Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

You would either have to find some new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time of the hearing and move for a new trial within ten days of the notice of judgment [difficult to win on that argument]or file an appeal. I find it hard to believe that the bank would file for a UD if it did not have some ownership interest in the house or the judge would not understand a simple explanation. Why do you contend the bank has no ownership interest?

Mr. Shers is right. Neither banks nor the courts are in the habit of making mistakes like that. If the evidence before the court proved the bank did not own the house and the court ruled it did, or if the court refused to hear proper evidence that the bank did not own it, then you have grounds for appeal. You have more time than to move for a new trial, but not by much. You need to file right away, with the help of an attorney. Pro per parties almost always lose at trial. They ALWAYS lose appeals, usually because they don't follow the complicated rules and never even get their case heard.

What you could have done was properly defend the action with appropriate pleadings and evidence. After you didn't, and allowed a judgment, your 'remedy' is either a Motion for Reconsideration or an appeal, but only if you can show actual 'mistake of fact or law' by the judge. By the way, your opinion does not count, only the evidence. If you think you can do so, then consult with an appellate attorney in your area to see if he agrees. There are time limits running.

If the bank foreclosed on the property, and purchased the property at a trustee's foreclosure sale, they are the "owner" of the property. You need to speak to an attorney, and provide detailed facts before running out the door and filing a costly appeal on your own.