, Premium Title of California recorded a Notice of Trustee Sale on the property, stating the property would be sold at auction on February 23, 2023, with Western Progressive acting as the trustee. The Riveras claimed a Notice of Default had been recorded on November 15, 2017, but asserted it was “obsolete” and “rescinded.” On February 10, 2023, the Riveras submitted another “complete Loan Modification Package.” Four days later, the loan modification package “was accepted for underwriter’s review.” On February 20, 2023, a PHH Mortgage “Relationship Manager” told Victor Rivera that the modification package was “under review,” and the trustee sale would be put on hold. However, the house was sold at a foreclosure auction on February 23, 2023. Western Progressive informed the Riveras “no one from the Lender instructed the trustee to halt the sale.” 7  On March 7, 2023, the Riveras submitted to the “Lender’s Legal Department and to the Lawyer on duty at the Trustee, a formal written request to exercise borrower’s Right of Rescission of the sale.” The Riveras alleged respondents “granted a rescission of the sale to Plaintiffs, but Western Progressive, LLC, the trustee who held the auction sale, still shows on their records the Subject Property was sold on 02/23/2023 to a third party winning bid of $885,000.00.” 5. The Riveras Enter a Loan Modification Agreement In the original complaint, the Riveras attached a “Loan Modification Agreement” that they signed on August 10, 2023, before a notary public. The agreement advised the Riveras they had agreed to a “balloon mortgage.” It recited that “[t]he debtor, VICTOR RIVERA, MARIA RIVERA, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-OPT1 through the servicers of the underlying mortgage loan agreement, PHH Mortgage Corporation, have agreed to modify the terms of said underlying mortgage loan agreement. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-OPT1 is the owner of the loan and retains all rights to collect payments as per the underlying mortgage loan agreement. PHH Mortgage Corporation, remains servicer for said underlying mortgage loan agreement.” The agreement provided that the “current Unpaid Principal Balance is $672,007.26” and the “New Principal Balance of the Note will be $777,699.48.” PHH Mortgage Corporation signed the agreement in September 2023. 8  The FAC no longer attaches this agreement but still alleges in its negligent misrepresentation cause of action that “Plaintiffs was [sic] granted a loan modification with a new principal balance in the amount of $672,007.26 plus escrow expenses in the amount of $105,692.22 for a new principal balance totaling amount of $777,699.48.” 6. Causes of Action Based on these allegations, the Riveras brought claims for: (1) Wrongful Foreclosure; (2) Violation of Civil Code section 2923.5; (3) Violation of Civil Code section 2923.7; (4) Violation of Civil Code section 2924.11; (5) Violation of Civil Code section 2924.12; (6) Quiet Title; (7) Negligent Misrepresentation; (8) Fraudulent Concealment; (9) Breach of Contract; (10) Unfair Business Practices; (11) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing; and (12) Breach of Fiduciary Duty. B. Respondents Demur In November 2024, respondents simultaneously filed a demurrer and a request for judicial notice. 1. Request for Judicial Notice Respondents asked the court to judicially notice 15 documents recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder.4 These documents demonstrated the following events: 4 Respondents also asked the court to judicially notice the original complaint and a 2017 loan modification agreement. The court judicially noticed all requested documents except for the 2017 loan modification agreement. 9  On September 15, 2000, a Grant Deed was recorded, granting title to the property to the Riveras. On August 1, 2006, a Deed of Trust with Instrument No. 06 1698106 was recorded against the property, securing a $750,000 promissory note, identifying the Riveras as the borrowers, and Encore Credit Union as the lender (i.e., the 2006 DOT). MERS (the Mortgage Electronic Registration System) was the beneficiary. On March 6, 2007, a Deed of Trust with Instrument No. 07 0488689 was recorded against the property, securing an $875,000 promissory note, identifying the Riveras as the borrowers, Option One Mortgage Corporation as the beneficiary, and Premier Trust Deed Services as the trustee (i.e., the 2007 DOT). On March 15, 2007, a Full Reconveyance was recorded on the property, stating that the trustee “under Deed of Trust dated July 25, 2006, made by VICTOR RIVERA AND MARIA RIVERA, Trustor and recorded as Instrument No. 06 1698106 on August 01, 2006,” (i.e., the 2006 DOT) reconveyed “to the person or persons legally entitled thereto, the entire estate held thereunder.” On February 22, 2008, Option One assigned to “WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT1, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-OPT1 all beneficial interest under that certain Deed of Trust dated as of February 22, 2007 executed by VICTOR RIVERA AND MARIA RIVERA . . . as Trustor, to PREMIER TRUST DEED SERVICES, INC., as Trustees; and Recorded on March 6, 2007 with recorder’s reference 20070488689” (i.e., the 2007 DOT). 10  On January 14, 2015, a Substitution of Trustee was recorded, substituting Western Progressive as trustee. On August 14, 2015, a Notice of Default was recorded against the property, along with an affidavit of due diligence signed by “Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC as Servicer for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-OPT1.” On May 17, 2016, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded. On May 10, 2017, a Notice of Rescission of Notice of Default was recorded, rescinding the August 14, 2015 Notice of Default. On November 15, 2017, another Notice of Default was recorded against the property, along with an affidavit of due diligence signed by “Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, as Servicer for Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT1, Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2007-OPT1.” On April 12, 2018, a Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded. On July 29, 2019, another Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded. On August 11, 2022, a third Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded. On January 24, 2023, a fourth Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded. On August 30, 2023, a Notice of Rescission of Notice of Default was recorded, rescinding the November 15, 2017 Notice of Default. 2. Demurrer In their demurrer, respondents pointed out that the reconveyance the Riveras attached to their complaint was a “reconveyance of a deed of trust securing Plaintiffs’ 2006 loan, not the 2007 loan and Deed of Trust at issue in this action.” (Underline removed.) 11  They also noted the Riveras themselves admitted that, although they received an IRS Form 1099-C in 2017 “reflecting a discharged debt of $892,691.27 . . . in 2017, the amount due on the subject loan was $1,601,266.57, and they were offered a loan modification that waived $892,691.27 of the amount due and modified the subject loan to have a modified balance of $700,496.00.” Respondents additionally argued that the Riveras “concede the subject loan was modified at least twice (in 2017 and again in 2023 after defaulting under the 2017 modification),” that “the Notice of Default and foreclosure sale upon which these claims are based were rescinded when Plaintiffs loan was admittedly modified in 2023,” and that “[s]ince then, no new foreclosure proceedings have been initiated, and there is no pending foreclosure to enjoin.” (Underline removed.) Finally, respondents argued that the allegations in the original complaint and the FAC “are nearly identical,” demonstrating respondents’ “claims are incapable of amendment,” and thus asked the court to sustain the demurrer without leave to amend. C. The Court Sustains the Demurrer Without Leave to Amend and Enters a Judgment of Dismissal In May 2025, the Riveras filed an ex parte application asking the court for permission to file a second amended complaint. Respondents opposed the application, and the court denied it. The next day, the Riveras filed another ex parte application, asking for a 60-day extension to “answer” respondents’ demurrer “due to unusual circumstances.” They provided no explanation as to what the circumstances were. Respondents again opposed the application. 12  In late May 2025, respondents filed a “Notice of Non- Opposition to Demurrer.” The Riveras objected to the notice but did not file an opposition. In June 2025, the court denied the Riveras’ request for more time to respond to the demurrer and then sustained it without leave to amend, finding, among other things, that no material violations of the Homeowner Bill of Rights were alleged, that the Riveras received a loan modification, and that the sale of their home was rescinded and no Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded. As to the quiet title cause of action specifically, the court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend because “the FAC is not verified as required,” and “Plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing Plaintiffs own the property free and clear of the encumbrances as alleged.” Regarding the FAC’s allegations about a full reconveyance, the court found that had to do with repayment of the 2006 loan, “not the subject loan.” The court stated it was “not inclined to grant leave to amend unless Plaintiffs can proffer facts which demonstrate that the debt was completely discharged as contended.” In June 2025, the court entered a judgment of dismissal. The Riveras timely appealed. D. Motion to Augment In July 2026, the Riveras moved this court to augment the appellate record with “a Copy of the Original Instrument recorded with the Los Angeles Registrar Recorder County Clerk under instrument number 20080311336 recorded on 02/22/2008,” which they argue “shows that the transfer of the note on Plaintiffs’ property was assigned to FINANCIAL TITLE COMPANY by Wells Fargo Bank and Not to OCWEN LOAN 13 SERVICING, LLC., as claimed by defendants through their CORRECTIVE CORPORATE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST.” The document, signed by Option One Mortgage, is entitled “SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE” and substitutes Financial Title Company as trustee under the 2007 DOT in place of Premier Trust Deed Services. Respondents oppose the motion, arguing that “[t]he document that appellants ask this Court to make a part of the record on appeal was apparently never considered by the trial court” and, in any case, “is not an assignment of beneficial interest under the 2007 note and deed of trust that make up the loan that is the subject of the Rivera’s [sic] appeal, contrary to appellants’ assertions” but instead “a 2008 ‘Substitution of Trustee’ that predates the 2014 ‘Substitution of Trustee’ that appointed Western Progressive, LLC.” DISCUSSION A. We Deny the Riveras’ Motion to Augment The Riveras bring their motion under rule 8.155 of the California Rules of Court.5 This rule provides that “[a]t any time, on motion of a party or its own motion, the reviewing court may order the record augmented to include: [¶] (A) Any document filed or lodged in the case in superior court; or [¶] (B) A certified transcript-or agreed or settled statement-of oral proceedings not designated under rule 8.130.” The 2008 Substitution of Trustee with which the Riveras ask to augment the record is self-evidently not a certified 5 They cite also to California Rules of Court, rule 8.340, but that rule applies only to criminal appeals. 14 transcript or agreed or settled statement of oral proceedings. And the Riveras neither allege it was ever filed or lodged in this case in the superior court nor dispute respondents’ claim that it was not. “Augmentation does not function to supplement the record with materials not before the trial court.” (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3.) We therefore deny the Riveras’ motion.6 B. The Court Did Not Err in Sustaining the Demurrer Without Leave to Amend On appeal, the Riveras state they agree with the trial court’s demurrer ruling on all causes of action except for Quiet Title. Through that cause of action, the Riveras sought to “quiet title against the claims of Defendants and all persons known and unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien or adverse interest in the Subject Property as of the date the complaint was filed.” In other words, the Riveras sought a declaration that they owned their home free and clear of encumbrances. The court sustained respondents’ demurrer to this cause of action because the FAC was unverified, and because the court concluded the Riveras failed to allege facts showing they owned the property free and clear of encumbrances. The court found that the FAC alleged repayment of a 2006 loan, “not the subject loan.” The court stated it was “not inclined to grant leave to 6 While we cannot augment the record with the 2008 Substitution of Trustee, as discussed below, we consider it as part of the Riveras’ attempt to demonstrate their ability to amend their complaint to state a quiet title cause of action. 15 amend unless Plaintiffs can proffer facts which demonstrate that the debt was completely discharged as contended.” On appeal, the Riveras argue the trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer because it “overlooked . . . the CORRECTIVE CORPORATE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST AND THE 2017 IRS 1040 FORM 1099-C DEBT CANCELLATION.” They also argue they should be permitted to amend because they “can proffer facts which demonstrate that the debt was completely discharged as contended . . . with the IRS 1040 FORM 1099-C DEBT CANCELLATION in 2017 with- an-unmarked box number five (5) which states that Plaintiffs were not personally responsible for the debt.” We address each contention in turn. 1. The Court Did Not Err in Sustaining the Demurrer The trial court sustained respondents’ demurrer to the quiet title cause of action because the facts alleged in the FAC and the judicially noticed documents “do not show that the property is free and clear of encumbrances.” The Riveras contend the court erred by overlooking the Corrective Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust as well as the 2017 Form 1099-C. As discussed above, in February 2008, an Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded as Instrument No. 20080311335, in which Option One assigned its interest in the 2007 DOT to Wells Fargo. Then, in April 2019, a Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust was recorded, in which Sand Canyon Corporation FKA Option One Mortgage assigned its interest in the 2007 DOT to Wells Fargo, c/o Ocwen Loan Servicing. This Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust purported to correct the February 16 2008 Assignment of Deed of Trust’s execution date, notary date, assignor, and assignee. The Riveras argue the 2019 Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust was invalid because “the original [assignment] can not be corrected with new information, [and] is not . . . transferrable, unless signed or transferred by[]the original trustee.” (Capitalization removed.) They cite no legal authority supporting this assertion but, even assuming arguendo that they are correct, they fail to explain how the purportedly invalid 2019 assignment supports their allegation that they own the property free and clear of encumbrances, or how it invalidates either the 2008 Assignment of Deed of Trust, or the 2023 loan modification they themselves alleged they entered into, in which they acknowledged they owed a principal balance of $777,699.48. As for the Form 1099-C, the Riveras argue that because Box 5 (stating “If checked, the debtor was personally liable for repayment of the debt”) was unchecked, this means they “were not personally responsible for the debt as per instructions for the 2017 year 1040 FORM 1099-C Cancellation of Debt in the amount of $892,691.27” or for “any interest arising from the subject canceled debt.” The Riveras do not provide these supposed instructions or any other authority to support this argument. On the face of Form 1099-C, it would appear that the provider of the form is asserting the Riveras were not personally responsible for the amount of the debt canceled (i.e., $892,691.27) at the time the debt was last modified (i.e., when the loan was modified to waive the $892,691.27). The Riveras expressly allege that Ocwen asserted they “owed a total debt of $1,601,266.57” on the property, and that the Riveras “signed a loan modification in the amount of $700,496.00.” Thus, by their own allegations, the 17 Form 1099-C did not cancel the entire amount of the debt owed, and the Riveras do not own their home free and clear of all encumbrances. That they were not personally responsible for the cancelled portion of the debt does not demonstrate otherwise.7 The Riveras fail to demonstrate the court erred in sustaining respondents’ demurrer to the quiet title cause of action. 2. The Court Did Not Err in Denying Leave to Amend In sustaining the demurrer to the quiet title cause of action, the court stated it was “not inclined to grant leave to amend unless Plaintiffs can proffer facts which demonstrate that the debt was completely discharged as contended.” The Riveras claim they can do so “because this is what Plaintiffs believe is the legal points to be argued with all of the written herein that has been presented in this Appellant’s Opening Brief with the evidence as Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 [sic].” The Riveras improperly attached to their opening brief three (not five) “exhibits”: (1) the 2019 Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust; (2) the 2008 Assignment of Deed of Trust; and (3) the 2008 Substitution of Trustee with which they attempted to 7 Nor do the Riveras cite anything to support their implied claim that the amount they agreed to pay in their loan modification was “interest arising from the subject canceled debt.” As the Riveras themselves alleged in their FAC, they “signed a loan modification in the amount of $700,496.00 (called modified principal balance) with Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC., claimed as additional debt on Plaintiffs[’] property.” (Underline added.) 18 augment the record. They claim that the third exhibit is “PROOF that OCWEN CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT is invalid.” To the extent the Riveras argue the 2019 Assignment of Deed of Trust or the Form 1099-C demonstrate their debt was completely discharged, we reject that argument for the reasons discussed above. To the extent the Riveras argue the 2008 Assignment of Deed of Trust or 2008 Substitution of Trustee make this showing, we disagree. Through the 2008 Assignment of Deed of Trust, Option One assigned its interest in the 2007 DOT to Wells Fargo. The Riveras do not explain how such an assignment is invalidated by the 2008 Substitution of Trustee. The Riveras appear to argue that the 2019 Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust (which was alleged to be a “CORRECTIVE ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST”) is invalid because the 2008 Substitution of Trustee substitutes Financial Title Company as the trustee in place of Premier Trust Deed services. But even were the 2019 Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust invalid, the Riveras do not explain how an invalid 2019 Corporate Assignment of Deed of Trust would demonstrate they owned their home free of the 2007 DOT (which, through the 2008 Assignment of Deed of Trust, was assigned to Wells Fargo). The Riveras fail to demonstrate they could successfully amend their quiet title cause of action. The trial court did not err in denying leave to amend. 19  DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Respondents shall recover their costs on appeal. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED M. KIM, J. We concur: ROTHSCHILD, P. J. BENDIX, J. 20