Wells Fargo says we don’t dual track you just never really applied for a modification 7944 pages later it was not “complete”

Upon doing the deposition of Joeffery Long Wells Fargo I was amazed that they could be so blatant as against the California Homeowners Bill of Rights but then again it is Wells Fargo

Joffrey Long rough draft

Joffrey Long exhibits

Pacific Western Bank $227,000 in attorney fees for a 2 hour bench trial eviction wow !!!!

Brillouet Trial Brief 7-8-15

Timothy L. McCandless, Esq. SBN 145577
Law Offices of Timothy L. McCandless
26875 Calle Hermosa Suite A,
Capistrano Beach, CA 92624
Telephone: (925) 957-9797

Attorneys for Defendants
Pierrick Briolette and Yong C. Briolette

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF VENTURA
COASTLINE REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS, INC.

Plaintiff,

vs.

PIERRICK BRILLOUET, an individual;
YONG BRILLOUET, an individual; and DOE 1 through DOE 10, INCLUSIVE;
Defendants.
)
)
) Case No. 56-2014-00461981-CU-UD-VTA

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES

DATE: January 6, 2016
TIME: 8:30 a.m.
DEPT.: 41

Defendants Pierrick Brillouet and Yong C. Brillouet respectfully submit their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
INTRODUCTION AND HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Dates relevant to this matter are as follows:
On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff Coastline Real Estate Holdings, LLC filed the instant unlawful detainer action.
A two hour bench trial was conducted on September 8, 2015, and the court awarded possession to the Plaintiff.
Judgment was entered on October 7, 2015. The time to file an appeal was November 6, 2015, because the matter was filed as a limited action.
Additionally, the deadline to file the present Motion For Attorney’s was November 6, 2015, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1702(b)(1). However the Motion was not filed until December 4, 2015. As such, the Motion was filed almost one month after the deadline and for that reason alone must be denied.
Plaintiff now seeks the award of $227,084.50 in attorney’s fees. The Declaration of Attorney Richman at Paragraph 19 specifically alleges that he expended 769.85 hours “in this matter.” However, when you review the charges, the hours were actually incurred for by other parties (Western Commercial Bank, Pacific Western Bank), in entirely different actions. The assertion of 769.85 hours by Plaintiff’s counsel related to this action is an intentional misrepresentation pursuant to California Rules of Professional Conduct 5-200(b).
Additionally, the identical charges were already disallowed in a prior motion in a different action, and therefore are barred by collateral estoppel.
Even worse, Defendant redacted in its Motion what attorney services were performed and the amount of time which was expended in completing those tasks. As a result, even if Plaintiff was entitled to recovery attorney’s fees for this case, based on the information served on Defendant, it is impossible to determine: (1) the nature of the service provided, (2) whether that service was necessary, (3) the amount of time which was expended to complete the service, and (4) is the amount of time and charge a reasonable fees for the “alleged” services. Given the foregoing, the Motion must be denied.
II. THE MOTION IS UNTIMELY FILED.
The unlawful detainer action was filed as a limited action, the Plaintiff paid the filing fee for a limited action, and the defendants likewise paid the filing fees for a limited action. The action was tried as a limited action.
Judgment was entered on October 7, 2015.
The deadline to file the present Motion For Attorney’s was thirty (30) days later, or November 6, 2015, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 3.1702(b)(1). Section 3.1702 provides in pertinent part:
(b) Attorney’s fees before trial court judgment
(1) Time for motion
“A notice of motion to claim attorney’s fees for services up to and including the rendition of judgment in the trial court-including attorney’s fees on an appeal before the rendition of judgment in the trial court-must be served and filed within the time for filing a notice of appeal under rules 8.104 and 8.108 in an unlimited civil case or under rules 8.822 and 8.823 in a limited civil case.”

The parties did not enter into a stipulation to extend the time for Plaintiff to file its Motion for Attorney’s Fees.
Plaintiff filed the instant Motion on December 4, 2015.
California Rules of Court Rule 8.822(1)(A) provides in pertinent part:
Rule 8.822. Time to appeal
(a) Normal time
(1) “Unless a statute or rule 8.823 provides otherwise, a notice of appeal must be filed on or before the earliest of:

(A) 30 days after the trial court clerk serves the party filing the notice of appeal a document entitled “Notice of Entry” of judgment or a file-stamped copy of the judgment, showing the date it was served;”

As such, the Motion was filed almost one month after the deadline and for that reason alone must be denied.

III. THE INSTANT MOTION IS NOT SUPPORTED IN CONTRACT OR
STATUTE AND MUST BE DENIED.
Plaintiff Coastline Real Estate Holdings, LLC purchased the position of Pacific Western Bank. Defendants believe that Plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pacific Western Bank.
Pacific Western Bank (as successor in interest) became a Defendant in Superior Court of California, County of Ventura Case No. 56-2014-00458447-CU-OR-VTA stylized as:
Pierrick Brillouet and Yong Brillouet v. Western Commerical Bank, brought the identical motion for attorney’s fees. That motion was denied. The court adopted its Tentative Ruling which stated:

The Bank is only entitled to an award of attorney fees in this matter if a contractual provision exists which provides for such an award.
The Bank argues that the construction trust deed contains an attorney provision which provides it with a basis for attorney fees. However, the deed only permits an award of attorney fees by a court “[i]f Lender institutes any suit or action to enforce any of the terms of this Deed of Trust, Lender shall be entitled to recover such sum as the court may adjudge reasonable as attorneys’ fees at trial and upon any appeal.” (Emphasis added). Only actions which the “Lender institutes” are subject to the attorney’s fees provision and this action was not brought by the lender. The Bank has made no argument for the extension of the plain language of the provision which would encompass the current suit and as such it has not demonstrated it is entitled to fees under the construction trust deed.
The Bank claims that it is also entitled to attorney fees under the Promissory Note which provides:
Lender may hire or pay someone else to collect this note. Borrower will pay Lender that amount. This includes, subject to any limits under applicable law, Lender’s attorneys’ fee and Lender’s legal expenses, whether or not there is a lawsuit, including attorneys’ fees, expenses for bankruptcy proceedings (including efforts to modify or vacate any automatic stay or injunction), and appeals. Borrower will also pay any court costs, in addition to all other sums provided by law.
This was not a suit brought to collect the note. While “that amount” includes attorney fees and legal expenses, there is no indication that the court is authorized to make an award of these fees and expenses as a result of the current litigation. The Promissory Note does not indicate that the prevailing party in an action such as this is entitled to reasonable attorney fees.
The Bank also points to the assumption agreement as a basis for fees. It allegedly provides that “[i]f any lawsuit, arbitration or other proceedings is brought to interpret or enforce the terms of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover the reasonable fees and costs of its attorneys in such proceeding.” This lawsuit didn’t involve the interpretation or enforcement of the terms of the assumption agreement. Santisas v. Goodin (1988) 17 Cal.4th 599 is of no help to the Bank as it involved an expansive attorney’s fee clause that clearly applied to the suit and the question was whether Civil Code §1717(b)(2) thwarted its application. That is not the case here.” A true and correct copy of the Tentative Ruling is attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and is incorporated by this reference.
Notwithstanding the court’s prior Order denying the very same attorney’s fees, Plaintiff in the instant action once again argues the identical points and seeks fees which are unsupported, unreasonable, and which are untimely. As such, the Motion for Attorney’s fees must be denied.
IV. MOVANTS HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE REASONABLE
NATURE OF THE SERVICES ALLEGED.
The Declaration of Attorney Steven N. Richman contains an attachment which purports to be a listing of the attorney services which were provided. However, a summary inspection shows that the listing of services, the time incurred for such service and the amount charged for such services have been redacted.
As such, Plaintiffs cannot determine the propriety of: (1) the nature of the services provided, (2) whether those services were necessary, (3) the amount of time which was expended to complete the services, and (4) whether the amount of time and charge is a reasonable fee for the particular service rendered.
Attorney fee shifting statutes and contractual provisions usually provide only the right to recover “reasonable attorneys’ fees” incurred as a result of the litigation. In order to determine the reasonableness of the fee award requested, courts generally start with the “lodestar amount,” which is the reasonable number of hours spent on the litigation multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate. Serrano v. Priest, 20 Cal.3d 25, 48 (1977); Thayer v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 92 Cal.App.4th 819 (2001).
Once this amount is determined, the court can take into consideration additional factors to adjust the “lodestar” either up or down as appropriate. Such factors include: the novelty or difficulty of the issues involved in the case and the skill required to present those issues; the extent to which the nature of the case precluded the employment of other attorneys; and the fee arrangement of the attorney and the client. Serrano, 20 Cal.3d at 48; Thayer, 92 Cal. App.4th at 833. The party seeking the fees has the burden of proof to establish that the time spent and the hourly fee charged is reasonable. Levy v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 4 Cal.App.4th 807 (1992).
This particular case was an unlawful detainer action, the trial lasted two hours, the trial presented no novel issues, nor did it require herculean efforts. The case was disposed by bench trial within two hours. As such, although Defendants believe that no right to attorney’s fees exists in this matter, if the court is going to award attorney’s fees, then Movant has failed to prove the reasonableness of the fees requested. Given the foregoing the Motion should be denied.
Dated: December 22, 2015 LAW OFFICES OF
TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS
By ____________________________
Timothy L. McCandless, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants
Pierrick Brillouet and Yong C. Brillouet

 

Predatory Lending and Predatory Servicing together at last Jan 1, 2013 Civil Code §2924.12(b)

Predatory Lending are abusive practices used in the mortgage industry that strip borrowers of home equity and threaten families with bankruptcy and foreclosure.

Predatory Lending can be broken down into three categories: Mortgage Origination, Mortgage Servicing; and Mortgage Collection and Foreclosure.

Mortgage Origination is the process by which you obtain your home loan from a mortgage broker or a bank.

Predatory lending practices in Mortgage Origination include:
# Excessive points;
# Charging fees not allowed or for services not delivered;
# Charging more than once for the same fee
# Providing a low teaser rate that adjusts to a rate you cannot afford;
# Successively refinancing your loan of “flipping;”
# “Steering” you into a loan that is more profitable to the Mortgage Originator;
# Changing the loan terms at closing or “bait & switch;”
# Closing in a location where you cannot adequately review the documents;
# Serving alcohol prior to closing;
# Coaching you to put minimum income or assets on you loan so that you will qualify for a certain amount;
# Securing an inflated appraisal;
# Receiving a kickback in money or favors from a particular escrow, title, appraiser or other service provider;
# Promising they will refinance your mortgage before your payment resets to a higher amount;
# Having you sign blank documents;
# Forging documents and signatures;
# Changing documents after you have signed them; and
# Loans with prepayment penalties or balloon payments.

Mortgage Servicing is the process of collecting loan payments and credit your loan.

Predatory lending practices in Mortgage Servicing include:
# Not applying payments on time;
# Applying payments to “Suspense;”
# “Jamming” illegal or improper fees;
# Creating an escrow or impounds account not allowed by the documents;
# Force placing insurance when you have adequate coverage;
# Improperly reporting negative credit history;
# Failing to provide you a detailed loan history; and
# Refusing to return your calls or letters.
#

Mortgage Collection & Foreclosure is the process Lenders use when you pay off your loan or when you house is repossessed for non-payment

Predatory lending practices in Mortgage Collection & Foreclosure include:
# Producing a payoff statement that includes improper charges & fees;
# Foreclosing in the name of an entity that is not the true owner of the mortgage;
# Failing to provide Default Loan Servicing required by all Fannie Mae mortgages;
# Failing to follow due process in foreclosure;
# Fraud on the court;
# Failing to provide copies of all documents and assignments; and
# Refusing to adequately communicate with you.

Abuses by Mortgage Service Companies

Although predatory lending has received far more attention than abusive servicing, a significant percentage of consumer complaints over loans involve servicing, not origination. For example, the director of the Nevada Fair Housing Center testified that of the hundreds of complaints of predatory lending issues her office received in 2002, about 42 percent involved servicing once the loan was transferred

Abusive Mortgage Servicing Defined:

Abusive servicing occurs when a servicer, either through action or inaction, obtains or attempts to obtain unwarranted fees or other costs from borrowers, engages in unfair collection practices, or through its own improper behavior or inaction causes borrowers to be more likely to go into default or have their homes foreclosed. Abusive practices should be distinguished from appropriate actions that may harm borrowers, such as a servicer merely collecting appropriate late fees or foreclosing on borrowers who do not make their payments despite proper loss mitigation efforts. Servicing can be abusive either intentionally, when there is intent to obtain unwarranted fees, or negligently, when, for example, a servicer’s records are so disorganized that borrowers are regularly charged late fees even when mortgage payments were made on time.

Abusive servicing often happens to debtors who have filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan and are in the process of making payments under the Plan. If you suspect that your mortgage servicer is abusing your relationship by charging unnecessary fees while you are paying off your Chapter 13 Plan, call us. We can help.

There is significant evidence that some Mortgage servicers have engaged in abusive behavior and that borrowers have frequently been the victims. Some servicers have engaged in practices that are not only detrimental to borrowers but also illegal Such abuse has been documented in court opinions and decisions, in the decisions and findings of ratings agencies, in litigation and settlements obtained by government agencies against prominent servicers, in congressional testimony, and in newspaper accounts of borrowers who claim to have been mistreated by servicers. The abusive servicing practices documented in these sources include improper foreclosure or attempted foreclosure, improper fees, improper forced-placed insurance, and improper use or oversight of escrow funds .

Civil Code §2924.12(b) Right to Sue Mortgage Servicers for Injunctive Relief, Damages, Treble Damages, and Right to Attorney’s Fees. : )

5 Dec

H. Right to Sue Mortgage Servicers for Injunctive Relief, Damages, Treble Damages, and Right to Attorney’s Fees

2013 is going to be a good year

One of the most important provisions of the Act from a lender’s perspective is that it provides borrowers with the right to sue mortgage servicers for injunctive relief before the trustee’s deed upon sale has recorded, or if it has already recorded, to sue for actual economic damages, if the mortgage servicer has not corrected any “material” violation of certain enumerated portions of the Act before the trustee’s deed upon sale recorded. (Civil Code §2924.12(a).) In an area that will certainly open up a Pandora’s Box of litigation, the Act does not define what constitutes a “material” violation of the Act. If a court finds that the violation was intentional, reckless or willful, the court can award the borrower the greater of treble (triple) damages or $50,000. (Civil Code §2924.12(b).) Furthermore, a violation of the enumerated provisions of the Act is also deemed to be a violation of the licensing laws if committed by a person licensed as a consumer or commercial finance lender or broker, a residential mortgage lender or servicer, or a licensed real estate broker or salesman. (Civil Code §2924.12(d).) Lastly, in a one-sided attorney’s fee provision that only benefits borrowers, the court may award a borrower who obtains an injunction or receives an award of economic damages as a result of the violation of the Act their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party. (Civil Code §2924.12(i).) This provides all the more reason for lenders and mortgage servicers to comply with the terms of the Act. This provision for the recovery by only the borrower of their reasonable attorney’s fees makes it more likely that borrowers will file litigation against mortgage lenders or servicers than they otherwise would. Compliance is the lender’s or mortgage servicer’s best defense to litigation under the Act.

Significantly for lenders, as long as the mortgage servicer remedies the material violation of the Act before the trustee’s deed upon sale has recorded, the Act specifically provides that the mortgage servicer shall not be liable under the Act for any violation or damages. (Civil Code §2924.12(b) & (c).) The Act also clarifies that signatories to the National Mortgage Settlement who are in compliance with the terms of that settlement, as they relate to the terms of the Act, will not face liability under the Act. (Civil Code §2924.12(g).

Improper foreclosure or attempted foreclosure

Because servicers can exact fees associated with foreclosures, such as attorneys’ fees, some servicers have attempted to foreclose on property even when borrowers are current on their payments or without giving borrowers enough time to repay or otherwise working with them on a repayment plan Furthermore, a speedy foreclosure may save servicers the cost of attempting other techniques that might have prevented the foreclosure.

Some servicers have been so brazen that they have regularly claimed to the courts that borrowers were in default so as to justify foreclosure, even though the borrowers were current on their payments. Other courts have also decried the frequent use of false statements to obtain relief from stay in order to foreclose on borrowers’ homes. For example, in Hart v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation, et al., 246 B.R. 709 (2000), even though the borrower had made the payments required of him by a forbearance agreement he had entered into with the servicer (GMAC Mortgage Corporation), it created a “negative suspense account” for moneys it had paid out, improperly charged the borrower an additional monthly sum to repay the negative suspense account, charged him late fees for failing to make the entire payment demanded, and began foreclosure proceedings.

Improper fees

Claiming that borrowers are in default when they are actually current allows servicers to charge unwarranted fees, either late fees or fees related to default and foreclosure. Servicers receive as a conventional fee a percentage of the total value of the loans they service, typically 25 basis points for prime loans and 50 basis points for subprime loans In addition, contracts typically provide that the servicer, not the trustee or investors, has the right to keep any and all late fees or fees associated with defaults. Servicers charge late fees not only because they act as a prod to coax borrowers into making payments on time, but also because borrowers who fail to make payments impose additional costs on servicers, which must then engage in loss mitigation to induce payment.

Such fees are a crucial part of servicers’ income. For example, one servicer’s CEO reportedly stated that extra fees, such as late fees, appeared to be paying for all of the operating costs of the company’s entire servicing department, leaving the conventional servicing fee almost completely profit The pressure to collect such fees appears to be higher on subprime servicers than on prime servicers:

Because borrowers typically cannot prove the exact date a payment was received, servicers can charge late fees even when they receive the payment on time Improper late fees may also be based on the loss of borrowers’ payments by servicers, their inability to track those payments accurately, or their failure to post payments in a timely fashion. In Ronemus v. FTB Mortgage Services, 201 B.R. 458 (1996), under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, the borrowers had made all of their payments on time except for two; they received permission to pay these two late and paid late fees for the privilege. However, the servicer, FTB Mortgage Services, misapplied their payments, then began placing their payments into a suspense account and collecting unauthorized late fees. The servicer ignored several letters from the borrowers’ attorney attempting to clear up the matter, sent regular demands for late fees, and began harassing the borrowers with collection efforts. When the borrowers sued, the servicer submitted to the court an artificially inflated accounting of how much the borrowers owed.

Some servicers have sent out late notices even when they have received timely payments and even before the end of a borrower’s grace period Worse yet, a servicer might pocket the payment, such as an extra payment of principal, and never credit it to the borrower Late fees on timely payments are a common problem when borrowers are making mortgage payments through a bankruptcy plan

Moreover, some servicers have also added false fees and charges not authorized by law or contract to their monthly payment demands, relying on borrowers’ ignorance of the exact amount owed. They can collect such fees or other unwarranted claims by submitting inaccurate payoff demands when a borrower refinances or sells the house). Or they can place the borrowers’ monthly payments in a suspense account and then charge late fees even though they received the payment Worse yet, some servicers pyramid their late fees, applying a portion of the current payment to a previous late fee and then charging an additional late fee even though the borrower has made a timely and full payment for the new month Pyramiding late fees allows servicers to charge late fees month after month even though the borrower made only one late payment

Servicers can turn their fees into a profit center by sending inaccurate monthly payment demands, demanding unearned fees or charges not owed, or imposing fees higher than the expenses for a panoply of actions For example, some servicers take advantage of borrowers’ ignorance by charging fees, such as prepayment penalties, where the note does not provide for them Servicers have sometimes imposed a uniform set of fees over an entire pool of loans, disregarding the fact that some of the loan documents did not provide for those particular fees. Or they charge more for attorneys’, property inspection, or appraisal fees than were actually incurred. Some servicers may add a fee by conducting unnecessary property inspections, having an agent drive by even when the borrower is not in default, or conducting multiple inspections during a single period of default to charge the resulting multiple fees

The complexity of the terms of many loans makes it difficult for borrowers to discover whether they are being overcharged Moreover, servicers can frustrate any attempts to sort out which fees are genuine.

Improperly forced-placed insurance

Mortgage holders are entitled under the terms of the loan to require borrowers to carry homeowners’ insurance naming the holder as the payee in case of loss and to force-place insurance by buying policies for borrowers who fail to do so and charging them for the premiums However, some servicers have force-placed insurance even in cases where the borrower already had it and even provided evidence of it to the servicer Worse yet, servicers have charged for force-placed insurance without even purchasing it. Premiums for force-placed insurance are often inflated in that they provide protection in excess of what the loan.

Escrow Account Mismanagement

One of the benefits of servicing mortgages is controlling escrow accounts to pay for insurance, taxes, and the like and, in most states, keeping any interest earned on these accounts Borrowers have complained that servicers have failed to make tax or insurance payments when they were due or at all. The treasurer of the country’s second largest county estimated that this failure to make timely payments cost borrowers late fees of at least $2 million in that county over a two-year span, causing some to lose their homes. If servicers fail to make insurance payments and a policy lapses, borrowers may face much higher insurance costs even if they purchase their own, non-force-placed policy. Worse yet, borrowers may find themselves unable to buy insurance at all if they cannot find a new insurer willing to write them a policy

You can make a claim for mortgage service abuse, and often the court will award actual and punitive damages. If you think you have been a victim of mortgage service abuse, contact us. We can help you make a claim.

Many a client call me when its toooooo late however sometimes something can be done it would envolve an appeal and this application for a stay. Most likely you will have to pay the reasonable rental value till the case is decided. And … Yes we have had this motion granted. ex-parte-application-for-stay-of-judgment-or-unlawful-detainer3
When title to the property is still in dispute ie. the foreclosure was bad. They (the lender)did not comply with California civil code 2923.5 or 2923.6 or 2924. Or the didn’t possess the documents to foreclose ie. the original note. Or they did not possess a proper assignment 2932.5. at trial you will be ignored by the learned judge but if you file a Motion for Summary Judgmentevans sum ud
template notice of Motion for SJ
TEMPLATE Points and A for SJ Motion
templateDeclaration for SJ
TEMPLATEProposed Order on Motion for SJ
TEMPLATEStatement of Undisputed Facts
you can force the issue and if there is a case filed in the Unlimited jurisdiction Court the judge may be forced to consider title and or consolidate the case with the Unlimited Jurisdiction Case

BILL NUMBER: AB 278	CHAPTERED
	BILL TEXT

	CHAPTER  86
	FILED WITH SECRETARY OF STATE  JULY 11, 2012
	APPROVED BY GOVERNOR  JULY 11, 2012
	PASSED THE SENATE  JULY 2, 2012
	PASSED THE ASSEMBLY  JULY 2, 2012
	AMENDED IN SENATE  SEPTEMBER 1, 2011
	AMENDED IN SENATE  JUNE 23, 2011

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Members Eng, Feuer, Mitchell, and John A.
Pérez
   (Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Davis, Carter, and Skinner)

   (Principal coauthors: Senators Leno, Evans, Calderon, Corbett,
DeSaulnier, Hancock, Pavley, and Steinberg)

                        FEBRUARY 8, 2011

   An act to amend and add Sections 2923.5 and 2923.6 of, to amend
and repeal Section 2924 of, to add Sections 2920.5, 2923.4, 2923.7,
2924.17, and 2924.20 to, to add and repeal Sections 2923.55, 2924.9,
2924.10, 2924.18, and 2924.19 of, and to add, repeal, and add
Sections 2924.11, 2924.12, and 2924.15 of, the Civil Code, relating
to mortgages.

	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

   AB 278, Eng. Mortgages and deeds of trust: foreclosure.
   (1) Existing law, until January 1, 2013, requires a mortgagee,
trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent to contact the borrower
prior to filing a notice of default to explore options for the
borrower to avoid foreclosure, as specified. Existing law requires a
notice of default or, in certain circumstances, a notice of sale, to
include a declaration stating that the mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower, or has
tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, or that no contact
was required for a specified reason.
   This bill would add mortgage servicers, as defined, to these
provisions and would extend the operation of these provisions
indefinitely, except that it would delete the requirement with
respect to a notice of sale. The bill would, until January 1, 2018,
additionally require the borrower, as defined, to be provided with
specified information in writing prior to recordation of a notice of
default and, in certain circumstances, within 5 business days after
recordation. The bill would prohibit a mortgage servicer, mortgagee,
trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent from recording a notice of
default or, until January 1, 2018, recording a notice of sale or
conducting a trustee's sale while a complete first lien loan
modification application is pending, under specified conditions. The
bill would, until January 1, 2018, establish additional procedures to
be followed regarding a first lien loan modification application,
the denial of an application, and a borrower's right to appeal a
denial.
   (2) Existing law imposes various requirements that must be
satisfied prior to exercising a power of sale under a mortgage or
deed of trust, including, among other things, recording a notice of
default and a notice of sale.
   The bill would, until January 1, 2018, require a written notice to
the borrower after the postponement of a foreclosure sale in order
to advise the borrower of any new sale date and time, as specified.
The bill would provide that an entity shall not record a notice of
default or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is
the holder of the beneficial interest under the deed of trust, the
original or substituted trustee, or the designated agent of the
holder of the beneficial interest, as specified.
   The bill would prohibit recordation of a notice of default or a
notice of sale or the conduct of a trustee's sale if a foreclosure
prevention alternative has been approved and certain conditions exist
and would, until January 1, 2018, require recordation of a
rescission of those notices upon execution of a permanent foreclosure
prevention alternative. The bill would, until January 1, 2018,
prohibit the collection of application fees and the collection of
late fees while a foreclosure prevention alternative is being
considered, if certain criteria are met, and would require a
subsequent mortgage servicer to honor any previously approved
foreclosure prevention alternative.
   The bill would authorize a borrower to seek an injunction and
damages for violations of certain of the provisions described above,
except as specified. The bill would authorize the greater of treble
actual damages or $50,000 in statutory damages if a violation of
certain provisions is found to be intentional or reckless or resulted
from willful misconduct, as specified. The bill would authorize the
awarding of attorneys' fees for prevailing borrowers, as specified.
Violations of these provisions by licensees of the Department of
Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the
Department of Real Estate would also be violations of those
respective licensing laws. Because a violation of certain of those
licensing laws is a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated
local program.
   The bill would provide that the requirements imposed on mortgage
servicers, and mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries, and authorized
agents, described above are applicable only to mortgages or deeds of
trust secured by residential real property not exceeding 4 dwelling
units that is owner-occupied, as defined, and, until January 1, 2018,
only to those entities who conduct more than 175 foreclosure sales
per year or annual reporting period, except as specified.
   The bill would require, upon request from a borrower who requests
a foreclosure prevention alternative, a mortgage servicer who
conducts more than 175 foreclosure sales per year or annual reporting
period to establish a single point of contact and provide the
borrower with one or more direct means of communication with the
single point of contact. The bill would specify various
responsibilities of the single point of contact. The bill would
define single point of contact for these purposes.
   (3) Existing law prescribes documents that may be recorded or
filed in court.
   This bill would require that a specified declaration, notice of
default, notice of sale, deed of trust, assignment of a deed of
trust, substitution of trustee, or declaration or affidavit filed in
any court relative to a foreclosure proceeding or recorded by or on
behalf of a mortgage servicer shall be accurate and complete and
supported by competent and reliable evidence. The bill would require
that before recording or filing any of those documents, a mortgage
servicer shall ensure that it has reviewed competent and reliable
evidence to substantiate the borrower's default and the right to
foreclose, including the borrower's loan status and loan information.
The bill would, until January 1, 2018, provide that any mortgage
servicer that engages in multiple and repeated violations of these
requirements shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to $7,500 per
mortgage or deed of trust, in an action brought by specified state
and local government entities, and would also authorize
administrative enforcement against licensees of the Department of
Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions, and the
Department of Real Estate.
   The bill would authorize the Department of Corporations, the
Department of Financial Institutions, and the Department of Real
Estate to adopt regulations applicable to persons and entities under
their respective jurisdictions for purposes of the provisions
described above. The bill would provide that a violation of those
regulations would be enforceable only by the regulating agency.
   (4) The bill would state findings and declarations of the
Legislature in relation to foreclosures in the state generally, and
would state the purposes of the bill.
   (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

  SECTION 1.  The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
   (a) California is still reeling from the economic impacts of a
wave of residential property foreclosures that began in 2007. From
2007 to 2011 alone, there were over 900,000 completed foreclosure
sales. In 2011, 38 of the top 100 hardest hit ZIP Codes in the nation
were in California, and the current wave of foreclosures continues
apace. All of this foreclosure activity has adversely affected
property values and resulted in less money for schools, public
safety, and other public services. In addition, according to the
Urban Institute, every foreclosure imposes significant costs on local
governments, including an estimated nineteen thousand two hundred
twenty-nine dollars ($19,229) in local government costs. And the
foreclosure crisis is not over; there remain more than two million
"underwater" mortgages in California.
   (b) It is essential to the economic health of this state to
mitigate the negative effects on the state and local economies and
the housing market that are the result of continued foreclosures by
modifying the foreclosure process to ensure that borrowers who may
qualify for a foreclosure alternative are considered for, and have a
meaningful opportunity to obtain, available loss mitigation options.
These changes to the state's foreclosure process are essential to
ensure that the current crisis is not worsened by unnecessarily
adding foreclosed properties to the market when an alternative to
foreclosure may be available. Avoiding foreclosure, where possible,
will help stabilize the state's housing market and avoid the
substantial, corresponding negative effects of foreclosures on
families, communities, and the state and local economy.
   (c) This act is necessary to provide stability to California's
statewide and regional economies and housing market by facilitating
opportunities for borrowers to pursue loss mitigation options.
  SEC. 2.  Section 2920.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2920.5.  For purposes of this article, the following definitions
apply:
   (a) "Mortgage servicer" means a person or entity who directly
services a loan, or who is responsible for interacting with the
borrower, managing the loan account on a daily basis including
collecting and crediting periodic loan payments, managing any escrow
account, or enforcing the note and security instrument, either as the
current owner of the promissory note or as the current owner's
authorized agent. "Mortgage servicer" also means a subservicing agent
to a master servicer by contract. "Mortgage servicer" shall not
include a trustee, or a trustee's authorized agent, acting under a
power of sale pursuant to a deed of trust.
   (b) "Foreclosure prevention alternative" means a first lien loan
modification or another available loss mitigation option.
   (c) (1) Unless otherwise provided and for purposes of Sections
2923.4, 2923.5, 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11,
2924.18, and 2924.19, "borrower" means any natural person who is a
mortgagor or trustor and who is potentially eligible for any federal,
state, or proprietary foreclosure prevention alternative program
offered by, or through, his or her mortgage servicer.
   (2) For purposes of the sections listed in paragraph (1),
"borrower" shall not include any of the following:
   (A) An individual who has surrendered the secured property as
evidenced by either a letter confirming the surrender or delivery of
the keys to the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent.
   (B) An individual who has contracted with an organization, person,
or entity whose primary business is advising people who have decided
to leave their homes on how to extend the foreclosure process and
avoid their contractual obligations to mortgagees or beneficiaries.
   (C) An individual who has filed a case under Chapter 7, 11, 12, or
13 of Title 11 of the United States Code and the bankruptcy court
has not entered an order closing or dismissing the bankruptcy case,
or granting relief from a stay of foreclosure.
   (d) "First lien" means the most senior mortgage or deed of trust
on the property that is the subject of the notice of default or
notice of sale.
  SEC. 3.  Section 2923.4 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2923.4.  (a) The purpose of the act that added this section is to
ensure that, as part of the nonjudicial foreclosure process,
borrowers are considered for, and have a meaningful opportunity to
obtain, available loss mitigation options, if any, offered by or
through the borrower's mortgage servicer, such as loan modifications
or other alternatives to foreclosure. Nothing in the act that added
this section, however, shall be interpreted to require a particular
result of that process.
   (b) Nothing in this article obviates or supersedes the obligations
of the signatories to the consent judgment entered in the case
entitled United States of America et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation et al., filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, case number 1:12-cv-00361 RMC.
  SEC. 4.  Section 2923.5 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
   2923.5.  (a) (1) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent may not record a notice of default
pursuant to Section 2924 until both of the following:
   (A) Either 30 days after initial contact is made as required by
paragraph (2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence
requirements as described in subdivision (e).
   (B) The mortgage servicer complies with paragraph (1) of
subdivision (a) of Section 2924.18, if the borrower has provided a
complete application as defined in subdivision (d) of Section
2924.18.
   (2) A mortgage servicer shall contact the borrower in person or by
telephone in order to assess the borrower's financial situation and
explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the
initial contact, the mortgage servicer shall advise the borrower that
he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if
requested, the mortgage servicer shall schedule the meeting to occur
within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower's financial situation
and discussion of options may occur during the first contact, or at
the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose. In either case,
the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number made
available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
Any meeting may occur telephonically.
   (b) A notice of default recorded pursuant to Section 2924 shall
include a declaration that the mortgage servicer has contacted the
borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as
required by this section, or that no contact was required because the
individual did not meet the definition of "borrower" pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 2920.5.
   (c) A mortgage servicer's loss mitigation personnel may
participate by telephone during any contact required by this section.

    (d) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other adviser
to discuss with the mortgage servicer, on the borrower's behalf, the
borrower's financial situation and options for the borrower to avoid
foreclosure. That contact made at the direction of the borrower shall
satisfy the contact requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a). Any loan modification or workout plan offered at the meeting by
the mortgage servicer is subject to approval by the borrower.
    (e) A notice of default may be recorded pursuant to Section 2924
when a mortgage servicer has not contacted a borrower as required by
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) provided that the failure to contact
the borrower occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgage
servicer. For purposes of this section, "due diligence" shall require
and mean all of the following:
   (1) A mortgage servicer shall first attempt to contact a borrower
by sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone
number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency.
   (2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgage servicer
shall attempt to contact the borrower by telephone at least three
times at different hours and on different days. Telephone calls shall
be made to the primary telephone number on file.
   (B) A mortgage servicer may attempt to contact a borrower using an
automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone
call is answered, the call is connected to a live representative of
the mortgage servicer.
   (C) A mortgage servicer satisfies the telephone contact
requirements of this paragraph if it determines, after attempting
contact pursuant to this paragraph, that the borrower's primary
telephone number and secondary telephone number or numbers on file,
if any, have been disconnected.
   (3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the
telephone call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the
mortgage servicer shall then send a certified letter, with return
receipt requested.
   (4) The mortgage servicer shall provide a means for the borrower
to contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone
number that will provide access to a live representative during
business hours.
   (5) The mortgage servicer has posted a prominent link on the
homepage of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following
information:
   (A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to
afford their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and
instructions to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore
those options.
   (B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be
prepared to present to the mortgage servicer when discussing options
for avoiding foreclosure.
   (C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss
options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgage servicer.
   (D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
    (f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
described in Section 2924.15.
   (g) This section shall apply only to entities described in
subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.
    (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 5.  Section 2923.5 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2923.5.  (a) (1) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent may not record a notice of default
pursuant to Section 2924 until both of the following:
   (A) Either 30 days after initial contact is made as required by
paragraph (2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence
requirements as described in subdivision (e).
   (B) The mortgage servicer complies with subdivision (a) of Section
2924.11, if the borrower has provided a complete application as
defined in subdivision (f) of Section 2924.11.
   (2) A mortgage servicer shall contact the borrower in person or by
telephone in order to assess the borrower's financial situation and
explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the
initial contact, the mortgage servicer shall advise the borrower that
he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if
requested, the mortgage servicer shall schedule the meeting to occur
within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower's financial situation
and discussion of options may occur during the first contact, or at
the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose. In either case,
the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number made
available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
Any meeting may occur telephonically.
   (b) A notice of default recorded pursuant to Section 2924 shall
include a declaration that the mortgage servicer has contacted the
borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as
required by this section, or that no contact was required because the
individual did not meet the definition of "borrower" pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 2920.5.
   (c) A mortgage servicer's loss mitigation personnel may
participate by telephone during any contact required by this section.

   (d) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other adviser
to discuss with the mortgage servicer, on the borrower's behalf, the
borrower's financial situation and options for the borrower to avoid
foreclosure. That contact made at the direction of the borrower shall
satisfy the contact requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision
(a). Any loan modification or workout plan offered at the meeting by
the mortgage servicer is subject to approval by the borrower.
   (e) A notice of default may be recorded pursuant to Section 2924
when a mortgage servicer has not contacted a borrower as required by
paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) provided that the failure to contact
the borrower occurred despite the due diligence of the mortgage
servicer. For purposes of this section, "due diligence" shall require
and mean all of the following:
   (1) A mortgage servicer shall first attempt to contact a borrower
by sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone
number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency.
   (2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgage servicer
shall attempt to contact the borrower by telephone at least three
times at different hours and on different days. Telephone calls shall
be made to the primary telephone number on file.
   (B) A mortgage servicer may attempt to contact a borrower using an
automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone
call is answered, the call is connected to a live representative of
the mortgage servicer.
   (C) A mortgage servicer satisfies the telephone contact
requirements of this paragraph if it determines, after attempting
contact pursuant to this paragraph, that the borrower's primary
telephone number and secondary telephone number or numbers on file,
if any, have been disconnected.
   (3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the
telephone call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the
mortgage servicer shall then send a certified letter, with return
receipt requested.
   (4) The mortgage servicer shall provide a means for the borrower
to contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone
number that will provide access to a live representative during
business hours.
   (5) The mortgage servicer has posted a prominent link on the
homepage of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following
information:
   (A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to
afford their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and
instructions to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore
those options.
   (B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be
prepared to present to the mortgage servicer when discussing options
for avoiding foreclosure.
   (C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss
options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgage servicer.
   (D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
   (f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
described in Section 2924.15.
   (g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.
  SEC. 6.  Section 2923.55 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2923.55.  (a) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent may not record a notice of default
pursuant to Section 2924 until all of the following:
    (1) The mortgage servicer has satisfied the requirements of
paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).
   (2) Either 30 days after initial contact is made as required by
paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) or 30 days after satisfying the due
diligence requirements as described in subdivision (f).
   (3) The mortgage servicer complies with subdivision (c) of Section
2923.6, if the borrower has provided a complete application as
defined in subdivision (h) of Section 2923.6.
   (b) (1) As specified in subdivision (a), a mortgage servicer shall
send the following information in writing to the borrower:
   (A) A statement that if the borrower is a servicemember or a
dependent of a servicemember, he or she may be entitled to certain
protections under the federal Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50
U.S.C. Sec. 501 et seq.) regarding the servicemember's interest rate
and the risk of foreclosure, and counseling for covered
servicemembers that is available at agencies such as Military
OneSource and Armed Forces Legal Assistance.
   (B) A statement that the borrower may request the following:
   (i) A copy of the borrower's promissory note or other evidence of
indebtedness.
   (ii) A copy of the borrower's deed of trust or mortgage.
   (iii) A copy of any assignment, if applicable, of the borrower's
mortgage or deed of trust required to demonstrate the right of the
mortgage servicer to foreclose.
   (iv) A copy of the borrower's payment history since the borrower
was last less than 60 days past due.
   (2) A mortgage servicer shall contact the borrower in person or by
telephone in order to assess the borrower's financial situation and
explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the
initial contact, the mortgage servicer shall advise the borrower that
he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if
requested, the mortgage servicer shall schedule the meeting to occur
within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower's financial situation
and discussion of options may occur during the first contact, or at
the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose. In either case,
the borrower shall be provided the toll-free telephone number made
available by the United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
Any meeting may occur telephonically.
   (c) A notice of default recorded pursuant to Section 2924 shall
include a declaration that the mortgage servicer has contacted the
borrower, has tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as
required by this section, or that no contact was required because the
individual did not meet the definition of "borrower" pursuant to
subdivision (c) of Section 2920.5.
   (d) A mortgage servicer's loss mitigation personnel may
participate by telephone during any contact required by this section.

   (e) A borrower may designate, with consent given in writing, a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency, attorney, or other adviser
to discuss with the mortgage servicer, on the borrower's behalf, the
borrower's financial situation and options for the borrower to avoid
foreclosure. That contact made at the direction of the borrower shall
satisfy the contact requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision
(b). Any foreclosure prevention alternative offered at the meeting by
the mortgage servicer is subject to approval by the borrower.
   (f) A notice of default may be recorded pursuant to Section 2924
when a mortgage servicer has not contacted a borrower as required by
paragraph (2) of subdivision (b), provided that the failure to
contact the borrower occurred despite the due diligence of the
mortgage servicer. For purposes of this section, "due diligence"
shall require and mean all of the following:
   (1) A mortgage servicer shall first attempt to contact a borrower
by sending a first-class letter that includes the toll-free telephone
number made available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing
counseling agency.
   (2) (A) After the letter has been sent, the mortgage servicer
shall attempt to contact the borrower by telephone at least three
times at different hours and on different days. Telephone calls shall
be made to the primary telephone number on file.
   (B) A mortgage servicer may attempt to contact a borrower using an
automated system to dial borrowers, provided that, if the telephone
call is answered, the call is connected to a live representative of
the mortgage servicer.
   (C) A mortgage servicer satisfies the telephone contact
requirements of this paragraph if it determines, after attempting
contact pursuant to this paragraph, that the borrower's primary
telephone number and secondary telephone number or numbers on file,
if any, have been disconnected.
   (3) If the borrower does not respond within two weeks after the
telephone call requirements of paragraph (2) have been satisfied, the
mortgage servicer shall then send a certified letter, with return
receipt requested, that includes the toll-free telephone number made
available by HUD to find a HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
   (4) The mortgage servicer shall provide a means for the borrower
to contact it in a timely manner, including a toll-free telephone
number that will provide access to a live representative during
business hours.
   (5) The mortgage servicer has posted a prominent link on the
homepage of its Internet Web site, if any, to the following
information:
   (A) Options that may be available to borrowers who are unable to
afford their mortgage payments and who wish to avoid foreclosure, and
instructions to borrowers advising them on steps to take to explore
those options.
   (B) A list of financial documents borrowers should collect and be
prepared to present to the mortgage servicer when discussing options
for avoiding foreclosure.
   (C) A toll-free telephone number for borrowers who wish to discuss
options for avoiding foreclosure with their mortgage servicer.
   (D) The toll-free telephone number made available by HUD to find a
HUD-certified housing counseling agency.
   (g) This section shall not apply to entities described in
subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.
   (h) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
described in Section 2924.15.
   (i)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 7.  Section 2923.6 of the Civil Code is amended to read:
   2923.6.  (a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty that
mortgage servicers may have to maximize net present value under
their pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a
loan pool, or to all investors under a pooling and servicing
agreement, not to any particular party in the loan pool or investor
under a pooling and servicing agreement, and that a mortgage servicer
acts in the best interests of all parties to the loan pool or
investors in the pooling and servicing agreement if it agrees to or
implements a loan modification or workout plan for which both of the
following apply:
   (1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is
reasonably foreseeable.
   (2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout
plan exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net
present value basis.
   (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgage servicer
offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a
modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other
authority.
   (c) If a borrower submits a complete application for a first lien
loan modification offered by, or through, the borrower's mortgage
servicer, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent shall not record a notice of default or notice of
sale, or conduct a trustee's sale, while the complete first lien loan
modification application is pending. A mortgage servicer, mortgagee,
trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice
of default or notice of sale or conduct a trustee's sale until any of
the following occurs:
   (1) The mortgage servicer makes a written determination that the
borrower is not eligible for a first lien loan modification, and any
appeal period pursuant to subdivision (d) has expired.
   (2) The borrower does not accept an offered first lien loan
modification within 14 days of the offer.
   (3) The borrower accepts a written first lien loan modification,
but defaults on, or otherwise breaches the borrower's obligations
under, the first lien loan modification.
   (d) If the borrower's application for a first lien loan
modification is denied, the borrower shall have at least 30 days from
the date of the written denial to appeal the denial and to provide
evidence that the mortgage servicer's determination was in error.
   (e) If the borrower's application for a first lien loan
modification is denied, the mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of default
or, if a notice of default has already been recorded, record a
notice of sale or conduct a trustee's sale until the later of:
   (1) Thirty-one days after the borrower is notified in writing of
the denial.
   (2) If the borrower appeals the denial pursuant to subdivision
(d), the later of 15 days after the denial of the appeal or 14 days
after a first lien loan modification is offered after appeal but
declined by the borrower, or, if a first lien loan modification is
offered and accepted after appeal, the date on which the borrower
fails to timely submit the first payment or otherwise breaches the
terms of the offer.
   (f) Following the denial of a first lien loan modification
application, the mortgage servicer shall send a written notice to the
borrower identifying the reasons for denial, including the
following:
   (1) The amount of time from the date of the denial letter in which
the borrower may request an appeal of the denial of the first lien
loan modification and instructions regarding how to appeal the
denial.
   (2) If the denial was based on investor disallowance, the specific
reasons for the investor disallowance.
   (3) If the denial is the result of a net present value
calculation, the monthly gross income and property value used to
calculate the net present value and a statement that the borrower may
obtain all of the inputs used in the net present value calculation
upon written request to the mortgage servicer.
   (4) If applicable, a finding that the borrower was previously
offered a first lien loan modification and failed to successfully
make payments under the terms of the modified loan.

         (5) If applicable, a description of other foreclosure
prevention alternatives for which the borrower may be eligible, and a
list of the steps the borrower must take in order to be considered
for those options. If the mortgage servicer has already approved the
borrower for another foreclosure prevention alternative, information
necessary to complete the foreclosure prevention alternative.
   (g) In order to minimize the risk of borrowers submitting multiple
applications for first lien loan modifications for the purpose of
delay, the mortgage servicer shall not be obligated to evaluate
applications from borrowers who have already been evaluated or
afforded a fair opportunity to be evaluated for a first lien loan
modification prior to January 1, 2013, or who have been evaluated or
afforded a fair opportunity to be evaluated consistent with the
requirements of this section, unless there has been a material change
in the borrower's financial circumstances since the date of the
borrower's previous application and that change is documented by the
borrower and submitted to the mortgage servicer.
   (h) For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed
"complete" when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with
all documents required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable
timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.
   (i) Subdivisions (c) to (h), inclusive, shall not apply to
entities described in subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.
   (j) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
described in Section 2924.15.
    (k)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 8.  Section 2923.6 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2923.6.  (a) The Legislature finds and declares that any duty
mortgage servicers may have to maximize net present value under their
pooling and servicing agreements is owed to all parties in a loan
pool, or to all investors under a pooling and servicing agreement,
not to any particular party in the loan pool or investor under a
pooling and servicing agreement, and that a mortgage servicer acts in
the best interests of all parties to the loan pool or investors in
the pooling and servicing agreement if it agrees to or implements a
loan modification or workout plan for which both of the following
apply:
   (1) The loan is in payment default, or payment default is
reasonably foreseeable.
   (2) Anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout
plan exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net
present value basis.
   (b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the mortgage servicer
offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a
modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other
authority.
   (c) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.
  SEC. 9.  Section 2923.7 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2923.7.  (a) Upon request from a borrower who requests a
foreclosure prevention alternative, the mortgage servicer shall
promptly establish a single point of contact and provide to the
borrower one or more direct means of communication with the single
point of contact.
   (b) The single point of contact shall be responsible for doing all
of the following:
   (1) Communicating the process by which a borrower may apply for an
available foreclosure prevention alternative and the deadline for
any required submissions to be considered for these options.
   (2) Coordinating receipt of all documents associated with
available foreclosure prevention alternatives and notifying the
borrower of any missing documents necessary to complete the
application.
   (3) Having access to current information and personnel sufficient
to timely, accurately, and adequately inform the borrower of the
current status of the foreclosure prevention alternative.
   (4) Ensuring that a borrower is considered for all foreclosure
prevention alternatives offered by, or through, the mortgage
servicer, if any.
   (5) Having access to individuals with the ability and authority to
stop foreclosure proceedings when necessary.
   (c) The single point of contact shall remain assigned to the
borrower's account until the mortgage servicer determines that all
loss mitigation options offered by, or through, the mortgage servicer
have been exhausted or the borrower's account becomes current.
   (d) The mortgage servicer shall ensure that a single point of
contact refers and transfers a borrower to an appropriate supervisor
upon request of the borrower, if the single point of contact has a
supervisor.
   (e) For purposes of this section, "single point of contact" means
an individual or team of personnel each of whom has the ability and
authority to perform the responsibilities described in subdivisions
(b) to (d), inclusive. The mortgage servicer shall ensure that each
member of the team is knowledgeable about the borrower's situation
and current status in the alternatives to foreclosure process.
   (f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
described in Section 2924.15.
   (g) (1) This section shall not apply to a depository institution
chartered under state or federal law, a person licensed pursuant to
Division 9 (commencing with Section 22000) or Division 20 (commencing
with Section 50000) of the Financial Code, or a person licensed
pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with Section 10000) of Division 4 of
the Business and Professions Code, that, during its immediately
preceding annual reporting period, as established with its primary
regulator, foreclosed on 175 or fewer residential real properties,
containing no more than four dwelling units, that are located in
California.
   (2) Within three months after the close of any calendar year or
annual reporting period as established with its primary regulator
during which an entity or person described in paragraph (1) exceeds
the threshold of 175 specified in paragraph (1), that entity shall
notify its primary regulator, in a manner acceptable to its primary
regulator, and any mortgagor or trustor who is delinquent on a
residential mortgage loan serviced by that entity of the date on
which that entity will be subject to this section, which date shall
be the first day of the first month that is six months after the
close of the calendar year or annual reporting period during which
that entity exceeded the threshold.
  SEC. 10.  Section 2924 of the Civil Code, as amended by Section 1
of Chapter 180 of the Statutes of 2010, is amended to read:
   2924.  (a) Every transfer of an interest in property, other than
in trust, made only as a security for the performance of another act,
is to be deemed a mortgage, except when in the case of personal
property it is accompanied by actual change of possession, in which
case it is to be deemed a pledge. Where, by a mortgage created after
July 27, 1917, of any estate in real property, other than an estate
at will or for years, less than two, or in any transfer in trust made
after July 27, 1917, of a like estate to secure the performance of
an obligation, a power of sale is conferred upon the mortgagee,
trustee, or any other person, to be exercised after a breach of the
obligation for which that mortgage or transfer is a security, the
power shall not be exercised except where the mortgage or transfer is
made pursuant to an order, judgment, or decree of a court of record,
or to secure the payment of bonds or other evidences of indebtedness
authorized or permitted to be issued by the Commissioner of
Corporations, or is made by a public utility subject to the
provisions of the Public Utilities Act, until all of the following
apply:
   (1) The trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their
authorized agents shall first file for record, in the office of the
recorder of each county wherein the mortgaged or trust property or
some part or parcel thereof is situated, a notice of default. That
notice of default shall include all of the following:
   (A) A statement identifying the mortgage or deed of trust by
stating the name or names of the trustor or trustors and giving the
book and page, or instrument number, if applicable, where the
mortgage or deed of trust is recorded or a description of the
mortgaged or trust property.
   (B) A statement that a breach of the obligation for which the
mortgage or transfer in trust is security has occurred.
   (C) A statement setting forth the nature of each breach actually
known to the beneficiary and of his or her election to sell or cause
to be sold the property to satisfy that obligation and any other
obligation secured by the deed of trust or mortgage that is in
default.
   (D) If the default is curable pursuant to Section 2924c, the
statement specified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section
2924c.
   (2) Not less than three months shall elapse from the filing of the
notice of default.
   (3) Except as provided in paragraph (4), after the lapse of the
three months described in paragraph (2), the mortgagee, trustee, or
other person authorized to take the sale shall give notice of sale,
stating the time and place thereof, in the manner and for a time not
less than that set forth in Section 2924f.
   (4) Notwithstanding paragraph (3), the mortgagee, trustee, or
other person authorized to take sale may record a notice of sale
pursuant to Section 2924f up to five days before the lapse of the
three-month period described in paragraph (2), provided that the date
of sale is no earlier than three months and 20 days after the
recording of the notice of default.
   (5) Until January 1, 2018, whenever a sale is postponed for a
period of at least 10 business days pursuant to Section 2924g, a
mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall provide written
notice to a borrower regarding the new sale date and time, within
five business days following the postponement. Information provided
pursuant to this paragraph shall not constitute the public
declaration required by subdivision (d) of Section 2924g. Failure to
comply with this paragraph shall not invalidate any sale that would
otherwise be valid under Section 2924f. This paragraph shall be
inoperative on January 1, 2018.
   (6) No entity shall record or cause a notice of default to be
recorded or otherwise initiate the foreclosure process unless it is
the holder of the beneficial interest under the mortgage or deed of
trust, the original trustee or the substituted trustee under the deed
of trust, or the designated agent of the holder of the beneficial
interest. No agent of the holder of the beneficial interest under the
mortgage or deed of trust, original trustee or substituted trustee
under the deed of trust may record a notice of default or otherwise
commence the foreclosure process except when acting within the scope
of authority designated by the holder of the beneficial interest.
   (b) In performing acts required by this article, the trustee shall
incur no liability for any good faith error resulting from reliance
on information provided in good faith by the beneficiary regarding
the nature and the amount of the default under the secured
obligation, deed of trust, or mortgage. In performing the acts
required by this article, a trustee shall not be subject to Title
1.6c (commencing with Section 1788) of Part 4.
   (c) A recital in the deed executed pursuant to the power of sale
of compliance with all requirements of law regarding the mailing of
copies of notices or the publication of a copy of the notice of
default or the personal delivery of the copy of the notice of default
or the posting of copies of the notice of sale or the publication of
a copy thereof shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance
with these requirements and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of
bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value and without notice.
   (d) All of the following shall constitute privileged
communications pursuant to Section 47:
   (1) The mailing, publication, and delivery of notices as required
by this section.
   (2) Performance of the procedures set forth in this article.
   (3) Performance of the functions and procedures set forth in this
article if those functions and procedures are necessary to carry out
the duties described in Sections 729.040, 729.050, and 729.080 of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
   (e) There is a rebuttable presumption that the beneficiary
actually knew of all unpaid loan payments on the obligation owed to
the beneficiary and secured by the deed of trust or mortgage subject
to the notice of default. However, the failure to include an actually
known default shall not invalidate the notice of sale and the
beneficiary shall not be precluded from asserting a claim to this
omitted default or defaults in a separate notice of default.
  SEC. 11.  Section 2924 of the Civil Code, as amended by Section 2
of Chapter 180 of the Statutes of 2010, is repealed.
  SEC. 12.  Section 2924.9 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.9.  (a) Unless a borrower has previously exhausted the first
lien loan modification process offered by, or through, his or her
mortgage servicer described in Section 2923.6, within five business
days after recording a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924, a
mortgage servicer that offers one or more foreclosure prevention
alternatives shall send a written communication to the borrower that
includes all of the following information:
   (1) That the borrower may be evaluated for a foreclosure
prevention alternative or, if applicable, foreclosure prevention
alternatives.
   (2) Whether an application is required to be submitted by the
borrower in order to be considered for a foreclosure prevention
alternative.
   (3) The means and process by which a borrower may obtain an
application for a foreclosure prevention alternative.
   (b) This section shall not apply to entities described in
subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.
   (c) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
described in Section 2924.15.
   (d)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 13.  Section 2924.10 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.10.  (a) When a borrower submits a complete first lien
modification application or any document in connection with a first
lien modification application, the mortgage servicer shall provide
written acknowledgment of the receipt of the documentation within
five business days of receipt. In its initial acknowledgment of
receipt of the loan modification application, the mortgage servicer
shall include the following information:
   (1) A description of the loan modification process, including an
estimate of when a decision on the loan modification will be made
after a complete application has been submitted by the borrower and
the length of time the borrower will have to consider an offer of a
loan modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative.
   (2) Any deadlines, including deadlines to submit missing
documentation, that would affect the processing of a first lien loan
modification application.
   (3) Any expiration dates for submitted documents.
   (4) Any deficiency in the borrower's first lien loan modification
application.
   (b) For purposes of this section, a borrower's first lien loan
modification application shall be deemed to be "complete" when a
borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with all documents
required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable timeframes
specified by the mortgage servicer.
   (c) This section shall not apply to entities described in
subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.
   (d) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
described in Section 2924.15.
   (e)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 14.  Section 2924.11 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.11.  (a) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved
in writing prior to the recordation of a notice of default, a
mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent shall not record a notice of default under either of the
following circumstances:
   (1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written
trial or permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

   (2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in
writing by all parties, including, for example, the first lien
investor, junior lienholder, and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and
proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer.
   (b) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing
after the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer,
mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record
a notice of sale or conduct a trustee's sale under either of the
following circumstances:
   (1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written
trial or permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

   (2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in
writing by all parties, including, for example, the first lien
investor, junior lienholder, and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and
proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer.
   (c) When a borrower accepts an offered first lien loan
modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, the
mortgage servicer shall provide the borrower with a copy of the fully
executed loan modification agreement or agreement evidencing the
foreclosure prevention alternative following receipt of the executed
copy from the borrower.
   (d) A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall record a
rescission of a notice of default or cancel a pending trustee's sale,
if applicable, upon the borrower executing a permanent foreclosure
prevention alternative. In the case of a short sale, the rescission
or cancellation of the pending trustee's sale shall occur when the
short sale has been approved by all parties and proof of funds or
financing has been provided to the mortgagee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent.
   (e) The mortgage servicer shall not charge any application,
processing, or other fee for a first lien loan modification or other
foreclosure prevention alternative.
   (f) The mortgage servicer shall not collect any late fees for
periods during which a complete first lien loan modification
application is under consideration or a denial is being appealed, the
borrower is making timely modification payments, or a foreclosure
prevention alternative is being evaluated or exercised.
   (g) If a borrower has been approved in writing for a first lien
loan modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, and
the servicing of that borrower's loan is transferred or sold to
another mortgage servicer, the subsequent mortgage servicer shall
continue to honor any previously approved first lien loan
modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, in
accordance with the provisions of the act that added this section.
   (h) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
described in Section 2924.15.
   (i) This section shall not apply to entities described in
subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.
   (j)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 15.  Section 2924.11 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.11.  (a) If a borrower submits a complete application for a
foreclosure prevention alternative offered by, or through, the
borrower's mortgage servicer, a mortgage servicer, trustee,
mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice
of sale or conduct a trustee's sale while the complete foreclosure
prevention alternative application is pending, and until the borrower
has been provided with a written determination by the mortgage
servicer regarding that borrower's eligibility for the requested
foreclosure prevention alternative.
   (b) Following the denial of a first lien loan modification
application, the mortgage servicer shall send a written notice to the
borrower identifying with specificity the reasons for the denial and
shall include a statement that the borrower may obtain additional
documentation supporting the denial decision upon written request to
the mortgage servicer.
   (c) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing
prior to the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage
servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall
not record a notice of default under either of the following
circumstances:
   (1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written
trial or permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

   (2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in
writing by all parties, including, for example, the first lien
investor, junior lienholder, and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and
proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer.
   (d) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing
after the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer,
mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record
a notice of sale or conduct a trustee's sale under either of the
following circumstances:
   (1) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written
trial or permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

   (2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in
writing by all parties, including, for example, the first lien
investor, junior lienholder, and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and
proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer.
   (e) This section applies only to mortgages or deeds of trust as
described in Section 2924.15.
   (f) For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed
"complete" when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with
all documents required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable
timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.
   (g) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.
  SEC. 16.  Section 2924.12 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.12.  (a) (1) If a trustee's deed upon sale has not been
recorded, a borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to
enjoin a material violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7,
2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17.
   (2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee's sale
shall be enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage
servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has
corrected and remedied the violation or violations giving rise to the
action for injunctive relief. An enjoined entity may move to
dissolve an injunction based on a showing that the material violation
has been corrected and remedied.
   (b) After a trustee's deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage
servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall
be liable to a borrower for actual economic damages pursuant to
Section 3281, resulting from a material violation of Section 2923.55,
2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17 by that
mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent where the violation was not corrected and remedied prior to the
recordation of the trustee's deed upon sale. If the court finds that
the material violation was intentional or reckless, or resulted from
willful misconduct by a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent, the court may award the borrower
the greater of treble actual damages or statutory damages of fifty
thousand dollars ($50,000).
   (c) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent shall not be liable for any violation that it has
corrected and remedied prior to the recordation of a trustee's deed
upon sale, or that has been corrected and remedied by third parties
working on its behalf prior to the recordation of a trustee's deed
upon sale.
   (d) A violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9,
2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17 by a person licensed by the Department
of Corporations, Department of Financial Institutions, or Department
of Real Estate shall be deemed to be a violation of that person's
licensing law.
   (e) No violation of this article shall affect the validity of a
sale in favor of a bona fide purchaser and any of its encumbrancers
for value without notice.
   (f) A third-party encumbrancer shall not be relieved of liability
resulting from violations of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9,
2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17 committed by that third-party
encumbrancer, that occurred prior to the sale of the subject property
to the bona fide purchaser.
   (g) A signatory to a consent judgment entered in the case entitled
United States of America et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et
al., filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, case number 1:12-cv-00361 RMC, that is in compliance with
the relevant terms of the Settlement Term Sheet of that consent
judgment with respect to the borrower who brought an action pursuant
to this section while the consent judgment is in effect shall have no
liability for a violation of Section 2923.55, 2923.6, 2923.7,
2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, or 2924.17.
   (h) The rights, remedies, and procedures provided by this section
are in addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or
procedures under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or
procedures provided by law.
   (i) A court may award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney's
fees and costs in an action brought pursuant to this section. A
borrower shall be deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this
subdivision if the borrower obtained injunctive relief or was awarded
damages pursuant to this section.
   (j) This section shall not apply to entities described in
subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.
   (k)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 17.  Section 2924.12 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.12.  (a) (1) If a trustee's deed upon sale has not been
recorded, a borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to
enjoin a                                                 material
violation of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or 2924.17.
   (2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee's sale
shall be enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage
servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has
corrected and remedied the violation or violations giving rise to the
action for injunctive relief. An enjoined entity may move to
dissolve an injunction based on a showing that the material violation
has been corrected and remedied.
   (b) After a trustee's deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage
servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall
be liable to a borrower for actual economic damages pursuant to
Section 3281, resulting from a material violation of Section 2923.5,
2923.7, 2924.11, or 2924.17 by that mortgage servicer, mortgagee,
trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent where the violation was not
corrected and remedied prior to the recordation of the trustee's
deed upon sale. If the court finds that the material violation was
intentional or reckless, or resulted from willful misconduct by a
mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent, the court may award the borrower the greater of treble actual
damages or statutory damages of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
   (c) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent shall not be liable for any violation that it has
corrected and remedied prior to the recordation of the trustee's deed
upon sale, or that has been corrected and remedied by third parties
working on its behalf prior to the recordation of the trustee's deed
upon sale.
   (d) A violation of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or 2924.17 by
a person licensed by the Department of Corporations, Department of
Financial Institutions, or Department of Real Estate shall be deemed
to be a violation of that person's licensing law.
   (e) No violation of this article shall affect the validity of a
sale in favor of a bona fide purchaser and any of its encumbrancers
for value without notice.
   (f) A third-party encumbrancer shall not be relieved of liability
resulting from violations of Section 2923.5, 2923.7, 2924.11, or
2924.17 committed by that third-party encumbrancer, that occurred
prior to the sale of the subject property to the bona fide purchaser.

   (g) The rights, remedies, and procedures provided by this section
are in addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or
procedures under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or
procedures provided by law.
   (h) A court may award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney's
fees and costs in an action brought pursuant to this section. A
borrower shall be deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this
subdivision if the borrower obtained injunctive relief or was awarded
damages pursuant to this section.
   (i) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.
  SEC. 18.  Section 2924.15 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.15.  (a) Unless otherwise provided, paragraph (5) of
subdivision (a) of Section 2924, and Sections 2923.5, 2923.55,
2923.6, 2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, and 2924.18 shall apply
only to first lien mortgages or deeds of trust that are secured by
owner-occupied residential real property containing no more than four
dwelling units. For these purposes, "owner-occupied" means that the
property is the principal residence of the borrower and is security
for a loan made for personal, family, or household purposes.
   (b)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 19.  Section 2924.15 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.15.  (a) Unless otherwise provided, Sections 2923.5, 2923.7,
and 2924.11 shall apply only to first lien mortgages or deeds of
trust that are secured by owner-occupied residential real property
containing no more than four dwelling units. For these purposes,
"owner-occupied" means that the property is the principal residence
of the borrower and is security for a loan made for personal, family,
or household purposes.
   (b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2018.
  SEC. 20.  Section 2924.17 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.17.  (a) A declaration recorded pursuant to Section 2923.5
or, until January 1, 2018, pursuant to Section 2923.55, a notice of
default, notice of sale, assignment of a deed of trust, or
substitution of trustee recorded by or on behalf of a mortgage
servicer in connection with a foreclosure subject to the requirements
of Section 2924, or a declaration or affidavit filed in any court
relative to a foreclosure proceeding shall be accurate and complete
and supported by competent and reliable evidence.
   (b) Before recording or filing any of the documents described in
subdivision (a), a mortgage servicer shall ensure that it has
reviewed competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the borrower'
s default and the right to foreclose, including the borrower's loan
status and loan information.
   (c) Until January 1, 2018, any mortgage servicer that engages in
multiple and repeated uncorrected violations of subdivision (b) in
recording documents or filing documents in any court relative to a
foreclosure proceeding shall be liable for a civil penalty of up to
seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500) per mortgage or deed of
trust in an action brought by a government entity identified in
Section 17204 of the Business and Professions Code, or in an
administrative proceeding brought by the Department of Corporations,
the Department of Real Estate, or the Department of Financial
Institutions against a respective licensee, in addition to any other
remedies available to these entities. This subdivision shall be
inoperative on January 1, 2018.
  SEC. 21.  Section 2924.18 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.18.  (a) (1) If a borrower submits a complete application for
a first lien loan modification offered by, or through, the borrower'
s mortgage servicer, a mortgage servicer, trustee, mortgagee,
beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of
default, notice of sale, or conduct a trustee's sale while the
complete first lien loan modification application is pending, and
until the borrower has been provided with a written determination by
the mortgage servicer regarding that borrower's eligibility for the
requested loan modification.
   (2) If a foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in
writing prior to the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage
servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall
not record a notice of default under either of the following
circumstances:
   (A) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written
trial or permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

   (B) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in
writing by all parties, including, for example, the first lien
investor, junior lienholder, and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and
proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer.
   (3) If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing
after the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer,
mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record
a notice of sale or conduct a trustee's sale under either of the
following circumstances:
   (A) The borrower is in compliance with the terms of a written
trial or permanent loan modification, forbearance, or repayment plan.

   (B) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in
writing by all parties, including, for example, the first lien
investor, junior lienholder, and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and
proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer.
   (b) This section shall apply only to a depository institution
chartered under state or federal law, a person licensed pursuant to
Division 9 (commencing with Section 22000) or Division 20 (commencing
with Section 50000) of the Financial Code, or a person licensed
pursuant to Part 1 (commencing with Section 10000) of Division 4 of
the Business and Professions Code, that, during its immediately
preceding annual reporting period, as established with its primary
regulator, foreclosed on 175 or fewer residential real properties,
containing no more than four dwelling units, that are located in
California.
   (c) Within three months after the close of any calendar year or
annual reporting period as established with its primary regulator
during which an entity or person described in subdivision (b) exceeds
the threshold of 175 specified in subdivision (b), that entity shall
notify its primary regulator, in a manner acceptable to its primary
regulator, and any mortgagor or trustor who is delinquent on a
residential mortgage loan serviced by that entity of the date on
which that entity will be subject to Sections 2923.55, 2923.6,
2923.7, 2924.9, 2924.10, 2924.11, and 2924.12, which date shall be
the first day of the first month that is six months after the close
of the calendar year or annual reporting period during which that
entity exceeded the threshold.
   (d) For purposes of this section, an application shall be deemed
"complete" when a borrower has supplied the mortgage servicer with
all documents required by the mortgage servicer within the reasonable
timeframes specified by the mortgage servicer.
   (e) If a borrower has been approved in writing for a first lien
loan modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, and
the servicing of the borrower's loan is transferred or sold to
another mortgage servicer, the subsequent mortgage servicer shall
continue to honor any previously approved first lien loan
modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, in
accordance with the provisions of the act that added this section.
   (f) This section shall apply only to mortgages or deeds of trust
described in Section 2924.15.
   (g)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 22.  Section 2924.19 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.19.  (a) (1) If a trustee's deed upon sale has not been
recorded, a borrower may bring an action for injunctive relief to
enjoin a material violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2924.18.
   (2) Any injunction shall remain in place and any trustee's sale
shall be enjoined until the court determines that the mortgage
servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has corrected
and remedied the violation or violations giving rise to the action
for injunctive relief. An enjoined entity may move to dissolve an
injunction based on a showing that the material violation has been
corrected and remedied.
   (b) After a trustee's deed upon sale has been recorded, a mortgage
servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall be
liable to a borrower for actual economic damages pursuant to Section
3281, resulting from a material violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17,
or 2924.18 by that mortgage servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or
authorized agent where the violation was not corrected and remedied
prior to the recordation of the trustee's deed upon sale. If the
court finds that the material violation was intentional or reckless,
or resulted from willful misconduct by a mortgage servicer,
mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent, the court may award the
borrower the greater of treble actual damages or statutory damages of
fifty thousand dollars ($50,000).
   (c) A mortgage servicer, mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized
agent shall not be liable for any violation that it has corrected and
remedied prior to the recordation of the trustee's deed upon sale,
or that has been corrected and remedied by third parties working on
its behalf prior to the recordation of the trustee's deed upon sale.
   (d) A violation of Section 2923.5, 2924.17, or 2917.18 by a person
licensed by the Department of Corporations, the Department of
Financial Institutions, or the Department of Real Estate shall be
deemed to be a violation of that person's licensing law.
   (e) No violation of this article shall affect the validity of a
sale in favor of a bona fide purchaser and any of its encumbrancers
for value without notice.
   (f) A third-party encumbrancer shall not be relieved of liability
resulting from violations of Section 2923.5, 2924.17 or 2924.18,
committed by that third-party encumbrancer, that occurred prior to
the sale of the subject property to the bona fide purchaser.
   (g) The rights, remedies, and procedures provided by this section
are in addition to and independent of any other rights, remedies, or
procedures under any other law. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to alter, limit, or negate any other rights, remedies, or
procedures provided by law.
   (h) A court may award a prevailing borrower reasonable attorney's
fees and costs in an action brought pursuant to this section. A
borrower shall be deemed to have prevailed for purposes of this
subdivision if the borrower obtained injunctive relief or damages
pursuant to this section.
   (i) This section shall apply only to entities described in
subdivision (b) of Section 2924.18.
   (j)  This section shall remain in effect only until January 1,
2018, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted
statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends
that date.
  SEC. 23.  Section 2924.20 is added to the Civil Code, to read:
   2924.20.  Consistent with their general regulatory authority, and
notwithstanding subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 2924.18, the
Department of Corporations, the Department of Financial Institutions,
and the Department of Real Estate may adopt regulations applicable
to any entity or person under their respective jurisdictions that are
necessary to carry out the purposes of the act that added this
section. A violation of the regulations adopted pursuant to this
section shall only be enforceable by the regulatory agency.
  SEC. 24.  The provisions of this act are severable. If any
provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that
invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can
be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
  SEC. 25.   No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.

Civil Code §2924.12(b) Right to Sue Mortgage Servicers for Injunctive Relief, Damages, Treble Damages, and Right to Attorney’s Fees. : )

H. Right to Sue Mortgage Servicers for Injunctive Relief, Damages, Treble Damages, and Right to Attorney’s Fees

2013 is going to be a good year

One of the most important provisions of the Act from a lender’s perspective is that it provides borrowers with the right to sue mortgage servicers for injunctive relief before the trustee’s deed upon sale has recorded, or if it has already recorded, to sue for actual economic damages, if the mortgage servicer has not corrected any “material” violation of certain enumerated portions of the Act before the trustee’s deed upon sale recorded. (Civil Code §2924.12(a).) In an area that will certainly open up a Pandora’s Box of litigation, the Act does not define what constitutes a “material” violation of the Act. If a court finds that the violation was intentional, reckless or willful, the court can award the borrower the greater of treble (triple) damages or $50,000. (Civil Code §2924.12(b).) Furthermore, a violation of the enumerated provisions of the Act is also deemed to be a violation of the licensing laws if committed by a person licensed as a consumer or commercial finance lender or broker, a residential mortgage lender or servicer, or a licensed real estate broker or salesman. (Civil Code §2924.12(d).) Lastly, in a one-sided attorney’s fee provision that only benefits borrowers, the court may award a borrower who obtains an injunction or receives an award of economic damages as a result of the violation of the Act their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as the prevailing party. (Civil Code §2924.12(i).) This provides all the more reason for lenders and mortgage servicers to comply with the terms of the Act. This provision for the recovery by only the borrower of their reasonable attorney’s fees makes it more likely that borrowers will file litigation against mortgage lenders or servicers than they otherwise would. Compliance is the lender’s or mortgage servicer’s best defense to litigation under the Act.

Significantly for lenders, as long as the mortgage servicer remedies the material violation of the Act before the trustee’s deed upon sale has recorded, the Act specifically provides that the mortgage servicer shall not be liable under the Act for any violation or damages. (Civil Code §2924.12(b) & (c).) The Act also clarifies that signatories to the National Mortgage Settlement who are in compliance with the terms of that settlement, as they relate to the terms of the Act, will not face liability under the Act. (Civil Code §2924.12(g).

 

How to chase Chase – People sometimes ask me why do you publish all this stuff. My slogan IF YOUR ENEMY IS MY ENEMY THAN WE ARE FRIENDS !!!!

People sometimes ask me why do you publish all this stuff. My slogan IF YOUR ENEMY IS MY ENEMY THAN WE ARE FRIENDS

Chase–Sucks.org

2. RESOURCES — Pleadings, Orders, and Exhibits

On this page you will find descriptions and links to various pleadings, orders, and exhibits filed by attorneys as well as individuals representing themselves. Where the outcome is known, that information is included. These documents are public records and are made available for your information, but their accuracy, competency, and effectiveness have not been verified. Only a judge can rule on a pleading and only an appellate court opinion that is certified for publication can be cited as precedent. That said, it can be both educational and entertaining to see how the great race is unfolding in the historic controversy of People v. Banks. For an entertaining public outing of history’s all-time greatest pickpockets, go see the documentary “Inside Job.”

Federal District Court

Carswell v. JPMorgan Chase, Case No. CV10-5152 GW

George Wu, Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles
Douglas Gillies, attorney for Margaret Carswell

Plaintiff sued to halt a foreclosure initiated by JPMorgan Chase and California Reconveyance Co. on the grounds of failure to contract, wrongful foreclosure, unjust enrichment, RESPA and TILA violations, and fraud. She asked for quiet title and declaratory relief. Chase responded with a Motion to Dismiss. At a hearing on September 30, 2010, Judge Wu granted defendants’ motion to dismiss with leave to amend. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed on October 18. It begins:

It was the biggest financial bubble in history. During the first decade of this century, banks abandoned underwriting practices and caused a frenzy of real estate speculation by issuing predatory loans that ultimately lowered property values in the United States by 30-50%. Banks reaped the harvest. Kerry Killinger, CEO of Washington Mutual, took home more than $100 million during the seven years that he steered WaMu into the ground. Banks issued millions of predatory loans knowing that the borrowers would default and lose their homes. As a direct, foreseeable, proximate result, 15 million families are now in danger of foreclosure. If the legions of dispossessed homeowners cannot present their grievances in the courts of this great nation, their only recourse will be the streets.

Chase responded with yet another Motion to Dismiss, Carswell filed her Opposition to the motion, and a hearing is scheduled for January 6, 2011, 8:30 AM in Courtroom 10, US District Court, 312 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA.

• First Amended Complaint 10/18/2010
• Declaration of Margaret Carswell 7/13/2010
• Chase’s Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 10/27/2010
• Chase’s Request for Judicial Notice 10/27/2010
• Plaintiff’s Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 12/03/2010
• Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice 12/03/2010 – Congressional Oversight Panel’s Report

 

Khast v. Washington Mutual, JPMorgan Chase, and CRC, Case No. CV10-2168 IEG

Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California
Kaveh Khast in pro se

A loan mod nightmare where Khast did everything right except laugh out loud when WaMu told him that he must stop making his mortgage payments for 90 days in order to qualify for a loan modification. As Khast leaped through the constantly shifting hoops tossed in the air, first by WaMu, then by Chase, filing no less than four applications, Chase issued a Notice of Trustee’s Sale.

Khast filed a pro se complaint in federal court. The District Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order to stop the sale. Hearing on a Preliminary Injunction is now scheduled for December 3. The court wrote that the conduct by WAMU appears to be “immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers,” and thus satisfies the “unfair” prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus.&Prof.Code §17200. Plaintiff has stated that he possesses documents which support his contention that Defendant WAMU instructed Plaintiff to purposefully enter into default and assured Plaintiff that, if he did so, WAMU would restructure his loan. Accordingly, Plaintiff has demonstrated that he is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim.

The court also relied upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Under this doctrine a promisor is bound when he should reasonably expect a substantial change of position, either by act or forbearance, in reliance on his promise. He who by his language or conduct leads another to do what he would not otherwise have done shall not subject such person to loss or injury by disappointing the expectations upon which he acted.

• Complaint 10/10/2010
• Temporary Restraining Order 10/26/2010

 

Saxon Mortgage v. Hillery, Case No. C-08-4357

Edward M. Chen, U.S. Magistrate, Northern District of California
Thomas Spielbauer, attorney for Ruthie Hillery

Hillery obtained a home loan from New Century secured by a Deed of Trust, which named MERS as nominee for New Century and its successors. MERS later attempted to assign the Deed of Trust and the promissory note to Consumer. Consumer and the loan servicer then sued Hillery. The court ruled that Consumer must demonstrate that it is the holder of the deed of trust and the promissory note. In re Foreclosure Cases, 521 F. Supp. 2d 650, 653 (S.D. Oh. 2007) held that to show standing in a foreclosure action, the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the mortgage at the time the complaint was filed. For there to be a valid assignment, there must be more than just assignment of the deed alone; the note must also be assigned. “The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident…an assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 274 (1872).

There was no evidence that MERS held the promissory note or was given the authority by New Century to assign the note to Consumer. Without the note, Consumer lacked standing. If Consumer did not have standing, then the loan servicer also lacked standing. A loan servicer cannot bring an action without the holder of the note. In re Hwang, 393 B.R. 701, 712 (2008).

• Order Granting Hillery’s Motion to Dismiss dated 12/09/2008

 

Serrano v. GMAC Mortgage, Case No. 8:09-CV-00861-DOC

David O. Carter, Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles
Moses S. Hall, attorney for Ignacio Serrano

Plaintiff alleged in state court that GMAC initiated a non-judicial foreclosure sale and sold his residence without complying with the notice requirements of Cal. Civil Code Sec. 2923.5 and 2924, and without attaching a declaration to the 2923.5 notice under penalty of perjury stating that defendants tried with due diligence to contact the borrower. Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. The District Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice, and described in detail the defects in the Complaint with directions how to correct the defects. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on 4/01/2010.

• Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Without Prejuduce 3/18/2010
• Second Amended Complaint for Wrongful Foreclosure 4/01/2010

 

Sharma v. Provident Funding Associates, Case No. 3:2009-cv-05968

Vaughn R Walker, Judge, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Marc A. Fisher, attorney for Anilech and Parma Sharma

Defendants attempted to foreclose and plaintiffs sued in federal court, alleging that defendants did not contact them as required by Cal Civ Code § 2923.5. In considering plaintiffs’ request for an injunction to stop the foreclosure, the court found that plaintiffs had raised “serious questions going to the merits” and would suffer irreparable injury if the sale were to proceed. Property is considered unique. If defendants foreclosed, plaintiffs’ injury would be irreparable because they might be unable to reacquire it. Plaintiffs’ remedy at law, damages, would be inadequate. On the other hand, defendants would not suffer a high degree of harm if a preliminary injunction were ordered. While they would not be able to sell the property immediately and would incur litigation costs, when balanced against plaintiffs’ potential loss, defendants’ harm was outweighed.

The court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants from selling the property while the lawsuit was pending.

• Complaint for Wrongful Foreclosure 12/21/2009
• Points & Authorities In Support of TRO
• Plaintiff’s Declaration in Support of TRO
• Order Granting Preliminary Injunction 1/08/10

 

Federal Bankruptcy Court

In re: Hwang, 396 B.R. 757 (2008), Case No. 08-15337 Chapter 7

Samuel L. Burford, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Los Angeles
Robert K. Lee, attorney for Kang Jin Hwang

As the servicer on Hwang’s promissory note, IndyMac was entitled to enforce the secured note under California law, but it must also satisfy the procedural requirements of federal law to obtain relief from the automatic stay in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. These requirements include joining the owner of the note, because the owner of the note is the real party in interest under Rule 17, and it is also a required party under Rule 19. IndyMac failed to join the owner of the note, so its motion for relief from the automatic stay was denied.

Reversed on July 21, 2010. District Court Judge Philip Gutierrez reversed the Judge Burford’s determination that IndyMac is not the real party in interest under Rule 17 and that Rule 19 requires the owner of the Note to join the Motion.

• Opinion Denying Relief from Automatic Stay 10/29/2008
• District Court Reversal of Judge Burford’s Order 7/21/2010

 

In re: Vargas, Case No. 08-17036 Chapter 7

Samuel L. Burford, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Los Angeles
Marcus Gomez, attorney for Raymond Vargas

• Motion for Stay 7/03/2008
• Order Denying MERS Relief from Stay 10/21/2009
• First Amended Adversary Complaint Case No. 09-01135-SB 1/15/2010
• Opposition to MERS Motion to Dismiss Complaint 2/24/2010

 

In re: Walker, Case No. 10-21656 Chapter 11

Ronald H. Sargis, Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Sacramento
Mitchell L. Abdallah, attorney for Rickie Walker

MERS assigned the Deed of Trust for Debtor’s property to Citibank, which filed a secured claim. Debtor objected to the claim. Judge Sargis ruled that the promissory note and the Deed of Trust are inseparable. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the Deed of Trust alone is a nullity. MERS was not the owner of the note, so it could not transfer the note or the beneficial interest in the Deed of Trust. The bankruptcy court disallowed Citibank’s claim because it could not establish that it was the owner of the promissory note.

• Objection to CitiBank Proof of Claim 4/06/2010
• Declaration in Support of Objection 4/06/2010
• Points & Authorities in Support of Objection 4/06/2010
• Order Disallowing CitiBank Claim 5/20/2010

 

California State Court

Cabalu v. Mission Bishop Real Estate

Superior Court of California, Alameda County
Brian A. Angelini, attorney for Cecil and Natividad Cabalu

• Complaint to Set Aside Trustee’s Sale filed August 2009

 

Davies v. NDEX West, Case No. INC 090697

Randall White, Judge, Superior Court of California, Riverside County
Brian W. Davies, in pro per

• Complaint for Fraud dated 4/08/2010

 

Edstrom v. NDEX West, Wells Fargo Bank, et. al., Case No. 20100314

Superior Court of California, Eldorado County
Richard Hall, attorney for Daniel and Teri Anne Edstrom

A 61-page complaint with 29 causes of action to enjoin a trustee’s sale of plaintiffs’ residence, requesting a judicial sale instead of a non-judicial sale, declaratory relief, compensatory damages including emotional and mental distress, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and rescission.

• Complaint to Stay Foreclosure 5/24/2010
• Order to Show Cause 5/25/2010

 

Mabry v. Superior Court and Aurora Loan Services
185 Cal.App.4th 208, 110 Cal. Rptr. 3d 201 (4th Dist. June 2, 2010)
California Court of Appeal, 4th District, Division 3
California Supreme Court, Petition for Review filed July 13, 2010.

Moses S. Hall, attorney for Terry and Michael Mabry

The Mabrys sued to enjoin a trustee’s sale of their home, alleging that Aurora’s notice of default did not include a declaration required by Cal. Civil Code §2923.5, and that the bank did not explore alternatives to foreclosure with the borrowers. The trial court refused to stop the sale. The Mabrys filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandate and the Court of Appeal granted a stay to enjoin the sale. Oral argument was heard in Santa Ana on May 18, 2010.

Aurora argued that a borrower cannot sue a lender that fails to contact the borrower to discuss alternatives to foreclosure before filing a notice of default, as required by §2923.5, because §2923.5 does not explicitly give homeowners a “private right of action.” Aurora also argued that a declaration under penalty of perjury is not required because a trustee, who ordinarily files the notice of default, could not have personal knowledge of a bank’s attempts to contact the borrower. Nobody mentioned that the trustee is not authorized by the statute to make the declaration. §2923.5 states that a notice of default “shall include a declaration from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent that it has contacted the borrower…”

The Court of Appeal ruled that a borrower has a private right of action under § 2923.5 and is not required to tender the full amount of the mortgage as a prerequisite to filing suit, since that would defeat the purpose of the statute. Under the court’s narrow construction of the statute, §2923.5 merely adds a procedural step in the foreclosure process. Since the statute is not substantive, it is not preempted by federal law. The declaration specified in §2923.5 does not have to be signed under penalty of perjury. The borrower’s remedy is limited to getting a postponement of a foreclosure while the lender files a new notice of default that complies with §2923.5. If the lender ignores the statute and makes no attempt to contact the borrower before selling the property, the violation does not cloud the title acquired by a third party purchaser at the foreclosure sale. Therefore §2923.5 claims must be raised in court before the sale. It is a question of fact for the trial court to determine whether the lender actually attempted to contact the borrower before filing a notice of default. If the lender takes the property at the foreclosure sale, its title is not clouded by its failure to comply with the statute. Finally, the case is not suitable for class action treatment if the lender asserts that it attempted to comply with the statute because each borrower will present “highly-individuated facts.”

In a petition for review to the California Supreme Court, the Mabrys noted that more than 100 federal district court opinions have considered §2923.5 and an overwhelming majority have rejected a private right of action under the statute. The petition for review was denied.

After the case was remanded to the trial court, Mabry’s motion for preliminary injunction was granted. The trial court found that the Notice of Default contained the form language required by the statute, i.e. that the lender contacted the borrower, tried with due diligence to contact the borrower, etc. However, the declaration on the Notice of Default was not made under panalty of perjury, and therefore had no evidentiary value to show whether the defendant satisfied §2923.5

• Court of Appeal’s Stay of Foreclosure Sale 11/25/2009
• Opinion of Court of Appeal, Fourth District 6/2/2010
• Petition for review, California Supreme Court 7/13/2010. Denied 8/18/2010.
• Order granting Preliminary Injunction Orange County Superior Court 11/23/2010.

 

Moreno v. Ameriquest

Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
Thomas Spielbauer, attorney for Gloria and Carlos Moreno

Complaint for declaratory relief and fraud against lender for misrepresenting the terms of the loan, promising fixed rate with one small step after two years both orally and in the Truth In Lending Statement. Loan was actually variable rate with negative amortization. Morenos would have qualified for fixed rate 5% for 30 years, but instead received an exploding 7% ARM. Notary rushed plaintiffs through signing of documents with little explanation. Complaint requests a declaration the note is invalid, unconscionable and unenforceable and the Notice of Trustees Sale is invalid.

• Complaint for Fraud dated January 2008

 

Other State Courts

JPMorgan Chase Bank v. George, Case No. 10865/06

Arthur M. Schack, Supreme Court Judge, Kings County, New York
Edward Roberts, attorney for Gertrude George

• Order Vacating Foreclosure Sale and Dismissing Chase’s Complaint decided 5/04/2010

 

Florida Judge tosses foreclosure lawsuit

Homeowners dispute who owns mortgage

by Steve Patterson
St. Augustine Record
June 15, 2010

Changing stories about who owns a mortgage and seemingly fresh evidence from a long-closed bank led a judge to throw out a foreclosure lawsuit. It’s the second time in as many months that Circuit Judge J. Michael Traynor has dismissed with prejudice a foreclosure case where homeowners disputed who owns the mortgage. Lawyers representing New York-based M&T Bank gave three separate accounts of the ownership, with documentation that kept changing.

“The court has been misled by the plaintiff from the beginning,” the judge wrote in his order. He added that documents filed by M&T’s lawyers seemed to contradict each other and “have changed as needed to benefit the plaintiff.”

The latest account was that Wells Fargo owned the note, and M&T was a servicer, a company paid to handle payments and other responsibilities tied to a mortgage. To believe that, the judge wrote, the “plaintiff is asking the court to ignore the documents filed in the first two complaints.” He added that Wells Fargo can still sue on its own, if it has evidence that it owns the mortgage.

More and more foreclosure cases are being argued on shaky evidence, said James Kowalski, a Jacksonville attorney who represented homeowners Lisa and Larry Smith in the fight over their oceanfront home. “I think it’s very representative of what the banks and their lawyers are currently doing in court,” Kowalski said.

He said lawyers bringing the lawsuits are often pressed by their clients to close the cases quickly. But it’s up to lawyers to present solid evidence and arguments. “We are supposed to be better than that,” Kowalski said. “We are supposed to be officers of the court.”

 

Exhibits

Department of Treasury and FDIC Report on WaMu, 4/16/2010

The Offices of Inspector General for Department of the Treasury and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation released its evaluation of the regulatory oversight of Washington Mutual on April 16. The table of contents tells the story. WaMu pursued a high-risk lending strategy which included systematic underwriting weaknesses. They didn’t care if borrowers could pay back their loans. WaMu did not have adequate controls in place to manage its reckless “high-risk” strategy. OTS examiners found weaknesses in WaMu’s strategy, operations, and asset portfolio but looked the other way.

• Evaluation of Federal Oversight of WaMu released 4/16/2010

 

OCC Advisory Letters

How could the regulators allow this breakdown to happen? Was it really fraud when banks arranged loans for homeowners who would inevitably go into defrault, sold them to Wall Street to be bundled into securities, then purchased insurance so that the bank would collect the unpaid balances when the borrowers lost their homes? Did anybody really know that repealing Glass-Steagall and permitting Wall Street banks to get under the covers with Main Street banks would cause so many borrowers to lose their homes? The Glass-Steagall Act, enacted in 1933, barred any institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. It was repealed in 1999, and the repercussions have been immense.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) issued Advisory Letter 2000-7 only months after Glass-Steagall was repealed. It warned regulators to be on the lookout for indications of predatory or abusive lending practices, including Collateral or Equity Stripping – loans made in reliance on the liquidation value of the borrower’s home or other collateral, rather than the borrower’s independent ability to repay, with the possible or intended result of foreclosure or the need to refinance under duress.

Proving fraud is a painstaking process. Getting inside the mind of a crook requires a careful foundation, and admissable evidence is not always easy to obtain. Many courts will take judicial notice of official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of any state of the United States. See Cal Evidence Code Sec. 452(c).

Here is a set of smoking guns in the form of a series of Advisory Letters issued by OCC:

• OCC Advisory Letter 2000-7 July 25, 2000
• OCC Advisory Letter 2000-9 August 29, 2000
• OCC Advisory Letter 2002-3 March 22, 2002
• OCC Advisory Letter 2003-2 February 21, 2003
• OCC Advisory Letter 2003-3 February 21, 2003
• Guidance from OCC, FDIC, OTS, and Federal Reserve October 4, 2005

The Washington Mutual logo prior to its acquisition by JPMorgan Chase. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Bankruptcy Laws, You Have Seen Nothing Yet! Mortgage Chaos?

by Bankruptcy Law Network

There are many bright Real Estate Attorneys out there. Likewise, there are many bright Bankruptcy Attorneys out there. But I don’t think there are that many bright Bankruptcy Real Estate Attorneys out there. And the few that do exist…..well, I don’t think they worked for the Mortgage Companies. Why? Well if they did, the transfer of loans would not have existed the way that it did for the past several years.

Lately, the big news in foreclosures has been the Ohio cases where Judge Boyko dismissed 14 foreclosures on October 31, 2007, and his Colleague, Judge Kathleen O’Malley of the same court, followed suite ordering another 32 dismissals on November 14, 2007.   But that’s only the beginning. It gets worse.

Add a bankruptcy filing to the mix and it’s like adding gas to the fire and recipe for disaster. The reason is a little bankruptcy code section called 11 USC 544. Basically, that section allows a Trustee appointed by the Bankruptcy Court to avoid non-perfected liens.Non-perfected liens are liens that exist, but are not fully noticed to everyone, sort of like secret liens. It’s like if someone loans you $50,000 and takes a lien out on your house, but never records their lien with the county recorder. If that house sells, the lien is not paid since escrow was not aware of it. Had it been recorded by a “deed of trust” or “mortgage,” the Title Company and Escrow Company would not have closed once they saw it, unless it was paid.

Because of all the crazy real estate financing, securitization, and reselling of all the mortgages, sort of the same thing has happened with all the mortgages and trust deeds, but on a much larger scale. Normally, most states require that when a mortgage or real estate loan is sold or transferred to another lender, certain things must happen to maintain perfection, that is, in order to make sure that lien gets paid at a later date. Generally, the purchaser of the Mortgage has it recorded at the County Recorders Office. This is usually done thru a recorded assignment of the underlying note and mortgage or a new Mortgage being recorded and transfer of the Note.  The Note is the most important part of any Mortgage or Deed of Trust. The Mortgage or Deed of Trust is useless without the Note, and usually can not exist without it. It’s a negotiable instrument, just like a check. So when it’s transferred, it needs to be endorsed, just like a check. So essentially, all real estate has documents recorded to evidence the lien, and which are linked to the “checks.”  Well, this is where the problem lies.

In most of the Mortgage Transfers which took place recently, the Mortgage or Deed of Trust was transferred, but not the Note. Whoops! Why? It was just too expensive to track down every note for every mortgage since they were all bundled up together and sold in large trusts, then resold, resold, etc. Imagine trying to find 1 note among thousands, which were sold in different trust pools over time. Pretty hard to do! So shortcuts happened.  Soon enough, shortcuts were accepted and since there were very little foreclosure activity during the last 7 year real estate bubble, no one really noticed in the few foreclosures that took place. Until recently. That’s where the Ohio cases come in. Times have now changed. That little shortcut stopped the foreclosures in Ohio since the most basic element of any lawsuit is that the party bringing the lawsuit is the “real party in interest.” That is, they are the aggrieved party, injured party, relief seeking party.  So in Ohio, the Judge dismissed all the cases since they did not possess the Notes or Assignments on the date of filing, and technically were not the real party in interest to file the suit at the time.But that maybe only a temporary problem until they find the note or assignment. At that point, they will probably just file the foreclosure lawsuit again. So it’s just a delay.

But the bigger problem exists in Bankruptcy.  You see, once a Bankruptcy Case is filed, the Automatic Stay goes into effect. Everything is frozen. Mistakes can no longer be corrected. And if the lender did not have the note or recorded assignment when the bankruptcy case was filed, it was an “unperfected lien” at the time of filing.  Unperfected liens get removed in Bankruptcy.  So finding the note or recording an assignment after filing will no longer fix the problem! Finding the note or or recording an assignment is now simply too late and futile.  That $12 shortcut may now have cost the lender a $500,000 mortgage!The Bankruptcy Trustee now is in charge, puts his 11 USC 544 hat on, and voila, removes the mortgage! Yes, that house that once had no equity worth $450,000 with $500,000 owed on it, is now FREE AND CLEAR! He sells it, and disburses all the proceeds to the creditors.

California Can Finally Say “Show Me The…..Note!”

Attorneys representing homeowners in all 50 states must undoubtedly feel that their states do not do enough to protect homeowners from preventable foreclosures. In non-judicial states like California, the lack of oversight in the foreclosure process at all levels has led to rampant abuse, fraud and at the very least, negligence. Our courts have done little to diffuse this trend with cases like Chilton v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n holding: “(n)on-judicial foreclosure under a deed of trust is governed by California Civil Code Section 2924 which relevant section provides that a “trustee, mortgagee or beneficiary or any of their authorized agents” may conduct the foreclosure process.” California courts have held that the Civil Code provisions “cover every aspect” of the foreclosure process, and are “intended to be exhaustive.” There is no requirement that the party initiating foreclosure be in possession of the original note.

Chilton and many other rulings refuse to acknowledge that homeowners have any rights to challenge wrongful foreclosures including Gomes v Countrywide, Fontenot v Wells Fargo, and a long line of tender cases holding that a plaintiff seeking to set aside a foreclosure sale must first allege tender of the amount of the secured indebtedness. Complicating matters further is the conflict between state, federal and bankruptcy cases regarding Civil Code 2932.5 and the requirement of recording an assignment prior to proceeding to foreclosure.
While the specific terms are still evolving, the http://www.nationalmortgagesettlement.com/ information website has released the Servicing Standards Highlights that set forth the basic changes that the banks and servicers have agreed to as part of the settlement. When the AG Settlement is finalized, it will be reduced to a judgment that can be enforced by federal judges, the special independent monitor Joseph Smith, federal agencies and Attorneys General. This judgment can be used by attorneys to define a standard and therefore allow us to fashion a remedy that will improve our chances of obtaining relief for our clients.

Lean Forward

Many have opined about the deficiencies in the AG Settlement, from the lack of investigation to inadequacy of the dollars committed to compensate for wrongful foreclosures, principal reduction or refinancing. The reality is, as tainted as it may be, the AG Settlement leaves us better off than were were for future cases. It does not however, address past wrongs in any meaningful way. The terms make it abundantly clear that this is not the settlement for compensation; if there is any remote possibility of compensation it must be sought in the OCC Independent Foreclosure Review and the homeowner must meet the extreme burden of proving financial harm caused by the wrongful foreclosure. For California, the AG Settlement at best, improves our ability to request crucial documents to challenge wrongful foreclosures which previously were difficult if not impossible to obtain. This will allow us to negotiate better loss mitigation options for clients.

Loan Modification 2008-2011

The homeowner submits an application 10 times, pays on 3 different trial plans, speaks to 24 different representatives who give him various inconsistent versions of status. After two years, and thousands of default fees later, he is advised that the investor won’t approve a modification and foreclosure is imminent. Actually, the truth was that the homeowner was in fact qualified for the modification, the data used for the NPV analysis was incorrect and the investor had in fact approved hundreds of modifications according to guidelines that were known to the servicer from the beginning. How could the AG Settlement not improve on this common scenario?

Foreclosure Rules
14 days prior to initiating foreclosure, the servicer must provide the homeowner with notice which must include:

facts supporting the bank’s right to foreclose
payment history
a copy of the note with endorsements
the identity of the investor
amount of delinquency and terms to bring loan current
summary of loss mitigation efforts
A prompt review of the 14 Day Pre Foreclosure Notice and investigation regarding the securitization aspects of the case can result in the filing of a lawsuit and request for TRO if all terms have not been complied with or the documents provided do not establish the right to foreclose. There will be no issue of tender, prejudice or show me the note that can be raised in opposition by defendants and this is an opportunity that we have not been afforded under current case law. Additionally, a loan level review will reveal improper fees and charges that can be challenged. Deviation from the AG Settlement Servicing Standards should be aggressively pursued through the proper complaint channels.

Loan Modification Guidelines

Notify the homeowner of all loss mitigation options
Servicer shall offer a loan modification if NPV positive
HAMP trial plans shall promptly be converted to permanent modifications
Servicer must review and make determination within 30 days of receipt of complete package
Homeowner must submit package within 120 days of delinquency to receive answer prior to referral to foreclosure (could be problematic since most homeowners are more than 120 days late)
After the loan has been referred to foreclosure, the homeowner must apply for a loan modification within 15 days before sale. Servicer must expedite review.
Servicer must cease all collection efforts while a complete loan modification package is under review or homeowner is making timely trial modification payments
Other significant terms include the requirement that the servicer maintain loan portals where the homeowner can check status which must be updated every ten days, assign a single point of contact to every loan, restriction on default fees and forced placed insurance, modification denials must state reasons and provide document support and the homeowner has 30 days to appeal a negative decision.

Short Sales Will Now Really Be Short

The rules regarding short sales will greatly increase the chances that short sales will be processed in a timely manner and accordingly, will result in more short sales being closed.

Banks/servicers must make short sale requirements public
Banks/servicers must provide a short sale price evaluation upon request by the homeowner prior to listing the property
Receipt of short sale packages must be confirmed and notification of missing documents must be provided within 30 days
Knowledge of all of the new requirements for processing foreclosures, loan modifications and short sales can greatly increase our chances of obtaining successful outcomes for clients. Resolution is the goal, and now, we may have leverage that did not exist before.

No right to “HAMP” as third party bene try Negligence with a side of “HAMP”

For all those who have found out the hard way that judges do not like a breach of HAMP contract cause of action, here is a way around it: sue for negligent handling of the HAMP application and use this citation in your opposition to demurrer:

“It is well established that a person may become liable in tort for negligently failing to perform a voluntarily assumed undertaking even in the absence of a contract so to do. A person may not be required to perform a service for another but he may undertake to do so — called a voluntary undertaking. In such a case the person undertaking to perform the service is under a duty to exercise due care in performing the voluntarily assumed duty, and a failure to exercise due care is negligence. [emphasis added]” Valdez v. Taylor Auto. Co. (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 810, 817; Aim Ins. Co. v. Culcasi (1991) 229 Cal. App. 3d 209, 217-218.

Judge Firmat posted these notes on the law and motion calendar to assist attorneys pleading various theories in wrongful foreclosure cases etc

Orange County (Cali) Superior Court Judge Firmat posted these notes on
the law and motion calendar to assist attorneys pleading various
theories in wrongful foreclosure cases etc.  Some interesting
points….

FOOTNOTES TO DEPT. C-15 LAW AND MOTION CALENDARS

Note 1 – Cause of Action Under CCC § 2923.5, Post Trustee’s Sale –
There is no private right of action under Section 2923.5 once the
trustee’s sale has occurred.  The “only remedy available under the
Section is a postponement of the sale before it happens.”  Mabry v.
Superior  Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 235 (2010).

Note 2 – Cause of Action Under CCC § 2923.6 – There is no private
right of action under Section 2923.6, and it does not operate
substantively.  Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208,
222-223 (2010).  “Section 2923.6 merely expresses the hope that
lenders will offer loan modifications on certain terms.”  Id. at 222.

Note 3 – Cause of Action for Violation of CCC §§ 2923.52 and / or
2923.53 – There is no private right of action.  Vuki v. Superior
Court, 189 Cal. App. 4th 791, 795 (2010).

Note 4 –  Cause of Action for Fraud, Requirement of Specificity – “To
establish a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must
prove: (1) the defendant represented to the plaintiff that an
important fact was true; (2) that representation was false; (3) the
defendant knew that the representation was false when the defendant
made it, or the defendant made the representation recklessly and
without regard for its truth; (4) the defendant intended that the
plaintiff rely on the representation; (5) the plaintiff reasonably
relied on the representation; (6) the plaintiff was harmed; and, (7)
the plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s representation was a
substantial factor in causing that harm to the plaintiff. Each element
in a cause of action for fraud must be factually and specifically
alleged. In a fraud claim against a corporation, a plaintiff must
allege the names of the persons who made the misrepresentations, their
authority to speak for the corporation, to whom they spoke, what they
said or wrote, and when it was said or written.”  Perlas v. GMAC
Mortg., LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 429, 434 (2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).

Note 5 –Fraud – Statute of Limitations- The statute of limitations for
fraud is three years.  CCP § 338(d).  To the extent Plaintiff wishes
to rely on the delayed discovery rule, Plaintiff must plead the
specific facts showing (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2)
the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable
diligence.”  Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 808
(2005).

Note 6 – Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation – “The
elements of negligent misrepresentation are (1) the misrepresentation
of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable ground for
believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance
on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the
misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.  While there is some
conflict in the case law discussing the precise degree of
particularity required in the pleading of a claim for negligent
misrepresentation, there is a consensus that the causal elements,
particularly the allegations of reliance, must be specifically
pleaded.”  National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge
Integrated Services Group, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 35, 50 (2009)
(citations and quotations omitted).

Note 7 – Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Lender –
“Absent special circumstances a loan transaction is at arm’s length
and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and
lender. A commercial lender pursues its own economic interests in
lending money. A lender owes no duty of care to the borrowers in
approving their loan. A lender is under no duty to determine the
borrower’s ability to repay the loan. The lender’s efforts to
determine the creditworthiness and ability to repay by a borrower are
for the lender’s protection, not the borrower’s.”  Perlas v. GMAC
Mortg., LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 429, 436 (2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).

Note 8 – Cause of Action for Constructive Fraud – “A relationship need
not be a fiduciary one in order to give rise to constructive fraud.
Constructive fraud also applies to nonfiduciary “confidential
relationships.” Such a confidential relationship may exist whenever a
person with justification places trust and confidence in the integrity
and fidelity of another. A confidential relation exists between two
persons when one has gained the confidence of the other and purports
to act or advise with the other’s interest in mind. A confidential
relation may exist although there is no fiduciary relation ….”
Tyler v. Children’s  Home Society, 29 Cal. App. 4th 511, 549 (1994)
(citations and quotations omitted).

Note 9 – Cause of Action for an Accounting – Generally, there is no
fiduciary duty between a lender and borrower.  Perlas v. GMAC Mortg.,
LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 429, 436 (2010).  Further, Plaintiff (borrower)
has not alleged any facts showing that a balance would be due from the
Defendant lender to Plaintiff.  St. James Church of Christ Holiness v.
Superior Court, 135 Cal. App. 2d 352, 359 (1955).  Any other duty to
provide an accounting only arises when a written request for one is
made prior to the NTS being recorded.  CCC § 2943(c).

Note 10 – Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing – “[W]ith the exception of bad faith insurance
cases, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing permits
a recovery solely in contract.  Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood
Apartments, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1054 (2009).  In order to state a
cause of action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing, a valid contract between the parties must be alleged.
The implied covenant cannot be extended to create obligations not
contemplated by the contract.  Racine & Laramie v. Department of Parks
and Recreation, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1026, 1031-32 (1992).

Note 11 – Cause of Action for Breach of Contract – “A cause of action
for damages for breach of contract is comprised of the following
elements: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for
nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages
to plaintiff. It is elementary that one party to a contract cannot
compel another to perform while he himself is in default. While the
performance of an allegation can be satisfied by allegations in
general terms, excuses must be pleaded specifically.”  Durell v. Sharp
Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1367 (2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).

Note 12 – Cause of Action for Injunctive Relief – Injunctive relief is
a remedy and not a cause of action.  Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC,
179 Cal. App. 4th 1177, 1187 (2009).

Note 13 – Cause of Action for Negligence – “Under the common law,
banks ordinarily have limited duties to borrowers. Absent special
circumstances, a loan does not establish a fiduciary relationship
between a commercial bank and its debtor. Moreover, for purposes of a
negligence claim, as a general rule, a financial institution owes no
duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the
loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as
a mere lender of money. As explained in Sierra-Bay Fed. Land Bank
Assn. v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 318, 334, 277 Cal.Rptr.
753, “[a] commercial lender is not to be regarded as the guarantor of
a borrower’s success and is not liable for the hardships which may
befall a borrower. It is simply not tortious for a commercial lender
to lend money, take collateral, or to foreclose on collateral when a
debt is not paid. And in this state a commercial lender is privileged
to pursue its own economic interests and may properly assert its
contractual rights.”  Das v. Bank of America, N.A., 186 Cal. App. 4th
727, 740-741 (2010) (citations and quotations omitted).

Note 14 – Cause of Action to Quiet Title – To assert a cause of action
to quiet title, the complaint must be verified and meet the other
pleading requirements set forth in CCP § 761.020.

Note 15 – Causes of Action for Slander of Title – The recordation of
the Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee’s Sale are privileged
under CCC § 47, pursuant to CCC § 2924(d)(1), and the recordation of
them cannot support a cause of action for slander of title against the
trustee.  Moreover, “[i]n performing acts required by [the article
governing non-judicial foreclosures], the trustee shall incur no
liability for any good faith error resulting from reliance on
information provided in good faith by the beneficiary regarding the
nature and the amount of the default under the secured obligation,
deed of trust, or mortgage. In performing the acts required by [the
article governing nonjudicial foreclosures], a trustee shall not be
subject to [the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act].”  CCC §
2924(b).

Note 16 – Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code § 1632 – Section
1632, by its terms, does not apply to loans secured by real property.
CCC § 1632(b).

Note 17 – Possession of the original promissory note – “Under Civil
Code section 2924, no party needs to physically possess the promissory
note.” Sicairos v. NDEX West, LLC, 2009 WL 385855 (S.D. Cal. 2009)
(citing CCC § 2924(a)(1); see also Lomboy v. SCME Mortgage Bankers,
2009 WL 1457738 * 12-13 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“Under California law, a
trustee need not possess a note in order to initiate foreclosure under
a deed of trust.”).

Note 18 – Statute of Frauds, Modification of Loan Documents – An
agreement to modify a note secured by a deed of trust must be in
writing signed by the party to be charged, or it is barred by the
statute of frauds.  Secrest v. Security Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2,
167 Cal. App. 4th 544, 552-553 (2008).

Note 19 – Statute of Frauds, Forebearance Agreement – An agreement to
forebear from foreclosing on real property under a deed of trust must
be in writing and signed by the party to be charged or it is barred by
the statute of frauds.  Secrest v. Security Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust
2002-2, 167 Cal. App. 4th 544, 552-553 (2008).

Note 20 – Tender – A borrower attacking a voidable sale must do equity
by tendering the amount owing under the loan.  The tender rule applies
to all causes of action implicitly integrated with the sale.  Arnolds
Management Corp. v. Eischen, 158 Cal. App. 3d 575, 579 (1984).

Note 21 – Cause of Action for Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 –
“The UCL does not proscribe specific activities, but broadly prohibits
any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and
unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. The UCL governs
anti-competitive business practices as well as injuries to consumers,
and has as a major purpose the preservation of fair business
competition. By proscribing “any unlawful business practice,” section
17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful
practices that the unfair competition law makes independently
actionable.  Because section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it
establishes three varieties of unfair competition-acts or practices
which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent. In other words, a
practice is prohibited as “unfair” or “deceptive” even if not
“unlawful” and vice versa.”  Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.,
160 Cal. App. 4th 638, 643-644 (2008) (citations and quotations
omitted).

“Unfair” Prong

[A]ny finding of unfairness to competitors under section 17200 [must]
be tethered to some legislatively declared policy or proof of some
actual or threatened impact on competition. We thus adopt the
following test: When a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury
from a direct competitor’s “unfair” act or practice invokes section
17200, the word “unfair” in that section means conduct that threatens
an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or
spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or
the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly
threatens or harms competition.

Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.,
20 Cal. 4th 163, 186-187 (1999).

“Fraudulent” Prong

The term “fraudulent” as used in section 17200 does not refer to the
common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the
public are likely to be deceived. Unless the challenged conduct
targets a particular disadvantaged or vulnerable group, it is judged
by the effect it would have on a reasonable consumer.

Puentes, 160 Cal. App. 4th at 645 (citations and quotations
omitted).

“Unlawful” Prong

By proscribing “any unlawful” business practice, Business and
Professions Code section 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and
treats them as unlawful practices that the UCL makes independently
actionable. An unlawful business practice under Business and
Professions Code section 17200 is an act or practice, committed
pursuant to business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by
law. Virtually any law -federal, state or local – can serve as a
predicate for an action under Business and Professions Code section
17200.

Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1373, 1382-1383 (2010)
(citations and quotations omitted).

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes
must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the
statutory elements of the violation.”  Khoury v. Maly’s of California,
Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619 (1993) (citations and quotations
omitted).

Note 22 – Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress –  Collection of amounts due under a loan or restructuring a
loan in a way that remains difficult for the borrower to repay is not
“outrageous” conduct.  Price v. Wells Fargo Bank, 213 Cal. App. 3d
465, 486 (1989).

Note 23 – Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress – Emotional distress damages are not recoverable where the
emotional distress arises solely from property damage or economic
injury to the plaintiff.  Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux, 134 Cal. App. 4th
1220, 1229 (2005).

Note 24 – Cause of Action for Conspiracy – There is no stand-alone
claim for conspiracy.  Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia
Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 510-511 (1994).

Note 25 – Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief – A claim for
declaratory relief is not “proper” since the dispute has crystallized
into COA under other theories asserted in other causes of actions in
the complaint.  Cardellini v. Casey, 181 Cal. App. 3d 389, 397-398
(1986).

Note 26 – Cause of Action for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Acts – Foreclosure activities are not considered “debt
collection” activities.  Gamboa v. Trustee Corps, 2009 WL 656285, at
*4 (N.D. Cal. March 12, 2009).

Note 27 – Duties of the Foreclosure Trustee – The foreclosure
trustee’s rights, powers and duties regarding the notice of default
and sale are strictly defined and limited by the deed of trust and
governing statutes.  The duties cannot be expanded by the Courts and
no other common law duties exist.  Diediker v. Peelle Financial Corp.,
60 Cal. App. 4th 288, 295 (1997).

Note 28 – Unopposed Demurrer – The Demurrer is sustained [w/ or w/o]
leave to amend [and the RJN granted].  Service was timely and good and
no opposition was filed.
Failure to oppose the Demurrer may be construed as having abandoned
the claims.  See, Herzberg v. County of Plumas, 133 Cal. App. 4th 1,
20 (2005) (“Plaintiffs did not oppose the County’s demurrer to this
portion of their seventh cause of action and have submitted no
argument on the issue in their briefs on appeal.  Accordingly, we deem
plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue.”).

Note 29 – Responding on the Merits Waives Any Service Defect – “It is
well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion
and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of
any defects or irregularities in the notice of the motion.”  Tate v.
Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 3d 925, 930 (1975) (citations omitted).

Note 30 – Unargued Points – “Contentions are waived when a party fails
to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.”
Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1210, 1215
(2003).

Note 31 – Promissory Estoppel – “The doctrine of promissory estoppel
makes a promise binding under certain circumstances, without
consideration in the usual sense of something bargained for and given
in exchange. Under this doctrine a promisor is bound when he should
reasonably expect a substantial change of position, either by act or
forbearance, in reliance on his promise, if injustice can be avoided
only by its enforcement. The vital principle is that he who by his
language or conduct leads another to do what he would not otherwise
have done shall not subject such person to loss or injury by
disappointing the expectations upon which he acted. In such a case,
although no consideration or benefit accrues to the person making the
promise, he is the author or promoter of the very condition of affairs
which stands in his way; and when this plainly appears, it is most
equitable that the court should say that they shall so stand.”  Garcia
v. World Sav., FSB, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1031, 1039-1041 (2010)
(citations quotations and footnotes omitted).

Note 32 – Res Judicata Effect of Prior UD Action – Issues of title are
very rarely tried in an unlawful detainer action and moving party has
failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the title issue was
fully and fairly adjudicated in the underlying unlawful detainer.
Vella v. Hudgins, 20 Cal. 3d 251, 257 (1977).  The burden of proving
the elements of res judicata is on the party asserting it.  Id. The
Malkoskie case is distinguishable because, there, the unlimited
jurisdiction judge was convinced that the title issue was somehow
fully resolved by the stipulated judgment entered in the unlawful
detainer court.  Malkoskie v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 188 Cal. App.
4th 968, 972 (2010).

Note 33 – Applicability of US Bank v. Ibanez – The Ibanez case, 458
Mass. 637 (January 7, 2011), does not appear to assist Plaintiff in
this action.  First, the Court notes that this case was decided by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, such that it is persuasive authority, and
not binding authority.  Second, the procedural posture in this case is
different than that found in a case challenging a non-judicial
foreclosure in California.  In Ibanez, the lender brought suit in the
trial court to quiet title to the property after the foreclosure sale,
with the intent of having its title recognized (essentially validating
the trustee’s sale).  As the plaintiff, the lender was required to
show it had the power and authority to foreclose, which is
established, in part, by showing that it was the holder of the
promissory note.  In this action, where the homeowner is in the role
of the plaintiff challenging the non-judicial foreclosure, the lender
need not establish that it holds the note.

Note 34 – Statutes of Limitations for TILA and RESPA Claims – For TILA
claims, the statute of limitations for actions for damages runs one
year after the loan origination.  15 U.S.C. § 1640(e).  For actions
seeking rescission, the statute of limitations is three years from
loan origination.  15 U.S.C. § 1635(f).  For RESPA, actions brought
for lack of notice of change of loan servicer have a statute of
limitation of three years from the date of the occurrence, and actions
brought for payment of kickbacks for real estate settlement services,
or the conditioning of the sale on selection of certain title services
have a statute of limitations of one year from the date of the
occurrence.  12 U.S.C. § 2614.

Tell me not to make my payments could come back to bite the Bank. “Downey Savings could not take advantage of its own wrong. (Civ. Code, § 3517.)”

Ragland v. U.S. Bank N.A. (2012) , Cal.App.4th

[No. G045580. Fourth Dist., Div. Three. Sept. 11, 2012.]

PAM RAGLAND, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants and Respondents.

(Superior Court of Orange County, No. 30-2008-00114411, Gregory H. Lewis, Judge.)

(Opinion by Fybel, J., with Aronson, Acting P.J., and Ikola, J., concurring.)

COUNSEL

Travis R. Jack for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton, Karin Dougan Vogel, J. Barrett Marum and Mark G. Rackers for Defendants and Respondents. {SLIP OPN. PAGE 2}

OPINION

FYBEL, J.-

INTRODUCTION

After Pam Ragland lost her home through foreclosure, she sued defendants U.S. Bank National Association (U.S. Bank), the successor in interest to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as the receiver for Downey Savings and Loan Association (Downey Savings); DSL Service Company (DSL), the trustee under the deed of trust; and DSL’s agent, FCI Lender Services, Inc. (FCI). (We refer to U.S. Bank, DSL, and FCI collectively as Defendants.) She asserted causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of oral contract, violation of Civil Code section 2924g, subdivision (d) (section 2924g(d)), intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission of the foreclosure sale. Ragland appeals from the judgment entered after the trial court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and summary adjudication.

Applying basic contract and tort law, we reverse the judgment in favor of U.S. Bank on the causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, violation of section 2924g(d), and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Ragland produced evidence creating triable issues of fact as to whether Downey Savings induced her to miss a loan payment, thereby wrongfully placing her loan in foreclosure, and whether she suffered damages as a result. We affirm summary adjudication of the causes of action for breach of oral contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission, and affirm the judgment in favor of DSL and FCI because Ragland is no longer pursuing claims against them.

The FDIC took control of Downey Savings in November 2008 and later assigned its assets, including Ragland’s loan, to U.S. Bank. For the sake of clarity, we continue to use the name “Downey Savings” up through December 17, 2008, the date of the foreclosure sale. {Slip Opn. Page 3}

FACTS

I. Ragland Refinances Her Loan. Her Signature Is Forged on Some Loan Documents.

In June 2002, Ragland refinanced her home mortgage through Downey Savings. She obtained the refinance loan through a mortgage broker. The loan was an adjustable rate mortgage with an initial yearly interest rate of 2.95 percent, and the initial monthly payment was $1,241.03.

Ragland thought that Downey Savings had offered her a fixed rate loan and claimed her mortgage broker forged her name on certain loan documents. In July 2002, she sent a letter to the escrow company, asserting her signature had been forged on the buyer’s estimated closing statement and on the lender’s escrow instructions, and, in September 2002, she notified Downey Savings of the claimed forgery. A handwriting expert opined that Ragland’s signature had been forged on those two documents, and on a statement of assets and liabilities, an addendum to the loan application, a provider of service schedule, and an itemization of charges. By August 2002, Ragland had consulted two attorneys about the forged documents, one of whom wanted to file a class action lawsuit on her behalf, and the other of whom advised her of her right to rescind the loan. Ragland signed, and did not dispute signing, the adjustable rate mortgage note, the deed of trust, and riders to both instruments.

II. Ragland Seeks a Loan Modification. She Is Told to Miss a Loan Payment to Qualify.

By April 2008, the yearly interest rate on Ragland’s loan had increased to 7.022 percent and her monthly payment had increased to over $2,600. On April 13, Ragland spoke with a Downey Savings representative named John about modifying her {Slip Opn. Page 4} loan. John told Ragland her loan was not “behind” but he would work with her to modify it. He told Ragland not to make the April 2008 loan payment because “the worst thing that’s going to happen is you are going to have a late fee, we will get this done for you.” When Ragland asked if there was a chance the loan modification would not “go through,” John replied, “usually not, you are pre-qualified.”

John told Ragland a $1,000 fee would be charged to modify the loan, and Downey Savings would not waive that fee. She replied that Downey Savings should waive the fee because her “loan was forged and nothing was done about it.” John said he would check with his supervisor about waiving the fee.

John did not call back, and on April 16, 2008, the last day to make a timely loan payment for April, Ragland, who was nervous about a late payment, called him. John told her nothing could be done about the loan, so she asked to speak to his supervisor. The supervisor told Ragland, “[i]f you have one document in your packet that’s forged, you may not be responsible for anything in your loan, at all, you may not have to even pay your loan.” When Ragland said she had 13 to 15 forged documents, the supervisor checked her record and told her, “I can see that you reported . . . this to us. We are going to have to put it in legal.” The supervisor told Ragland that Downey Savings could not collect from her while its legal department investigated the forgery. Ragland had planned to make her April 2008 loan payment but, based on what John and the supervisor told her, manually cancelled the automatic payment from her checking account.

In late April 2008, Downey Savings sent Ragland a notice that her loan payment was delinquent. On April 29, 2008, Ragland spoke with Downey Savings representatives named Joseph and Claudia and made notes on the delinquency notice of her conversations with them. Ragland noted that Claudia or Joseph told her: “Can’t do modi[fication] while investigat[e] [¶] . . . Collection activity ‘frozen.'” Claudia told Ragland that Downey Savings was initiating an investigation into her claim of forgery {Slip Opn. Page 5} and could not accept further loan payments from her during the investigation. Ragland noted that Joseph also told her, “collection activity frozen.”

No one from Downey Savings further discussed a loan modification with Ragland or requested financial information from her. Ragland testified in her deposition, “once it went into legal, that was it. It was like the legal black hole.”

In May 2008, a withdrawal was made from Ragland’s checking account and transmitted to Downey Savings as the May 2008 loan payment. Downey Savings refused to accept the payment.

On May 5, 2008, Downey Savings sent Ragland a letter entitled “Notice of Intent to Foreclose” (some capitalization omitted). According to the letter, the amount required to reinstate the loan was $5,487.80. On May 9, Ragland called Downey Savings in response to this letter. Her notes for this conversation indicate she spoke with “Reb,” who transferred her to “Jasmine,” who transferred her to “Lilia,” who said the loan was in Downey Savings’s legal department and “they[‘]ll C/B.”

III. Downey Savings Institutes Foreclosure Proceedings; Ragland Gets the Runaround.

Nobody from Downey Savings called Ragland back. In early July 2008, Ragland received a letter from Downey Savings’s collection department, informing her that foreclosure proceedings on her home had begun. On July 15, Ragland had a telephone conversation with each of three Downey Savings representatives, identified in her notes of the conversations as Eric, Gail, and Leanna. Ragland spoke first with Eric, who told her the account was in foreclosure and transferred her to the foreclosure department. Ragland next spoke with Gail, who said she could not speak to her because the account was in foreclosure. Gail transferred Ragland to Leanna. Leanna told Ragland that the legal department failed to put a red flag in the computer to indicate the loan was being investigated and that the loan should never have been placed in {Slip Opn. Page 6} foreclosure. Leanna told Ragland that Downey Savings was “waiting for legal,” and Ragland’s attorney needed to “write the letter to legal and ask them . . . for a status update on the investigation, and that we had time, because it had just been referred in June and the sale wasn’t set for quite a while.” Ragland’s notes from the conversation include, “[f]oreclosure on hold.”

IV. Downey Savings Institutes Foreclosure Proceedings; Ragland Attempts to Make Loan Payments.

On July 18, 2008, Downey Savings instructed DSL, the trustee under the deed of trust, to initiate foreclosure proceedings on Ragland’s home. DSL assigned its agent, FCI, to take the actions necessary to foreclose the deed of trust on Ragland’s home.

Ragland attempted to make payments on her loan in September, October, and November 2008 through transfers from her checking account. Downey Savings rejected the payments.

On October 30, 2008, FCI recorded a notice of trustee’s sale, stating the foreclosure sale of Ragland’s home would be held on November 20. Ragland filed this lawsuit against Downey Savings on November 7, 2008. Several days later, Ragland’s attorney, Dean R. Kitano, spoke with general counsel for Downey Savings, Richard Swinney, about Ragland’s allegations of fraud and forgery in connection with the origination of her loan. Swinney agreed to postpone the foreclosure sale until December 9, 2008.

By letter dated November 12, 2008, Swinney informed Kitano that until Downey Savings received certain documentation from Ragland, it would not consider modifying her loan. The letter stated that any loan modification would require that she bring the loan current and described as “not credible” Ragland’s contention that a Downey Savings representative told her to skip a monthly payment. The forgery issue, {Slip Opn. Page 7} according to the letter, “has no impact on this loan” because Ragland did not claim her signatures on the disclosure statement, note, or deed of trust were forged.

Later in November 2008, the Office of Thrift Supervision closed Downey Savings, and the FDIC was appointed as its receiver. U.S. Bank acquired the assets of Downey Savings from the FDIC. Ragland’s loan was among those assets acquired by U.S. Bank.

V. Ragland’s Home Is Sold at Foreclosure Sale on the Day After the Trial Court Denied Ragland’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

On November 12, 2008, Ragland filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the foreclosure sale scheduled for December 9. The ex parte application was heard on November 26, on which date the trial court issued an order stating: “Plaintiff shall be entitled to a temporary restraining order enjoining the foreclosure sale on December 9, 2008; upon bringing the loan current by Dec[ember] 16. Current is as of Nov[ember] 26, 2008.” A hearing on Ragland’s motion for a preliminary injunction was scheduled for December 16, 2008.

Following the ex parte hearing, Downey Savings provided Ragland a statement showing the amount necessary to reinstate her loan was $24,804.57, of which about $4,074 was for late charges, interest on arrears, property inspection and foreclosure costs. Kitano sent Downey Savings a letter, dated December 2, 2008, stating that “[c]urrently, my client is unable to pay the arrearage to make the loan current” and proposing that (1) $12,000 of the reinstatement amount be “tacked onto the back end of the loan” and (2) Downey Savings forgive the remaining amount.

In advance of the hearing on Ragland’s motion for a preliminary injunction, the trial court issued a tentative decision that stated, in part: “The court’s order of November 26, 2008, conditions the TRO [(temporary restraining order)] on plaintiff’s {Slip Opn. Page 8} bringing her payments current as of November 26, 20[08] by no later than December 16, 2008. According to defendant, t[he] amount necessary to bring the loan current is $24,804.57. Plaintiff does not dispute that she owes regular monthly mortgag[e] payments on the loan, and therefore whether or not she is likely to prevail on the merits is not at issue insofar as her responsibilit[ies] to bring the loan payments current [are] concerned. If plaintiff fails to bring her payments current by the hearing date, there is no reason to issue a preliminary injunction, since the injunction would serve no purpose but to prolong the inevitable to no good purpose. . . . [¶] If plaintiff does bring her payments current by the hearing date, then there is no basis for a foreclosure sale because the arrears would have been cured. Hence there would seem to be no need for the issuance of a preliminary injunction under such circumstances.”

Ragland did not pay the amount demanded by Downey Savings to reinstate the loan by December 16, 2008. She had sufficient funds to make the back payments due under the note, but not to pay the additional fees.

On December 16, 2008, the trial court denied Ragland’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and the foreclosure sale was conducted the next day. Ragland’s home was sold at the sale for $375,000.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Ragland’s third amended complaint asserted causes of action against U.S. Bank for negligent misrepresentation, breach of oral contract, and fraud, and against Defendants for violations of section 2924g(d), intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission of foreclosure sale.

In December 2010, Defendants moved for summary judgment and, in the alternative, for summary adjudication of each cause of action. In May 2011, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment on the ground Ragland could not pay the full amount demanded by Downey Savings to reinstate her loan. The trial court ruled: {Slip Opn. Page 9} “A valid and viable tender of payment of the indebtedness owing is essential to an action to cancel a voidable sale under a deed of trust . . . . [Citation.] [¶] This rule . . . is based upon the equitable maxim that a court of equity will not order a useless act performed . . . if plaintiffs could not have redeemed the property had the sale procedures been proper, any irregularities in the sale did not result in damages to the plaintiffs. [¶] [Citation.] [¶] The defendants have shown that all of plaintiff’s damages under each cause of action were suffered as a result of the foreclosure sale of her property. . . . Plaintiff alleges that the foreclosure sale occurred six days too early in violation of Civil Code §2924g. Even if this were true, plaintiff’s damages are not recoverable because plaintiff was incapable of reinstating her loan. . . . This was made clear by plaintiff’s counsel in his letter to Downey Savings’ counsel two weeks before the foreclosure sale (December 2, 2008). Plaintiff’s counsel stated that ‘. . . my client is unable to pay the arrearage to make the loan current[.’] . . . Plaintiff’s failure to reinstate the loan by the December 16, 2008 preliminary injunction hearing confirmed as much, and plaintiff also admitted this in her deposition.”

As to the contention that Ragland could have made the past due loan payments but not the added fees, the trial court ruled: “Plaintiff claims that she indicated in her deposition that she had the money to make up the back payments, but not enough money to also make up the fees. Plaintiff’s Separate Statement, page 6, lines 16-18. The referenced deposition testimony amounts to a claim that plaintiff had only part of the money necessary to reinstate the loan.” The court also rejected the contention that Ragland was prepared to file bankruptcy to delay the foreclosure sale, stating, “[t]his is a further admission that plaintiff was incapable of reinstating her loan even if the foreclosure sale had been delayed an additional six days.”

Ragland timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment entered in Defendants’ favor. {Slip Opn. Page 10}

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND MOTION TO STRIKE

I. Ragland’s Request for Judicial Notice

Ragland requests that we take judicial notice of 18 discrete facts concerning the financial condition of Downey Savings from 2005 to the time of its acquisition by U.S. Bank, the nature of Downey Savings’s assets in that timeframe, the resale of Ragland’s home, and the condition of the Orange County housing market. She argues those 18 facts are relevant to show “when Downey Savings’ disastrous financial condition beg[a]n showing in late 2007, and bec[ame] clear by April, 2008, Downey’s desperate need for cash explains its unusual behavior.” She concedes, “[t]he matters concerning which judicial notice is requested were not presented to the trial court.” We deny the request for judicial notice.

Ragland requests we take judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (h), which provides the court “may” take judicial notice of “[f]acts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” The Court of Appeal has the same power as the trial court to take judicial notice of matters properly subject to judicial notice. (Evid. Code, § 459.) “‘Matters that cannot be brought before the appellate court through the record on appeal (initially or by augmentation) may still be considered on appeal by judicial notice.'” (Fitz v. NCR Corp. (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 702, 719, fn. 4.)

As evidentiary support for the request for judicial notice, Ragland offers 12 exhibits, consisting of an audit report of Downey Savings, prepared by the Office of the Inspector General of the United States Department of the Treasury (exhibit 1), printed pages from various Web sites and blogs (exhibits 2-6 and 8-12), and a recorded grant deed (exhibit 7). Ragland’s request for judicial notice requires us (with one exception) to take judicial notice of, and accept as true, the contents of those exhibits. While we may {Slip Opn. Page 11} take judicial notice of the existence of the audit report, Web sites, and blogs, we may not accept their contents as true. (Unruh-Haxton v. Regents of University of California (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 343, 364.) “When judicial notice is taken of a document, however, the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable. [Citation.]” (StorMedia Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9.)

Although the audit report is a government document, we may not judicially notice the truth of its contents. In Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063, overruled on another ground in In re Tobacco Cases II (2007) 41 Cal.4th 1257, 1276, the plaintiff sought judicial notice of a report of the United States Surgeon General and a report to the California Department of Health Services. The California Supreme Court denied the request: “While courts may notice official acts and public records, ‘we do not take judicial notice of the truth of all matters stated therein.’ [Citations.] ‘[T]he taking of judicial notice of the official acts of a governmental entity does not in and of itself require acceptance of the truth of factual matters which might be deduced therefrom, since in many instances what is being noticed, and thereby established, is no more than the existence of such acts and not, without supporting evidence, what might factually be associated with or flow therefrom.'” (Mangini v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., supra, at pp. 1063-1064.)

Nor may we take judicial notice of the truth of the contents of the Web sites and blogs, including those of the Los Angeles Times and Orange County Register. (See Zelig v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1112, 1141, fn. 6 [“The truth of the content of the articles is not a proper matter for judicial notice”]; Unlimited Adjusting Group, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 883, 888, fn. 4 [statements of facts contained in press release not subject to judicial notice].) The contents of the Web sites and blogs are “plainly subject to interpretation and for that reason not subject to judicial notice.” (L.B. Research & Education Foundation v. UCLA Foundation (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 171, 180, fn. 2.) {Slip Opn. Page 12}

The exception is the grant deed. A recorded deed is an official act of the executive branch, of which this court may take judicial notice. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (c), 459, subd. (a); Evans v. California Trailer Court, Inc. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 540, 549; Cal-American Income Property Fund II v. County of Los Angeles (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 109, 112, fn. 2.) The grant deed purports to show that Ragland’s home was conveyed by the purchaser at the foreclosure sale to another party. While we may take judicial notice of the grant deed, we decline to do so because we conclude it is not relevant to any issue raised on appeal.

In addition, Ragland has not shown exceptional circumstances justifying judicial notice of facts that were not part of the record when the judgment was entered. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3; Duronslet v. Kamps (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 717, 737.)

II. Defendants’ Motion to Strike Portions of Ragland’s Opening Brief

Defendants move to strike (1) six passages from Ragland’s opening brief that are supported by citations to the exhibits attached to the request for judicial notice or by citations to Web sites outside the record on appeal, and (2) three passages accusing Downey Savings of trying to swindle Ragland to generate cash.

California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(C) states an appellate brief must “[s]upport any reference to a matter in the record by a citation to the volume and page number of the record where the matter appears.” We may decline to consider passages of a brief that do not comply with this rule. (Doppes v. Bentley Motors, Inc. (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 967, 990.) As a reviewing court, we usually consider only matters that were part of the record when the judgment was entered. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc., supra, 14 Cal.4th at p. 444, fn. 3.) {Slip Opn. Page 13}

We have denied Ragland’s request for judicial notice; we therefore decline to consider those passages of the appellant’s opening brief, noted in the margin, which are supported solely by citations to exhibits attached to that request or to Web sites outside the appellate record. fn. 1 The three passages from the appellant’s opening brief accusing Downey Savings of trying to swindle Ragland also are not supported by record references, fn. 2 but we consider those three passages to be argument rather than factual assertions.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“A trial court properly grants summary judgment where no triable issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [Citation.] We review the trial court’s decision de novo, considering all of the evidence the parties offered in connection with the motion (except that which the court properly {Slip Opn. Page 14} excluded) and the uncontradicted inferences the evidence reasonably supports. [Citation.]” (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 476.) We liberally construe the evidence in support of the party opposing summary judgment and resolve all doubts about the evidence in that party’s favor. (Hughes v. Pair (2009) 46 Cal.4th 1035, 1039.)

DISCUSSION

I. Negligent Misrepresentation Cause of Action

In the first cause of action, for negligent misrepresentation, Ragland alleged: “On or about April 29, 2008, Downey [Savings] represented to Plaintiff that Downey [Savings] could modify Plaintiff’s current loan during the time that the legal department was investigating the fraud allegation on Plaintiff’s loan. However, in order to do a modification of Plaintiff’s loan, Plaintiff would have to be in arrears on her current loan. Downey[ Savings]’s representative then told Plaintiff not to pay April’s mortgage payment. Upon . . . Downey[ Savings]’s representations Plaintiff did not pay April’s mortgage payment. Thereafter, Downey [Savings] informed Plaintiff that Downey [Savings] could not accept any further mortgage payments from Plaintiff until the legal department investigated the alleged fraud on the initial mortgage.”

The elements of negligent misrepresentation are (1) a misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) made without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, (3) made with the intent to induce another’s reliance on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage. (Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. FSI, Financial Solutions, Inc. (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1573; National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge Integrated Services Group, Inc. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 35, 50.)

In opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, Ragland presented evidence that John or his supervisor represented (1) her loan was not “behind” {Slip Opn. Page 15} but he would work with her to modify the loan; (2) she should not make the April 2008 loan payment because “the worst thing that’s going to happen is you are going to have a late fee, we will get this done for you”; and (3) her loan modification request likely would be approved because she was prequalified. Ragland also presented evidence that several days later, on the last day for her to make a timely loan payment for April, John’s supervisor told her the loan would be turned over to the legal department because Ragland had reported some of the loan documents were forged. The supervisor told Ragland that Downey Savings would not attempt to collect from her until the matter had been investigated by the legal department.

Ragland presented evidence that in reliance on the representations made by John or his supervisor, she did not make her April 2008 loan payment. Defendants assert Ragland was already in default when she first spoke with John on April 13, 2008, because she failed to make her payment due April 1, 2008. The note stated Ragland’s monthly payment was due on the first day of each month, but that the monthly payment would be deemed timely if paid by the end of the 15th day after the due date. In addition, Ragland presented evidence that John told her on April 13, 2008, she was not “behind” but he would work with her to modify the loan. The payments made by Ragland for September and October 2008, which were rejected by Downey Savings, were dated the 16th of the month, and the rejected payment for November 2008 was dated the 14th. At the very least, there is a triable issue of fact whether Ragland was in default when she spoke with John on April 13.

Defendants argue Ragland did not rely on the misrepresentations because she tried to make her loan payments in May, September, October, and November 2008. Ragland made her loan payment by automatic transfer from her checking account. She manually prevented or undid the automatic payments for April, June, July, and August 2008. As Ragland argues in her reply brief, an inference could be drawn that she inadvertently did not stop the May 2008 payment. We draw all reasonable inference in {Slip Opn. Page 16} favor of the party against whom the summary judgment motion was made. (Crouse v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 1509, 1520.)

Defendants argue Ragland’s reliance was not justified because she was told her loan was in the foreclosure department and nobody at Downey Savings ever told her she could stop making loan payments. The evidence presented by Ragland created a triable issue of fact whether her reliance was justified. On April 29, 2008, Ragland spoke with Joseph and Claudia at Downey Savings, and they told her Downey Savings was initiating an investigation of her forgery claim; during the investigation, Downey Savings would not accept loan payments; and collection activity was frozen. In May 2008, on receiving a letter stating her loan was in foreclosure, Ragland called Downey Savings. Her call was transferred several times, until a person named Lilia told her the loan was in Downey Savings’s legal department, which would call her back. Nobody from the legal department called Ragland back. In July 2008, Ragland received a letter from Downey Savings, telling her foreclosure proceedings had begun. After receiving the letter, she called Downey Savings and spoke with three different representatives. The third, Leanna, told Ragland the legal department had failed to place a red flag on the loan and it should never have been placed in foreclosure. Ragland’s notes from the conversation include the statement, “[f]oreclosure on hold.”

The trial court granted summary judgment against Ragland on the ground she suffered no damages because, on the date of the foreclosure sale, she could not reinstate the loan by tendering $24,804.57–the amount Downey Savings claimed was due and owing. The evidence created at the very least a triable issue of fact on damages. Ragland testified in her deposition that as of the date of the foreclosure sale, “I could have covered the back payments but not the fees, not all the fees.” Those fees were tacked on because Ragland’s failure to make the April 2008 loan payment placed the loan in foreclosure. However, Ragland presented evidence that she did not make the April 2008 payment because she relied on misrepresentations made by Downey Savings. In {Slip Opn. Page 17} July 2008, Downey Savings told Ragland her loan should not have been placed in foreclosure and the foreclosure was “on hold.” If Downey Savings wrongfully placed Ragland’s loan in foreclosure, as Ragland alleges, then it had no right to demand payment of additional fees and interest to reinstate the loan. Downey Savings could not take advantage of its own wrong. (Civ. Code, § 3517.)

Defendants point to the December 2, 2008 letter from Ragland’s attorney as undermining her claim she could make the past due monthly loan payments. In that letter, the attorney stated that Ragland could not pay the full amount required to bring the loan current and proposed $12,000 of the reinstatement amount be “tacked onto the back end of the loan.” Defendants ask, if Ragland could have made all of the past due monthly loan payments, why did she not offer to pay them? The question is rhetorical: If she had offered to pay the past due monthly loan payments, Downey Savings certainly would have rejected the offer, just as now Defendants vigorously argue a tender must be unconditional and offer payment of additional fees.

Defendants argue Ragland’s declaration is inconsistent with her deposition testimony because, in her deposition, Ragland could not identify precisely the people from whom she asked to borrow money to make the past due monthly loan payments. Her declaration is consistent with her deposition testimony. Ragland testified, under oath, in her deposition that as of the date of the foreclosure sale, she “could have covered the back payments but not the fees.” The evidence established she was not behind on her monthly payments when she spoke with John at Downey Savings on April 13, 2008, and Downey Savings rejected her payments for May, September, October, and November 2008. A reasonable inference from this evidence, which we liberally construe in Ragland’s favor, is that Ragland would have been able to make the past due monthly payments by the time of the foreclosure sale. (Miller v. Department of Corrections (2005) 36 Cal.4th 446, 470 [“We stress that, because this is an appeal from a grant of {Slip Opn. Page 18} summary judgment in favor of defendants, a reviewing court must examine the evidence de novo and should draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party”].)

II. Breach of Oral Contract Cause of Action

In her second cause of action, for breach of oral contract, Ragland alleged Downey Savings breached its promise to investigate her allegations of forgery. On appeal, she does not attempt to support a claim of breach of oral contract and argues instead, “[t]he second cause of action for breach of oral promise to investigate should have been labeled as a cause of action for promissory estoppel.” While conceding the second cause of action does not include the required allegation of detrimental reliance (Kajima/Ray Wilson v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2000) 23 Cal.4th 305, 310), she argues a detrimental reliance allegation may be extrapolated from the fraud cause of action.

The second cause of action did not incorporate by reference the allegations of the fraud cause of action. Ragland argues we must ignore labels, but however labeled, the second cause of action does not allege promissory estoppel. On remand, Ragland may seek leave to amend her complaint to allege a promissory estoppel cause of action.

III. Fraud Cause of Action

In the third cause of action, for fraud, Ragland alleged Downey Savings “falsely and fraudulently” made the representations alleged in the negligent misrepresentation cause of action.

The elements of fraud are (1) the defendant made a false representation as to a past or existing material fact; (2) the defendant knew the representation was false at the time it was made; (3) in making the representation, the defendant intended to deceive {Slip Opn. Page 19} the plaintiff; (4) the plaintiff justifiably and reasonably relied on the representation; and (5) the plaintiff suffered resulting damages. (Lazar v. Superior Court (1996) 12 Cal.4th 631, 638.)

Defendants argue U.S. Bank was entitled to summary adjudication of the fraud cause of action because no evidence was presented of “a misrepresentation, reliance or damages.” As explained in part I. of the Discussion on negligent misrepresentation, Ragland presented evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment that was sufficient to create triable issues as to misrepresentation, reliance, and damages.

Defendants do not argue lack of evidence of elements two (knowledge of falsity) and three (intent to deceive) and did not seek summary adjudication of the fraud cause of action on the ground of lack of evidence of either of those elements. fn. 3 Since Ragland submitted evidence creating triable issues of misrepresentation, reliance, and damages, summary adjudication of the fraud cause of action is reversed.

IV. Violation of Section 2924g(d) Cause of Action

In the fourth cause of action, Ragland alleged Defendants violated section 2924g(d) by selling her home one day after the expiration of the temporary restraining order.

Section 2924g(d) reads, in relevant part: “The notice of each postponement and the reason therefor shall be given by public declaration by the trustee at the time and {Slip Opn. Page 20} place last appointed for sale. A public declaration of postponement shall also set forth the new date, time, and place of sale and the place of sale shall be the same place as originally fixed by the trustee for the sale. No other notice of postponement need be given. However, the sale shall be conducted no sooner than on the seventh day after the earlier of (1) dismissal of the action or (2) expiration or termination of the injunction, restraining order, or stay that required postponement of the sale, whether by entry of an order by a court of competent jurisdiction, operation of law, or otherwise, unless the injunction, restraining order, or subsequent order expressly directs the conduct of the sale within that seven-day period.” (Italics added.)

On November 26, 2008, the trial court issued an order stating: “Plaintiff shall be entitled to a temporary restraining order enjoining the foreclosure sale on December 9, 2008; upon bringing the loan current by Dec[ember] 16. Current is as of Nov[ember] 26, 2008.” The foreclosure sale was conducted on December 17, 2008.

A. Section 2924g(d) Creates a Private Right of Action and Is Not Preempted by Federal Law.

In their summary judgment motion, Defendants argued section 2924g(d) does not create a private right of action and is preempted by federal law. Although Defendants do not make those arguments on appeal, we address, due to their significance, the issues whether section 2924g(d) creates a private right of action and whether it is preempted by federal law. Following the reasoning of Mabry v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 208 (Mabry), we conclude section 2924g(d) creates a private right of action and is not preempted.

In Mabry, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at page 214, our colleagues concluded Civil Code section 2923.5 may be enforced by private right of action. Section 2923.5 requires a lender to contact the borrower in person or by telephone before a notice of default may be filed to “‘assess'” the borrower’s financial situation and “‘explore'” options to prevent foreclosure. (Mabry, supra, at pp. 213-214.) Section 2923.5, though {Slip Opn. Page 21} not expressly creating a private right of action, impliedly created one because there was no administrative mechanism to enforce the statute, a private remedy furthered the purpose of the statute and was necessary for it to be effective, and California courts do not favor constructions of statutes that render them advisory only. (Mabry, supra, at p. 218.)

There is no administrative mechanism to enforce section 2924g(d), and a private remedy is necessary to make it effective. While the Attorney General might be responsible for collective enforcement of section 2924g(d), “the Attorney General’s office can hardly be expected to take up the cause of every individual borrower whose diverse circumstances show noncompliance with section [2924g(d)].” (Mabry, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at p. 224.)

The Mabry court also concluded Civil Code section 2923.5 was not preempted by federal law because the statute was part of the foreclosure process, traditionally a matter of state law. Regulations promulgated by the Office of Thrift Supervision pursuant to the Home Owners’ Loan Act of 1933 (12 U.S.C. § 1461 et seq.) preempted state law but dealt with loan servicing only. (Mabry, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th at pp. 228-231.) “Given the traditional state control over mortgage foreclosure laws, it is logical to conclude that if the Office of Thrift Supervision wanted to include foreclosure as within the preempted category of loan servicing, it would have been explicit.” (Id. at p. 231.) Section 2924g(d), as section 2923.5, is part of the process of foreclosure and therefore is not subject to federal preemption.

B. The Foreclosure Sale Violated Section 2924g(d).

Defendants argue the foreclosure sale did not violate section 2924g(d) on the ground the trial court’s November 26, 2008 order was not a temporary restraining order because it conditioned injunctive relief on Ragland bringing her loan current by December 16, 2008. That condition was not met, and, therefore, Defendants argue, a temporary restraining order was never issued. {Slip Opn. Page 22}

We disagree with Defendants’ interpretation of the November 26 order. The foreclosure sale had been scheduled for December 9, 2008. The November 26 order was for all intents and purposes a temporary restraining order subject to section 2924g(d) because the effect of that order was to require postponement of the sale at least to December 16, 2008. The requirement that Ragland bring the loan current by that date was not a condition precedent to a temporary restraining order, which in effect had been issued, but a condition subsequent, the failure of which to satisfy would terminate injunctive relief. fn. 4

Defendants argue they were entitled nonetheless to summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action because Ragland could not have brought her loan current within seven days of December 16, 2008. Although Ragland submitted evidence that she could pay back amounts due, she did not present evidence she could bring the loan current, including payment of additional fees, as required by the trial court’s November 26 order.

The purpose of the seven-day waiting period under section 2924g(d) was not, however, to permit reinstatement of the loan, “but to ‘provide sufficient time for a trustor to find out when a foreclosure sale is going to occur following the expiration of a court order which required the sale’s postponement’ and ‘provide the trustor with the opportunity to attend the sale and to ensure that his or her interests are protected.’ [Citation].” (Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496, 505.) “The bill [amending section 2924g(d) to add the waiting period] was sponsored by the Western Center on Law and Poverty in response to an incident in which a foreclosure sale was held one day after a TRO was dissolved. The property was sold substantially below fair {Slip Opn. Page 23} market value. The trustor, who had obtained a purchaser for the property, did not learn of the new sale date and was unable to protect his interests at the sale.” (Ibid.)

Thus, in obtaining relief under section 2924g(d), the issue is not whether Ragland could have reinstated her loan within the seven-day waiting period but whether the failure of Downey Savings to comply with the statute impaired her ability to protect her interests at a foreclosure sale. Defendants did not raise that issue as ground for summary adjudication of the fourth cause of action.

V. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action

In the fifth cause of action, Ragland alleged that in December 2008, Defendants intentionally caused her severe emotional distress by selling her home in a foreclosure sale.

Defendants argue Ragland cannot recover emotional distress damages–either intentionally or negligently inflicted–because she suffered property damage at most as result of their actions. (See Erlich v. Menezes (1999) 21 Cal.4th 543, 554 [“‘No California case has allowed recovery for emotional distress arising solely out of property damage'”].) Erlich v. Menezes and other cases disallowing emotional distress damages in cases of property damage involved negligent infliction of emotional distress. (Ibid. [negligent construction of home does not support emotional distress damages]; Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1220, 1228-1229 [negligent breach of lease of storage space]; Camenisch v. Superior Court (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1689, 1693 [negligent infliction of emotional distress based on legal malpractice]; Smith v. Superior Court (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 1033, 1040 [“mere negligence will not support a recovery for mental suffering where the defendant’s tortious conduct has resulted in only economic injury to the plaintiff”].) The rule does not apply to intentional infliction of emotional distress: “[R]ecovery for emotional distress caused by injury to property is permitted {Slip Opn. Page 24} only where there is a preexisting relationship between the parties or an intentional tort.” (Lubner v. City of Los Angeles (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 525, 532; see also Cooper v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1008, 1012 [no recovery for emotional distress arising solely out of property damage “absent a threshold showing of some preexisting relationship or intentional tort”].)

The elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress are (1) the defendant engages in extreme and outrageous conduct with the intent to cause, or with reckless disregard for the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff suffers extreme or severe emotional distress; and (3) the defendant’s extreme and outrageous conduct was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s extreme or severe emotional distress. (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001.) “Outrageous conduct” is conduct that is intentional or reckless and so extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency in a civilized community. (Ibid.) The defendant’s conduct must be directed to the plaintiff, but malicious or evil purpose is not essential to liability. (Ibid.) Whether conduct is outrageous is usually a question of fact. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1045 (Spinks).)

Ragland argues Downey Savings engaged in outrageous conduct by inducing her to skip the April loan payment, refusing later to accept loan payments, and selling her home at foreclosure. She likens this case to Spinks, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, in which the appellate court reversed summary adjudication in the defendants’ favor of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants in Spinks were landlords of an apartment complex in which the plaintiff resided under a lease entered into by her employer. (Id. at p. 1015.) When the plaintiff’s employment was terminated following an industrial injury, the defendants, at the employer’s direction, changed the locks on the plaintiff’s apartment, causing her to leave her residence. (Ibid.) The Court of Appeal rejected the contention the defendants’ conduct was not outrageous {Slip Opn. Page 25} as a matter of law: “First, as a general principle, changing the locks on someone’s dwelling without consent to force that person to leave is prohibited by statute. [Citation.] Though defendants’ agents were polite and sympathetic towards plaintiff, they nevertheless caused her to leave her home without benefit of judicial process. . . . ‘While in the present case no threats or abusive language were employed, and no violence existed, that is not essential to the cause of action. An eviction may, nevertheless, be unlawful even though not accompanied with threats, violence or abusive language. Here the eviction was deliberate and intentional. The conduct of defendants was outrageous.'” (Id. at pp. 1045-1046.) In addition, the defendants’ onsite property manager had expressed concern over the legality of changing the locks, and the plaintiff was particularly vulnerable at the time because she was recovering from surgery. (Id. at p. 1046.)

Defendants argue Spinks is inapposite because changing locks on an apartment to force the tenant to leave is unlawful, while, in contrast, Downey Savings proceeded with a lawful foreclosure after Ragland defaulted and had a legal right to protect its economic interests. (See Sierra-Bay Fed. Land Bank Assn. v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 318, 334 [“It is simply not tortious for a commercial lender to lend money, take collateral, or to foreclose on collateral when a debt is not paid”]; Quinteros v. Aurora Loan Services (E.D.Cal. 2010) 740 F.Supp.2d 1163, 1172 [“The act of foreclosing on a home (absent other circumstances) is not the kind of extreme conduct that supports an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim”].)

This argument assumes Downey Savings had the right to foreclose, an issue at the heart of the case. Ragland created triable issues of fact on her causes of action for negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and violation of section 2924g(d). Defendants do not argue Downey Savings would have had the right to foreclose if any of those causes of action were meritorious. Ragland’s treatment by Downey Savings, if proven, was at least {Slip Opn. Page 26} as bad as the conduct of the defendants in Spinks and was so extreme as to exceed all bounds of decency in our society.

VI. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Cause of Action

In the sixth cause of action, Ragland alleged that in December 2008, Defendants negligently caused her severe emotional distress by selling her home in a foreclosure sale. As explained above, Ragland cannot recover under her cause of action for negligent infliction because Defendants’ conduct resulted only in injury to property. In addition, she cannot recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress because she cannot prove a relationship giving rise to a duty of care.

There is no independent tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress; rather, “[t]he tort is negligence, a cause of action in which a duty to the plaintiff is an essential element.” (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 984.) “That duty may be imposed by law, be assumed by the defendant, or exist by virtue of a special relationship.” (Id. at p. 985.)

Ragland asserted a “direct victim” claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress rather than a “bystander” claim. “‘Direct victim’ cases are cases in which the plaintiff’s claim of emotional distress is not based upon witnessing an injury to someone else, but rather is based upon the violation of a duty owed directly to the plaintiff. ‘[T]he label “direct victim” arose to distinguish cases in which damages for serious emotional distress are sought as a result of a breach of duty owed the plaintiff that is “assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a relationship between the two.” [Citation.] In these cases, the limits [on bystander cases . . . ] have no direct application. [Citations.] Rather, well-settled principles of negligence are invoked to determine whether all elements of a cause of {Slip Opn. Page 27} action, including duty, are present in a given case.'” (Wooden v. Raveling (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 1035, 1038.)

Ragland argues a relationship between her and Defendants, sufficient to create a duty of care, arose by virtue of (1) the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the loan documents and (2) financial advice rendered by John or Joseph during the telephone calls in April 2008.

The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual relationship and does not give rise to an independent duty of care. Rather, “‘[t]he implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is limited to assuring compliance with the express terms of the contract, and cannot be extended to create obligations not contemplated by the contract.'” (Pasadena Live v. City of Pasadena (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1089, 1094.) Outside of the insured-insurer relationship and others with similar qualities, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing does not give rise to tort damages. (Foley v. Interactive Data Corp. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 654, 692-693; see also Cates Construction, Inc. v. Talbot Partners (1999) 21 Cal.4th 28, 61 [no tort recovery for breach of implied covenant arising out of performance bond]; Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 503, 516 [“In the absence of an independent tort, punitive damages may not be awarded for breach of contract” even when the breach was willful, fraudulent, or malicious]; Mitsui Manufacturers Bank v. Superior Court (1989) 212 Cal.App.3d 726, 730-732 [commercial borrower may not recover tort damages for lender’s breach of implied covenant in loan documents].)

No fiduciary duty exists between a borrower and lender in an arm’s length transaction. (Oaks Management Corporation v. Superior Court (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 453, 466; Union Bank v. Superior Court (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 579; Price v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465, 476.) “[A]s a general rule, a financial institution owes no duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as a mere lender of {Slip Opn. Page 28} money.” (Nymark v. Heart Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1089, 1096.)

Relying on Barrett v. Bank of America (1986) 183 Cal.App.3d 1362 (Barrett), Ragland argues Downey Savings exceeded the scope of its role as a lender of money because John and Joseph gave her what amounted to investment advice by telling her not to make her April 2008 loan payment. In Barrett, the plaintiffs executed personal guarantees to the defendant bank of two loans made to a corporation of which the plaintiffs were the principal shareholders. (Id. at p. 1365.) Soon after the loans funded, the plaintiffs were informed the corporation was in technical default because the corporation’s liability to asset ratios no longer met the bank’s requirements. (Ibid.) The bank’s loan officer assigned to the matter suggested three different ways to improve the corporation’s financial situation. As to the third suggestion, merger or acquisition, the loan officer told the plaintiffs a merging company would be responsible for the loans and the plaintiffs would be released from the guarantees. (Ibid.)

The plaintiffs followed the third suggestion, and their corporation merged with another one. The merging corporation soon could not make the payments on the loans. (Barrett, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at pp. 1365-1366.) The assignee of the loans enforced them against the plaintiffs and instituted foreclosure proceedings against their home. (Id. at p. 1366.) The plaintiffs sued the bank for various causes of action, including constructive fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Ibid.) The jury returned a verdict in favor of the bank. (Id. at pp. 1366-1367.)

The issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on constructive fraud. (Barrett, supra, 183 Cal.App.3d at p. 1368.) The Court of Appeal, reversing, concluded substantial evidence supported a constructive fraud theory of recovery. (Id. at p. 1369.) Constructive fraud usually arises from a breach of duty in which a fiduciary relationship exists. (Ibid.) The court reasoned the bank acted as the plaintiffs’ fiduciary because one plaintiff perceived his relationship with the loan officer {Slip Opn. Page 29} as “very close,” relied on the loan officer’s financial advice, shared confidential financial information with the loan officer, and relied on the loan officer’s advice about mergers. (Ibid.) In addition, a consultant for the merging corporation testified the loan officer assured him the plaintiffs would not be released from their guarantees. (Ibid.)

The evidence presented in opposition to the motion for summary judgment did not create a triable issue of Ragland’s relationship with Downey Savings. In contrast with the extensive financial and legal advice given by the loan officer in Barrett, John or his supervisor at Downey Savings told Ragland not to make her April 2008 loan payment in order to be considered for a loan modification. This advice was directly related to the issue of loan modification and therefore fell within the scope of Downey Savings’s conventional role as a lender of money.

The undisputed facts established there was no relationship between Ragland and Downey Savings giving rise to a duty the breach of which would permit Ragland to recover emotional distress damages based on negligence. The trial court did not err by granting summary adjudication of the cause of action for negligent infliction of emotional distress.

VII. Rescission Cause of Action

Ragland concedes her seventh cause of action, for rescission, is no longer viable (“a dead letter”) because her home was resold after the foreclosure sale to a bona fide purchaser for value. For that reason too, she states she is no longer asserting claims against DSL and FCI.

VIII. Temporary Restraining Order

Ragland argues the trial court’s November 26, 2008 order violated her due process rights because it, in effect, required her to pay nearly $25,000 to bring her loan {Slip Opn. Page 30} current or face foreclosure of her home. There are two fundamental problems with Ragland’s challenge to the November 26 order. First, an order granting or dissolving an injunction, or refusing to grant or dissolve an injunction, is directly appealable. (Code Civ. Proc., § 904.1, subd. (a)(6).) Ragland did not file a notice of appeal from the November 26 order or from the later order denying her motion for a preliminary injunction. Second, even if Ragland properly had appealed, the sale of her home at foreclosure would have rendered the appeal moot. An appeal from an order denying a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction will not be entertained after the act sought to be enjoined has been performed. (Finnie v. Town of Tiburon (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1, 10.) “An appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant appellant any effective relief. [Citation.]” (Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479.)

Ragland concedes her attempt to halt the foreclosure sale, like her rescission cause of action, is a “dead letter” and she is not seeking to set aside the November 26 order or the order denying a preliminary injunction. She argues, “the denial of due process at the application for temporary restraining order was a substantial factor in [the] trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of U.S. Bank.” We fail to see the connection. In any event, we are reversing the judgment as to U.S. Bank, and affirming summary adjudication only of the causes of action for breach of oral contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission.

DISPOSITION

The judgment in favor of DSL and FCI, and summary adjudication of the causes of action for breach of oral contract, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and rescission are affirmed. Ragland may seek leave to amend in the trial court, as explained {Slip Opn. Page 31} in this opinion. In all other respects, the judgment is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Ragland shall recover costs incurred on appeal.

Aronson, Acting P.J., and Ikola, J., concurred.

­FN 1. 1. From page 4, the third full paragraph beginning “In October, 2007, Downeys’ publicly traded common stock,” through page 6, the citation following the first full paragraph and ending http://www.ocregister.com/articles/bank-16076-fremont-fdic.html).

2. On page 7, footnote 3 that continues from page 6, the second sentence beginning “Between April 2008” and ending “[$543,000 + 14% = $619,020].”

3. From page 7, in the third paragraph, the second sentence beginning “By that time, Downey’s” to page 8, the first line ending “(http:/www.bankaholic.com/ downey-savings/).”

4. On page 8, the second full paragraph beginning “In late July, 2008.”

5. From page 9, the third full paragraph beginning “On November 21, 2008” through the first full paragraph on page 10.

6. From page 31, the first full paragraph beginning “Going through a foreclosure can be so stressful” through page 32, the first full paragraph ending “(http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DepressionNews/story?id=5444573&page=1).”

­FN 2. The three passages are:

1. On page 16, the first full paragraph beginning “In the present case.”

2. On page 16, footnote 4.

3. On page 30, in the first full paragraph, the fourth sentence beginning “Downey Savings took Ms. Ragland’s home.”

­FN 3. In its notice of motion and separate statement of undisputed material facts, U.S. Bank moved for summary adjudication of two issues (issues 9 and 10) related to the fraud cause of action: “9. U.S. Bank is entitled to summary adjudication against Plaintiff on the third cause of action for Fraud because U.S. Bank did not make an actionable misrepresentation. [¶] 10. U.S. Bank is entitled to summary adjudication against Plaintiff on the third cause of action for Fraud because all of Plaintiff’s alleged damages arise from the foreclosure of her property and Plaintiff was incapable of reinstating the loan at the time of the foreclosure.”

­FN 4. The requirement that Ragland bring her loan current might also be viewed as a condition precedent to a preliminary injunction. But, as the trial court noted: “If plaintiff does bring her payments current by the hearing date, then there is no basis for a foreclosure sale because the arrears would have been cured. Hence there would seem to be no need for the issuance of a preliminary injunction under such circumstances.”

What is a Wrongful Foreclosure Action?

The pretender lender does not have the loan and did not invest any of the servicers money. Yet these frauds are occurring every day. They did not loan you the money yet they are the ones foreclosing, taking the bail out money, the mortgage insurance, and then throwing it back on the investor for the loss. We could stop them if a few plaintiffs where awarded multi million dollar verdicts for wrongful foreclosure.
A wrongful foreclosure action typically occurs when the lender starts a non judicial foreclosure action when it simply has no legal cause. Wrongful foreclosure actions are also brought when the service providers accept partial payments after initiation of the wrongful foreclosure process, and then continue on with the foreclosure process. These predatory lending strategies, as well as other forms of misleading homeowners, are illegal.

The borrower is the one that files a wrongful disclosure action with the court against the service provider, the holder of the note and if it is a non-judicial foreclosure, against the trustee complaining that there was an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of property under a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed or court judicial proceeding. The borrower can also allege emotional distress and ask for punitive damages in a wrongful foreclosure action.
Causes of Action

Wrongful foreclosure actions may allege that the amount stated in the notice of default as due and owing is incorrect because of the following reasons:

Incorrect interest rate adjustment
Incorrect tax impound accounts
Misapplied payments
forbearance agreement which was not adhered to by the servicer
Unnecessary forced place insurance,
Improper accounting for a confirmed chapter 11 or chapter 13 bankruptcy plan.
Breach of contract
Intentional infliction of emotional distress
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Unfair Business Practices
Quiet title
Wrongful foreclosure

Injunction

Any time prior to the foreclosure sale, a borrower can apply for an injunction with the intent of stopping the foreclosure sale until issues in the lawsuit are resolved. The wrongful foreclosure lawsuit can take anywhere from ten to twenty-four months. Generally, an injunction will only be issued by the court if the court determines that: (1) the borrower is entitled to the injunction; and (2) that if the injunction is not granted, the borrower will be subject to irreparable harm.
Damages Available to Borrower

Damages available to a borrower in a wrongful foreclosure action include: compensation for the detriment caused, which are measured by the value of the property, emotional distress and punitive damages if there is evidence that the servicer or trustee committed fraud, oppression or malice in its wrongful conduct. If the borrower’s allegations are true and correct and the borrower wins the lawsuit, the servicer will have to undue or cancel the foreclosure sale, and pay the borrower’s legal bills.
Why Do Wrongful Foreclosures Occur?

Wrongful foreclosure cases occur usually because of a miscommunication between the lender and the borrower. This could be as a result of an incorrectly applied payment, an error in interest charges and completely inaccurate information communicated between the lender and borrower. Some borrowers make the situation worse by ignoring their monthly statements and not promptly responding in writing to the lender’s communications. Many borrowers just assume that the lender will correct any inaccuracies or errors. Any one of these actions can quickly turn into a foreclosure action. Once an action is instituted, then the borrower will have to prove that it is wrongful or unwarranted. This is done by the borrower filing a wrongful foreclosure action. Costs are expensive and the action can take time to litigate.
Impact

The wrongful foreclosure will appear on the borrower’s credit report as a foreclosure, thereby ruining the borrower’s credit rating. Inaccurate delinquencies may also accompany the foreclosure on the credit report. After the foreclosure is found to be wrongful, the borrower must then petition to get the delinquencies and foreclosure off the credit report. This can take a long time and is emotionally distressing.

Wrongful foreclosure may also lead to the borrower losing their home and other assets if the borrower does not act quickly. This can have a devastating affect on a family that has been displaced out of their home. However, once the borrower’s wrongful foreclosure action is successful in court, the borrower may be entitled to compensation for their attorney fees, court costs, pain, suffering and emotional distress caused by the action. Fortunately, these wrongful foreclosure incidences are rare. The majority of foreclosures occur as a result of the borrower defaulting on their mortgage payments.

Win the house back at the eviction on summary judgement

Here goes

Timothy L. McCandless, Esq., SBN 147715
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS
820 Main Street, Suite #1
P.O. Box 149
Martinez, California 94553

Telephone: (925) 957-9797
Facsimile: (925) 957-9799
Email: legal@prodefenders.com

Attorney for Defendant(s):

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

SOUTHERN BRANCH – HALL OF JUSTICE & RECORDS

FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE
CORPORATION, ITS ASSIGNEES
AND/OR SUCCESSORS,

Plaintiff(s),

VS.

; and DOES 1 -10, Inclusive,

Defendant(s)

CASE NO:

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY
DEFENDANT

[Filed concurrently with: Notice of Motion and
Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant;
Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas in Support
of Motion for Summary Judgment by
Defendant; Defendant’s Separate Statement of
Undisputed Facts and Supporting Evidence on
Motion for Summary Judgment; [Proposed]
Order]

Hearing’s:
Date : September X, 2012
Time : X:XX a.m.
Dept. : Law and Motions
Reservation No.:

Defendant and Movant herein,  (“Defendant”), submits the
following Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of his Motion for Summary

Judgment against Plaintiff FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ITS
ASSIGNEES AND/OR SUCCESSORS,(hereinafter “FHLMC”)(“Plaintiff”).

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I
FACTUAL BACKGROUND OF THIS LITIGATION

On or about January 24, 2008, Defendant executed an “Adjustable Rate Note” promising to
pay INDYMAC BANK, F.S.B. (hereinafter “INDYMAC”)1, the sum of $417,000.00, by monthly
payment commencing February 1, 2008.
The Deed of Trust (“DOT”) and the Note are between Defendant, Defendant’s wife Mrs.
Paragas and INDYMAC, Plaintiff was never a signatory to this Note, or DOT. A true and correct
copy of DOT and Adjustable Rate Rider is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas
and incorporated herein as Exhibit “1”.
The issue is does Plaintiff has a right as a stranger to the Note to foreclose on the Note and
DOT that was not in its name and for which Plaintiff was not party to the Note or financing
transaction nor a disclosed beneficiary by virtue of a recorded assignment.
Furthermore Defendant alleges that MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS INC., a/k/a MERSCORP, INC. (hereinafter “MERS”) was not listed anywhere on his
Note executed at the same time as DOT. Furthermore Defendant is informed and believes that
directly after INDYMAC caused MERS to go on title as the “Nominee Beneficiary” this is

1 Independent National Mortgage Corporation “INDYMAC” before its failure was the largest savings and loan association in the
Los Angeles area and the seventh largest mortgage originator in the United States. The failure of INDYMAC on July 11, 2008, was the
fourth largest bank failure in United States history, and the second largest failure of a regulated thrift.

The primary causes of INDYMAC’s failure were largely associated with its business strategy of originating and securitizing Alt-
A loans on a large scale. During 2006, INDYMAC originated over $90 billion of mortgages. INDYMAC’s aggressive growth strategy, use
of Alt-A and other nontraditional loan products, insufficient underwriting, credit concentrations in residential real estate in the California
and Florida markets, and heavy reliance on costly funds borrowed from the Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) and from brokered deposits,
led to its demise when the mortgage market declined in 2007. As an Alt-A lender, INDYMAC’s business model was to offer loan products
to fit the borrower’s needs, using an extensive array of risky option-adjustable-rate-mortgages (option ARMs), subprime loans, 80/20 loans,
and other nontraditional products. Ultimately, loans were made to many borrowers who simply could not afford to make their payments.
The thrift remained profitable only as long as it was able to sell those loans in the secondary mortgage market.

When home prices declined in the latter half of 2007 and the secondary mortgage market collapsed, INDYMAC was forced to
hold $10.7 billion of loans it could not sell in the secondary market. Its reduced liquidity was further exacerbated in late June 2008 when
account holders withdrew $1.55 billion or about 7.5% of INDYMAC’s deposits. During this time INDYMAC’s financial situation was
unraveling at the seams, culminating on July 11, 2008 when INDYMAC was placed into conservatorship by the Federal Deposit Insurance
Company “FDIC” due to liquidity concerns. A bridge bank, INDYMAC FEDERAL BANK, F.S.B., Defendant in the instant action, was
established to assume control of INDYMAC’s assets and secured liabilities, and the bridge bank was put into conservatorship under the
control of the FDIC.

On March 19, 2009 the Acting Director of Office of Thrift Supervision “OTS” replaced the FDIC as conservator for INDYMAC
pursuant to Section 5(d)(2)(C) of the Home Owners’ Loan Act (HOLA), 12 U.S.C. 1464(d)(2)(C); and appointed the FDIC as the receiver
for INDYMAC pursuant to Section 5(d)(2) of HOLA, 12 U.S.C. 1464(d)(2) and Section 11(c)(5) of the FDIA, 12 U.S.C. 1821(c)(5).

As a result of the OTS Order, INDYMAC became an “inactive institution” on March 19, 2009, the very same day that the Order
was issued. In other words, INDYMAC, as a defunct corporation, was no longer in existence as of March 19, 2009.

routinely done in order to hide the true identity of the successive Beneficiaries when and as the
loan was sold.
Based upon published reports, including MERS’ web site, Defendant believes and hereon
allege, MERS does not: (1) take applications for, underwrite or negotiate mortgage loans; (2)
make or originate mortgage loans to consumers; (3) extend credit to consumers; (4) service
mortgage loans; or (5) invest in mortgage loans.
MERS is used by Plaintiff and foreclosing entities to facilitate the unlawful transfers or
mortgages, unlawful pooling of mortgages and the injection into the United States banking
industry of un-sourced (i.e. unknown) funds, including, without limitation, improper off-shore
funds. Defendant is informed and thereon believes and alleges that MERS has been listed as
beneficiary owner of more than half the mortgages in the United States. MERS is improperly
listed as beneficiary owner of Defendant’s mortgage.
Nationwide, there are courts requiring banks that claim to have transferred mortgages to MERS
to forfeit their claim to repayment of such mortgages.
MERS’ operations undermine and eviscerate long-standing principles of real property law,
such as the requirement that any person who seeks to foreclose upon a parcel of real property: (1)
be in possession of the original Note and mortgage; and (2) possess a written assignment giving it
rights to the payments due from borrower pursuant to the mortgage and Note.
The Plaintiff and its agents did not want to pay the fees associated with recording mortgages
and they did not wanted to bother with the trouble of keeping track of the originals. That is the
significance of the word ‘Electronic’ in Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. The
undermined long-established rights and sabotaged the judicial process, eliminating,
“troublesome” documentation requirements. While conversion to electronic loan documentation
may eventually be implemented, it will ultimately be brought about only through duly enacted
legislation which includes appropriate safeguards and counterchecks.
Upon information and belief:
a) MERS is not the original lender for Defendant’s loan;
b) MERS is not the creditor, beneficiary of the underlying debt or an assignee
under the terms of Defendant’s Promissory Note;
c) MERS does not hold the original Defendant’s Promissory Note, nor has it ever
held the originals of any such Promissory Note;

d) At all material times, MERS was unregistered and unlicensed to conduct
mortgage lending or any other type or real estate or loan business in the State of
California and has been and continues to knowingly and intentionally
improperly record mortgages and conduct business in California and elsewhere
on a systematic basis for the benefit of the Plaintiff and other lenders.
Defendant initiated loan modification negotiation efforts with ONEWEST BANK, F.S.B.,
(hereinafter “ONEWEST”) on or about November 2010, after experiencing unforeseen financial
hardship. Defendant believed that his loan servicer would be willing to avoid a foreclosure since
he and his wife Mrs. Paragas were willing to tender unconditionally but needed the monthly
payments restructured to reflect the downturn in their monthly gross income, and reflect the
current market conditions.
Despite Defendant’s efforts, ONEWEST has refused to work in any reasonable way to modify
the loan or avoid foreclosure sale. Furthermore ONEWEST is presently bound by a Consent
Order, WN-11-0112 , with the United States of America Department of the Office of Thrift
Supervision related to its initiation and handling of foreclosure proceedings. The Consent Order is
based in part on foreclosure affidavits that have been found to be false. ONEWEST presently
manages approximately 141 billion dollars in residential mortgage loans in which it has litigated
numerous wrongful foreclosure proceedings and initiated non-judicial foreclosure proceedings
without proper standing.
The challenged foreclosure process is based upon several Assignments of DOT.
a) First Assignment executed and effective January 3, 2011, a true and correct
copy of the Assignment of DOT is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “2”;
b) Second Assignment executed and effective May 24, 2011, a true and correct
copy of the Assignment of DOT is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “3”; and
c) Third Assignment executed and effective October 31, 2011, a true and correct
copy of the Assignment of DOT is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “4”.
There are no documents of which the Court can take judicial notice that establish that MERS

2 See: http://www.mortgagedaily.com/forms/OccConsentOrderOnewest041311.pdf

either held the Promissory Note or was given the authority by INDYMAC, the original lender, to
assign the Note.
Defendant further alleges and according the San Mateo County Recorder’s Office, that first
Assignment of DOT (See Exhibit “2”) was purportedly signed by Mr. BRIAN BURNETT as the
“Assistant Secretary” of MERS, Defendant believes and alleges that Mr. BRIAN BURNETT was
never, in any manner whatsoever, appointed as the “Assistant Secretary” by the Board of
Directors of MERS, as required by MERS’ corporate by-laws and an adopted corporate resolution
by the Board of Directors of MERS. For that reason, Mr. BRIAN BURNETT never had, nor has,
any corporate or legal authority from MERS, or the lender’s successors and assigns, to execute
the purported “Assignment.” Furthermore Mr. BRIAN BURNETT purports to be ONEWEST’s
“Assistant Vice President” according the Substitution of Trustee (“SOT”) executed and effective
January 13, 2011 a true and correct copy of the SOT is attached to the Declaration of Alexander
B. Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “5”.
This is a shell game where Mr. BRIAN BURNETT purports to be “Assistant Secretary” and
“Assistant Vice President” for two different entities at the same time, in reality Mr. BRIAN
BURNETT is an employee for ONEWEST, so that he can manufacture the paperwork necessary
for ONEWEST to hijack the mortgage and then foreclose on the property. Furthermore this is
example of how MERS is being used by its members to perpetrate a fraud.
On or about October 31, 2011 another MERS’ employee Mrs. WENDY TRAXLER as
“Assistant Secretary” once again assigned same DOT to ONEWEST (See Exhibit “4”).
Defendant is left to wonder, which Assignment is valid, and how is possible that two
employees of same entity, in this case MERS’, Mr. BRIAN BURNETT and Mrs. WENDY
TRAXLER, both “Assistant Secretaries”, did not communicated as to the Defendant’s Note and
DOT before the execution of the Assignments, or it appears that MERS’ employees preparing and
signing off on foreclosures without reviewing them, as the law requires.
It has been widely reported in the media that mortgage servicers, lenders, and major banks
have suspended over a hundred thousand foreclosures because relevant documents may not have
been properly prepared by ROBO-SIGNERS. Typically, the ROBO-SIGNERS were given phony
titles such as “Vice President” and “Assistant Secretary” to make it appear that they were bank
officers. In reality, ROBO-SIGNERS were typically, teens, hair stylists, Wal-Mart workers,
students, and unemployed persons of varying backgrounds.

The ROBO-SIGNING of affidavits and Assignments of Mortgage and all other mortgage
foreclosure documents served to cover up the fact that loan servicers cannot demonstrate the facts
required to conduct a lawful foreclosure.
Here in this instant case Mr. BRIAN BURNETT assigned DOT from MERS to ONEWEST on
or about January 3, 2011 (See Exhibit “2”), on or about May 24, 2011 Mrs. MOLLIE
SCHIFFMAN an “Assistant Vice President” of ONEWEST assigned interest of Plaintiffs’ Note
and DOT to the Plaintiff (See Exhibit “3”), yet on or about October 31, 2011 Mrs. WENDY
TRAXLER once again assigns same Note and DOT from MERS to ONEWEST (See Exhibit
“4”), this fabricated Assignments of DOT is nothing more than an attempt of Plaintiff and its
agents to hijack the mortgage and then foreclose on the property, in violation of California Civil
Law.
Defendant further alleges that purported Assignments of his Note and DOT, is attempt to pave
the way for Plaintiff to be able to claim an estate or interest in the Property adverse to that of
Defendant.
Defendant alleges that, on information and belief, ONEWEST, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORPORATION, (hereinafter “QUALITY”), Plaintiff and/or its agents have been fraudulently
enforcing a debt obligation, fraudulently foreclosed on Plaintiff’s Subject Property in which they
did not have pecuniary, equitable or legal interest. Thus, ONEWEST’s, QUALITY’s and/or
Plaintiff’s conduct was part of a fraudulent debt collection scheme.
Defendant further alleges that on or about January 26, 2011 QUALITY recorded Notice of
Default (“NOD”), a true and correct copy of the NOD is attached to the Declaration of Alexander
B. Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “6”.
Defendant further alleges, on or about May 4, 2011, had received Notice of Trustee’s Sale
(“NTS”) a true and correct copy of the NTS is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “7”. The sale was scheduled for May 23, 2011 at 1:00
p.m., but postponed to several times, until April 23, 2012, when sale of the Subject Property was
executed.
On or about April 23, 2012 at 12:31 p.m., Defendant filed voluntary Chapter 13 bankruptcy
protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
12-31228 a true and correct copy of the filing is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B.
Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “8”, along with Motion to Extend Automatic Stay

pursuant U.S.C. Section 362(c)(3)(B), Notice of Opportunity for Hearing on Motion to Extend
Automatic Stay pursuant U.S.C. Section 362(c)(3)(B), and Declaration in Support of Hearing on
Motion to Extend Automatic Stay pursuant U.S.C. Section 362(c)(3)(B) a true and correct copy of
the filing is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas and incorporated herein as
Exhibit “9”.
Plaintiff and its agents have been notified of the filings, but failed to object and proceeded
with the sale of the Subject Property in violation of the 11 U.S.C. Section 362, and conveyed all
its right, tile and interest in and to the Plaintiffs’ property.
On or about May 4, 2012 QUALITY recorded Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale (“TDUS”) a true and
correct copy of the TDUS is attached to the Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas and incorporated
herein as Exhibit “10”, that operated to prefect the lenders/beneficiary interest in the property of
the Defendant during the pendency of the Chapter 13 proceeding.
On or about June 11, 2012 U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, Mr. THOMAS E. CARLSON granted
Motion to Extend Automatic Stay a true and correct copy of the Order is attached to the
Declaration of Alexander B. Paragas and incorporated herein as Exhibit “11”, stating that
Automatic Stay, under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(a), shall remain in force for the duration of
Defendant’s Chapter 13 proceeding, until is terminated under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(c)(1), or a
Motion for Relief from Stay is granted under 11 U.S.C. Section 362(d), no Motion for Relief has
been filed by any Creditor, including Plaintiff herein.
On or about May 16, 2012, Plaintiff filed this instant case. The Unlawful Detainer Complaint
states that the Plaintiff obtained the right to possession by a Trustee’s sale and that title was
perfected and recorded [UD Complaint, ¶11]. Title is “duly perfected” when all steps have been
taken to make it perfect, that is, to convey to purchaser that which he has purchased, valid and
good beyond all reasonable doubt, Kessler v. Bridge (1958, Cal App Dep’t Super Ct) 161 Cal
App 2d Supp 837, 327 P2d 241, 1958 Cal App LEXIS 1814.
In this instant case, the title has not been perfected in Plaintiff’s since the title to the Property
was not conveyed to Plaintiff under the power of sale contained in the DOT and/or was not
conveyed in compliance with California Civil Code Section 2924 et seq., and in violation of 11
U.S.C. Section 362.
///
///

FHLMC DOES NOT HAVE STANDING TO BRING THE INSTANT ACTION

FHLMC lacks standing to bring the instant action for possession of the subject property. (1)
FHLMC is not a proper party to this action, and as such the court is without jurisdiction to grant
possession of the subject property to Plaintiff. Further, (2) Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s predecessor
failed to perform (2) conditions precedent (i) mandated by the original DOT, Section (20) which
requires a separate Notice and opportunity to cure in addition to the procedure established by
California Civil Code Section 2924 thereby cancelling the performance of Defendant, and (ii)
they failed to record the assignment of the deed of Trust a condition precedent to conducting a
foreclosure sale, (3) Plaintiff cannot prove that the non-judicial foreclosure which occurred,
strictly complied with the tenets of California Civil Code Section 2924 in order to maintain an
action for possession pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161.
1. Plaintiff failed to perform a condition precedent contained in the DOT prior to
bringing this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1161, which mandates that the trustee attempting in writing prior to the
institution of a non-judicial foreclosure to allow defendant to cure the default;
2. Plaintiff failed to record the assignment of the Note and DOT prior to initiating
the foreclosure therefore the foreclosure was invalid under Section 2924;
3. The original promissory note executed by Defendant and his wife Mrs. Paragas
is invalid due to the ineffective method of assignment utilized by the parties,
assignment of the promissory note was not contained on the body of the page of
the Note, but rather was effectuated on a different paper, notwithstanding the
fact that there was sufficient room to draft the assignment on the face of the
note;
4. At the time of making the Note and DOT, Plaintiff’s predecessor ONEWEST
was operating its business from Inside California; however, ONEWEST was not
lawfully registered with the Secretary of State to conduct business pursuant to
California Corporations Code Section 1502 et seq. invalidating the Note and
DOT; and
5. The Trustee that conducted the non-judicial foreclosure sale was not a holder in
due course of the Original Note, because the Note was rendered non-negotiable
by (i) the manner in which the assignment was attempted, and (ii) the failure of

FHLMC to record the assignment, invalidating the Note, and resulting TDUS,
which denies Plaintiff standing to seek possession under California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1161a.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In this matter before the Bench, it becomes pellucidly clear that several fatal errors occurred
throughout the assignment of the Defendant’s Note and DOT, and ineffective non-judicial
foreclosure sale, which when weighed together have the effect of denying Plaintiff the necessary
standing to seek possession.
1. Plaintiff failed to perform a condition precedent contained in the DOT
prior to bringing this action pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1161.
This party is charged with the duty to perform and condition precedent prior to bringing the
instant action and failed to do so. Paragraph (20) of the DOT provides in pertinent part:

Neither borrow or lender may commence, join, or be joined to any judicial action
(as either an individual litigant, or the member of a class, that arises from the other
party’s actions pursuant to this security instrument or alleges that the other party has
breached any provision of, or any duty by reason of, this Security Instrument, until
such borrower or lender has notified the other party (with such notice given in
compliance with the requirements of Section 15) of such alleged breach and
afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after giving of such notice to
take corrective action. If applicable law provides a time period which must elapse
before certain action can be taken, that time period will be deemed to be reasonable for
the purposes of this paragraph. The notice of acceleration and notice to cure given to
borrower pursuant to Section 22 and the notice of acceleration given to borrower
pursuant to Section 18 shall be deemed to satisfy the notice and opportunity to take
corrective action provisions of this Section 20. (Emphasis added.)

When there is an agreement between the Beneficiary and Trustor, such as the Condition Precedent
expressed in Paragraph 20 of the DOT a Foreclosure cannot take place before the condition is
satisfied. If the Beneficiary fails to carry out its obligation a subsequent foreclosure is invalid.
Haywood Lumber & Investment Co. V. Corbett (1934) 138 CA 644, 650, 33 P2d 41;
The DOT was drafted solely by the original beneficiary, Defendant had no part in drafting this
document, only the execution thereof. Defendant contends that the aforementioned language
contained in the DOT creates a condition precedent prior to either Plaintiff or Defendant bringing
any action, without first giving written notice to perform a covenant.

By virtue of the fact that an Unlawful Detainer involves a forfeiture of the tenant’s right to
possession, the Courts strictly construe the statutory proceedings which regulate it. Kwok v.
Bergren, (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 596, 600,181 Cal.Rptr. 795. The failure of Plaintiff to perform a
condition precedent, to wit, failure to give Defendant notice and a reasonable period to cure a
breach of the terms and conditions, cancels the performance of Defendant, until the condition
precedent is performed according to the terms of the DOT.
In the absence of proof that Plaintiff timely performed the condition precedent giving
Defendant a chance to cure his breach of the terms and conditions of the DOT, Plaintiff cannot
proceed with the present action. The Plaintiff is a stranger who is not in privity with the
tenant/owner, and he must prove that he is authorized by the statute to prosecute an Unlawful
Detainer proceeding pursuant to a properly conducted foreclosure sale. Therefore, the tenant can
raise the limited defense that the foreclosure sale is invalid because it was not processed ,in
compliance, with the statutes regarding foreclosures, and the Plaintiff has the burden of proof that
the foreclosure statutes were satisfied by performance of all of the notices and procedures
required.
2. Plaintiff failed to record the assignment of the Note and DOT prior to
initiating the foreclosure therefore the foreclosure was invalid under
Section 2924.
There is also a condition precedent to enforcing the note by an assignee, see California Civil
Code Section 2932.5 which states:

2932.5. Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or
other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of
money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by
assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the
instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the
assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded. (emphasis added).

The assignment was not Recorded

The assignment was not recorded. Since FHLMC failed to record the assignment they were not
entitled to enforce the Note or to foreclose on this Property therefore the Title was not perfected
under Section 2924 by a foreclosure sale and was not duly carried out under Section 2924 and was
wholly defective and this Plaintiff has no standing in this Unlawful Detainer action.
In addition to recording the assignment, the Beneficiary must also deliver the Original Note to

the Trustee in order for the Trustee to conduct the foreclosure sale. Haskell V. Matranga (1979)
CA 3d. 471, 479-480, 160 CR 177;
In the Case of a Mortgage with a power of Sale an assignee can only enforce the power of sale
if the assignment is recorded, since the assignee’s authority to conduct the sale must appear in the
public records, New York Life Insurance Co. V. Doane, (1936) 13 CA 2d. 233, 235-237, 56 P2d.
984, 56 ALR 224;
3. Plaintiff is not a holder in due course of the original promissory Note
executed by the borrower, because the method of assignment utilized by the
parties to indorse the assignment rendered the note non-negotiable as a
matter of law.
The assignment of the original promissory Note was invalidated by the manner in which the
assignment was attempted. It has long been settled that the assignment of a Note must be reflected
on the body of the note, as long as there is room available. If room to draft the assignment is
available, but the party making the assignment drafts the assignment on a separate piece of paper,
the Note is no longer negotiable. The public policy is to avoid one party from making multiple
assignments of the same property, at the same time, and defrauding each assignee of their
consideration for the assignment. In Privus vs. Bush, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 1003, the court held
that a promissory Note executed as security for a DOT was rendered non-negotiable because the
endorsement by the assignor was not contained on the face of the Note, notwithstanding the fact
that there was sufficient space on the Note to effectuate the assignment.
The Privus, supra., Court held at pages 106-107, in pertinent part: California Uniform
Commercial Code Section 3302, Subdivision (1) provides, “A holder in due course is a holder
who takes the instrument (a) For value; and (b) In good faith; and (c) without notice that it is
overdue or has been dishonored or of any defense against or claim to it on the part of any person.”
In the present case, the trial Court did not question Defendant’s status as a holder in due course
because of any failure to satisfy the value, good faith, or no notice requirements. Rather, the Court
concluded that Defendant is not a holder in due course because he is not a holder at all, an
essential prerequisite to qualifying as a holder in due course. A holder is “a person who is in
possession of … an instrument …, issued or indorsed to him ….” (Section 1201(20).) The trial
Court ruled that the Williams’ signature on the paper attached to the promissory Note did not
qualify as an endorsement because there was adequate space for the endorsement on the note

itself.” (emphasis added).
Section 3202(2) states, “An endorsement must be written by or on behalf of the holder and on
the instrument or on a paper so firmly affixed thereto as to become a part thereof.” Thus, the code
does not say whether or not such a paper, called an “allonge,” may be used when there is still
room for an endorsement on the instrument itself. Nor has any reported California case dealt with
this issue under the code. The code does, however, instruct us as to where to look for the law with
which to resolve the issue. Section 1103 states that, “(u)nless displaced by the particular
provisions of this code, the principles of law and equity, including the law merchant … shall
supplement its provisions,” and that section’s Uniform Commercial Code comment Notes “the
continued applicability to commercial contracts of all supplemental bodies of law except insofar
as they are explicitly displaced by this Act.” Therefore, since the Commercial Code has not
addressed the issue, we decide the present case according to the rules on allonges of the law
merchant.” Privus vs. Bush, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 1003,1007.
“Although the cases are not unanimous, the majority view is that the law merchant permits the
use of an allonge only when there is no longer room on the negotiable instrument itself to write an
indorsement. (See generally Annot., Indorsement of Negotiable Instrument By Writing Not On
Instrument Itself (1968) 19 A.L.R.3d 1297, 1301-1304; Annot., Indorsement of Bill or Note by
Writing Not On Instrument Itself (1928) 56 A.L.R. 921, 924-926.) Typical of the majority
position is Bishop v. Chase, (1900) 156 Mo. 158, 56 S.W. 1080. There it was held that the general
rule is that an instrument could be indorsed only by writing on the instrument itself, but that an
exception to the rule allows the use of an attached paper “when the back of the instrument is so
covered as to make it necessary.” (Id., 156 Mo. 158, 56 S.W. at p. 1083.) Thus, the Court
invalidated an attempted endorsement by allonge when “there was plenty of room upon the back
of the Note to have made the endorsement, and the only excuse for not doing so was that it was
more convenient to assign it on a separate paper.” (Id., 156 Mo. 158, 56 S.W. at p. 1084.)” Privus
vs. Bush, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 1003, 1007.
Here, the original Note executed had sufficient space for an endorsement, however, the note
does not contain an endorsement, and Defendant has never seen a document which purports to
assign the note to a third party. As such, Plaintiff is not a holder in due course, nor was the trustee
who conducted the non-judicial foreclosure a holder in due course. Such failures on the part of the
trustee who conducted the non-judicial foreclosure clearly demonstrate that the sale was not

conducted pursuant to the strict mandates of California Civil Code Section 2924.
A non-judicial foreclosure sale under the power-of-sale in a DOT or Mortgage, on the other
hand, must be conducted in strict compliance with its provisions and applicable statutory law. A
trustee’s powers and rights are limited to those set forth in the DOT and laws applicable thereto.
(See, e.g., Fleisher v. Continental Auxiliary Co., (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 136, 139, 30 Cal.Rptr.
137; Woodworth v. Redwood Empire Sav. & Loan Assn., (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 347, 366, 99
Cal.Rptr. 373). No Court order authorizing or approving the sale is involved. A sale under the
power of sale in a DOT or Mortgage is a “private sale.” Walker v. Community Bank, (1974) 10
Cal.3d at p. 736, 111 Cal.Rptr. 897. (emphasis added).
The statutory procedures governing the conduct of such sales are found in Civil Code Sections
2924, 2924a-2924h, which set forth the time periods in which to comply with certain
requirements, the persons authorized to conduct the sale, the requirements of Notice of Nefault
and Election to Sell and for cure of default and reinstatement, inter alia. The sale is concluded
when the trustee accepts the last and highest bid. (Civil Code Section 2924h, Subd. (c)). Coppola
vs. Superior Court, (1989) 211 Cal.App.3d 848, 868.
Here, Plaintiff’s predecessor rendered the note non-negotiable by failing to list the assignment
on the fact of the Note, notwithstanding the fact that sufficient space existed. Thus, the Note could
not be the security interest utilized for execution of the non-judicial foreclosure pursuant to
California Civil Code Section 2924. Plaintiff cannot prove that the foreclosure strictly complied
with Section 2924 as mandated. Thus, the TDUS is invalid, and does not confer upon Plaintiff a
right to seek possession of the subject premises pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1161a. Therefore, Plaintiff does not have standing to prosecute the instant action, and the
matter must be dismissed or in the alternative Defendant is entitled to Summary Judgment.
As a General Rule a Defendant in an Unlawful Detainer cannot test the strength or validity of
Plaintiff’s Title Vella v. Hudgins, (1977) 20 C3d 251, 255, 142 CR 414, 572 P2d 28; Old
National Financial Services, Inc. v. Seibert, (1987) 194 CA 3d 460, 465, 289 CR 728; However,
a different rule applies in an Unlawful Detainer which is brought by a purchaser after a
foreclosure sale. His right to obtain possession is based on the fact that the property has been
“Duly Sold” by foreclosure proceedings California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a, and
therefore it is necessary that the Plaintiff “Prove” that each of the statutory procedures have been
complied with as a condition for obtaining possession of the property Vella V. Hudgins Supra;

Stephens, Pertain and Cunningham V. Hollis (1987) 196 CA3d 948, 953, 242 CR 251.
In the first instance, it appears that Plaintiff is not even the real party in interest. Plaintiff has
the burden of proving that it is the proper Plaintiff and that the TDUS resulted from a properly
conducted non-judicial foreclosure sale.
Again as stated in Privus vs. Bush, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 1003, the court held that a
promissory note executed as security for a DOT was rendered non-negotiable because the
endorsement by the assignor was not contained on the face of the Note, notwithstanding the fact
that there was sufficient space on the Note to effectuate the assignment and thus the Plaintiff was
not a holder in due course, notwithstanding their title as a “Holders”.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(3) mandates that in order to seek possession
after a sale pursuant to Civil Code Section 2924, the Plaintiff’s interest must be “duly perfected”.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161 provides in pertinent part:

(b) In any of the following cases, a person who holds over and continues in possession
of a manufactured home, mobile home, floating home, or real property after a three-day
written notice to quit the property has been served upon the person, or if there is a
subtenant in actual occupation of the premises, also upon such subtenant, as prescribed
in Section 1162, may be removed there from as prescribed in this chapter:

(3) Where the property has been sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil
Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by such person, or a
person under whom such person claims, and the title under the sale has been duly
perfected.

Here, it has been shown that Plaintiff, FHLMC did not perfect its interest because the original
assignment rendered the note non-negotiable, and secondarily they failed to record the assignment
prior to commencing the foreclosure, thus, the non-judicial foreclosure could not lawfully
proceed, and the trustee did not strictly comply with the mandates of Section 2924.
A non-judicial foreclosure sale under the power-of-sale in a DOT or Mortgage, on the other
hand, must be conducted in strict compliance with its provisions and applicable statutory law. A
trustee’s powers and rights are limited to those set forth in the deed of trust and laws applicable
thereto. (See, e.g., Fleisher v. Continental Auxiliary Co., (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d 136, 139, 30
Cal.Rptr. 137. Therefore, the Court would properly exercise its discretion pursuant to California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 631.8, by granting the Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing on
the part of Plaintiff or under California Code of Civil Procedure Section 437C and Granting
Summary Judgment in Favor of Defendant.

LEGAL STANDARD

The standard for granting summary judgment

Summary Judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show there is no triable issue of
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Code Civil
Procedure Section 437c(c). A Defendant is entitled to Summary Judgment if the record
establishes that none of the Plaintiff’s asserted causes of actions can prevail as a matter of law.
Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass’n, (1988) 46 CAl.3d 1092, 1107. A Defendant moving for Summary
Judgment must conclusively negate a necessary element of the Plaintiff’s case and show there is
no material issue of fact that requires a trial. Ibid.
The moving Defendant has the burden of introducing evidence that the Plaintiff’s action is
without merit on any legal theory. Hulett v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, (1992) 10 Cal.App.
4th 1051, 1064. Once the Defendant has met that burden, the burden shifts to the Plaintiff to show
that a triable issue of material fact exists. Code Civil Procedure Section 437c(o)(1). But if the
Defendant fails to meet that burden, the adverse party has no burden to demonstrate the claim’s
validity, and the court must deny the motion. Hulett, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at 1064.
Instead of introducing evidence that would negate the Plaintiff’s action, a moving Defendant
may introduce the Plaintiff’s own factually devoid discovery responses to demonstrate that it has
no case. Union Bank v. Superior Court, (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 573, 589-593. The burden of
proof would then be on the Plaintiff to introduce evidence that would show a triable issue of
material fact. Id., at 593. But the Defendant does not meet its burden merely by asserting that the
Plaintiff has no evidence. Hagen v. Hickenbottom, (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 168, 186. Instead, the
Defendant must submit discovery responses that would conclusively foreclose any cause of
action. Id. at 186-187.
When no or insufficient affidavits or other evidence is submitted to demonstrate the absence of
an issue of material fact, the Court may treat the motion as in legal effect one for Judgment on the
pleadings. White v. County of Orange, (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 566, 569. In that case, the motion
performs the same function as a general demurrer. Ibid. A general demurrer will not test whether
a complaint is ambiguous or uncertain or states essential facts only inferentially or conclusionary.
Johnson v. Mead, (1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 156, 160. The Defendants’ failure to challenge those
defects by way of special demurrer waives them. Hooper v. Deukmejian, (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d

987, 994.

CONCLUSION

Defendant respectfully submits his Motion to Summary Judgment and requests that the court
grant the motion as framed herein.

Respectfully submitted;

DATED: August 24, 2012 LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS

_____________________________________
Timothy L. McCandless, Esq.
Attorney for Defendant(s): Alexander B. Paragas

Fix Income Inequality with $10 million Loans for Everyone the 99 solution

“I wonder how many audience members know that Bair’s plan is more or less exactly the revenue model for all of America’s biggest banks. You go to the Fed, get a buttload of free money, lend it out at interest (perversely enough, including loans right back to the U.S. government), then pocket the profit.” Matt Taibbi

From Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi on Sheila Bair’s Sarcastic Piece

I hope everyone saw ex-Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chief Sheila Bair’s editorial in the Washington Post, entitled, “Fix Income Inequality with $10 million Loans for Everyone!” The piece might have set a world record for public bitter sarcasm by a former top regulatory official.

In it, Bair points out that since we’ve been giving zero-interest loans to all of the big banks, why don’t we do the same thing for actual people, to solve the income inequality program? If the Fed handed out $10 million to every person, and then got each of those people to invest, say, in foreign debt, we could all be back on our feet in no time:

Under my plan, each American household could borrow $10 million from the Fed at zero interest. The more conservative among us can take that money and buy 10-year Treasury bonds. At the current 2 percent annual interest rate, we can pocket a nice $200,000 a year to live on. The more adventuresome can buy 10-year Greek debt at 21 percent, for an annual income of $2.1 million. Or if Greece is a little too risky for you, go with Portugal, at about 12 percent, or $1.2 million dollars a year. (No sense in getting greedy.)

Every time I watch a Republican debate, and hear these supposedly anti-welfare crowds booing the idea of stiffer regulation of Wall Street, I wonder how many audience members know that Bair’s plan is more or less exactly the revenue model for all of America’s biggest banks. You go to the Fed, get a buttload of free money, lend it out at interest (perversely enough, including loans right back to the U.S. government), then pocket the profit.http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2011/7/22/pushing_crisis_gop_cries_wolf_on

Logo of the United States Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which incorporates the seal. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Considering that we now know that the Fed gave out something like $16 trillion in secret emergency loans to big banks on top of the bailouts we actually knew about, you might ask yourself: How are these guys in financial trouble? How can they not be making mountains of money, risk-free? But they are in financial trouble:

• We’re about to see yet another big blow to all of the usual suspects – Goldman, Citi, Bank of America, and especially Morgan Stanley, all of whom face potential downgrades by Moody’s in the near future.

We’ve known this was coming for some time, but the news this week is that the giant money-managing firm BlackRock is talking about moving its business elsewhere. Laurence Fink, BlackRock’s CEO, told the New York Times: “If Moody’s does indeed downgrade these institutions, we may have a need to move some business around to higher-rated institutions.”

It’s one thing when Zero Hedge, William Black, myself, or some rogue Fed officers in Dallas decide to point fingers at the big banks. But when big money players stop trading with those firms, that’s when the death spirals begin.

Morgan Stanley in particular should be sweating. They’re apparently going to be downgraded three notches, where they’ll be joining Citi and Bank of America at a level just above junk. But no worries: Bank CFO Ruth Porat announced that a three-level downgrade was “manageable” and that only losers rely totally on agencies like Moody’s to judge creditworthiness. “A lot of clients are doing their own credit work,” she said.

• Meanwhile, Bank of America reported its first-quarter results yesterday. Despite that massive ongoing support from the Fed, it earned just $653 million in the first quarter, but astonishingly the results were hailed by most of the financial media as good news. Its home-turf paper, the San Francisco Chronicle, crowed that BOA “Posts Higher Profits As Trading Results Rebound.” Bloomberg, meanwhile, summed up results this way: “Bank of America Beats Analyst Estimates As Trading Jumps.”

But the New York Times noted that BOA’s first-quarter profit of $653 million was down from $2 billion a year ago, and paled compared to results of more successful banks like Chase and Wells Fargo.

Zero Hedge, meanwhile, posted an amusing commentary on BOA’s results, pointing out that the bank quietly reclassified nearly two billion dollars’ worth of real estate loans. This is from BOA’s report:

During 1Q12, the bank regulatory agencies jointly issued interagency supervisory guidance on nonaccrual policies for junior-lien consumer real estate loans. In accordance with this new guidance, beginning in 1Q12, we classify junior-lien home equity loans as nonperforming when the first-lien loan becomes 90 days past due even if the junior-lien loan is performing. As a result of this change, we reclassified $1.85B of performing home equity loans to nonperforming.

In other words, Bank of America described nearly two billion dollars of crap on their books as performing loans, until the government this year forced them to admit it was crap.

ZH and others also noted that BOA wildly underestimated its exposure to litigation, but that’s nothing new. Anyway, despite the inconsistencies in its report, and despite the fact that it’s about to be downgraded – again – Bank of America’s shares are up again, pushing $9 today.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/free-10-million-loans-for-all-and-other-wall-street-notes-20120419#ixzz1sb1efXqu

Related articles

• The Next Fed-Fueled Bubble (wealthwire.com)
• Sheila Bair’s Modest Proposal To Fix Everything: Hyperinflation (zerohedge.com)
• Sheila Bair Thinks Stress Tests Missed The Point (blogs.wsj.com)
• Fed says US economy is growing (nzherald.co.nz)
• Article on Sheila Bair by HuffPo Investigative Fund (ritholtz.com)
• Bernanke: Fed could act again to stimulate economy (bangordailynews.com)
• BlackRock to Shift Business if Moody’s Downgrades Banks (dealbook.nytimes.com)

Post Foreclosure and Reversing your CA Foreclosure Sale under new Case Law

Reversing a foreclosure sale:  Avoiding the “Tender Rule”

Firm commentary:

Foreclosure auction signs (Photo credit: niallkennedy)

If you are considering suing to reverse a foreclosure sale, consider the LONA case for a better understanding on CA non-judicial sales and exceptions to the requirement that you must offer to pay off the loan to title to your home back in your name.

After a nonjudicial foreclosure sale has been completed, the traditional method by which the sale is challenged is a suit in equity to set aside the trustee’s sale. (Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 202, 209-210.) Generally, a challenge to the validity of a trustee’s sale is an attempt to have the sale set aside and to have the title restored. (Onofrio v. Rice (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 413, 424 (Onofrio), citing 4 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (2d ed. 1989) Deeds of Trusts & Mortgages, § 9.154, pp. 507-508.)

 

The burden of proof is on the former owner:

A nonjudicial foreclosure sale is accompanied by a common law presumption that it ‗was conducted regularly and fairly.  This presumption may only be rebutted by substantial evidence of prejudicial procedural irregularity. The mere inadequacy of price, absent some procedural irregularity that contributed to the inadequacy of price or otherwise injured the trustor, is insufficient to set aside a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.

It is the burden of the party challenging the trustee’s sale to prove such irregularity and thereby overcome the presumption of the sale’s regularity.‖ (Melendrez v. D & I Investment, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal. App.4th 1238, 1258 (Melendrez) In addition, under section 2924,6 there is a conclusive statutory presumption created in favor of a bona fide purchaser who receives a trustee’s deed that contains a recital that the trustee has fulfilled its statutory notice requirements. (Melendrez, supra, 127 Cal App.4th at p. 1250.)

Case law instructs that the elements of an equitable cause of action to set aside a foreclosure sale are: (1) the trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal, fraudulent, or willfully oppressive sale of real property pursuant to a power of sale in a mortgage or deed of trust;

(2) the party attacking the sale (usually but not always the trustor or mortgagor) was prejudiced or harmed; and

(3) in cases where the trustor or mortgagor challenges the sale, the trustor or mortgagor tendered the amount of the secured indebtedness or was excused from tendering. (Bank of America etc. Assn. v. Reidy, supra, 15 Cal.2d at p. 248; Saterstrom v. Glick Bros. Sash, Door & Mill Co. (1931) 118 Cal.App. 379, 383 (Saterstrom) [trustee’s sale set aside where deed of trust was void because it failed to adequately describe property]; Stockton v. Newman (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d 558, 564 (Stockton) [trustor sought rescission of the contract to purchase the property and the promissory note on grounds of fraud]; Sierra-Bay Fed. Land Bank Ass’n v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 318, 337 (Sierra-Bay) [to set aside sale, ―debtor must allege such unfairness or irregularity that, when coupled with the inadequacy of price obtained at the sale, it is appropriate to invalidate the sale‖; ―debtor must offer to do equity by making a tender or otherwise offering to pay his debt‖]; Abadallah v. United Savings Bank (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 1101, 1109 (Abadallah) [tender element]; Munger v. Moore (1970) 11 Cal.App.3d 1, 7 [damages action for wrongful foreclosure]; see also 1 Bernhardt, Mortgages, Deeds of Trust and Foreclosure Litigation (Cont.Ed.Bar 4th ed. 2011 supp.) § 7.67, pp. 580-581 and cases cited therein summarizing grounds for setting aside trustee sale.)

 

The Tender requirement

Because the action is in equity, a defaulted borrower who seeks to set aside a trustee’s sale is required to do equity before the court will exercise its equitable powers. (MCA, Inc. v. Universal Diversified Enterprises Corp. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 170, 177 (MCA).)

Consequently, as a condition precedent to an action by the borrower to set aside the trustee’s sale on the ground that the sale is voidable because of irregularities in the sale notice or procedure, the borrower must offer to pay the full amount of the debt for which the property was security. (Abadallah, supra, 43 Cal.App.4th at p. 1109; Onofrio, supra, at p. 424 [the borrower must pay, or offer to pay, the secured debt, or at least all of the delinquencies and costs due for redemption, before commencing the action].)

The rationale behind the rule is that if [the borrower] could not have redeemed the property had the sale procedures been proper, any irregularities in the sale did not result in damages to the [borrower].– (FPCI RE-HAB 01 v. E & G Investments, Ltd. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1022.)

 

A series of cases have come down in the last few weeks that have some very serious ramifications for lenders.

The most dramatic case is that of Lona v. Citibank, based on a property right here in my back yard. The fact pattern in Lona is that the bank foreclosed and Lona sued the bank to void the sale on the absurd theory that the lender made him an unconscionable loan he couldn’t possibly afford therefore the loan was void. (Apparently, he’s a mushroom farmer in Hollister making $40k/yr)*.

Lona alleged that he agreed to refinance the home, on which he owed $1.24 million at the time, in response to an ad. The monthly payments were more than four times his income, so unsurprisingly, he defaulted within five months and the home was sold at a trustee’s sale in August 2008.

Lona obtained two re-financed loans: the first being $1.125 million, a 30-year term and an interest rate that was fixed at 8.25% for five years and adjustable annually after that, with a cap of 13.255 and the second loan being $375,000, with a term of 15 years, a fixed rate of 12.25%, monthly payments of nearly $4,000, and a balloon payment of $327,000 at the end of the 15 year term.

Lona testified that English was not his first language, he was 50 years old at the time of the loan and he that he did not understand the loan documents. Of course, he also did not read the loan documents.

After Citibank foreclosed, it filed an unlawful detainer action (“UD”) to evict Lona, but the UD was consolidated with Lona’s lawsuit to void and set aside the foreclosure sale. According to Citibank, Lona had been “living for free” in the house and had not posted bond or paid any “impound funds.” (since 2007!!!)

San Benito County Superior Court Judge Harry Tobias said Lona’s “bare allegations” were not enough to persuade him that the bank or the broker had engaged in misconduct and that it was “hard to believe” that the Lonas weren’t “responsible for their own conduct,” especially since they owned other property that had been foreclosed upon.

Despite the craziness of Plaintiff’s theory, the appellate court rendered a 32 page opinion that discussed in major detail that:
1) The borrower did not have to tender offer (which goes against almost a century of a legal precedent); and
2) The borrower’s allegations of the loan being unconscionable were not wholly disproven by the lenders.

The Court decision stated “Lona had received $1.5 million from the lenders and had not made any payments since June 2007. Meanwhile, he and his wife continued to live in the house for free, without paying rent or any impound funds…” and so it was quite aware of the inequities or injustice of the situation. However, the Court still concluded that the Lenders did not meet their burden of proof on summary judgment and so the case may continue at its snail pace until trial. [Lona v. Citibank No. H036140. Court of Appeals of California, Sixth District. (December 21, 2011.)]

The other case that came down a week before Lona (Dec. 21) was the Bardasian (Dec. 15) case, where the borrower sued because the lender’s trustee did not discuss loan mod options with her as required by Civil Code Section 2923.5. The court granted the borrower’s injunction and like Lona, the borrowers did not tender, nor put up an undertaking or surety for the bond. The lower court had ruled at the injunction hearing that the trustee had not complied with the code and that Bardasian must bond in the amount of $20k. When she failed to do so, the lower court dissolved the injunction.

On appeal, the appellate court concluded that since the injunction had been issued after the court had ruled on the merits stating:

“Plaintiff seeks postponement of the foreclosure sale until the defendants comply with Civil Code [section] 2923.5. Plaintiff has established that BAC Home Loan Servicing did not comply with Civil Code section 2923.5 prior to the issuance of the notice of default on September 15, 2010.” “Plaintiff states under penalty of perjury that no contact was ever made at least 30 days before the notice of default was issued…”

that the injunction was not actually “preliminary” at all, but that the plaintiffs had essentially won their argument showing that the defendants had not complied with Section 2923.5 and so no Notice of Default could successfully issue and the trustee’s sale could not take place until Section 2923.5 had been complied with. (Bardasian v. Santa Clara Partners Mortgage C068488. Court of Appeals of California, Third District. (December 15, 2011).

So in one month, two appellate cases came down where the borrower could either pursue voiding a trustee’s sale or enjoin one without tendering!

2012 will prove to be an interesting year as more decisions stemming from the subprime meltdown start coming down the pipeline.

* The decision contained a footnote that Lona’s loan application that apparently stated Lona made $20k/month, or $240k/yr. Clearly, as stated income loans go, that was a whopper!

The Exceptions to the Tender requirement under LONA

First, if the borrower’s action attacks the validity of the underlying debt, a tender is not required since it would constitute an affirmation of the debt. (Stockton, supra, (1957) 148 Cal.App.2d at p. 564) [trustor sought rescission of the contract to purchase the property and the promissory note on grounds of fraud]; Onofrio, supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 424.)

Second, a tender will not be required when the person who seeks to set aside the trustee’s sale has a counter-claim or set-off against the beneficiary. In such cases, it is deemed that the tender and the counter claim offset one another, and if the offset is equal to or greater than the amount due, a tender is not required. (Hauger, supra, (1954) 42 Cal.2d at p. 755.)

 

Third, a tender may not be required where it would be inequitable to impose such a condition on the party challenging the sale. (Humboldt Savings Bank v. McCleverty (1911) 161 Cal. 285, 291 (Humboldt). In Humboldt, the defendant’s deceased husband borrowed $55,300 from the plaintiff bank secured by two pieces of property. The defendant had a $5,000 homestead on one of the properties. (Id. at p. 287.) When the defendant’s husband defaulted on the debt, the bank foreclosed on both properties. In response to the bank’s argument that the defendant had to tender the entire debt as a condition precedent to having the sale set aside, the court held that it would be inequitable to require the defendant to•pay, or offer to pay, a debt of $57,000, for which she is in no way liable– to attack the sale of her $5,000 homestead.10 (Id. at p. 291.)

Fourth, no tender will be required when the trustor is not required to rely on equity to attack the deed because the trustee’s deed is void on its face. (Dimock, supra, 81 Cal.App.4th at p. 878 [beneficiary substituted trustees; trustee’s sale void where original trustee completed trustee’s sale after being replaced by new trustee because original trustee no longer had power to convey property].)

 For a better understanding of how this new case affects your individual situation, contact the Firm and set up an appointment.

Related articles

• David Ambrose on James v. Recontrust (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE IN BANKRUPTCY (most bankruptcy judges won’t hear it the send you to state court) (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• 2932.5 is dead in 2nd district they can’t read “or other encumbrance” (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Foreclosure process is ‘utterly broken’ (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Audit Uncovers Extensive Flaws in Foreclosures (copy attached) (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Wrongful Foreclosure (massjoinderlitigation.wordpress.com)
• IS the TRUSTEE a Common Agent for ALL Parties? “YES”, say the Experts at Northwest Trustee Services Inc. in Santa Ana, CA., Attny Kathy Shakibi (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Foreclosure in California (massjoinderlitigation.wordpress.com)

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE IN BANKRUPTCY (most bankruptcy judges won’t hear it the send you to state court)

in RE: Macklin: Deutsche Must Answer Wrongful Foreclosure and Quiet Title

On February 17, 2012, in Information, News, Securitization, by Dan Edstrom

in RE: Macklin: Deutsche Must Answer Wrongful Foreclosure and Quiet Title

By Daniel Edstrom
DTC Systems, Inc.

Excerpts on Wrongful Foreclosure (changed by the Judge Sargis to Breach of Contract)

… a record has been created that someone not of record title purported to take action on a Deed of Trust prior to compliance with Civil Code 2932.5.

The court will not sanction conduct by this Defendant which puts into question the validity of the nonjudicial foreclosure process and California real property records.  Though this issue could have been simply addressed by the recording of a new notice of default months ago, the ninety days under the new notice of default allowed to run and this creditor be on the door step of conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure sale consistent with the California statutes, it has elected to continue with the existing notice of default, subsequent substitution of trustee, and sale.

The contract between the parties is the Note and Deed of Trust.

Excerpt on Quiet Title

Though not artfully done, Macklin sufficiently explains that he asserts superior title to the Property over the Trustee’s Deed through which DBNTC asserts its interest in the Property.  Given that Macklin has asserted that DBNTC cannot show that it complied with the minimal requirements for properly conducting a nonjudicial foreclosure sale, the motion to dismiss the Tenth Cause of Action is denied.

Download order here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Macklin-222-Order.pdf

Download memorandum opinion and decision (part 1) here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Macklin-221-Memorandum_Opinion_and_Decision_Part1.pdf

Download memorandum opinion and decision (part 2) here:  http://dtc-systems.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Macklin-221-Memorandum_Opinion_and_Decision_Part2.pdf

Tagged with: breach of contract • California real property records • Civil Code 2932.5 • Daniel Edstrom • DBNTC • Deed of Trust • Deutsche • DTC-Systems • in RE: Macklin • Judge Sargis • nonjudicial foreclosure process • note • Trustee’s Deed • Wrongul Foreclosure

Related articles

• 2932.5 is dead in 2nd district they can’t read “or other encumbrance” (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Roger Bernhardt on Calvo -D/T assignments need not be recorded pre foreclosure (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Foreclosure process is ‘utterly broken’ (lansner.ocregister.com)
• Audit Uncovers Extensive Flaws in Foreclosures (copy attached) (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• The Status Of America’s Troubling Foreclosure Market (businessinsider.com)
• DSnews.com: Foreclosure Sales Up for West Coast States Except Washington (foreclosure-avoidance.com)
• FORECLOSURES: Here They Come (businessinsider.com)
• The Trustee sale can be set aside (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Short Sale Company Highlights Problems with 25 Billion Dollar Foreclosure Settlement and Presents Homeowners with Additional Options to Avoid Foreclosure (prweb.com)
• Judicial council meeting.You wonder about the attitude in California in particular, with regard to the problems w e’re facing…this should give you an idea. (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)

Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners

Image via Wikipedia

Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage giant, has placed multibillion-dollar bets that pay off if homeowners stay trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above current rates.

Freddie began increasing these bets dramatically in late 2010, the same time that the company was making it harder for homeowners to get out of such high-interest mortgages.

No evidence has emerged that these decisions were coordinated. The company is a key gatekeeper for home loans but says its traders are “walled off” from the officials who have restricted homeowners from taking advantage of historically low interest rates by imposing higher fees and new rules.

Freddie’s charter calls for the company to make home loans more accessible. Its chief executive, Charles Haldeman Jr., recently told Congress that his company is “helping financially strapped families reduce their mortgage costs through refinancing their mortgages.”

But the trades, uncovered for the first time in an investigation by ProPublica and NPR, give Freddie a powerful incentive to do the opposite, highlighting a conflict of interest at the heart of the company. In addition to being an instrument of government policy dedicated to making home loans more accessible, Freddie also has giant investment portfolios and could lose substantial amounts of money if too many borrowers refinance.

“We were actually shocked they did this,” says Scott Simon, who as the head of the giant bond fund PIMCO’s mortgage-backed securities team is one of the world’s biggest mortgage bond traders. “It seemed so out of line with their mission.”

The trades “put them squarely against the homeowner,” he says.

Those homeowners have a lot at stake, too. Many of them could cut their interest payments by thousands of dollars a year.

Freddie Mac, along with its cousin Fannie Mae, was bailed out in 2008 and is now owned by taxpayers. The companies play a pivotal role in the mortgage business because they insure most home loans in the United States, making banks likelier to lend. The companies’ rules determine whether homeowners can get loans and on what terms.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency effectively serves as Freddie’s board of directors and is ultimately responsible for Freddie’s decisions. It is run by acting director Edward DeMarco, who cannot be fired by the president except in extraordinary circumstances.

Freddie and the FHFA repeatedly declined to comment on the specific transactions.

Freddie’s moves to limit refinancing affect not only individual homeowners but the entire economy. An expansive refinancing program could help millions of homeowners, some economists say. Such an effort would “help the economy and put tens of billions of dollars back in consumers’ pockets, the equivalent of a very long-term tax cut,” says real-estate economist Christopher Mayer of the Columbia Business School. “It also is likely to reduce foreclosures and benefit the U.S. government” because Freddie and Fannie, which guarantee most mortgages in the country, would have lower losses over the long run.

Freddie Mac’s trades, while perfectly legal, came during a period when the company was supposed to be reducing its investment portfolio, according to the terms of its government takeover agreement. But these trades escalate the risk of its portfolio, because the securities Freddie has purchased are volatile and hard to sell, mortgage securities experts say.

The financial crisis in 2008 was made worse when Wall Street traders made bets against their customers and the American public. Now, some see similar behavior, only this time by traders at a government-owned company who are using leverage, which increases the potential profits but also the risk of big losses, and other Wall Street stratagems. “More than three years into the government takeover, we have Freddie Mac pursuing highly levered, complicated transactions seemingly with the purpose of trading against homeowners,” says Mayer. “These are the kinds of things that got us into trouble in the first place.”

Freddie Mac is betting against, among others, Jay and Bonnie Silverstein. The Silversteins live in an unfinished development of cul-de-sacs and yellow stucco houses about 20 miles north of Philadelphia, in a house decorated with Bonnie’s orchids and their Rose Bowl parade pin collection. The developer went bankrupt, leaving orange plastic construction fencing around some empty lots. The community clubhouse isn’t complete.

“We’re in financial Jail”

The Silversteins have a 30-year fixed mortgage with an interest rate of 6.875 percent, much higher than the going rate of less than 4 percent.  They have borrowed from family members and are living paycheck to paycheck. If they could refinance, they would save about $500 a month. He says the extra money would help them pay back some of their family members and visit their grandchildren more often.

But brokers have told the Silversteins that they cannot refinance, thanks to a Freddie Mac rule.

The Silversteins used to live in a larger house 15 minutes from their current place, in a more upscale development. They had always planned to downsize as they approached retirement. In 2005, they made the mistake of buying their new house before selling the larger one. As the housing market plummeted, they couldn’t sell their old house, so they carried two mortgages for 2½ years, wiping out their savings and 401(k). “It just drained us,” Jay Silverstein says.

Finally, they were advised to try a short sale, in which the house is sold for less than the value of the underlying mortgage. They stopped making payments on the big house for it to go through. The sale was finally completed in 2009.

Such debacles hurt a borrower’s credit rating. But Bonnie has a solid job at a doctor’s office, and Jay has a pension from working for more than two decades for Johnson & Johnson. They say they haven’t missed a payment on their current mortgage.

But the Silversteins haven’t been able to get their refi. Freddie Mac won’t insure a new loan for people who had a short sale in the last two to four years, depending on their financial condition. While the company’s previous rules prohibited some short sales, in October 2010 the company changed its criteria to include all short sales. It is unclear whether the Silverstein mortgage would have been barred from a short sale under the previous Freddie rules.

Short-term, Freddie’s trades benefit from the high-interest mortgage in which the Silversteins are trapped. But in the long run, Freddie could benefit if the Silversteins refinanced to a more affordable loan. Freddie guarantees the Silversteins’ mortgage, so if the couple defaults, Freddie — and the taxpayers who own the company — are on the hook. Getting the Silversteins into a more affordable mortgage would make a default less likely.

If millions of homeowners like the Silversteins default, the economy would be harmed. But if they switch to loans with lower interest rates, they would have more money to spend, which could boost the economy.

“We’re in financial jail,” says Jay, “and we’ve never been there before.”

How Freddie’s investments work

Here’s how Freddie Mac’s trades profit from the Silversteins staying in “financial jail.” The couple’s mortgage is sitting in a big pile of other mortgages, most of which are also guaranteed by Freddie and have high interest rates. Those mortgages underpin securities that get divided into two basic categories.

Anatomy of a Deal

How Freddie Mac structured a deal in which it profited if homeowners stayed trapped in high-interest mortgages.

One portion is backed mainly by principal, pays a low return, and was sold to investors who wanted a safe place to park their money. The other part, the inverse floater, is backed mainly by the interest payments on the mortgages, such as the high rate that the Silversteins pay. So this portion of the security can pay a much higher return, and this is what Freddie retained.

In 2010 and ’11, Freddie purchased $3.4 billion worth of inverse floater portions — their value based mostly on interest payments on $19.5 billion in mortgage-backed securities, according to prospectuses for the deals. They covered tens of thousands of homeowners. Most of the mortgages backing these transactions have high rates of about 6.5 percent to 7 percent, according to the deal documents.

Between late 2010 and early 2011, Freddie Mac’s purchases of inverse floater securities rose dramatically. Freddie purchased inverse floater portions of 29 deals in 2010 and 2011, with 26 bought between October 2010 and April 2011. That compares with seven for all of 2009 and five in 2008.

In these transactions, Freddie has sold off most of the principal, but it hasn’t reduced its risk.

First, if borrowers default, Freddie pays the entire value of the mortgages underpinning the securities, because it insures the loans.

It’s also a big problem if people like the Silversteins refinance their mortgages. That’s because a refi is a new loan; the borrower pays off the first loan early, stopping the interest payments. Since the security Freddie owns is backed mainly by those interest payments, Freddie loses.

And these inverse floaters burden Freddie with entirely new risks. With these deals, Freddie has taken mortgage-backed securities that are easy to sell and traded them for ones that are harder and possibly more expensive to offload, according to mortgage market experts.

The inverse floaters carry another risk. Freddie gets paid the difference between the high mortgages rates, such as the Silversteins are paying, and a key global interest rate that right now is very low. If that rate rises, Freddie’s profits will fall.

It is unclear what kinds of hedging, if any, Freddie has done to offset its risks.

At the end of 2011, Freddie’s portfolio of mortgages was just over $663 billion, down more than 6 percent from the previous year. But that $43 billion drop in the portfolio overstates the risk reduction, because the company retained risk through the inverse floaters. The company is well below the cap of $729 billion required by its government takeover agreement.

How Freddie tightened credit

Restricting credit for people who have done short sales isn’t the only way that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have tightened their lending criteria in the wake of the financial crisis, making it harder for borrowers to get housing loans.

Some tightening is justified because, in the years leading up to the financial crisis, Freddie and Fannie were too willing to insure mortgages taken out by people who couldn’t afford them.

In a statement, Freddie contends it is “actively supporting efforts for borrowers to realize the benefits of refinancing their mortgages to lower rates.”

The company said in a statement: “During the first three quarters of 2011, we refinanced more than $170 billion in mortgages, helping nearly 835,000 borrowers save an average of $2,500 in interest payments during the next year.” As part of that effort, the company is participating in an Obama administration plan, called the Home Affordable Refinance Program, or HARP. But critics say HARP could be reaching millions more people if Fannie and Freddie implemented the program more effectively.

Indeed, just as it was escalating its inverse floater deals, it was also introducing new fees on borrowers, including those wanting to refinance. During Thanksgiving week in 2010, Freddie quietly announced that it was raising charges, called post-settlement delivery fees.

In a recent white paper on remedies for the stalled housing market, the Federal Reserve criticized Fannie and Freddie for the fees they have charged for refinancing. Such fees are “another possible reason for low rates of refinancing” and are “difficult to justify,” the Fed wrote.

A former Freddie employee, who spoke on condition he not be named, was even blunter: “Generally, it makes no sense whatsoever” for Freddie “to restrict refinancing” from expensive loans to ones borrowers can more easily pay, since the company remains on the hook if homeowners default.

In November, the FHFA announced that Fannie and Freddie were eliminating or reducing some fees. The Fed, however, said that “more might be done.”

The regulator as owner

The trades raise questions about the FHFA’s oversight of Fannie and Freddie. But the FHFA is not just a regulator. With the two companies in government conservatorship, the FHFA now plays the role of their board of directors and shareholders, responsible for the companies’ major decisions.

Under acting director DeMarco, the FHFA has emphasized that its main goal is to limit taxpayer losses by managing the two companies’ giant investment portfolios to make profits. To cover their previous losses and ongoing operations, Fannie and Freddie already had received $169 billion from taxpayers through the third quarter of last year.

The FHFA has frustrated the administration because the agency has made preserving the value of the companies’ investment portfolios a priority over helping homeowners in expensive mortgages. In 2010, President Barack Obama nominated a permanent replacement for acting director DeMarco, but Republicans in Congress blocked him. Obama has not nominated anyone else to replace DeMarco.

Even though Freddie is a ward of the state, top executives are highly compensated. Peter Federico, who’s in charge of the company’s investment portfolio, made $2.5 million in 2010, and he had target compensation of $2.6 million for last year, when most of these leveraged investments were made.

One of Federico’s responsibilities — tied to his bonuses —  is to “support and provide liquidity and stability in the mortgage market,” according to Freddie’s annual filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Mortgage experts contend that the inverse floater trades don’t further that goal.

ProPublica and NPR made numerous attempts to reach Federico. A woman who answered his home phone said he declined to comment.

The FHFA knew about the trades before ProPublica and NPR approached the regulatory agency about them, according to an FHFA official. The FHFA has the power to approve and disapprove trades, though it doesn’t involve itself in day-to-day decisions. The official declined to comment on whether the FHFA knew about them as Freddie was conducting them or whether the FHFA had explicitly approved them.

Liz Day of ProPublica contributed to this story.

Related articles

• Freddie Mac gets paid to obstruct refinancings (blogs.reuters.com)
• Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners (propublica.org)
• Freddie Mac Profiting From Your Distress? You Betcha! (isellerfinance.wordpress.com)
• Pro Publica, NPR Report: Freddie Mac Has Massive Bets Against Homeowner Refis (crooksandliars.com)
• Freddie Mac Spending Billions In the Hopes That Homeowners Fail To Make Payments (inquisitr.com)

Bank Amnesty Bending the Rule of Law to Help the Banks: Effort to Draft a National Foreclosure Statue Underway

Bending the Rule of Law to Help the Banks: Effort to Draft a National Foreclosure Statue Underway

They take our payments they take the  investors money  they  take AIG credit default  Swap money  they take  the Private Mortgage Insurance they take the  TARP they take our homes in Foreclosure   THEN THEY  ASK FOR AMNESTY.

Image by niallkennedy via Flickr

by Yves Smith SEE FULL ARTICLE ON NAKEDCAPITALISM.COM

There is a slow moving but nevertheless troubling effort underway to change foreclosure laws across the US. The Uniform Law Commission, the same body that created the Uniform Commercial Code, a model set of laws that sought to harmonize commercial laws in all 50 states, has had two full day public but not well publicized meeting of a “study group” on mortgage foreclosure. Note that it took over a decade to draft the first version of the UCC and a protracted period for it to be implemented by states (most states have adopted the updated version of the UCC, although certain articles of the new version have not been implemented in any states).

 

Given its august history, one would think the ULC would be above political influences. That would appear to be a naive assumption these days. The study committee’s public meetings meetings to solicit opinion from “stakeholders” on “problems” with foreclosures. Curiously enough, these “stakeholder” meetings had no representation of investors (Tom Deutsch of the American Securitization Forum would claim he played that role, but everyone in mortgage land knows the ASF is a sell side organization) and effectively no input from homeowners or consumer advocates (none at the first meeting, and only, at the second, in Washington last week).

 

I got reports from three people who attended the latest session, in Washington, last week, na all were disheartening. Tom Cox, the Maine attorney who broke the robosigning scandal, provided a memorandum that argues that the commission has effectively assumed that the “problems” require a legislative solution:

 

Before there can be a determination made as to whether there is a need for a new uniform act dealing with foreclosure issues, there must be an clear accounting of (1) what the problems are that cause legislation to be considered, (2) what has caused those problems to occur, and (3) only then, whether the problems lend themselves to a legislative solution that would be offered by a new uniform act. Unfortunately, it appears that the JEBURPA letter of May 30, 2011 and all of the subsequent steps leading to this stakeholders’ meeting have failed to conduct the step 2 analysis. Further, it appears that the assumption has been made that new legislation is the solution to the perceived problems without there having been analysis of whether other non-­‐legislative solutions might be more appropriate.

 

I suggest you read Cox’s memo in full:

Thomas A. Cox Memo for ULC Study Committee

Related articles

• Mandelman sounds the Alert “Calling All Lawyers to 5,000,000 Crime Scenes” (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• Ever have questions about the Uniform Commercial Code as it relates to mortgage notes? (thehallmarkabstractsentinel.com)
• Wall Street Journal- Foreclosures Fall When Banks Forced to Tell The Truth – (IMAGINE THAT!) (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)

Chase Accused of Brazen Bankruptcy Fraud

Image via Wikipedia

LOS ANGELES (CN) – JPMorgan Chase routinely fabricated documents to deceive bankruptcy judges, going so far as to Photoshop documents to “create the illusion” of standing “in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases,” according to a federal class action.

Lead plaintiff Ernest Michael Bakenie claims that Chase’s “pattern and practice of playing ‘hide-and-seek’ with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players” bore rich fruit: that Chase secured motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim in 95 percent of its cases.

“Through the use of fabricated assignments, endorsements and affidavits that purport to transfer deeds of trust, notes and the rights to all monies due under the terms of tens of thousands of non-negotiable promissory notes (the ‘MLNs’); Chase has demonstrated a pattern and practice of playing ‘hide-and-seek’ with debtors, judges and other bankruptcy players,” the complaint states.

“Chase intentionally conceals the identity of the true parties in interest entitled to enforce the tens of tens of thousands of residential non-negotiable promissory notes (the ‘MLNs’) for its own financial benefit, at the expense of the class and to the detriment of the integrity of the bankruptcy system.”

Bakenie says Chase used a network of attorneys to file more than 7,000 motions for relief from automatic stay in bankruptcy cases in the Central District of California, “wherein they falsely claim to be the party entitled to monies due under the terms of MLNs.”

Chase rewards attorneys based on how quickly they can secure the stays, and uses fabricated documents to establish chain of title on loans, according to the complaint.

“Rather than incur the cost of ‘proving up’ its own standing or the standing of its principal Mortgage Backed Security Trust, Chase systemically misrepresents Chase or a designated MBST to be a creditor in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases by utilizing manufactured documents,” the complaint states.

Bakenie claims: “That said practice is utilized for all mortgage loans originated by Chase, and other loan originators, including insolvent Washington Mutual Bank, whose assets were purchased by Chase.

“That said manufactured documents are fabrications intended to create the illusion of a valid transfers MLNs and support the assertion of standing in tens of thousands of bankruptcy cases. …

“That the aforementioned fabricated evidence is ‘photo-shopped’ and is highly persuasive and authentic in appearance so as to ensure legal victory in the bankruptcy courts.

“That said manufactured evidence is systemically utilized to deceive bankruptcy players and increase the profits of Chase, its agents and its principals through massive cost savings and the imposition of attorney fees upon class borrowers.

“As a direct result of this practice, over 95 percent of Chase’s motions for relief of stay and proofs of claim are granted without objection.

“That the use of the fabricated evidence has a chilling effect on class debtors and their attorneys. Said business practices discourages bankruptcy players from offering objections or from questioning the validity of Chase’s false claims based on standing.”

Bakenie adds: “That said practice allows Chase to dump defaulted loans that were never properly securitized by WAMU and other originators acquired by Chase into private mortgage backed security trusts by creating the illusion of a valid transfer.

“Said practice shifts the liability of defaulted loans not properly securitized by WAMU, from Chase to private mortgage backed security trusts. The practice allows Chase to effectively mitigate the millions of dollars in liability of the WAMU acquisition, where WAMU failed to transfer MLNs of its portfolio before its demise. Said practice shifts losses from WAMU toMBST bond investors.

“That after a non-judicial foreclosure sale, class members remain indebted to the true beneficiary for the unsecured note but without credit for the loss of the collateral to Chase’s designated assignee.

“Most egregiously, the network attorneys utilize the inducing documents to obtain attorney fees awards from by the bankruptcy judges ranging from $600-$1,000 for each successful motion for relief of stay.”

Bakenie concludes that “degradation of the integrity of our bankruptcy court system cannot be justified in the name of Chase’s cost savings and unjust enrichment.”

Bakenie seeks class certification, disgorgement, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages for unfair and deceptive trade, and “an order vacating all bankruptcy orders, claims and awards granted based on Chase’s misrepresentation and deceptive business practices”.

He is represented by Joseph Arthur Roberts of Newport Beach.

Related articles

• New York Bankruptcy Lawyer Triumphs Over Shoddy Mortgage Lender Practices (prweb.com)
• STUDY: Mortgage Assignments to Washington Mutual Trusts Are Fraudulent (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• San Fernando Valley Bankruptcy Firm near Los Angeles Saves Debtor’s House from Foreclosure While Preserving Over $140,000 in Equity in the Process. (prweb.com)

Beware of the Second trust deed Ponzi scheme

Image via Wikipedia

Of late I have had three clients who have contracted with companies who claim they can settle the second trust deed on the clients home for pennies on the dollar. They clients must pay the agreed amount up front and to the scamming company. As an example this client paid 40,000.00 to settle a 112,000.00. Eagerly my client paid from a loan from relatives. Eight months later; still no settlement and when he asks for a refund the company says they are going through an audit,and right after the audit he will get a refund. Double talk if you ask me. The company will be using some other “clients’ money if they ever pay back. We sued them, and took their default, they promised a full refund by Dec. 15, 2011; no refund yet, I believe this is a Ponzi

scheme cooked up by some Broker. Advise: when parting with your hard earned Dollars for a pay off a second trust deed; be sure your money is going in an escrow account or attorney trust account and if it sounds to good to be true it probablyis. Take your time and slow down a discount today can be a bigger discount tomorrow!

Ponzi Schemes – Frequently Asked Questions

FBI’s video on Ponzi schemes
What is a Ponzi scheme?
Why do Ponzi schemes collapse?
How did Ponzi schemes get their name?
Does the SEC investigate Ponzi schemes?
Who is Bernie Madoff?
How is the SEC responding to its Office of Inspector General’s reports on the Madoff fraud?
What are some Ponzi scheme “red flags”?
What steps can I take to avoid Ponzi schemes and other investment frauds?
What are some of the similarities and differences between Ponzi and pyramid schemes?

Related articles

• How to get a refund, repair or replacement for faulty goods (blogs.confused.com)
• Mizner Grande Realty Fires Agent for Unauthorized Disbursements From Boca Raton Lawyer’s Escrow Account; Firm to Set Highest Industry Standards in Escrow Accountability (prnewswire.com)
• Kuish v. Smith Non-refundable deposit in California no such thing (financialelderabuse.wordpress.com)
• Where’s my refund? (turbotax.intuit.com)
• Can You Trust Your Title-Escrow Company? (boldrealestategroup.wordpress.com)
• Can You Trust Your Title-Escrow Company? (cascadesatstluciewestblog.wordpress.com)
• How To Handle Refunds Like A Rockstar (themogulmom.com)

MARK J. DEMUCHA AND CHERYL M. DEMUCHA, a Reply Brief that worked

No. F059476

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                                                                                                                           

Image via Wikipedia

Appellants and Plaintiffs

v.

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, INC.; WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION a.k.a. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR TRUSTEE SERVICES; FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION; AND DOES 1 TO 45

Respondents and Defendants

                                                                                                                                                           

Appeal from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern

Case No.  S-1500-CV-267074

Honorable SIDNEY P. CHAPIN, Judge

Department 4

Tele: 661.868.7205

                                                                                                                                                           

REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANTS MARK J. DEMUCHA AND CHERYL M. DEMUCHA

                                                                                                                                                           

Michael D. Finley, Esq.

Law Offices of Michael D. Finley

25375 Orchard Village Road, Suite 106

Valencia, CA 91355-3000

661.964.0444

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants,

MARK J. DEMUCHA and CHERYL M. DEMUCHA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES                                                                                                        ii

INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                         1

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS                                                                                                  2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY                                                                                                          4

STANDARD OF REVIEW                                                                                                          4

ARGUMENT                                                                                                                                5

A.   THE DEMURRER WAS NOT PROPERLY SUSTAINED                                    5

B.   THE COMPLAINT VERY PLAINLY CONTAINS A
TENDER, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR
A QUIET TITLE ACTION                                                                                        5

C.   SUSTAINING OF THE DEMURRER WAS REVERSIBLE
ERROR BECAUSE CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES
WELLS FARGO TO POSSESS THE NOTE IN ORDER TO
ENFORCE THE LOAN                                                                                             7

D.   THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE
DEMURRER ON THE CLAIMS TO QUIET TITLE AND
REMOVE CLOUD ARE BASED UPON THE DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE NATURE OF THE
DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT                                                                                   8

E.    THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE
DEMURRER ON THE CLAIM FOR FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION ARE BASED UPON THE
DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CONTENT
OF THE DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT                                                                    9

F.    THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE
DEMURRER ON THE CLAIM FOR INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ARE BASED UPON THE
DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CONTENT
OF THE DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT                                                                    9

G.   THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE
DEMURRER ON THE CLAIM FOR SLANDER OF
CREDIT ARE BASED UPON THE DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE
DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT                                                                                  10

H.   THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS
REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE
DEMURRER ON THE CLAIM FOR INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ARE BASED UPON THE
DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE
CONTENT OF THE DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT                                               10

CONCLUSION                                                                                                                            10

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

                                                                                                                                                     Page

Caporale v. Saxon Mortgage, Bankr. North Dist. Cal., San Jose Case No. 07-54109.                  8

In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 3232430 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2007).                                        8

Staff Mortgage v. Wilke (1980) 625 F.2d 281                                                                               8

Starr v. Bruce Farley Corp. (9^th Cir. 1980), 612 F.2d 1197.                                                           8

Whitman v. Transtate Title Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 312, 322-323.                              6

STATUTES

Commercial Code § 3301.                                                                                                     7, 8, 9,

INTRODUCTION

            Defendants/Respondents continue to mischaracterize the Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ complaint very deliberately, apparently because they realize that the Plaintiff’s complaint as actually plead is beyond their ability to oppose it. Calling the Plaintiffs’ Complaint “inartfully drafted” because it does not state that it is a challenge to a non-judicial foreclosure is wishful thinking. The complaint is very artfully drafted as a Quiet Title action. The plaintiffs are not seeking to “stave off foreclosure of a mortgage,” but seeking to remove a false claim against their title to the property. No non-judicial foreclosure has taken place. No foreclosure sale has occurred, so there is no foreclosure sale to challenge or undo, but the Defendants/Respondents insist on arguing the case at the demurrer level and on this appeal as a complaint to challenge or set aside a non-judicial foreclosure and keep trying to apply those inapplicable pleading requirements to the complaint. The plaintiffs did seek a preliminary injunction against the foreclosure and obtained it because the Defendants/Respondents did not comply with the laws regarding non-judicial foreclosure. However, that does not make their complaint a “central defense” to non-judicial foreclosure as Defendants/Respondents argue throughout their brief. The mischaracterization of the case was a key element of the lower court’s error and continues to be a key element of the Defendants’/Respondents’ false arguments.

Further, Plaintiffs/Appellants never argued that producing the note was a preliminary requirement to non-judicial foreclosure, but Plaintiffs/Appellants have plead very specifically throughout the complaint that possessing the note is a requirement for the Defendants/Respondents to have any right to enforce the note whatsoever, which has been established California law (and in every state that has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code) for a very long time. The references to producing the note were merely offered as evidence demonstrating that the Defendants/Respondents do no possess the note because they repeatedly fail and refuse to produce it. In fact, it is important to note that the Defendants/Respondents have never yet argued that the note is in their possession as required by law.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

A.        THE SUBJECT TRANSACTION.

The Defendants’/Respondents’ Statement of Facts has a very subtle attempt at subterfuge and misdirection in that it places a statement made about their finances during litigation after Plaintiffs/Appellants incurred legal fees in a different context as though the statement were made prior to litigation during the time that the prior (and possibly current) note holder CTX Mortgage had the loan and prior to the recording of the notice of default. Defendants/Respondents have gone to great lengths to take this statement out of context and have argued extensively that this constitutes proof that the Plaintiffs/Appellants were unable to tender payment. However, this requires the assumption that only one conclusion may be drawn from the statement rather than a range of possibilities, including the fact that the Plaintiffs/Appellants had incurred attorney’s fees by that time.

B.        THE DEMUCHAS’ CONTENTIONS.

As in the underlying Demurrer, the Defendants/Respondents continue to falsely argue that there was no allegation of Tender in the Complaint. However, as demonstrated in the Appellants’ Opening Brief, there is no requirement of tender to plead Quiet Title. Even so, the Defendants/Respondents quote the allegation of tender that is in the Complaint even while arguing that there is no allegation of tender. This demonstrates the Defendants’/Respondents’ motive in deliberately mischaracterizing the complaint: they wish to apply a non-applicable standard to the complaint. Then when the non-applicable standard has been complied with anyway, they attempt to mislead the court by arguing that a plain allegation of tender is not an allegation of tender. However, as will be shown, the Defendants/Respondents have cited a case that states that tender can be offered in the complaint, and need not have been offered prior to filing the complaint.

C.        DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ASSERTION OF NO ALLEGATION OF TENDER OF ALL AMOUNTS DUE IS BLATANTLY FALSE.

As stated above, Plaintiffs/Appellants have already demonstrated that tendering payment is not a required element of a Quiet Title action, but that they have pleaded tender anyway. The Defendants’/Respondents’ arguments that payments must be tendered “when due” misstates the law, even for cases challenging non-judicial foreclosures, which this case is not. As will be shown below, the Defendants/Respondents cited a case that indicates very clearly that even in non-judicial foreclosure cases, a tender may be made in the complaint and need not have been made prior to filing the complaint.

D.        THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS AND THE DEMUCHAS’ ATTEMPTS TO DELAY OR HALT THEM.

The Defendants/Respondents’ focus on these extra proceedings within the case is a red herring to distract the court’s focus from the demurrer. The appeal is not about the ex-parte application for a preliminary injunction that was granted due to the fact that the Defendants/Respondents did not comply with California law requiring a specific declaration to be signed under penalty of perjury that was not. The Defendants/Respondents are going well outside the Complaint’s four corners to abuse the details of the ex-parte application that was not about the Complaint nor the Demurrer that are the subjects of this appeal. And once again, they are trying to argue the issue of the Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ financial situation as stated during the ex-parte proceedings after they had already incurred attorney’s fees for the false proposition that the Plaintiffs/Appellants were allegedly incapable of tendering payment prior to incurring the additional attorney’s fees of litigation when that is not the only conclusion that can be drawn from the separate ex-parte pleadings. Finally, they continue to shout endlessly about the issue of tender when it is not a required part of pleading the elements of Quiet Title and when pleading tender is required, an offer made in the complaint itself is deemed sufficient, as will be shown below.

E.        THE ARGUMENTS ABOUT FAILURE TO “PRODUCE THE NOTE” ARE A RED HERRING TO DISTRACT THE COURT FROM THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE DEFENDANTS “POSSESS THE NOTE.”

The Defendants/Respondents continue to make a big deal about the fact that in a few places, the Complaint mentions that the defendants have failed to produce the original note. However, their own arguments on this point mention that the complaint further alleges their failure to hold or possess the original note, which is the more key portion of the pleadings.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            The parties’ explanations of the case’s procedural history are close enough that no further discussion is necessary.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

            Some of the arguments contained in the Defendants’/Respondents’ Standard of Review section of their brief are specious, especially in the final paragraph arguing the subjects of tender and producing the note. The Defendants/Respondents have never demonstrated that California law requires an allegation of tender for a Quiet Title action, but have only cited as authority for this position cases that are focused on undoing a foreclosure sale after it has been completed. However, even those cases state that tender does not have to be made before filing the complaint, but the tender itself can be made within the complaint, and there cannot be any question that an offer of tender is made within the complaint. The Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ current attorney helped prepare pleadings for them in the trial court case and even made special, limited scope appearances for them, even though they were officially in pro per, so they incurred considerable legal fees during the litigation, which certainly had an effect on their financial situation at the time that they filed their ex parte application for a preliminary injunction, so the Defendants’/Respondents’ argument that the ex parte papers demonstrate that the Plaintiffs/Appellants could not tender payment is false. Further, the Defendants’/Respondents’ argument that “the central premise of each cause of action of the DeMuchas’ First Amendent Complaint [is] that a lender must ‘produce the note’ while conducting a non-judicial foreclosure” is a blatant misstatement of the Complaint’s content. The Complaint is not about non-judicial foreclosure, it is about quieting title. And the central premise is that a lender must possess the note in order to have a right to enforce the note, which is the law in California and every other state that has adopted the Uniform Commercial Code. No non-judicial foreclosure has yet taken place regarding the subject property.

ARGUMENT

A.        THE DEMURRER WAS NOT PROPERLY SUSTAINED.

Defendants/Respondents are demonstrating to this court the same misdirection and deliberate mischaracterization of the pleadings that misled the trial court into committing reversible error by improperly sustaining a demurrer to a valid complaint. The Defendants/Respondents have never demonstrated that tender is a requirement for a Quiet Title action. They have mischaracterized the case as a case to undo a non-judicial foreclosure when no non-judicial foreclosure has ever been completed regarding the subject property. The cases that they cited to the trial court and to this court regarding the requirements of a tender allegation were cases in which the subject property had been sold at a non-judicial foreclosure sale, which was being challenged after the fact. They have mischaracterized the Complaint’s allegations as though they state that “producing the note” is a requirement for non-judicial foreclosure, which is a blatant misstatement. The complaint states the true fact that the defendants have failed and refused to produce the note only as evidence of the fact that they do not possess the note and therefore have no right to enforce the note under California law. It is worth noting that the Defendants’/Respondents’ 34-page Appellate Brief never claims that they are the holders of the note as required by law.

B.        THE COMPLAINT VERY PLAINLY CONTAINS A TENDER, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A QUIET TITLE ACTION.

Defendants/Respondents continue their same improper tactic used with the trial court of citing irrelevant cases seeking to undo a foreclosure sale after the fact. Since no foreclosure sale has yet taken place regarding the subject property and this is a Quiet Title action, those cases are all irrelevant and inapplicable to the First Amended Complaint that is the subject of the Demurrer and this appeal. However, even under the Defendants’/Respondents’ inapplicable cases, the Defendants/Respondents have swerved into something that destroys their arguments completely: Citing Whitman v. Transtate Title Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 312, 322-323, the Defendants/Respondents correctly stated on page 11 of their brief, “therefore as a condition precedent to any action challenging a foreclosure, a plaintiff must pay or offer to pay the secured debt before an action is commenced or in the complaint.” (Emphasis added).  This is not an action challenging a foreclosure, but even if those standards were inappropriately applied to this action, the tender or offer to pay can be made “in the complaint.” The Verified First Amended Complaint (“VFAC”) states, “Plaintiff offers to pay and mortgage payments on the property to the individual or entity that is the valid holder of the original note as required by California Commercial Code § 3301, et seq. and all property taxes to the appropriate government agency.” (VFAC page 3, line 28 through page 4, line 7). This is a very clear tender, made “in the complaint,” even though it is not required in a Quiet Title Action.

Since tender is not a statutory element of a Quiet Title action, the Defendants’/Respondents’ arguments regarding the difficult financial times mentioned in the Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ ex-parte application for a preliminary injunction are moot. However, it should be noted that by the time the Plaintiffs/Appellants filed their ex-parte application, they had the additional financial burden of paying for attorney’s fees to have the same attorney who now represents them on appeal prepare pleadings for them and make special, limited scope appearances for them on the trial court level, so the conclusion that the Defendants/Respondents are asking the court to make are inaccurate.

Even the Defendants’/Respondents’ arguments regarding “implicit integration” of foreclosure issues are irrelevant, because the cases that they cited specifically involved a non-judicial foreclosure in which the sale had been completed, but no non-judicial foreclosure sale has taken place regarding the subject property. The defendants’ argument that Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ have failed to cite any authority for the fact that no allegation of tender is required is another false statement. Plaintiffs have directly quoted Code of Civil Procedure § 761.020, which fully sets forth the elements of a Quiet Title Action, and there is no requirement of tender. However, even if the court somehow found that a tender allegation was required, the tender allegation has been made in the Complaint in accordance with the Defedants’/Appellants’ own citations as set forth above. Further, the Defendants’/Respondents’ arguments that “a court of equity will not order a useless act performed” (FPCI Re-Hab 01, etc. v. E&G Investments, Ltd. (1989) 207 Cal.App.3d 1018, 1022, and “equity will not interpose its remedial power in the accomplishment of what seemingly would be nothing but an idly and expensively futile act” (Leonard v. Bank of America Ass’n (1936) 16 Cal. App. 2d 341, 344) could and should just as easily be applied to the futile and useless acts that Defendants’/Respondents’ are requesting to be required and plead when they do not possess the original note and therefore have no right to expect payments, seek payments, nor threaten foreclosure because they did not receive payments that they had no right to receive in the first place, pursuant to Commercial Code § 3301. It can and should also be used to destroy their argument that plaintiff must be subjected to the requirements of case law regarding actions seeking to undo foreclosure irregularities before the foreclosure has even been completed, as though plaintiff should be able to foresee every foreclosure irregularity with a crystal ball before the process is even completed!

C.        SUSTAINING OF THE DEMURRER WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR BECAUSE CALIFORNIA LAW REQUIRES WELLS FARGO TO POSSESS THE NOTE IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THE LOAN.

Plaintiffs/Appellants have cited a fully binding California Statute, Commercial Code § 3301, which specifically states that in order to be a “person entitled to enforce an instrument,” the Defendants/Respondents must have been the holder of the instrument, with very limited exceptions. In opposition, the Defendants/Respondents continue their same bad habit engaged in during the trial court proceedings of citing and relying upon federal trial court cases, which are not binding authority in any way, without disclosing to the court that they are citing non-binding authority. In addition, many of their citations do not even contain the full reference, so that it is difficult or impossible to locate and read the case. As for the federal trial court cases, all that they have demonstrated is that there is a need for a California appellate court to clear up the confusion that clearly exists regarding California’s law, and especially Commercial Code § 3301. Further, their statement that every court that has considered the issue has ruled that possessing the note is not necessary for a foreclosure is false. For example, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose, a federal trial court judge stopped a foreclosure because the bank could not produce the note in the case of Caporale v. Saxon Mortgage, Case No. 07-54109. Like the Defendants’/Respondents’ authorities, this case is only persuasive authority, not binding, but it was reported on by ABC News, and a copy of the news video is available to be viewed online at http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/7_on_your_side&id=6839404. If the court is going to consider the non-binding federal trial court decisions offered by the Defendants/Respondents, the court should also consider the non-binding persuasive authority of In re Foreclosure Cases, 2007 WL 3232430 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2007), wherein U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Christopher Boyko dismissed without prejudice fourteen judicial foreclosure actions filed by the trustees of securitized trusts against borrowers who had defaulted on their residential mortgages that had been sold into securitized trusts, based upon the application of Uniform Commercial Code § 3-301 to the mortgages in question.

As for their claim that the commercial code does not apply to a mortgage or a note secured by deed of trust, the Defendants/Respondents are willfully ignoring Staff Mortgage v. Wilke (1980) 625 F.2d 281, 6 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1385, 29 UCC Rep.Serv. 639, cited in Plaintiffs’/Appellants’ Opening Brief, which clearly states that “notes secured by deeds of trust…were ‘instruments’ under the California Commercial Code.” This holding is repeated in Starr v. Bruce Farley Corp. (9^th Cir. 1980), 612 F.2d 1197. The Defendants/Respondents have offered nothing other than their own opinion for the proposition that the note secured by deed of trust in question is not a “negotiable instrument” within the meaning of Commercial Code § 3301, even though they claim to have purchased the note, which by definition makes it negotiable.

D.        THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER ON THE CLAIMS TO QUIET TITLE AND REMOVE CLOUD ARE BASED UPON THE DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE NATURE OF THE DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT.

As always, the Defendants/Respondents insist upon misrepresenting the nature of the First Amended Complaint. Every element of each of these causes of action was specifically plead, as has been demonstrated. Pursuant to Commercial Code § 3301, the Defendants/Respondents have no right to enforce the note unless they possess the note. Plaintiffs/Appellants rely upon the appellate court to read the First Amended Complaint and comprehend it independently of the Defendants’/Respondents’ misrepresentations.

E.        THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER ON THE CLAIM FOR FRAUD AND MISREPRESENTATION ARE BASED UPON THE DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT.

The content of the First Amended Complaint speaks for itself. The Defendants/Respondents continue to look right at the paragraphs of the document that contain the elements required by law for each cause of action and to falsely state that the required allegations are not there. Plaintiffs/Appellants rely upon the appellate court to read the First Amended Complaint and comprehend it independently of the Defendants’/Respondents’ misrepresentations.

F.         THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER ON THE CLAIM FOR INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ARE BASED UPON THE DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT.

The content of the First Amended Complaint speaks for itself. The Defendants/Respondents continue to look right at the paragraphs of the document that contain the elements required by law for each cause of action and to falsely state that the required allegations are not there. Plaintiffs/Appellants rely upon the appellate court to read the First Amended Complaint and comprehend it independently of the Defendants’/Respondents’ misrepresentations.

G.        THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER ON THE CLAIM FOR SLANDER OF CREDIT ARE BASED UPON THE DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT.

The content of the First Amended Complaint speaks for itself. The Defendants/Respondents continue to look right at the paragraphs of the document that contain the elements required by law for each cause of action and to falsely state that the required allegations are not there. Plaintiffs/Appellants rely upon the appellate court to read the First Amended Complaint and comprehend it independently of the Defendants’/Respondents’ misrepresentations.

H.        THE DEFENDANTS’/RESPONDENTS’ ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE PROPRIETY OF SUSTAINING THE DEMURRER ON THE CLAIM FOR INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ARE BASED UPON THE DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATION OF THE CONTENT OF THE DEMUCHAS’ COMPLAINT.

The content of the First Amended Complaint speaks for itself. The Defendants/Respondents continue to look right at the paragraphs of the document that contain the elements required by law for each cause of action and to falsely state that the required allegations are not there. Plaintiffs/Appellants rely upon the appellate court to read the First Amended Complaint and comprehend it independently of the Defendants’/Respondents’ misrepresentations.

CONCLUSION

            The trial court erred in sustaining the demurrer without leave to amend and entering a judgment of dismissal. The rules of a non-judicial foreclosure proceeding and litigation to set aside a non-judicial foreclosure do not apply to a quiet title action that is filed prior to a foreclosure sale. The Commercial Code’s requirements that the entity enforcing a note must possess the original note (with limited exceptions) applies to a Note Secured by Deed of Trust. Even in the context of a non-judicial foreclosure, there is no “breach” unless the entity that did not receive the mortgage payments had a right to receive the mortgage payments through possession of the original note or compliance with another recognized exception under the Commercial Code. Any other result would cause an unnecessary conflict of laws and allow fraudulent “lenders” to engage in non-judicial foreclosures and sales of property so long as they complied with the technical requirements of a non-judicial foreclosure. All of the causes of action of the Verified First Amended Complaint are properly plead, with the exception that “punitive damages” is not technically a cause of action, but that can be resolved by striking the label “Sixth Cause of Action” and just allowing the heading “Punitive Damages” to stand.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

            Dated: 23 December 2010                                                                                                                  

Michael D. Finley, Esq.

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Mark J. DeMucha & Cheryl M. DeMucha

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

Pursuant to rule 8.204(c) of the California Rules of Court, I hereby certify that this brief contains 3,914 words, including footnotes. In making this certification, I have relied on the word count of the computer program used to prepare the brief.

Dated: 23 December 2010                                                                                                                  

Michael D. Finley, Esq.

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Mark J. DeMucha & Cheryl M. DeMucha

 PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is: 25375 Orchard Village Road, Suite 106, Valencia, CA 91355-3000.

On 23 December 2010 I served the foregoing document described as: Appellant’s Opening Brief on the interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof in sealed envelopes addressed as follows:

(Attorneys for Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc. & Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.): Kutak Rock LLP, 18201 Von Karman, Suite 1100, Irvine, CA 92612

(Attorneys for First American Loanstar Trustee Services & First American Corporation): Wright, Finlay & Zak, LLP, 4665 MacArthur Court, Suite 280, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Judge Sidney P. Chapin, Kern County Superior Court, Metropolitan Division, 1415 Truxtun Ave., Bakersfield, CA 93301

BY MAIL: I deposited such envelopes in the mail at Valencia, California. The envelopes were mailed with first class postage thereon fully prepaid.

ALSO, BY ELECTRONIC FILING WITH THE SUPREME COURT: In addition, I filed an electronic copy of the Appellant’s Opening Brief with the Supreme Court of California on 23 December 2010, through the Supreme Court’s website.

Dated: 23 December 2010                                                                                                                  

Michael D. Finley, Esq.

Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellants

Mark J. DeMucha & Cheryl M. DeMucha

Related articles

• David and Goliath as court overturns case dissmissal (mortgageregistationsystems.wordpress.com)
• David and Goliath as court overturns case dissmissal (mortgagereductionlaw.wordpress.com)
• David and Goliath as court overturns case dissmissal (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• pending lawsuits and homeowners winnning (mortgageregistationsystems.wordpress.com)
• pending lawsuits and homeowners winnning (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
• pending lawsuits and homeowners winnning (mortgagereductionlaw.wordpress.com)

Fighting Foreclosure in California

Using the Courts to Fight a California or Other Non-Judicial Foreclosure – 3-Stage Analysis – including a Homeowner Action to “Foreclose” on the Bank’s Mortgage Security Interest – rev.

image003

 

California real property foreclosures are totally different from foreclosures in New York and many other states. The reason is that more than 99% of the California foreclosures take place without a court action, in a proceeding called a “non-judicial foreclosure”. Twenty-one states do not have a non-judicial foreclosure. [These states are CT, DE, FL, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, NE, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OH, PA, SC, UT, VT. – Source: realtytrac.com] In California, the lending institution can go through a non-judicial foreclosure in about 4 months from the date of the filing and recording of a “Notice of Default”, ending in a sale of the property without any court getting involved. The California homeowner can stop the sale by making full payment of all alleged arrears no later than 5 days prior to the scheduled sale. Unlike a judicial foreclosure, the homeowner will have no right to redeem the property after the sale (“equity of redemption”, usually a one-year period after judicial foreclosure and sale). For a visual presentation of the timeline for California and other state non-judicial foreclosures, go to Visual Timeline for California Non-Judicial Foreclosures.

A 50-state analysis of judicial and non-judicial foreclosure procedures is available at 50-State Analysis of Judicial and Non-Judicial Foreclosure Procedures.]

The problem I am going to analyze and discuss is under what circumstances can a homeowner/mortgagor go into court to obtain some type of judicial relief for wrongful or illegal conduct by the lender or others relating to the property and mortgage. My discussion applies as to all states in which non-judicial foreclosures are permitted.

There are three distinct stages that need to be separately discussed. These stages are the borrower’s current situation. The three stages are:

 

• Homeowner is not in any mortgage arrears [declaratory judgment action]
• Homeowner is behind in mortgage payments – at least 5 days before auction [injunction action, which could even be called an action by a homeowner to “foreclose” upon or eliminate the lending institution’s mortgage security interest]
• Property was sold at auction [wrongful foreclosure action]

 

I. Homeowner Is Not in any Mortgage Arrears [Declaratory Judgment Action]

As long as a homeowner keeps making the mortgage payments, and cures any occasional short-term default, the homeowner is in a position to commence an action in federal or state court for various types of relief relating to the mortgage and the obligations thereunder. One typical claim is a declaratory judgment action to declare that the mortgage and note are invalid or that the terms are not properly set forth. There are various other types of claims, as well. The filing of such an action would not precipitate a non-judicial foreclosure. Compare this to a regular foreclosure, in which the homeowner stops paying on the mortgage, gets sued in a foreclosure action, and then is able in the lawsuit to raise the issues (as “defenses”) which the California homeowner would raise as “claims” or “causes of action” in the lawsuit being discussed for this first stage.

II. Homeowner Is Behind in Mortgage Payments – at Least 5 Days before Auction [Injunction Action seeking TRO and Preliminary Injunction, which you might say is a homeowner’s own “foreclosure proceeding against the bank and its mortgage interest”]

This is the most difficult of the three stages for making use of the courts to oppose foreclosure. The reasons are: foreclosure and sale is apt to take place too quickly; the cost of seeking extraordinary (injunctive) relief is higher because of the litigation papers and hearing that have to be done in a very short period of time to obtain fast TRO and preliminary injunctive relief to stop the threatened sale; the cost of this expensive type of injunctive litigation is probably much higher for many homeowners than just keeping up the mortgage payments; and, finally, you would have to show a greater probability of success on the merits of the action than you would need to file a lawsuit as in Stage 1, so that the homeowner’s chances of prevailing (and getting the requested injunction) are low and the costs and risks are high.

Nevertheless, when the facts are in the homeowner’s favor, the homeowner should consider bringing his plight to the attention of the court, to obtain relief from oppressive lending procedures. The problem with most borrower-homeowners is that they do not have any idea what valid bases they may have to seek this kind of relief. What anyone should do in this case is talk with a competent lawyer as soon as possible, to prevent any further delay from causing you to lose an opportunity to fight back. You need to weigh the cost of commencing a court proceeding (which could be $5,000 more or less to commence) against the loss of the home through non-judicial foreclosure.

 

III. Property Was Sold at Auction [Wrongful Foreclosure Action]

If the property has already been sold, you still have the right to pursue your claims, but in the context of a “wrongful foreclosure” lawsuit, which has various legal underpinnings including tort, breach of contract and statute. This type of suit could not precipitate any foreclosure and sale of the property because the foreclosure and sale have already taken place. Your remedy would probably be monetary damages, which you would have to prove. You should commence the action as soon as possible after the wrongful foreclosure and sale, and particularly within a period of less than one year from the sale. The reason is that some of your claims could be barred by a short, 1-year statute of limitations.

If you would like to talk about any possible claims relating to your mortgage transaction, please give me a call. There are various federal and state statutes and court decisions to consider, with some claims being substantially better than others. I am available to draft a complaint in any of the 3 stages for review by your local attorney, and to be counsel on a California or other-state action “pro hac vice” (i.e., for the one case) when associating with a local lawyer.

Delaware suing MERS Video

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908//vp/45070527#45070527

Delaware suing MERS video

The Law of Capitalism THE MASS MISS JOINDER

I attended the Attorney General and state Bar hearing as to the intervention of the state bar into the law practice of Mitchell Stein and the K2 mass Joinder cases in Los Angeles in front of Judge Johnson. The tentative was a scathing implication of Mitchell Stein and his purported involvement with the “marketing companies” and the allegations of unfair business practices all needed for the AG and the State Bar to step in and confiscate 1.6 million in various accounts.

I was there to opine the status of the case itself and the merits of the cases and as to the victims rights as against the banks. If the Bar took over the practice would they defend the cases would they protect the victims right. No they are not; right now they the State Bar are telling the victims they are on there own.

Once again these suits I have been following and hoping could get past the Demur stage the Banks would be forced to answer. Then there would be motions for Summary Judgement and if the Victims could survive the Summary Judgement and thousands of requests for admissions and interrogatories propounded on the thousands of plaintiffs. It could be done I would have to associate about 10 other lawyers and 30 paralegals but it could be done for about $700,000.00. Then I believe the Banks would enter settlement negotiations with the victims witch I calculate to be about 6500 victims to date.

Mandelman characterized the case as follows:

The case at the core of the Kramer and Kaslow mass joinder lawsuit is: Ronald vs. Bank of America. Basically, the case accuses Countrywide (subsequent cases being filed include Citibank, One West, GMAC/Ally Bank, and perhaps others) of perpetrating a massive fraud upon homeowners by knowingly inflating appraisals, creating a bubble the bank knew would pop and leave homeowner equity devastated, violate privacy statutes, and then Civil Code sections when they refused to modify… you get the idea.

The case says that Countrywide execs knew and did it anyway in order to make zillions of dollars securitizing the loans and therefore only others would incur the future losses.

Here’s an overview of what the third amended complaint says in its Introduction section:

2. This action seeks remedies for the foregoing improper activities, including a massive fraud perpetrated upon Plaintiffs and other borrowers by the Countrywide Defendants that devastated the values of their residences, in most cases resulting in Plaintiffs’ loss of all or substantially all of their net worths.

6. Hand-in-hand with its fraudulently-obtained mortgages, Mozilo and others at Countrywide hatched a plan to “pool” the foregoing mortgages and sell the pools for inflated value. Rapidly, these two intertwined schemes grew into a brazen plan to disregard underwriting standards and fraudulently inflate property values – county-by- county, city-by-city, person-by-person – in order to take business from legitimate mortgage-providers, and moved on to massive securities fraud hand-in-hand with concealment from, and deception of, Plaintiffs and other mortgagees on an unprecedented scale.

7. From as early as 2004, Countrywide’s senior management led by Mozilo knew the scheme would cause a liquidity crisis that would devastate Plaintiffs’ home values and net worths. But, they didn’t care, because their plan was based on insider trading – pumping for as long as they could and then dumping before the truth came out and Plaintiffs’ losses were locked in.

9. It is now all too clear that this was the ultimate high-stakes fraudulent investment scheme of the last decade. Couched in banking and securities jargon, the deceptive gamble with consumers’ primary assets – their homes – was nothing more than a financial fraud perpetrated by Defendants and others on a scale never before seen. This scheme led directly to a mortgage meltdown in California that was substantially worse than any economic problems facing the rest of the United States. From 2008 to the present, Californians’ home values decreased by considerably more than most other areas in the United States as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ scheme set forth herein.

This massive fraudulent scheme was a disaster both foreseen by Countrywide and waiting to happen. Defendants knew it, and yet Defendants still induced the Plaintiffs into their scheme without telling them.

10. As a result, Plaintiffs lost their equity in their homes, their credit ratings and histories were damaged or destroyed, and Plaintiffs incurred material other costs and expenses, described herein. At the same time, Defendants took from Plaintiffs and other borrowers billions of dollars in interest payments and fees and generated billions of dollars in profits by selling their loans at inflated values.

14. Since the time Plaintiffs filed the initial Complaint herein, Defendants’ improper acts have continued, including, inter alia: (i) issuing Notices of Default in violation of Cal. Civil Code §2923.5; (ii) misrepresenting their intention to arrange loan modifications for Plaintiffs, while in fact creating abusive roadblocks to deprive Plaintiffs of their legal rights; and (iii) engaging in intrinsic fraud in this Court and in Kentucky by stalling in addressing Plaintiffs’ legitimate requests to cancel notices of default and for loan modifications, and by refusing to respond, in any way, to Plaintiffs’ privacy causes of action.

Now, there’s no question… this is a real lawsuit. Some attorneys believe it will be a very difficult case to win, while others think it’s quite viable and likely to settle. I can see both sides of that argument.

On one hand, it would seem difficult to prove that Countrywide caused the housing bubble; there were certainly many parties involved and numerous other contributing factors as well. On the other hand, the case has numerous aspects that are unquestionably true and certainly wrong.

Then there’s what’s known as “the banker factor.” Actually, I’m making that up, but you know what I mean. The banks aren’t going to lay down for this as it would open an enormous can of litigating worms… so they have to fight… or is there no percentage in that either? Well, now you’ve seen first hand why I chose not to go to law school.

I really haven’t the foggiest idea what’s going to happen… and neither does anyone else.

But then, Columbus couldn’t exactly stop and ask for directions either, which, it’s worth noting is why, when sailing for The New World, he landed in the Bahamas and named them San Salvador, but assumed he had found the Indies so he named the native people Indians (leading me to always wonder what he would have named them had he not gotten so hopelessly lost.)

(What if his favorite word was “Jujubees,” and he had named the natives “Jujubees?” Then I would have grown up playing Cowboys & Jujubees?)

So, since no one can know what’s going to happen in the future of this case, I thought I’d take a look at where it is today. From a review of the Los Angeles Superior Court’s online records database we find these events have transpired to-date or are set for the near future…
1. Original complaint was filed in March 2009.
2. First amended complaint was in June of 2009.
3. Second amended complaint March 2010.
4. August 2010: the banks try to remove the case to federal court, but fail.
5. Third amended complaint was filed July 7, 2010.
6. The defendant banksters have demurred again, but it doesn’t appear that the demurs filed in December have been heard.
7. Status conference set for Thursday, February 3rd, 2011.
8. There is a hearing date scheduled for March 29, 2011, but it’s not clear to me what will be happening at that hearing.

So, this is their third “amended complaint.” That means the defendants… the banks… have demurred twice. That means that the banks have come to court claiming that the mass joinder plaintiffs don’t state a cause of action… or in other words saying the plaintiffs have no case… and the court has allowed the plaintiffs to amend the complaint three times so far.

Like almost everything in the law, I guess you could read that a couple of different ways. On one hand it seems positive… the case brought by the mass joinder plaintiffs has not been tossed out by the judge yet. That’s good, right?
On the other hand… the court could “sustain the demur without leave to amend,” in which case the mass joinder suit would be over and done.

And that’s why litigating is always a gamble, and by no means a sure thing.
Here’s an oversimplified look at the mass joinder’s causes of action.

First Cause of Action… Fraudulent Concealment – This is saying that the bank was hiding things from the borrowers.

Second Cause of Action… Intentional Misrepresentation – This is lying when you knew you were lying. In other words, you knew an appraisal was wrong… it came in at $500,000, but you knew it was worth $400,000 and you passed it off anyway.

Third Cause of Action… Negligent Misrepresentation – This is like saying that you’re lying but it wasn’t intentional. Let’s say that you ordered an appraisal but never really looked at the appraisal to make sure it was done correctly. You include this cause of action in case the conduct doesn’t rise to the level of intentional misrepresentation, and perhaps because some insurance policies don’t cover intentional acts.

Fourth Cause if Action… Invasion of Constitutional Right to Privacy – This is saying that the banks disclosed personal information… perhaps when selling the loans to another investor.

Fifth Cause of Action… Violation of California Financial Information Privacy Act – See above or read the actual complaint.

Sixth Cause of Action… Civil Code 2923.5 – Defendants are prohibited by statute from recording a Notice of Default against the primary residential property of any Californian without first making contact with that person as required under § 2923.5 and then interacting with that person in the manner set forth in detail under § 2923.5. Nothing special here, but its been upheld by other courts in California.

Seventh Cause of Action… Civil Code 1798 – When they gave away your private information, they didn’t tell you they did it? Defendants failed to timely disclose to Plaintiffs the disclosure of their personal information as required under California Civil Code § 1798.82

Eighth Cause of Action… Unfair Competition Against All Defendants – Defendants’ actions in implementing and perpetrating their fraudulent scheme of inducing Plaintiffs to accept mortgages for which they were not qualified based on inflated property valuations and undisclosed disregard of their own underwriting standards and the sale of overpriced collateralized mortgage pools, all the while knowing that the plan would crash and burn, taking the Plaintiffs down and costing them the equity in their homes and other damages, violates numerous federal and state statutes and common law protections enacted for consumer protection, privacy, trade disclosure, and fair trade and commerce.

In Conclusion…

Attorney Phillip Kramer, in his own words, made it quite clear that his firm was not responsible for the mailer I received or the telemarketing about which I’ve been notified. Once again, he says…

“I know of no outbound calling. If asked, I would not approve of that. I knew that some law firms wanted to send out mailers. I have insisted that everyone comply with State Bar rules and that anything with my name must be pre-approved. As of this date, no one has submitted any proposed marketing for my review. That piece was done without my knowledge.

I am happy to pay a referral fee to other law firms. I do not split fees, pay commissions, nor do I pay referral fees to non-lawyers. I do not use cappers, and have never authorized anyone to robocall, telemarket, spam email, or undertake any mass marketing on my behalf.”

With that said I was going to apply to the Bar to take over the cases if they would relinquish the 1.6 to pay for the work to be done for the victims. Before making such a wild leap into this caos I called my State bar lawyer. He informed me that I should not even go close to these cases that all lawyers involved will be DISBARRED. I said wow but what about the merits of the cases the judge in the case had already overruled the demur as to some of the causes of action. The State Bar (by their actions in not finding a lawyer to protect the victims) is recommending that case be dismissed the Attorney General IS NOT PURSUING THE RIGHTS OF THE VICTIMS . I persisted with my lawyer. To which he exclaimed ” DON’T YOU GET IT MCCANDLESS THE AG AND THE BAR ARE WORKING FOR THE BANKS”.

Three Hundred Billion to compensate homeownners “really?” no probably 50 bucks a case!!!

Millions of current and former homeowners will have a chance to get their foreclosure cases examined to determine whether they should be compensated for banks’ mistakes, under a wide-ranging review being planned by federal regulators. Ssoo let’s see 6 Million foreclosures 50,000.00 each that’s 300 BILLION I think they are going to sweep this under the carpet just like the Countrywide deal and say they fixed it. I believe that the only way to get compensated is through litigation although this is a great admission and could be used in future litigation.

The review process, which could be unveiled in the next few weeks, will be open to borrowers who were in some stage of foreclosure in 2009 or 2010. Estimates prepared by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which will oversee the review, indicate that 4.5 million borrowers could be eligible for review.

John Walsh, acting head of the OCC, unveiled some aspects of the plan in a speech last month to banking executives, when he said the agency was exploring “the best means of ensuring that injured homeowners had the opportunity to seek relief,” when they were harmed by lender improprieties.

WSJ’s Nick Timiraos has details of a plan by which 4.5 million homeowners who faced foreclosure in 2009 and 2010 could face a review of their foreclosure procedures due to errors by banks. Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

The process will include a broad public-outreach campaign, including direct mail to eligible borrowers and a single website and toll-free number. The reviews will be conducted by independent third-party companies that were hired earlier this year by 14 banks that signed consent orders in April with the OCC and the Federal Reserve. The regulators had to sign off on the selection of these companies.

“It’s a substantial undertaking at great expense to the banks,” said Tim Rood, a partner at Collingwood Group, a housing-finance consulting firm.

Borrowers who are determined to have suffered “financial injury” could be eligible for compensation that would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the third-party firms. Borrowers will have to request reviews before a cutoff date, likely to fall near the end of the first quarter of 2012. It hasn’t been determined whether borrowers that accept restitution would have to agree to surrender related legal claims.

Regulators declined to provide estimates of the amount of money that injured borrowers might receive or how much the program might cost lenders.

However, few if any borrowers are expected to have foreclosures overturned.

More

• Developments: Report: Fannie Mae, Regulator Missed Abuses
• Real Time Economics: Fed’s Raskin Calls for Mortgage-Servicing Changes

The review process is one of several continuing efforts to address disclosures that surfaced a year ago over banks’ use of “robo-signers,” bank employees who signed off on huge numbers of legal foreclosure filings daily and falsely claimed in the documents to have personally reviewed each case. The disclosures prompted some judges to question the veracity of other bank foreclosure practices.

The process is separate from the months-long talks between federal agencies, state attorneys general and banks to reach a multibillion-dollar settlement over foreclosure abuses. That effort took a big step backwards Friday, when California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris called the deal “inadequate” and pulled out of the settlement talks.

The loss of California could cripple any settlement because the state has among the nation’s highest volumes of foreclosures. Banks are less likely to agree to the $25 billion price tag pushed by federal and state officials without the participation of California. Banks, federal officials and state attorneys general are set to resume meetings in Washington on Tuesday.

Representatives for both sides said they still hope to reach an agreement despite Friday’s setback. The banks “remain committed to the dialogue and continue to believe that a global settlement would be an effective means of supporting the recovery of the housing market and helping to strengthen the economy,” said one person familiar with the banks’ thinking.

“We are still full-steam ahead,” said a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, who is spearheading the 50-state negotiations. “With or without some states, we are still moving forward.”

Enlarge Image

Bloomberg NewsBorrowers who suffered ‘financial injury’ could be eligible for compensation. Here, a foreclosure sign hangs in front of a house in Canton, Mich., in March.

In the OCC review process, financial injury could cover a wide range of misrepresentations or errors committed by mortgage companies, according to people familiar with the process.

Banks could be liable if they miscalculated mortgage payments or applied impermissible fees or penalties. A handful of borrowers have alleged that mortgage-servicing companies, for example, improperly placed expensive insurance coverage onto their mortgage, pushing them into default and preventing them from becoming current with their payments.

Borrowers may be able to receive compensation if the review finds that the bank moved a borrower to foreclosure while the bank was receiving partial payments as part of a trial or permanent loan modification. Compensation might also be due if borrowers provide evidence that they provided the necessary documentation required to qualify for a modification but were denied the modification.

A separate report to be released on Tuesday raises new questions over Fannie Mae‘s oversight of the attorneys that conduct foreclosures on its behalf. The report, from the inspector general for the Federal Housing Finance Agency, faulted Fannie for inadequate oversight of those firms

Since 2008, Fannie has required its mortgage servicers to use designated law firms that are part of its “retained attorney network.” The network arrangement allows Fannie to negotiate discounted rates with approved firms, which in turn can lock in business from the nation’s largest mortgage investor.

The report said that in June 2010, the FHFA conducted a two-day field visit to Florida, where it found that “documentation problems were evident and law firms…were not devoting the time necessary to their cases due to Fannie Mae’s flat fee structure and volume-based processing model.”

FHFA staff subsequently informed senior Fannie officials that its attorneys were “increasingly unprepared when they enter the courtroom,” leading to a larger backlog of foreclosures.

Fannie Mae declined to comment on the report.

Forget Mass Joinder just use Consumer Legal Remedies Act Civil Code 1750

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE
SECTION 1750 et seq
Consumers Legal Remedies Act

1750. This title may be cited as the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

1751. Any waiver by a consumer of the provisions of this title is contrary to public policy and shall be unenforceable and void.

1752. The provisions of this title are not exclusive. The remedies provided herein for violation of any section of this title or for conduct proscribed by any section of this title shall be in addition to any other procedures or remedies for any violation or conduct provided for in any other law.
Nothing in this title shall limit any other statutory or any common law rights of the Attorney General or any other person to bring class actions. Class actions by consumers brought under the specific provisions of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 1770) of this title shall be governed exclusively by the provisions of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1780); however, this shall not be construed so as to deprive a consumer of any statutory or common law right to bring a class action without resort to this title. If any act or practice proscribed under this title also constitutes a cause of action in common law or a violation of another statute, the consumer may assert such common law or statutory cause of action under the procedures and with the remedies provided for in such law.

1753. If any provision of this title or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of the title and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

1754. The provisions of this title shall not apply to any transaction which provides for the construction, sale, or construction and sale of an entire residence or all or part of a structure designed for commercial or industrial occupancy, with or without a parcel of real property or an interest therein, or for the sale of a lot or parcel of real property, including any site preparation incidental to such sale.

1755. Nothing in this title shall apply to the owners or employees of any advertising medium, including, but not limited to, newspapers, magazines, broadcast stations, billboards and transit ads, by whom any advertisement in violation of this title is published or disseminated, unless it is established that such owners or employees had knowledge of the deceptive methods, acts or practices declared to be unlawful by Section 1770.

1756. The substantive and procedural provisions of this title shall only apply to actions filed on or after January 1, 1971.

1760. This title shall be liberally construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes, which are to protect consumers against unfair and deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and economical procedures to secure such protection.

1761. As used in this title:

• (a) “Goods” means tangible chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, including certificates or coupons exchangeable for these goods, and including goods which, at the time of the sale or subsequently, are to be so affixed to real property as to become a part of real property, whether or not severable therefrom.
• (b) “Services” means work, labor, and services for other than a commercial or business use, including services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods.
• (c) “Person” means an individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or other group, however organized.
• (d) “Consumer” means an individual who seeks or acquires, by purchase or lease, any goods or services for personal, family, or household purposes.
• (e) “Transaction” means an agreement between a consumer and any other person, whether or not the agreement is a contract enforceable by action, and includes the making of, and the performance pursuant to, that agreement.
• (f) “Senior citizen” means a person who is 65 years of age or older.
• (g) “Disabled person” means any person who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities.
• (1) As used in this subdivision, “physical or mental impairment” means any of the following:
• A. Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss substantially affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; muscoloskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genitourinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; or endocrine.
• B. Any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. The term “physical or mental impairment” includes, but is not limited to, such diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech and hearing impairment, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, and emotional illness.
• (2) “Major life activities” means functions such as caring for one’ s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.
• (h) “Home solicitation” means any transaction made at the consumer’ s primary residence, except those transactions initiated by the consumer. A consumer response to an advertisement is not a home solicitation.

1770.

• (a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful:
• (1) Passing off goods or services as those of another.
• (2) Misrepresenting the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services.
• (3) Misrepresenting the affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another. (MERS)and Securitization
• (4) Using deceptive representations or designations of geographic origin in connection with goods or services.
• (5) Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he or she does not have.
• (6) Representing that goods are original or new if they have deteriorated unreasonably or are altered, reconditioned, reclaimed, used, or secondhand.
• (7) Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another.
• (8) Disparaging the goods, services, or business of another by false or misleading representation of fact.
• (9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.
• (10) Advertising goods or services with intent not to supply reasonably expectable demand, unless the advertisement discloses a limitation of quantity.
• (11) Advertising furniture without clearly indicating that it is unassembled if that is the case.
• (12) Advertising the price of unassembled furniture without clearly indicating the assembled price of that furniture if the same furniture is available assembled from the seller.
• (13) Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions.
• (14) Representing that a transaction confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law.
• (15) Representing that a part, replacement, or repair service is needed when it is not.
• (16) Representing that the subject of a transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not. Sign this transaction now and when the option ARM adjusts we will refinance at no cost to you
• (17) Representing that the consumer will receive a rebate, discount, or other economic benefit, if the earning of the benefit is contingent on an event to occur subsequent to the consummation of the transaction.
• (18) Misrepresenting the authority of a salesperson, representative, or agent to negotiate the final terms of a transaction with a consumer.
• (19) Inserting an unconscionable provision in the contract.
• (20) Advertising that a product is being offered at a specific price plus a specific percentage of that price unless (1) the total price is set forth in the advertisement, which may include, but is not limited to, shelf tags, displays, and media advertising, in a size larger than any other price in that advertisement, and (2) the specific price plus a specific percentage of that price represents a markup from the seller’s costs or from the wholesale price of the product. This subdivision shall not apply to in-store advertising by businesses which are open only to members or cooperative organizations organized pursuant to Division 3 (commencing with Section 12000) of Title 1 of the Corporations Code where more than 50 percent of purchases are made at the specific price set forth in the advertisement.
• (21) Selling or leasing goods in violation of Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 1797.8) of Title 1.7.
• (22)
• (A) Disseminating an unsolicited prerecorded message by telephone without an unrecorded, natural voice first informing the person answering the telephone of the name of the caller or the organization being represented, and either the address or the telephone number of the caller, and without obtaining the consent of that person to listen to the prerecorded message.
• (B) This subdivision does not apply to a message disseminated to a business associate, customer, or other person having an established relationship with the person or organization making the call, to a call for the purpose of collecting an existing obligation, or to any call generated at the request of the recipient.
• (23) The home solicitation, as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 1761, of a consumer who is a senior citizen where a loan is made encumbering the primary residence of that consumer for the purposes of paying for home improvements and where the transaction is part of a pattern or practice in violation of either subsection (h) or (i) of Section 1639 of Title 15 of the United States Code or subsection (e) of Section 226.32 of Title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
  A third party shall not be liable under this subdivision unless (1) there was an agency relationship between the party who engaged in home solicitation and the third party or (2) the third party had actual knowledge of, or participated in, the unfair or deceptive transaction. A third party who is a holder in due course under a home solicitation transaction shall not be liable under this subdivision.

(b)

• (1) It is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a mortgage broker or lender, directly or indirectly, to use a home improvement contractor to negotiate the terms of any loan that is secured, whether in whole or in part, by the residence of the borrower and which is used to finance a home improvement contract or any portion thereof. For purposes of this subdivision, “mortgage broker or lender” includes a finance lender licensed pursuant to the California Finance Lenders Law (Division 9 (commencing with Section 22000) of the Financial Code), a residential mortgage lender licensed pursuant to the California Residential Mortgage Lending Act (Division 20 (commencing with Section 50000) of the Financial Code), or a real estate broker licensed under the Real Estate Law (Division 4 (commencing with Section 10000) of the Business and Professions Code).
• (2) This section shall not be construed to either authorize or prohibit a home improvement contractor from referring a consumer to a mortgage broker or lender by this subdivision. However, a home improvement contractor may refer a consumer to a mortgage lender or broker if that referral does not violate Section 7157 of the Business and Professions Code or any other provision of law. A mortgage lender or broker may purchase an executed home improvement contract if that purchase does not violate Section 7157 of the Business and Professions Code or any other provision of law. Nothing in this paragraph shall have any effect on the application of Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1801) of Title 2 to a home improvement transaction or the financing thereof.

1780.

• (a) Any consumer who suffers any damage as a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful by Section 1770 may bring an action against such person to recover or obtain any of the following:
• (1) Actual damages, but in no case shall the total award of damages in a class action be less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).
• (2) An order enjoining such methods, acts, or practices.
• (3) Restitution of property.
• (4) Punitive damages.
• (5) Any other relief which the court deems proper.
• (b) Any consumer who is a senior citizen or a disabled person, as defined in subdivisions (f) and (g) of Section 1761, as part of an action under subdivision (a), may seek and be awarded, in addition to the remedies specified therein, up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) where the trier of fact (1) finds that the consumer has suffered substantial physical, emotional, or economic damage resulting from the defendant’s conduct, (2) makes an affirmative finding in regard to one or more of the factors set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 3345, and (3) finds that an additional award is appropriate. Judgment in a class action by senior citizens or disabled persons under Section 1781 may award each class member such an additional award where the trier of fact has made the foregoing findings.
• (c) An action under subdivision (a) or (b) may be commenced in the county in which the person against whom it is brought resides, has his or her principal place of business, or is doing business, or in the county where the transaction or any substantial portion thereof occurred.
  If within any such county there is a municipal or justice court, having jurisdiction of the subject matter, established in the city and county or judicial district in which the person against whom the action is brought resides, has his or her principal place of business, or is doing business, or in which the transaction or any substantial portion thereof occurred, then such court is the proper court for the trial of such action. Otherwise, any municipal or justice court in such county having jurisdiction of the subject matter is the proper court for the trial thereof.
  In any action subject to the provisions of this section, concurrently with the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff shall file an affidavit stating facts showing that the action has been commenced in a county or judicial district described in this section as a proper place for the trial of the action. If a plaintiff fails to file the affidavit required by this section, the court shall, upon its own motion or upon motion of any party, dismiss any such action without prejudice.
• (d) The court shall award court costs and attorney’s fees to a prevailing plaintiff in litigation filed pursuant to this section. Reasonable attorney’s fees may be awarded to a prevailing defendant upon a finding by the court that the plaintiff’s prosecution of the action was not in good faith.

1781.

• (a) Any consumer entitled to bring an action under Section 1780 may, if the unlawful method, act, or practice has caused damage to other consumers similarly situated, bring an action on behalf of himself and such other consumers to recover damages or obtain other relief as provided for in Section 1780.
• (b) The court shall permit the suit to be maintained on behalf of all members of the represented class if all of the following conditions exist:
• (1) It is impracticable to bring all members of the class before the court.
• (2) The questions of law or fact common to the class are substantially similar and predominate over the questions affecting the individual members.
• (3) The claims or defenses of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims or defenses of the class.
• (4) The representative plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
• (c) If notice of the time and place of the hearing is served upon the other parties at least 10 days prior thereto, the court shall hold a hearing, upon motion of any party to the action which is supported by affidavit of any person or persons having knowledge of the facts, to determine if any of the following apply to the action:
• (1) A class action pursuant to subdivision (b) is proper.
• (2) Published notice pursuant to subdivision (d) is necessary to adjudicate the claims of the class.
• (3) The action is without merit or there is no defense to the action.
  A motion based upon Section 437c of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be granted in any action commenced as a class action pursuant to subdivision (a).
• (d) If the action is permitted as a class action, the court may direct either party to notify each member of the class of the action.
  The party required to serve notice may, with the consent of the court, if personal notification is unreasonably expensive or it appears that all members of the class cannot be notified personally, give notice as prescribed herein by publication in accordance with Section 6064 of the Government Code in a newspaper of general circulation in the county in which the transaction occurred.
• (e) The notice required by subdivision (d) shall include the following:
• (1) The court will exclude the member notified from the class if he so requests by a specified date.
• (2) The judgment, whether favorable or not, will include all members who do not request exclusion.
• (3) Any member who does not request exclusion, may, if he desires, enter an appearance through counsel.
• (f) A class action shall not be dismissed, settled, or compromised without the approval of the court, and notice of the proposed dismissal, settlement, or compromise shall be given in such manner as the court directs to each member who was given notice pursuant to subdivision (d) and did not request exclusion.
• (g) The judgment in a class action shall describe those to whom the notice was directed and who have not requested exclusion and those the court finds to be members of the class. The best possible notice of the judgment shall be given in such manner as the court directs to each member who was personally served with notice pursuant to subdivision (d) and did not request exclusion.

1782.

• (a) Thirty days or more prior to the commencement of an action for damages pursuant to the provisions of this title, the consumer shall do the following:
• (1) Notify the person alleged to have employed or committed methods, acts or practices declared unlawful by Section 1770 of the particular alleged violations of Section 1770.
• (2) Demand that such person correct, repair, replace or otherwise rectify the goods or services alleged to be in violation of Section 1770.
  Such notice shall be in writing and shall be sent by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the place where the transaction occurred, such person’s principal place of business within California, or, if neither will effect actual notice, the office of the Secretary of State of California.
• (b) Except as provided in subdivision (c), no action for damages may be maintained under the provisions of Section 1780 if an appropriate correction, repair, replacement or other remedy is given, or agreed to be given within a reasonable time, to the consumer within 30 days after receipt of such notice.
• (c) No action for damages may be maintained under the provisions of Section 1781 upon a showing by a person alleged to have employed or committed methods, acts or practices declared unlawful by Section 1770 that all of the following exist:
• (1) All consumers similarly situated have been identified, or a reasonable effort to identify such other consumers has been made.
• (2) All consumers so identified have been notified that upon their request such person shall make the appropriate correction, repair, replacement or other remedy of the goods and services.
• (3) The correction, repair, replacement or other remedy requested by such consumers has been, or, in a reasonable time, shall be, given.
• (4) Such person has ceased from engaging, or if immediate cessation is impossible or unreasonably expensive under the circumstances, such person will, within a reasonable time, cease to engage, in such methods, act, or practices.
• (d) An action for injunctive relief brought under the specific provisions of Section 1770 may be commenced without compliance with the provisions of subdivision (a). Not less than 30 days after the commencement of an action for injunctive relief, and after compliance with the provisions of subdivision (a), the consumer may amend his complaint without leave of court to include a request for damages. The appropriate provisions of subdivision (b) or (c) shall be applicable if the complaint for injunctive relief is amended to request damages.
• (e) Attempts to comply with the provisions of this section by a person receiving a demand shall be construed to be an offer to compromise and shall be inadmissible as evidence pursuant to Section 1152 of the Evidence Code; furthermore, such attempts to comply with a demand shall not be considered an admission of engaging in an act or practice declared unlawful by Section 1770. Evidence of compliance or attempts to comply with the provisions of this section may be introduced by a defendant for the purpose of establishing good faith or to show compliance with the provisions of this section.

1783. Any action brought under the specific provisions of Section 1770 shall be commenced not more than three years from the date of the commission of such method, act, or practice.

1784. No award of damages may be given in any action based on a method, act, or practice declared to be unlawful by Section 1770 if the person alleged to have employed or committed such method, act, or practice

• (a) proves that such violation was not intentional and resulted from a bona fide error notwithstanding the use of reasonable procedures adopted to avoid any such error and
• (b) makes an appropriate correction, repair or replacement or other remedy of the goods and services according to the provisions of subdivisions (b) and (c) of Section 1782.

 

---

Issues in Foreclosure, Securitization, Litigation, Bankruptcy, The Courts created with Yahoo Pipes

• 

  If the loan was not perfected; then there is no lien; and if the servicer was obligated to make the payment as a co-obligor; then there was no default

  SEE 42-in RE Cruz vs Aurora AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, SCME MORTGAGE BANKERS INC, ING BANK FSB, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS ALL BITE THE DUST, SUBJECT TO LIABILITY AND NO ABILITY TO FORECLOSE WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH LAW. Salient points of Judge Mann’s Decision: TRUTH IN LENDING was dismissed because they were time-barred. LESSON: Don’t ignore […]
• 

  Tim McCandless Blogs its amazing what you can do if you don’t watch TV

  timothymccandless.wordpress.com recallcitycouncil.wordpress.com chapter11bankruptcy.wordpress.com fairdebtcollectionpracticesact.wordpress.com marionmccandless.wordpress.com trustdeedinvestment.wordpress.com rocketrecoverysystem.wordpress.com mortgagereductionlaw.wordpress.com mortgageregistationsystems.wordpress.com massjoinderlitigation.wordpress.com financialelderabuse.wordpress.com landlordfraud.wordpress.com http://mybk7.com http://mortgagereductionlaw.com http://evictiondefender.com…

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Mortgage Assignments to Washington Mutual Trusts Are Fraudulent

  Posted on August 7, 2011 by Neil Garfield EDITOR’S NOTE: We know the foreclosures were gross misrepresentations of fact to the Courts, to the Borrowers and to the Investors. This article shows the crossover between the MegaBanks — sharing and diluting the responsibility for these fabrications as they went along. If you are talking about […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  A TRUSTEE CANNOT MAINTAIN AN ACTION ON BEHALF OF A TRUST THAT DOESN ‘T EXIST

  I looked into the records for that entity in the SEC EDGAR online database and discovered that the last annual report was filed in 2007, contemporaneously with a FORM 15 filing.That Form 15 filing claimed a standing under 15d-6 of the 1934 SEC regulations which exempts the entity of filing an annual report, whereby the […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  OUR NANCY DREW BLASTS THROUGH THE DEVIL IN THE DETAILS ON NORWEST, GMAC ET AL (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE Submitted on 2011/08/24 at 9:08 pm Norwest and Alt-A Land Title & Fidelity National Insurance morpted into Microsoft open platform on CLOUD and portals now through which new GMAC Mortgage & State of Maryland in the pass-thru-agency state portal funded to access FIS, […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Bombshell Admission of Failed Securitization Process in American Home Mortgage Servicing/LPS Lawsuit (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR’S NOTE: It is comforting to know that at least some people are paying attention. From one of the largest servicers in the country comes an admission that securitization of mortgage loans was an illusion. The facts alleged by AHMSI  in its lawsuit […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  KISS: KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID from Garfield

  Finality versus good and evil. In the battlefield it isn’t about good and evil. It is about winner and losers. In military battles around the world many battles have been one by the worst tyrants imaginable. Just because you are right, just because the banks did bad things, just because they have no right to […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  MANDELMAN MATTERS: DEADBEAT BORROWERS AND THIEVES WHO CALL THEM THAT

  “If you’re allowed to foreclose and kick someone out of his or her home without being the party that either owns the loan or represents the person who owns the loan… if you can ignore those laws, why can’t you ignore other laws too? Which laws apply, when one of the parties didn’t make his […]
• 

  $1.2 Trillion in Secret Additional Bailout for Banks with No Collateral and No Commitments (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE see VIDEO $1.2 Trillion in EXTRA BAILOUT MONEY FROM FED SECRETLY GIVEN TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN BANKS Of course the figure is much higher, but the secrecy surrounding the money given by the Fed to the banks is something to enrage any tea […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  GOING AFTER THE NOTARY, STEP BY STEP (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR’S NOTE: Here is a good place to start — the devil is in the details. You will find that the more you probe the more people and bad documents emerge. Persistence pays. Here is a letter that one homeowner just sent to […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  WALLS CLOSING IN ON LAW FIRMS AND SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEES AS FAKED, FORGED DOCUMENTS SURFACE IN ABUNDANCE (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE The boys are playing rough now, but US Bank, failing to take its queues from Deutsch is plunging ahead with CalWestern by its side, using forged, fabircated, faked documents that wouldn’t be valid even if they were properly executed. The securitizers tricked and […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Sues Law Firms Engaged in National “Mass Joinder” Mortgage Fraud

  SAN FRANCISCO — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced that the California Department of Justice, in conjunction with the State Bar of California, has sued multiple entities accused of fraudulently taking millions of dollars from thousands of homeowners who were led to believe they would receive relief on their mortgages. Attorney General Harris sued […]
• 

  NY POST: 92% —BANKS STILL FORECLOSING WITHOUT ANY RIGHT (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE IF THE BANKS DON’T OWN THE PROPERTY OR THE MORTGAGE, WHO DOES? EDITOR’S NOTE: My figures tracking thousands of foreclosures indicate the same thing that the New York Post found. There are a scattered few foreclosures that are good old-fashioned foreclosures of valid […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Should Borrower File Eviction Against Bank? (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR’S COMMENT: I was talking with an expert in landlord tenant law and I received an interesting suggestion. The case involved someone who has just been served with a writ of restitution where the owner had to peaceably leave her home — or […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Gomes and the U.S. Supreme court some body had better help these attorneys argue and brief the case

  Wednesday, August 17th, 2011, 2:49 pm A controversial case challenging the ability of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems to foreclose on a California man was filed with the Supreme Court Monday, making it the first major MERS case to reach the nation’s highest court. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Gomes v. Countrywide, Gomes’ attorney, […]
• 

  California man wants foreclosures deemed unconstitutional in the state

  by KERRI PANCHUK Proposed Illinois Legislation Would Freeze Evictions for Four Months California AG Wants Pay Option ARM Answers Does the Senate’s housing bill encourage foreclosures? California Law Freezes Foreclosures, Burns Servicers Short Sales Cost Lenders $310m More Than Necessary, CoreLogic Study Finds Thursday, August 4th, 2011, 7:31 am A California man is on a […]
• 

  JUDGES: ASSUME THE BORROWER IS WRONG

  So you have denied the claims of the pretenders and put that in issue. You have even alleged fraud, forgery and fabrication and the catch-word “robosigning”. But the Judge, alleging that he did not want to “make new law” (which wasn’t true) or allegedly because he didn’t want to start an avalanche of litigation interfering […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  SAY NO TO LENDERS FRAUD!

  Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com Dear Homeowner, It’s been widely reported around the country, via internet, blogs and newspapers, how the lenders used the foreclosure mills and other legal ways, to fabricate fraudulent documents to record in the county recorder offices and pretend they have legal standing to initiate the foreclosure procedure. Neil Garfield in his blog […]
• 

  Keep the trustees deed out of evidence in the unlawful detainer

  TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ. SBN 147715 LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS 820 Main Street, Ste. 1 Martinez, CA             (925) 957-9797       Telephone             (909) 382-9956       Facsimile Attorney for Defendant Zenkarla S. Salazar SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC FKA GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, vs. […]
• 

  STUDY: Mortgage Assignments to Washington Mutual Trusts Are Fraudulent (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR’S NOTE: We know the foreclosures were gross misrepresentations of fact to the Courts, to the Borrowers and to the Investors. This article shows the crossover between the MegaBanks — sharing and diluting the responsibility for these fabrications as they went along. If […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  The Free House Myth

  posted by Katie Porter As challenges to whether a “bank” (usually actually a securitized trust) has the right to foreclose because it owns the note and mortgage become more common, rumors swirl about the ability to use such tactics to get a “free house.” There are a few instances of consumer getting a free house, […]
• 

  MERS in California

  From LivingLies: I think that everyone is missing the #1 problem MERS has in CA. MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent and cannot legally assign the Promissory Note, making any foreclosure by other than the original lender wrongful, for the following reasons. 1) Under established and binding Ca law, a Nominee can’t assign the Note. Born […]
• 

  QUIET TITLE IS NOT A DEFENSE — IT IS OFFENSE AND IT IS A HIGHLY EFFECTIVE LAWSUIT

  Posted on August 1, 2011 by Neil Garfield I WRITE THIS BECAUSE WITH SO MANY PRO SE LITIGANTS AND UNINFORMED LAWYERS WEIGHING IN IT IS SOMETIMES NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THE ISSUES. Quiet Title is not a defense. If used defensively you will most likely lose your case and also unintentionally waive rights that you might […]
• 

  Its about standing

  Pro Per Debtor Stops Attorneys for US Bank – in RE Deamicis Posted: 31 Jul 2011 10:21 PM PDT Pro Per Debtor Stops Attorneys for US Bank – in RE Deamicis By Daniel Edstrom DTC Systems, Inc. She has been fighting tooth and nail. Nobody was listening. The current bankruptcy judge was skeptical when she […]
• 

  Comptroler of the currecy consent orders

  Recent Consent Orders Consent Order, Sovereign Bank, Wyomissing, Pennsylvania, 04410, NE-11-17, April… Order shall be directed to the Comptroller of the Currency, or to the individual, … or office designated by the Comptroller of the Currency. Sovereign Bank Consent Order Page http://www.mortgagedaily.com/forms/OccConsentOrderSovereign041311.pdf Consent Order, OneWest Bank, FSB, Pasadena, California, 18129, WN-11-011,

• 

  David and Goliath as court overturns case dissmissal

  A Bakersfield homeowner is taking on a bank, in a battle that could have sweeping implications for people facing foreclosure. Mark Demucha wants Wells Fargo to prove it owns his home loan. And, if his lawsuit is successful, it could set a legal precedent that slows or even stops foreclosures across the state. “Filled out the […]
• 

  17 News Investigation: Homeowner challenges bank

  17 News Investigation: Homeowner challenges bank. Filed under: Foreclosure, I Have a Plan, lis pendence, mers, Mortgage modification
• 

  pending lawsuits and homeowners winnning

  Mark DeMucha v Wells Fargo Bank; Kutak Rock LLP; Homeowner Wins a California Appeal; Reversed and R http://www.scribd.com/doc/60748498/Mark-DeMucha-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Kutak-Rock-LLP-Loses-a-California-Appeal-Reversed-and-Remanded Added by PENDING LAWSUIT on July 24, 2011 at 9:30am — No Comments Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo re: KOSAR PETITION WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FO…
• 

  one west bank and the consent order with admissions of wrongdoing

  One West Bank click to see full order from comptroller of the currency Filed under: I Have a Plan Tagged: one west

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  standing

  A. Standing The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction has the burden of establishing standing.28 Constitutional standing analysis includes three elements: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must […]
• 

  Is the notary responsible or at least negligent or at least negligent per se !!!

  (1) Notaries Public § 1–Disciplinary Proceedings–Time for Instituting. Disciplinary action taken by the Secretary of State against a notary public was not barred by the fact that the proceeding was instituted more than three years after the notary’s alleged improper act and more than one year after its discovery. Statutes of limitation barring civil actions […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  The securitization argument a year later

  SEPARATION OF DEED OF TRUST FROM NOTE: Bellistri Opinion Posted on April 28, 2010 by Neil Garfield There is a lot of conflicting opinions about this. My opinion is that the confusion arises not from the law, not from application of the law and not from what is written on the note or deed of Trust. […]
• 

  MERS and invalid assignments

  Brand New, Hot Off The Presses MERS Policy Bulletin July 24th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq. After years of claiming that assignments don’t matter and the date of assignment certainly doesn’t matter, the MERS Monster has finally changed its tune, effective July 21, 2011: The Certifying Officer must execute the assignment of the […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Been evicted and need more time ??Appeals from UD actions are governed by CCP §§901–923. [See CCP §1178; Anchor Marine Repair Co. v Magnan (2001) 93 CA4th 525, 528–530.]

  Stay of Execution and Appeal The defendant may request a stay of execution of the judgment whether or not an appeal is taken. [CCP §918(a), (c).] You may stay execution of the judgment for up to 40 days without the landlord’s consent in a limited civil case (or up to 70 days in an unlimited […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Possible Counter-Attack in Unlawful Detainer (Eviction) in Fraudulent Foreclosure Cases (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE factual issues for Unlawful Detainer case NFG 7-15-11 Various states have two levels of  jurisdiction that make it difficult to raise the proper issues in eviction even if there has been no preceding judicial action or if the preceding judicial action has been […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  FREE HOUSE MYTH DEBUNKED BY PORTER AND LEVITIN (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE The Free House Myth posted by Katie Porter As challenges to whether a “bank” (usually actually a securitized trust) has the right to foreclose because it owns the note and mortgage become more common, rumors swirl about the ability to use such tactics […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  BOA Feeling the Heat is Striking Back at Foreclosure Defense Lawyers as Lawsuits are Filed Against Firms Who Represent BOA (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR’S NOTE: The battle is heating up. BOA, for example, is stepping up efforts to cause as much trouble as possible for those foreclosure defense lawyers who are getting traction in the courts. This started some time ago as some people were actually […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Robo-signing continues without consequences (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE No Punishment = Continued Misconduct Posted on July 19, 2011 by Mark Stopa Esq. http://www.stayinmyhome.com/blog/?p=1565 In Maine, a group of drug dealers was caught distributing drugs to local middle schoolers. They confessed, yet the District Attorney declined to press charges, so the drug […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Cloud on title forever post foreclosure {but wait the Banks own the title companies}

  Recently Discovered Flaw in Recording System Clouds Titles on Previously Foreclosed Properties   The modern system of mortgage refinancing and assignments created during the housing boom has left behind a wave of title defects on properties that have ever had a foreclosure in their history, due to a loophole in the property records recording system. […]
• 

  assingmment please?? 2932.5 with a side of Veal

  The brief below as circulated by the California Bar’s: Insolvency Law Committee: Herrera vs. Deutsche Bank National  Trust Co.,  2011 Westlaw 2547979 (Cal.App.)   Facts: A married couple  (“the homeowners”) purchased a home at a foreclosure sale.  Supposedly,  unbeknownst to them, their interest in the home was subject to a prior (and  perhaps unrecorded) deed […]
• 

  Ask for a 402 hearing and then dissmiss the eviction !!!

  If the court follows the rules of evidence (and they do) if proper objections are filed. No eviction of a secuitized loan should ever prevail on an eviction; they cannot produce the foundation to authenticate the Trustees Deed it is based upon preliminary facts that they are unable and unwilling to bring to court. The […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  FINALLY! BOA FACES CLAIMS FOR BOGUS MODIFICATION ACTIONS (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR’S NOTE: Anyone who has entered into mortgage modification process with BOA or any other bank acting as servicer or otherwise knows the story. The Bank does everything it can to delay the process until the borrower gets into serious trouble and then […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  AZ: TRUSTEE CAN BE SUED IF SUBSTITUTION WAS INVALID (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE JUDGES ARE STARTING TO EXAMINE DOCUMENTS AND THEY DON’T LIKE WHAT THEY ARE SEEING “Thus, while A.R.S. §33-807(E) may operate to dismiss a trustee in certain instances, if one of the allegations of a complaint is that the entity purporting to act as […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  WEIDNER: IT’S THE ALLONGE!!! (via Livinglies’s Weblog)

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE The Allonge- Billions of Dollars in Commerce Hangs on A Single Scrap of Paper EDITOR’S NOTE: If you wrote a check to your next door neighbor, you would expect that he would either cash it or deposit it. But what if your neighbor […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Judicial Notice ?? not so fast

   All banks love to use judicial notice to establish their position but with all the robo signing the evidence is being excluded. ROBERT HERRERA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DEUTSCHE 1 BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. C065630.  Court of Appeals of California, Third District, El Dorado.Filed May 31, 2011. […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  One West False statements

  False Statements 06/28/2011 California Bankruptcy Judge Laura Stuart Taylor has joined the ranks of judges who will not tolerate fraudulent documents produced by banks to foreclose. Judge Taylor entered an Order To Show Cause why OneWest Bank, FSB, should not incur “a significant coercive sanction intended to deter any future tender of misleading evidence to […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase finally !!

  From ChaseChase.org: Federal District Court Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase, Case No. CV10-8185 ODW Otis D. Wright II, Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles Douglas Gillies, attorney for Daryoush Javaheri Plaintiff sued to halt a foreclosure initiated by JPMorgan Chase and California Reconveyance Co. Chase responded with a Motion to Dismiss. Two […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  The Banksters will get you any way they can

  By Niel Garfield EDITOR’S NOTE AND COMMENT: LAWYERS BEWARE! Starting up an anti-foreclosure venture and making comments criticizing the system has reportedly caused some investigations to begin and may result in bar discipline for technical infractions. From what I can see, the Bar is focused on UPL — unauthorized practice of law. The use of […]
• 

  Beware of foreclosure scams currently under investigation by the District Atorney

  Each day I get calls from desperate people hoping against hope the there is a magic document that can be filed or recorded the will magically give them their home free and clear without recourse. I tell them if it sounds to good to be true it probably is. That’s not to say that I […]
• 

  Current articles in foreclosure

  Ohio Judge Steven Terry Found Guilty of Rigging Foreclosure and Mail Fraud Corruption Case AKRON, Ohio – The Cuyahoga County judge charged in the county corruption investigation for allegedly fixing a foreclosure case has been found guilty on three of the five charges he was facing. The federal jury returned the verdict

Homeowners Sue to Block BofA/BNY Deal; Details

Abigail C. Field- The $8.5 billion settlement that Bank of New York and Bank of America hope will resolve all (or almost all) mortgage backed securities claims between them has faced a lot of opposition. The attorneys general of New York and Delaware oppose the deal, as do various investors not involved […]

• U.S. Is Set to Sue a Dozen Big Banks Over Mortgages

  Lets not get to excited just yet as this comes as a complete surprise. What does this mean for the AG’s who are pursuing their own investigations and how will this help homeowners? Or is this another bailout waiting to happen? NYT- The federal agency that oversees the mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is set […]
• Robo-signed mortgage docs date back to late 1990s

  In case you missed it.. I put together Special Events that Happened in 1999 …Welcome to the 99 Club. It’s incomplete but it was a start to the mess we have today. AP- By PALLAVI GOGOI, AP Business Writer Counties across the United States are discovering that illegal or questionable mortgage paperwork is far more […]
• Goldman Sachs must investigate questionable lending and foreclosure practices in its mortgage unit, Fed says.

  They can start here: Deposition Transcript of Litton Loan Servicing Litigation Manager Christopher Spradling CNN- NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — The Federal Reserve issued an enforcement action Thursday against Goldman Sachs, saying the investment bank must investigate questionable lending and foreclosure practices in its mortgage unit. The action orders Goldman to hire an independent consultant to investigate […]
• Robo-Signing Redux: Servicers Still Fabricating Foreclosure Documents

  American Banker did an outstanding, superb job with this article. Please read. American Banker- Some of the largest mortgage servicers are still fabricating documents that should have been signed years ago and submitting them as evidence to foreclose on homeowners. The practice continues nearly a year after the companies were caught cutting corners in […]
• John O’Brien, Southern Essex District Register of Deeds in Salem, Massachusetts extends an invitation to banks and all attorney generals to visit his registry.

  Commonwealth of Massachusetts Southern Essex District Registry of Deeds Shetland Park 45 Congress Street Suite 4100 Salem, Massachusetts 01970 NEWS FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Salem, MA August 30, 2011 Contact: John O’Brien, Register of Deeds             978-542-1722       jl.obrien@sec.state.ma.us . John O’Brien, Southern Essex District Register of Deeds in Salem, […]
• Goldman Sachs, Litton, Ocwen reach deal on robosigning with NY regulator

  WSJ– The mortgage industry will take a step toward cleaning up some of its most controversial practices under a deal between a New York regulator and three financial firms, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Under the agreement with the state’s financial-services superintendent, Benjamin M. Lawsky, the three firms—Goldman, its Litton Loan Servicing […]
• Memo: BofA to Sell Correspondent Mortgage Business

  WSJ- From: Home Loan News Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 4:19am Subject: Important Message From Barbara DeSoer To All IMS Associates I wanted to provide this team with information about a strategic announcement our Home Loans business will make today that is consistent with our ongoing efforts to align the business to […]
• BoNY Mellon CEO Robert Kelly steps down

  Aug 31 (Reuters) – Bank of New York Mellon Corp said Robert Kelly, who has held the company’s top job since 2008, has stepped down as chairman and chief executive officer, following differences in approach to managing the company. The company, one of the world’s largest custody banks, said it named board member Gerald Hassell as chairman […]
• New York Attorney General Deposed 53 in Bank of America Case Over Merrill

  Bloomberg- New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman’s office has taken testimony from 53 witnesses in its investigation into Bank of America Corp. (BAC)’s 2008 acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., a federal judge said. U.S. District Judge Kevin Castel in Manhattan said in an order today that “there have been 53 examinations under oath by the […]
• Was president of LPS’ Loan Portfolio Solutions division just let go?

  UPDATE: It was announced that he’s left to spend more time with his family. According to the Yahoo Message boards: Greg Whitworth FIRED If you do a google search under cached it brings you to his info, but when clicked on the message board link it brings you or redirects one to a 404 NOT FOUND. Mysteriously his info […]
• A STATEMENT ON MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT EVERY ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ISSUE TODAY

  False Statements Limited Purpose Corporate Officers Action Date: August 31, 2011 Location: TALLAHASSEE, FL A STATEMENT ON MORTGAGE FRAUD THAT EVERY ATTORNEY GENERAL COULD ISSUE TODAY There has been widespread, well-documented abuse of corporate officer titles by banks, mortgage companies and mortgage servicing companies on mortgage-related documents. Individuals who are not corporate officers have been directed to […]
• Hagens Berman Announces Securities Investigation Of Bank Of America

  Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP today announced that it is investigating concerns by hedge funds and institutional investors who believe Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) may have failed to disclose to investors the risk associated with a $10 billion lawsuit threat from American International Group (“AIG”) (NYSE: AIG). According to […]
• BREAKING: Bank of America to Exit Mortgage Business

  It’s going to tank! WSJ- Bank of America Corp. intends to sell its correspondent mortgage business, as the troubled lender looks to narrow its focus and bolster its financial strength, said people familiar with the situation. Employees could be notified as soon as Wednesday that the lender has decided to exit the […]
• The Countrywide settlement that NV AG Masto says BofA is flagrantly violating was also signed by… Tom Miller.

  H/T David Dayen SURE DID! . For immediate release — Monday, October 6, 2008. Contact Bob Brammer –             515-281-6699      . Miller: AGs Reach Agreement with Countrywide Financial that Will Help Almost 400,000 Borrowers Facing Foreclosure The Iowa Attorney General says the settlement will offer mortgage loan modifications to more than 1,100 Iowans that will help many avoid […]
• Bank of America Accused of Breaching Accord – Gretchen Morgenson

  NEVADA vs. BANK OF AMERICA CORP. | Second Amended Complaint “The Breach, Trusts Never Became Holders of These Mortgages”” NY TIMES- The attorney general of Nevada is accusing Bank of America of repeatedly violating a broad loan modification agreement it struck with state officials in October 2008 and is seeking to rip up the deal so […]
• 

  MERS ADMITS LINDA GREEN HAD NO AUTHORITY BUT TRIES TO USE IT ANYWAY

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE SEE Corrective+Assignment[2] CHUTZPAH: Look it up if you are not familiar with the term. Here is a document that states on its face that Linda Green had no authority to to sign anything on behalf of MERS. So there goes thousands of documents […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Who owns the loan? Ohio Supreme Court is taking up the question

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE WHY DID THE LOAN SERVICER CLEAR THE LOAN OBLIGATION DOWN TO ZERO? Monday, August 29, 2011 Who owns the loan? The Ohio Supreme Court is taking up the question of what a bank needs to prove to force someone from his home. Story […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  EXAMPLE OF NEW TOOLS PROVIDED BY LIVINGLIES: OCC CEASE AND DESIST ORDER V US BANK

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES CLICK HERE TO RESERVE SEATING AT HAWAII WORKSHOP GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE SEE US BANK OCC ORDER AND COMMENTARY It will be up on the store soon and on the American Homeowners Cooperative at http://www.Americanhomeownerscoop.com. Based upon an in depth analysis of our title and securitization combo […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  BLOOMBERG: HOA V BOA: Homeowner Associations Step Up the Pressure on Banks

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES CLICK HERE TO RESERVE SEATING AT HAWAII WORKSHOP GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE Homeowner Associations Wake Up to Collections and Profit!! FORECLOSING ON THE BANK!! EDITOR’S COMMENT: Becker and Poliakoff in South Florida is probably the largest law firm representing homeowner associations in the U.S. Once upon a […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Yves Smith: BANKS HAVE INSTITUTIONALIZED STEALING HOMES

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES CLICK HERE AND RESERVE SEATING NOW AT HAWAII WORKSHOP OCTOBER 14 GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE THEY WANT YOUR HOUSE!!! “The banks don’t care whether you made your payments or not. They want your house. They don’t care if someone else made your payments. They want your house. […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Deconsolidation Nation for Mortgages?

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR’S NOTE: IT ALL COMES DOWN TO THIS: DO YOU WANT TO SAVE THE BANKS OR DO YOU WANT TO SAVE THE COUNTRY? Submitted on 2011/08/27 at 9:20 am by Nancy Drewe National Mortgage News sign up for your own subscription first 2 […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  KISS: KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES CLICK HERE TO RESERVE SEATING AT HAWAII WORKSHOP GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE KISS: KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID Finality versus good and evil. In the battlefield it isn’t about good and evil. It is about winner and losers. In military battles around the world many battles have been […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  BOA DEATH WATCH: SETTLEMENT FALLING APART, BOA SCRAMBLES FOR DOLLARS

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE “bank is suddenly open to unlimited downside capital risk” BofA’s $8.5 Billion Settlement Could Fall Apart After Request Made To Move Mortgage Case From State To Federal Court As most know by now, the ridiculously low $8.5 billion putback settlement, which was supposed […]

• 

  Bombshell Admission of Failed Securitization Process in American Home Mortgage Servicing/LPS Lawsuit

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR’S NOTE: It is comforting to know that at least some people are paying attention. From one of the largest servicers in the country comes an admission that securitization of mortgage loans was an illusion. The facts alleged by AHMSI  in its lawsuit […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  MANDELMAN MATTERS: DEADBEAT BORROWERS AND THIEVES WHO CALL THEM THAT

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE “If you’re allowed to foreclose and kick someone out of his or her home without being the party that either owns the loan or represents the person who owns the loan… if you can ignore those laws, why can’t you ignore other laws […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  MANDELMAN MATTERS WRITER AND DOCUMENTARY MAKER WILL JOIN NEIL GARFIELD AND OTHERS IN HAWAII WORKSHOP OCTOBER 14, 2011

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE REFUNDABLE RESERVATION NOW TO RESERVE SEATING CLICK HERE FOR ONE DAY PASS JOIN LIVINGLIES MEMBERSHIP NOW AND GET THE AUDIO-FILE ON LAST NIGHT’S 90 MINUTE BROADCAST WITH MANDELMAN MATTERS AND LIVINGLIES WRITERS. BLOG MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIPTION We have twice monthly teleconferences, questions and answers […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PRESSURING STATE AG’S TO CAVE IN TO BANKS

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE Bank Of America’s No-Good, Very Bad Enablers By Halah Touryalai | Forbes – Mon, Aug 22, 2011 What’s the worse than Bank of America acting as if it deserves immunity from all its  bad foreclosure behavior? A presidential administration that agrees. President Obama’s administration is […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  DEUTSCH LOSES AGAIN: POOL DID NOT RECEIVE LOAN

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE TRANSFER TO POOL AFTER FORECLOSURE INITIATED: VOID “ The fact that Deutsche had possession of the mortgage, however, is irrelevant to its status as mortgagee. While a promissory note endorsed in blank may be enforced by the party in possession of the note, […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  TENN FED CT ALLOWS CLAIM AGAINST BOA ON OWNERSHIP OF LOAN

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE TENNESSEE FEDERAL COURT DENIES BANK OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION CHALLENGING ALLEGED OWNERSHIP OF LOAN Today, August 23, 2011, 6 hours ago | Jeff Barnes August 23, 2011 A Tennessee Federal court has issued an Order and Memorandum denying a […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  $1.2 Trillion in Secret Additional Bailout for Banks with No Collateral and No Commitments

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE see VIDEO $1.2 Trillion in EXTRA BAILOUT MONEY FROM FED SECRETLY GIVEN TO DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN BANKS Of course the figure is much higher, but the secrecy surrounding the money given by the Fed to the banks is something to enrage any tea […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  JUDGE MARGERET MANN (SO. CA BKR) PLUNGES INTO DETAILS AND COMES UP WITH WELL-REASONED DECISION

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE SEE 42-in_RE_Cruz_vs_Aurora AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, SCME MORTGAGE BANKERS INC, ING BANK FSB, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS ALL BITE THE DUST, SUBJECT TO LIABILITY AND NO ABILITY TO FORECLOSE WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH LAW. Salient points of Judge Mann’s Decision: TRUTH IN LENDING  was […]

  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  Servicer Sues LPS-DOCX OVER ROBO-SIGNING — “SURROGATE SIGNING”

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE ROBO-SIGNING IS NOW CALLED SURROGATE SIGNING AHMSI SUIT CONFIRMS PRACTICE IS WRONG, UNAUTHORIZED AND INVALID EDITOR’S NOTE: I find it interesting that LPS continued to fabricate and forge documents after AHMSI told them to stop. It could only mean that they were really […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  After The Storm – Foreclosure Fraud & Robo-Signing Continues by Nye Lavalle

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE EDITOR’S NOTE: THE ONLY THING MISSING IS THE LARGEST QUESTION OF ALL: WERE THE MORTGAGE LIENS EVER PERFECTED? DO THEY EXIST? I also contest the issue of whether the banks were ever intending to do things right. I know from interviews I conducted […]

  • <=”” a=””>
  • <=”” a=””>
• 

  AMNESTY FOR BANKS SOUGHT IN NEGOTIATIONS

  MOST POPULAR ARTICLES GET COMBO TITLE AND SECURITIZATION ANALYSIS – CLICK HERE SETTLEMENT TARGET: LABOR DAY!! “They wanted to be released from everything, including original sin,” said a U.S. official involved in the discussions. From today’s Wall Street Journal…. FORECLOSURE TALKS SNAG ON BANK LIABILITY By RUTH SIMON, VANESSA O’CONNELL and NICK TIMIRAOS Efforts to […]

If the loan was not perfected; then there is no lien; and if the servicer was obligated to make the payment as a co-obligor; then there was no default

SEE 42-in RE Cruz vs Aurora
AURORA LOAN SERVICES LLC, SCME MORTGAGE BANKERS INC, ING BANK FSB, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS ALL BITE THE DUST, SUBJECT TO LIABILITY AND NO ABILITY TO FORECLOSE WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH LAW.
Salient points of Judge Mann’s Decision:

TRUTH IN LENDING was dismissed because they were time-barred. LESSON: Don’t ignore TILA claims or TILA audits. Get a forensic Analysis as early as possible, assert them immediately, assert rescission as soon as possible. TILA has teeth, but if you assert it late in the game.
YOU CAN’T FORECLOSE ON UNRECORDED INSTRUMENTS: Judge Mann came right out and said the California Supreme Court would not and could not decide otherwise. Any other holding would defeat the purpose of recording and create uncertainty in the marketplace. This will cause a lot of grief to pretenders. It is getting harder for them to come up with people who are willing to lie, forge or fabricate documents. Getting a notary to affix their signature and seal will soon be a thing of the past unless the signature, the person and the document is real.
THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE LOAN IS IN DEFAULT IS STILL A PROBLEM: As long as lawyers and pro se litigants are willing to concede that the obligation was in default, they are giving up their largest chip — i.e., that the loan was not in default and the loan was not subject to a perfected lien for the same reason that the court cites in its opinion. Our loan level analysis shows repeatedly that in most cases the servicer is continuing to make payments and reporting to investors that the loan is performing even as they send delinquency letter’s notices of default and notices of sales. The Court missed this point because nobody brought it up. Don’t expect the Court to do your work for you. If you have reason to believe that the servicer is still paying on your loan you should be stating that the loan is not in de fault, denying any delinquency to the creditor and objecting to any action that is based upon the premise of “default.” Note that if the servicer is paying your bills, the servicer MIGHT have a right of action against you, but it certainly isn’t under the terms of the note or mortgage.
THE ASSUMPTION THAT A VALID PERFECTED MORTGAGE LIEN EXISTS IS STILL A PROBLEM: Again, the problem is not with the Courts but with the lawyers and pro se litigants who simply assume that this is not an issue. Put yourself in the banks’ shoes. If all you had were nominees for undisclosed principals on the note and mortgage would you be OK with that? No? Then the lien was never perfected, which means for legal purposes it doesn’t exist. Just because it shows in black and white doesn’t make it true. LESSON: Deny the lien exists, deny it was perfected and make them prove how it was perfected. They can’t. In most cases neither the mortgage originator nor the nominee beneficiary (MERS) had a disclosed lender or beneficiary, nor did they incorporate the real terms of the payment to the investor/lenders. If this was a law school exam and the student wrote that the loan was perfected, the grade would be “F”.
THE ISSUE OF FEDERAL PREEMPTION AND THEREFORE JURISDICTION AND VENUE ARE STILL IN FLUX: This Judge found that federal preemption prevents the homeowner from alleging TILA as state claims. The courts are not decided on this and the issue of res judicata and Rooker -Feldman will come into play once the issue is really resolved with finality. Beware then how you assert a claim and that you don’t let the statute of limitations run out by failing to assert the right claim under TILA in the right court. better to get dismissed than to find out that you are time-barred.
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE IS A TITLE ISSUE NOT A FAIRNESS OR TECHNICAL ISSUE: Judge Mann, correctly in my opinion, states that an assignment from MERS must be allowed in order to clear up title. But, she states that without recording an interest within the chain of title, you have no right to foreclose under the states recording laws. I think this is right, and I think it applies in all 50 states. LESSON: Plead your wrongful foreclosure, slander of title and quiet title cases as title cases and stop adding extra things that you think may them juicier. Either the title is right or it is wrong. There is no middle ground.
MERS ISSUE IS STILL OBSCURE: While the assignment from MERS, if recorded clears up one part it leaves another part undecided again because it wasn’t raised properly. There is a difference between “bare record title” and an “interest in the land.” The MERS assignment is like a quit-claim deed from someone without any interest in the land and used to clear up the chain of title on paper, but it does not convey any interest. MERS on its website and in the public domain specifically disclaims any interest in the obligation, note or mortgage. That is its selling point to members who use its “Service.” And that is why it can’t foreclose and it is subject to cease and desist orders from regulators. As with other affidavits or quit-claims to clear up apparent clouds on title, the recorded assignment or quitclaim does nothing to convey a larger interest than that possessed by the grantor. LESSON: If the pretenders want to foreclose they can’t rely on the MERS assignment. They must file a credible affidavit that states that the affiant was the undisclosed principal in the original transaction with the borrower and that it joins in or separately assigns the actual interest in the obligation, note or mortgage. In my opinion, this is the only way to perfect the original “lien.” Whether it will relate back to the original transaction is an issue the courts must decide.
NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DEED OF TRUST AND A MORTGAGE: Pretenders who try to elevate a deed of trust above a mortgage are headed for a brick wall. Courts never liked non-judicial foreclosure in the first place. They are not about to to reverse centuries of law and provide higher status to a non-judicial foreclosure or the instruments that allow it. ONLY the statutes that provide for extra care on the part of the trustee are constitutional, since due process is the only way anyone in this country can be deprived of life, liberty or property. LESSON: Pound on the issue that the pretender cannot prevail in a judicial foreclosure so they are trying to get away with it in a non-judicial foreclosure. If you want to see how this will eventually unfold, look at Florida and other states that had similar issues in their “Contracts for deed.” Despite clear contractual language the courts have universally held they are mortgages and that they must be foreclosed as mortgages.

KISS: KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID from Garfield

Finality versus good and evil. In the battlefield it isn’t about good and evil. It is about winner and losers. In military battles around the world many battles have been one by the worst tyrants imaginable.

Just because you are right, just because the banks did bad things, just because they have no right to do what they are doing, doesn’t mean you will win. You might if you do it right, but you are up against a superior army with a dubious judge looking on thinking that this deadbeat borrower wants to get out of paying.

The court system is there to mediate disputes and bring them to a conclusion. Once a matter is decided they don’t want it to be easy to reopen a bankruptcy or issues that have already been litigated. The court presumably wants justice to prevail, but it also wants to end the dispute for better or for worse.

Otherwise NOTHING would end. Everyone who lost would come in with some excuse to have another trial. So you need to show fundamental error, gross injustice or an error that causes more problems that it solves.

These are the same issues BEFORE the matter is decided in court. Foreclosures are viewed as a clerical act or ministerial act. The outcome is generally viewed as inevitable.

And where the homeowner already admits the loan exists (a mistake), that the lien is exists and was properly filed and executed (a mistake) and admits that he didn’t make payments — he is admitting something he doesn’t even know is true — that there were payments due and he didn’t make them, which by definition puts him in default.

It’s not true that the homeowner would even know if the payment is due because the banks refuse to provide any accounting on the third party payments from bailout, insurance CDS, and credit enhancement.

That’s why you need reports on title, securitization, forensic reviews for TILA compliance and loan level accounting. If the Judges stuck to the law, they would require the proof first from the banks, but they don’t. They put the burden on the borrowers —who are the only ones who have the least information and the least access to information — to essentially make the case for the banks and then disprove it. The borrowers are litigating against themselves.

In the battlefield it isn’t about good and evil, it is about winners and losers. Name calling and vague accusations won’t cut it.

Sure you want to use the words surrogate signing, robo-signing, forgery, fabrication and misrepresentation. You also want to show that the court’s action would or did cloud title in a way that cannot be repaired without a decision on the question of whether the lien was perfected and whether the banks should be able to say they transferred bad loans to investors who don’t want them — just so they can foreclose.

But you need some proffers of real evidence — reports, exhibits and opinions from experts that will show that there is a real problem here and that this case has not been heard on the merits because of an unfair presumption: the presumption is that just because a bank’s lawyer says it in court, it must be true.

Check with the notary licensing boards, and see if the notaries on their documents have been disciplined and if not, file a grievance if you have grounds. Once you have that, maybe you have a grievance against the lawyers. After that maybe you have a lawsuit against the banks and their lawyers.

But the primary way to control the narrative or at least trip up the narrative of the banks is to object on the basis that counsel for the bank is referring to things not in the record. That is simple and the judge can understand that.

Don’t rely on name-calling, rely on the simplest legal requirements that you can find that have been violated. Was the lien perfected?

If the record shows that others were involved in the original transaction with the borrowers at the inception of the deal, then you might be able to show that there were only nominees instead of real parties in interest named on the note and mortgage.

Without disclosure of the principal, the lien is not perfected because the world doesn’t know who to go to for a satisfaction of that lien. If you know the other parties involved were part of a securitization scheme, you should say that — these parties can only be claiming an interest by virtue of a pooling and servicing agreement. And then make the point that they are only now trying to transfer what they are calling a bad loan into the pool that the investors bought — which is expressly prohibited for multiple reasons in the PSA.

This is impersonation of the investor because the investors don’t want to come forward and get countersued for the bad and illegal lending practices that were used in getting the borrower’s signature.

Point out that the auction of the property was improperly conducted where you can show that to be the case. Nearly all of the 5 million foreclosures were allowed to be conducted with a single bid from a non-creditor.

If you are not a creditor you must bid cash, put up a portion before you bid, and then pay the balance usually within 24-72 hours.

But instead they pretended to be the creditor when their own documents show they were supposed to be representing the investors who were not part of the lawsuit nor the judgment.

SO they didn’t pay cash and they didn’t tender the note. THEY PAID NOTHING. In Florida the original note must actually be filed with the court to make sure that the matter is actually concluded.

There is a whole ripe area of inquiry of inspecting the so-called original notes and bringing to the attention the fraud upon the court in submitting a false original. It invalidates the sale, by operation of law.

MANDELMAN MATTERS: DEADBEAT BORROWERS AND THIEVES WHO CALL THEM THAT

“If you’re allowed to foreclose and kick someone out of his or her home without being the party that either owns the loan or represents the person who owns the loan… if you can ignore those laws, why can’t you ignore other laws too? Which laws apply, when one of the parties didn’t make his or her payments?”
Home » Today’s New… “But, You Didn’t Make Your Payment” Exemption to the Law
Today’s New… “But, You Didn’t Make Your Payment” Exemption to the Law

I’m not a lawyer, so let’s be very clear about that, but I’m about to tell you how the law has always worked in this country, as far as I have understood it.

If you came to repossess my car, then you were required to be the person or entity that held the pink slip to my car, or you had to be working for the person or entity that held the pink slip to my car. If you were not the person or entity holding my pink slip, then you couldn’t come repossess my car.

In fact, if you came and repossessed my car but were NOT the person or entity holding my pink slip, then we had a phrase to describe that occurrence as well … you were STEALING MY CAR.

Pretty straightforward, right? I don’t even think you need to finish law school if that’s the extent to which you want to understand the law. And don’t let any of the attorneys that may be reading this around you try to make it more complicated, because it’s not. It is that simple… you can’t repossess someone’s car unless you’re the person or entity that holds the pink slip, or title, to that car… or are working for that person or entity, of course.

That’s the same way it’s supposed to work where houses are concerned. If you don’t make your mortgage payments, that doesn’t mean that everyone in the country is allowed to throw you out of your home… only the person or entity that holds your mortgage is supposed to be able to do that, right? Of course that’s right, silly. And don’t play semantics with me, that’s the deal.

But in this country today, there appears to be a new exemption to quite a few laws… it’s called the “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments” exemption, and when it comes into play, nothing else seems to much matter… you just lose.

Like, what if you don’t make your mortgage payments and the entity that comes to evict you from your home is one that you’ve never heard of before. And they have no proof whatsoever that they own your loan or represent the entity that owns your loan. Well, in general it’s tough cheese. The judge just says, “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments,” and that’s the end of that. And most everyone seems to be in agreement with this line of thinking.

You say, “But, your Honor… they’ve broken a dozen laws here… important laws… laws governing the transfer of property rights upon which the country has been built.” And the judge just gets annoyed saying, “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments,” and that’s the end of that. It’s almost like a get out of jail free card.

So, you say, “But your Honor, they’ve forged the documents, falsified the records, committed fraud on your court.” But he says it doesn’t matter… you didn’t make your mortgage payments… you have no rights and the party that’s foreclosing is now exempt from all of the laws that might otherwise apply. In fact, those laws are now reduced to being mere “technicalities.” And no one cares about technicalities as compared to you not making your mortgage payments.

So, I’m just wondering… don’t you think this sets kind of a dangerous precedent?

Let’s say that you’re not making your mortgage payments. And one night after dinner, the doorbell rings and you answer the door and it’s a representative of your mortgage servicer… and he punches you right in the face and then proceeds to beat the crap out of you.

And you end up in court. And the judge says, “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments, “ and dismisses the case. And you say, “But, your Honor… my mortgage servicer beat the crap out of me and that’s against the law, in fact there are all sorts of laws broken by him beating the crap out of me.” But the judge just replies, “But you didn’t make your mortgage payments, “ and that’s the end of that.

Do you think I’m being ridiculous? Why? What’s the difference between ignoring one set of laws and another set of laws? If you’re allowed to foreclose and kick someone out of his or her home without being the party that either owns the loan or represents the person who owns the loan… if you can ignore those laws, why can’t you ignore other laws too? Which laws apply, when one of the parties didn’t make his or her payments?

You see, I think the reason we have laws about the transfer of property is because it was important that someone not lose their property without those laws being followed. Whether one made their payments or not, wasn’t the point… the point was simply that the transfer of property rights has always been seen as a pretty big deal under the law, as far as I can tell.

I think the reason we let things get a little loose concerning foreclosure is that we trusted the bankers who were foreclose. In California, and all of the non-judicial foreclosure states, as far as I know, you don’t need to prove to the court that you hold the title to someone’s home in order to foreclose, and I’m pretty sure that the reason that was okay to our lawmakers was that they trusted the bankers… and they never envisioned not trusting them in that regard.

The problem is that today there is an abundance of evidence that says we cannot trust our bankers… quite often they lie, commit fraud on the courts, and in general are more than willing and able to fabricate and falsify whatever is required to foreclose on someone’s home… period. They don’t care at all… and they don’t get in trouble for it either, which I find the most disturbing part of the whole thing.

So, since its become clear that bankers lie, and cannot be trusted, we’re going to need to bring back the old laws about having to prove you’re the right party to be foreclosing on someone’s home before you’re allowed to do so. Several states have already done this… Hawaii and Arkansas, most recently. Arizona tried to pass such a law, but the banking lobby got to them and killed them both.

California had a bill that would have come close, but the banking lobby killed it in committee, for heaven’s sake. It was too dangerous to even debate in the legislature.

Some have said to me, “But Mandelman… the banks need to be able to foreclose or repossess when people don’t make their house or car payments.” And I reply… “No one is debating that point. Of course they can foreclose when payments are not made. If they’re the party who holds the beneficial interest, as the lawyers says, in the loan. If they lost the pink slip, they’ll have to correct that problem before they can come take back my car.”

It’s no different than if my car gets impounded for being parked in the wrong spot. When I show up to get it out of impound, I better have the registration, right? If I don’t, what am I told by the man at the impound lot? No ticket, no laundry, right?

We have laws about the transfer of property in this country and there are reasons for these laws. None of these laws say anything about banks only being required to follow them when someone is current on his or her payments.

Let’s stop making this more complicated than it needs to be… if the trust can prove that it does hold the note, that the note was properly assigned to that trust, that the note was endorsed… or whatever was supposed to happen according to the laws and rules, did in fact happen, then fine… foreclose away. But if that’s not the case, banker people… then you have to fix it… before you’re allowed to foreclose.

Sorry, and I know how unfair you think this is, but forging the documents isn’t an okay answer to this problem. Like if you want to repossess my car and you lost the pink slip, the acceptable answer is not to fake one on your laser printer and get Linda Green to sign it, got it? That’s not how we fix things in this country, and it doesn’t matter who made payments on time and who didn’t.

If that’s inconvenient, then so be it. And I have to think it’s a damn sight less inconvenient than what’s going on today, and if it’s even more inconvenient than that, then the bankers in this country have really screwed up bad, and we should all be shown what they’ve done.

I ran all of this by a lawyer friend of mine and here is the language from the Deed of Trust (page 23):

“Reconveyance. Upon payment of all sums secured by this security instrument, lender shall request trustee to reconvey the property and shall surrender this security instrument and all notes evidencing debt secured by this security instrument to trustee. Trustee shall reconvey the property without warranty to the person or persons legally entitled to it.”

So, apparently this language appears in EVERY Deed of Trust, including yours, your Honor. So when you want your pink slip/title/note in order to have your mortgage burning party, you may be disappointed to find that no one seems to have it.

And what about title insurance in the future? Will we be able to get it as a result of this whole mess being allowed to go on unchecked? I don’t think anyone really knows the answer to that question.

Lastly, the question always seems to come around to one of damages. How did the note not being properly endorsed to the trust and the trust being permitted to foreclosing anyway damage the homeowner? Again, it’s quite simple, really…

If someone is allowed to repossess my car even though that entity doesn’t hold my pink slip or work for the entity that holds my pink slip, then whoever repossessed my car STOLE IT. And that, by itself, sounds pretty damaging.

But what if someone shows up later and says they have the pink slip? What then? Will they be understanding and say, “Oh, someone else got it. No problem, we’re sorry to have bothered you. We’ll follow up with them.”

Somehow I doubt that will happen that way. And there are several reasons I’m not at all sure that this won’t be the case in the years to come. For one thing, both Taylor Bean & Whittaker and New Century Mortgage were found to have sold mortgages to more than one person at the same time, and others have admitted that it happens all the time.

And for another, I know of several homeowners who have filed quiet title actions and are still waiting for someone to show up and say they own the loan… in one case that’s recently been brought to my attention, it’s been almost a year and still no one has shown up. Does that mean no one will? Or will someone show up years from now? (Here’s the case, click it and you’ll see.)

Harvey v Garbett, Quiet Title Case in Draper Utah

I don’t really know, but wouldn’t it just be easier for the entity foreclosing to be the entity that actually holds the beneficial interest in the loan? You know, just as the law has always intended?

There’s another reason that it makes sense to require the right entity to foreclose… because the right entity, the entity that does in fact hold the beneficial interest in the loan would be much more likely to want to modify the loan as opposed to foreclosing on it, in instances where the payments have not been made.

You see, servicers chose to foreclose because it’s in their own best interests to foreclose, but what about the investor’s best interests? After all the investor is who put up the money in the first place, so what about the investor’s best interests?

Surely the investor would rather have a modified loan, especially in instances where the home is terribly underwater and by foreclosing the investor will realize an enormous loss and then not be able to sell it… perhaps for several years… wouldn’t you think that investor would prefer to modify the loan and get payments again?

Louis Ranieri, who is often referred to as the father of mortgage-backed securities had the following to say about foreclosing:

“The cardinal principle in the mortgage crisis is a very old one. You are almost always better off restructuring a loan in a crisis with a borrower than going to a foreclosure.

In the past that was never at issue because the loan was always in the hands of someone acting as a fiduciary. The bank, or someone like a bank owned them, and they always exercised their best judgment and their interest. The problem now with the size of securitization and so many loans are not in the hands of a portfolio lender but in a security where structurally nobody is acting as the fiduciary.”

Well, what do you know about that? So, it seems there are lots of good reasons that we should make sure that the entity foreclosing is the entity who does in fact own the loan, or at least work for the entity that owns the loan.

So, why are we making this so damn difficult? And why is it such a big problem for a bank-servicer-whatever to show up and actually prove that the trust actually holds the note in question? They don’t really expect us to buy into that whole, “But we lost them, your Honor. All of them, your Honor. It was a mass misplacement, your Honor.”

I mean, come on now… are we really supposed to believe that ALL of the major banks lost ALL of the notes and ALL at the same time? Seriously? I know 14 year-old boys that could tell you that such a story is simply not believable.

It’s time to come clean banker-people. Your story stinks to high heaven and the homeowners, lawyers, investors, and even the government investigators are all getting closer to uncovering the truth every day.

And until the banks start telling the truth, or modifying loans in the best interests of the investors and homeowners like they are supposed to…

… how about we the people pass a bill that requires the entity foreclosing to prove they are the entity that owns the loan… because it’s clear… abundantly clear… that we certainly can’t trust the trustee any more.

Gomes and the U.S. Supreme court some body had better help these attorneys argue and brief the case

Wednesday, August 17th, 2011, 2:49 pm

A controversial case challenging the ability of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems to foreclose on a California man was filed with the Supreme Court Monday, making it the first major MERS case to reach the nation’s highest court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear Gomes v. Countrywide, Gomes’ attorney, Ehud Gersten, says the court will have to decide whether a lower court stripped his client, Jose Gomes, of due process by allowing MERS to foreclose without ensuring the registry had the noteholder’s authority to foreclose.

“I believe this to be the first case in the country to take MERS to our Supreme Court,” Gersten told HousingWire. His claim could not be immediately verified.

“Ultimately, what this case is saying is if you are going to be taking someone’s home away from them, do you have the proof or the right to do so?” Gersten said. “If the Supreme Court starts to question MERS, and its business structure, it is going to have an effect on every MERS case in the country.”

MERS, the electronic registry at the center of the foreclosure crisis, has been under fire nationwide as foreclosure attorneys purport the firm, and its parent company Merscorp Inc., illegally foreclosed on properties.

Gersten, meanwhile, said MERS has a brief period of time to respond before the Supreme Court decides whether it will accept the case (click here for the filing).

Attorneys familiar with the Gomes case are not optimistic about its chances of being heard by the Supreme Court.

“While recent statistics show that the Supreme Court takes on average less than 3% of cases on certiorari, it takes even a smaller percentage of those advanced by private litigants, as opposed to the government,” said Patton Boggs attorney Anthony Laura. “Also it takes fewer cases out of the state court system than it does out of the federal Courts of Appeals.”

“So, the likelihood that this case will be taken is slim indeed,” Laura adds. “I believe those slim odds are even slimmer because the argument Gomes is making to the U.S. Supreme Court is one he did not previously raise.”

Laura said that, as a premise for invoking the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Gomes claims that the court below abridged his 14th Amendment rights.

“My recollection is that Gomes never made a Constitutional argument below, neither in the California Court of Appeals nor in the petition for review to the California Supreme Court,” he said. “In my view, the U.S. Supreme Court will look skeptically on his just raising that argument now.”

The original plaintiff, Jose Gomes, appealed to the nation’s highest court after California’s Supreme Court decided not to review the 4th Appellate District Court of California’s decision in favor of MERS.

Gomes’ petition says he’s challenging the foreclosure because MERS “did not have the current noteholder’s authority to foreclose.”

Gersten argues his client “was entitled to proof that the loan servicer, trustee or an entity such as MERS, either named in the deed of trust or acting through assignments of interest, had legal authority on behalf of the promissory note’s current holder to foreclose.”

The 4th Appellate District Court’s decision, which Gomes wants overturned, held MERS had the authority to initiate a foreclosure on Gomes because the deed of trust “explicitly provided MERS with the authority to do so,” according to court records.

The state appellate court also ruled in favor of MERS after finding the deed of trust contained no language to suggest the “lender or its successors and assigns must provide Gomes with an assurance that MERS is authorized to proceed with a foreclosure,” according to court records.

MERS chose not to comment on the case, but a spokeswoman said the company is aware of the filing with the Supreme Court.

JUDGES: ASSUME THE BORROWER IS WRONG

So you have denied the claims of the pretenders and put that in issue. You have even alleged fraud, forgery and fabrication and the catch-word “robosigning”. But the Judge, alleging that he did not want to “make new law” (which wasn’t true) or allegedly because he didn’t want to start an avalanche of litigation interfering with judicial economy (and therefore allowing fraud and theft on the largest scale ever known to human history) has not only denied your claims and motions, but refused to even put the matter at issue, thus enabling you to at least use discovery to prove your point.

So the pretenders have their way: no evidence has been introduced into the record. You have proffered, they have proffered, but somehow their proffer means something more than your proffer even though no proffer is evidence.

Attorneys recognize this as low hanging fruit on appeal, where the trial judge is going to get the case back on remand with instructions to listen to the evidence and allow each side to produce real evidence, not proffers from counsel, and allow each side to conduct discovery. It’s not guaranteed but it is very likely. And the pretenders know that if it ever gets down to real evidence as opposed to arguments of counsel, they are dead in the water, subject to sanctions and liability for slander of title and other claims.

So they have come up with this strategy of setting supersedeas bond higher and higher so that the order appealed from goes into effect and they are able to kick the can down the road with a foreclosure sale, more transfers etc in the title chain, thus enabling them to argue the deed is done and the “former” homeowner must be relegated to only claiming damages, not the home itself. People can be kicked out by eviction proceedings that typically are conducted in courts of limited jurisdiction where in most states you are not allowed to even allege that the title is not real or that it was illegally obtained.

Initially supersedeas bond was set at levels that could be met by homeowners — sometimes as little as $500 or a monthly amount equal to a small fraction of the former monthly payment. Now, Judges who are heavily influenced by banks and large law firms, especially chief Judges who stick their noses into cases not assigned to them, are making sure that the case does NOT go to jury trial and essentially influencing the presiding Judge ex parte, to set a high supersedeas bond thus preventing the homeowner from obtaining a stay of execution on the eviction or the final judgment regarding title.

Of course it is wrong. But it is happening. You counter this by (1) making the record on appeal as to the merits of the appeal (2) adding to the record actual affidavits and testimony as to value, rental value etc. and (3) of course demanding and evidential hearing on the proper amount of the bond. Here you want to search out and produce the bond set in similar cases in the county in which your case is pending. Make sure you have a court reporter and a transcript on appeal and that the record on appeal is complete. It is not uncommon for certain documents to get “lost” or allegedly not “introduced” so when the appellate court gets it you can be met with the question of “what document?”

The other reason they are increasing supersedeas bond is because of a misconception by many pro se litigants and even some attorneys. They have the impression that the appeal is over if the bond is NOT posted with the clerk. And they have the impression that they can’t challenge the amount of bond set, or even go to the appellate court just on that issue and ask the appellate court to set bond — something they might not do but when they remand it, it is usually with instructions to the trial judge to hear evidence on the relevant issues — again something the pretenders don’t want.

Supersedeas bond ONLY applies to execution of the order or judgment that you are appealing. You can AND should continue with the appeal and if you win, the Judgment might be overturned — which means by operation of law you probably get your house back.

All these things are technical matters. Listening to other pro se litigants or even relying upon this other sites intended to help you is neither wise nor helpful. Before you act or fail to act, you should be in close contact with an attorney licensed in the jurisdiction in which your property is located. Local rules can sometimes spell the difference between the life or death of your case.

SAY NO TO LENDERS FRAUD!

Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

Dear Homeowner,

It’s been widely reported around the country, via internet, blogs and newspapers, how the lenders used the foreclosure mills and other legal ways, to fabricate fraudulent documents to record in the county recorder offices and pretend they have legal standing to initiate the foreclosure procedure.

Neil Garfield in his blog http://www.livinglies.com, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, Steve Vondran in his website http://www.foreclosuredefenseresourcecenter.com, Tim McCandless in his blog https://timothymccandless.wordpress.com and many others have been advocating for the homeowners trying to raise awareness in the courts so that justice can be served.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

A few years ago, when the Mortgage Debacle started, these lenders went after the Mortgage Brokers after they found themselves in trouble for the many defaulted loans. They filed civil and criminal lawsuits convicting these brokers for fabricating documents and forging signatures to fund the loans. The legal system, judges and General Attorneys were prompt to convict “these so called criminals”.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

Today the tables have turned 180 degrees and we have discovered how these entities have been widely practicing what they accused others of. Today the lenders are fabricating documents, forging signatures and filing fraudulent documents with the government agencies to weasel their way into owning the homeowners’ properties.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

The fact that judges preceding the Unlawful Detainer hearings are not educated enough about the matter and don’t want to take the time to hear the attorneys defending the homeowners, does not help to make this wrong right. Securitization is a very complicated subject that cannot be taught in an Unlawful Detainer hearing or even in a Wrongful Foreclosure hearing. The way judges have been manipulating the information provided by the homeowners in their lawsuits to rule in favor of the lenders is despicable!Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

That’s why it’s so important to have all your property recorded documents used to foreclose on your home, been researched and analyzed by an expert that can identify all the issues that can be used in a Court of Law to fight for your home.

When you go in front of a Judge with enough evidence to prove that fraud was committed by the lender when the lender fabricated documents used to foreclose, you have a good chance to get the Judge’s attention. Fraud is a subject they know, it’s a crime and they can rule in your favor. It would be very difficult for a Judge to justify this fraudulent behavior on the part of the lender.

Later on, once you have successfully received an injunction, you can bring the securitization argument in your complaint and make the lender prove their innocence.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

The documents used to initiate the foreclosure of your home have been fraudulently fabricated by either the Trustee or the Lender.

Some attorneys who have explored this cause of action in their civil lawsuits, have been able to get relief for the homeowners by getting the in Temporary Restraining Order and the Injunction granted.

Below please find proof of a very common practice within these entities when they fabricate documents. They use the name of one person who becomes an officer of many entities and the signature is very different in different documents. This has happened in your case too.

This is a portion of our report after thoroughly performing research and discovery for one of our clients: (testimonial letters can be provided upon request after signing a confidentiality agreement).

SIGNED BY: LINDA GREEN AS VICE PRESIDENT FOR AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICING, INC. AS SUCCESOR IN INTEREST TO OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION

TOO MANY JOBS

For this report, over 500 mortgage assignments were examined.

Each Assignment was filed by Docx, a mortgage servicing company in Alpharetta, GA; each was notarized in Fulton County, GA.

Many of these Assignments have been used in foreclosure actions to prove that the lender has the legal right to file the foreclosure actions.

The name of Linda Green, frequently appears on Docx documents. The following list summarizes some of the many job titles used by Green.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

JOB TITLES HELD BY LINDA GREEN

11-11-2004 & 06-22-2006

Vice President, Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo

Home Mortgage, Inc.

08-11-2008 & 08-14-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc

08-27-2008

Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation

09-19-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit

09-30-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc

09-30-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit

10-08-2009

Vice President & Asst. Secretary, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Ameriquest Mortgage Corporation

10-16-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc

10-17-2008, 11-20-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit

11-20-2008

Vice President, Option One Mortgage Corporation

12-08-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit

12-15-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for HLB Mortgage

12-24-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc

12-26-2008

Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc

01-13-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Family Lending Services, Inc

01-15-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc

02-03-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Broker Conduit

02-24-2009

Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation

02-25-2009

Vice President, Bank of America, N A

02-27-2009

Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation

03-02-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage

03-04-2009

Vice President, Argent Mortgage Company, LLC by Citi Residential Lending Inc., attorney-in-fact

03-06-2009 & 03-20-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc

04-15-2009, 04-17-2009, 04-20-2009

Vice President, Bank of America, N.A.

05-11-2009, 07-06-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc

07-14-2009

Vice President, Bank of America, N.A.

07-30-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc

08-12-2009

Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation

08-28-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.

09-03-2009

Asst. Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation formerly known as Option One Mortgage Corporation

09-03-2009

Asst. Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage

09-04-2009

Asst. Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage

09-08-2009

Vice President, Bank of America, N.A.

09-21-2009 & 09-22-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc

ATTACHED TO THIS DOCUMENT OTHER DOCUMENTS SIGNED BY LINDA GREEN THAT SHOW THE VARIATIONS OF HER SIGNATURE

IT APPEARS AS IF THE SIGNATURE OF MS. GREEN COULD BE A FORGERY.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

A forgery is a writing which falsely purports to be writing for another and is executed with the intent to defraud. Ordinarily a forged instrument cannot carry title.

THE SIGNATURE BELOW IS THE SIGNATURE IN THIS ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST:Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ARE FROM DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS RECORDEDIN DIFFERENT COUNTIES:

THIS WHOLE SYSTEM IS A FARCE. A BROKEN DOWN, FRAUDULENT, SHAKY, DISHONEST AND TERRIFYINGLY CORRUPT SYSTEM.

The press and the general public is starting to pick up on these major systemic issues that judges, attorneys and other insiders have known about for some time…when the whole system collapses we’ve all got a real mess on our hands.

As we all struggle to unravel this monstrous mess, breaking down capacity will be a key focus in the problem. We’re all going to be searching around to determine who to sue and where to sue them, but because the courts failed to enforce the most basic pleading requirement….i.e. specifically identify who the parties to the lawsuit are, this is going to be most difficult.

One of the persistent and most pervasive problems in the whole foreclosure crisis is the inability of any party to get reliable or credible information about what is owed on a mortgage, who that phantom amount is owed to and what negotiated amount a lender, servicer or other party involved in the transaction might accept to modify or short sale the underlying loan.

A very concerning issue is the publication on the MERS website of information that identifies who the servicer on a loan is and who the investor in that loan is. But, neither the servicer or investor matches up to the information in many cases.

When you combine all this information with the depositions of Robo signers that are posted on many website, you’ll understand that in a large number of cases, the only connection between the plaintiff foreclosing and the mortgage being foreclosed is a sloppy and hastily executed Assignment signed by an officer that has no corporate authority and has no personal knowledge of the information contained on those documents.

It’s simply not okay to use the “robosigning” practice in the non judicial foreclosure states because these foreclosure cases don’t have to go to court.

The following are some of the most clear legal reasons why the Robo-Signer Controversy should entitle hundreds of thousands of homeowners wrongfully foreclosed and evicted to sue in non judicial foreclosure states. Robo Signers are illegal because fraud cannot be the basis of clear title, trustee’s deeds following Robo Signed sales should be void as a matter of law, notarization is a recording requirement for many of the documents, which was often botched, and most importantly because robo signed falsifications are meant for use in court, including unlawful detainers and bankruptcy matters.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

CALIFORNIA

1. Clear Title May Not Derive from a Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).

In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 stated:

“Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.” (Emphasis added, internal citations omitted).

This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated:

“It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.” (Emphasis added).

If forged signatures are used to obtain the foreclosure it makes a difference!

2. Any apparent sale based on Robosigned documents or forged signatures should be void and without any legal effect.

In Bank of America v. LaJolla Group II, the California Court of Appeals held that if a trustee is not contractually empowered under the Deed of Trust to hold a sale, it is totally void. Voidness, as opposed to voidability, means that it is without legal effect. Title does not transfer. No right to evict arises. The property is not sold.

In turn, California Civil Code 2934a requires that the beneficiary execute, notarize and record a substitution for a valid Substitution of Trustee to take effect. Thus, if the Assignment of Deed of Trust, the Substitution of Trustee or the Notice of Default are Robo-Signed, the sale should be void.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

3. These documents are not recordable without good notarization.

In California, the reason these documents are notarized in the first place is because otherwise they will not be accepted by the County recorder. Moreover, a notary who helps commit real estate fraud is liable for $25,000 per offense.

Once the document is recorded, however, it is entitled to a “presumption of validity”, which is what spurned the falsification trend in the first place. California Civil Code Section 2924. Therefore, the notarization of a false signature not only constitutes fraud, but is every bit intended as part of a larger conspiracy to commit fraud on the court.

4. The documents are intended for court eviction proceedings.

A necessary purpose for these documents, after the non judicial foreclosure, is the eviction of the rightful owners afterward. Even in California, eviction is a judicial process, albeit summary and often sloppily conducted by judges who don’t really believe they can say no to the pirates taking your house. However, as demonstrated below, once these documents make it into court, the bank officers and lawyers become guilty of felonies:

California Penal Code section 118 provides (a) Every person who, having taken an oath that he or she will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly before any competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any of the cases in which the oath may by law of the State of California be administered, willfully and contrary to the oath, states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, and every person who testifies, declares, deposes, or certifies under penalty of perjury in any of the cases in which the testimony, declarations, depositions, or certification is permitted by law of the State of California under penalty of perjury and willfully states as true any material matter which he or she knows to be false, is guilty of perjury.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

This subdivision is applicable whether the statement, or the testimony, declaration, deposition, or certification is made or subscribed within or without the State of California.

Penal Code section 132 provides: Every person who upon any trial, proceeding, inquiry, or investigation whatever, authorized or permitted by law, offers in evidence, as genuine or true, any book, paper, document, record, or other instrument in writing, knowing the same to have been forged or fraudulently altered or ante-dated, is guilty of felony.

The Doctrine of Unclean Hands provides: plaintiff’s misconduct in the matter before the court makes his hands “unclean” and he may not hold with them the pristine remedy of injunctive relief. California Satellite Sys. v Nichols (1985) 170 CA3d 56, 216 CR 180. California’s unclean hands rule requires that the Plaintiff don’t cheat, and behave fairly. The plaintiff must come into court with clean hands, and keep them clean, or he or she will be denied relief, regardless of the merits of the claim. Kendall-Jackson Winery Ltd. v Superior Court (1999) 76 CA4th 970, 978, 90 CR2d 743. Whether the doctrine applies is a question of fact. CrossTalk Prods., Inc. v Jacobson (1998) 65 CA4th 631, 639, 76 CR2d 615.

5. Robo Signed Documents Are Intended for Use in California Bankruptcy Court Matters. One majorly overlooked facet of California is our extremely active bankrtupcy court proceedings, where, just as in judicial foreclosure states, the banks must prove “standing” to proceed with a foreclosure. If they are not signed by persons with the requisite knowledge, affidavits submitted in bankruptcy court proceedings such as objections to a plan and Relief from Stays are perjured.

The documents in support are often falsified evidence.

CONCLUSION

Verified eviction complaints, perjured motions for summary judgment, and all other eviction paperwork after robo signed non judicial foreclosures in California and other states are illegal and void. The paperwork itself is void. The sale is void. But the only way to clean up the hundreds of thousands of effected titles is through litigation, because even now the banks will simply not do the right thing. And that’s why robo signers count in non-judicial foreclosure states. Victims of robosigners in California may seek declaratory relief, damages under the Rosenthal Act; an injunction and attorneys fees for Unfair Business practices, as well as claims for slander of title; abuse of process, civil theft, and conversion.Contact Us: MortgageReductionLaw.com

Keep the trustees deed out of evidence in the unlawful detainer

TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ. SBN 147715
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS
820 Main Street, Ste. 1
Martinez, CA

(925) 957-9797 Telephone
(909) 382-9956 Facsimile

Attorney for Defendant Zenkarla S. Salazar

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC FKA GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

vs.

ELIZABETH L. DE VRIES; ZENKARLA S. SALAZAR
and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive

Defendant. Case No.: 111CV198467

DEFENDANT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE

To the Court, to Plaintiff, GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC FKA GMAC MORTGAGE CORPORATION, [hereinafter “GMAC”] and its attorney of record:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on Friday, August 5, 2011, at 9:00 AM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Defendant, ZENKARLA S. SALAZAR, will in limine judicii move the court, and hereby does move, for an order excluding from trial all evidence proffered by Plaintiff GMAC.
The motion will be heard in Department 19 of the Santa Clara Superior Court.
The motion will be brought pursuant to Evidence Code sections 353 and 400 et seq., Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(b), and related decisional law.
The ground of the motion will be that the Unlawful Detainer Complaint, fails to disclose the reason why Plaintiff supposedly complied with Civil Code section 2932.5 and Civil Code section 2924; and accordingly the Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, and thus there remain no issues of fact for which relevant evidence might be adduced at trial.
More importantly, it is acknowledged that banks, lenders and third party buyers have a secured interest in deed which was assigned and recorded as mandated by Civil Code Section 2932.5. In this case, plaintiff did not have the power of sale as mandated by Civil Code Section 2924 because there is no evidence that the secured interest of the current beneficiary has been properly acknowledged and recorded.
The motion will be based upon this notice of motion and motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, on the pleadings and other papers on file for the above-captioned case, and upon such other and further evidence as the court may deem fit.
//
DATED: August 4, 2011 ________________________________________
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS
By: Timothy P. McCandless, Esq.
Attorney for DEFENDANT
ZENKARLA S. SALAZAR

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Defendant Zenkarla S. Salazar is a tenant that holds a valid lease up and until February 2013 with the subject property located at 1568 Valley Crest Drive, San Jose, CA 95131. This lease agreement was submitted with her answer and was entered before the default. Defendant Salazar demonstrated that she is a bonafide tenant and has a three-year lease at the time she was served with the Unlawful Detainer complaint.
Defendant Elizabeth L. De Vries was the original trustor of the subject property and executed the Deed of Trust recorded on February 23, 2006 at the County Recorder of Santa Clara County. Plaintiff claimed that a default occurred on the note, that the Trustee recorded a Notice of Default and initiated this unlawful non-judicial foreclosure. After the sale occurred, GMAC took over the title of the subject property.
This Unlawful Detainer action is commenced and prosecuted pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a(b). Where real property is sold at a trustee sale in accordance with sections 2924 et seq., of the California Civil Code under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust, the persons who executed said deed of trust, their successor in interest, their tenants and sub-tenants, may be evicted in an action of Unlawful Detainer. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a(b)(3).
The sole evidence being offered by Plaintiff is the Deed of Trust and the Trustee’s Deed Upon sale, which is inadmissible evidence, because Plaintiff GMAC cannot and has not laid the proper foundational proof that it was ever maintained a secured interest in this particular property.
Judicial notice will not suffice to establish Plaintiffs burden. „Judicial notice is the recognition and acceptance by the court, for use by the trier of fact or by the court, of the existence of a matter of law or fact that is relevant to an issue in the action without requiring formal proof of the matter.‟” (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)
“Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law.” (Evid. Code, § 450.) “Matters that are subject to judicial notice are listed in Evidence Code sections 451 and 452. A matter ordinarily is subject to judicial notice only if the matter is reasonably beyond dispute. [Citation.]” (Fremont Indemnity Co. v. Fremont General Corp. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113.)
“Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.” (Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 369, 374.) While courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein. (Love v. Wolf (1964) 226 Cal.App.2d 378, 403.) “When judicial notice is taken of a document, . . . the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” (StorMedia, Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9 (StorMedia).)
This court considered the scope of judicial review of a recorded document in Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106 (Poseidon). “[T]he fact a court may take judicial notice of a recorded deed, or similar document, does not mean it may take judicial notice of factual matters stated therein. [Citation.] For example, the First Substitution recites that Shanley „is the present holder of beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust.‟ By taking judicial notice of the First Substitution, the court does not take judicial notice of this fact, because it is hearsay and itcannot be considered not reasonably subject to dispute.” (Id. at p. 1117.)
The same situation is present here. The Substitution of Trustee recites that the Bank “is the present beneficiary under” the 2003 deed of trust. As in Poseidon, this fact is hearsay and disputed; the trial court could not take judicial notice of it. Nor does taking judicial notice of the Assignment of Deed of Trust establish that the Bank is the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust. The assignment recites that JPMorgan Chase Bank, “successor in interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY” assigns all beneficial interest under the 2003 deed of trust to the Bank. The recitation that JPMorgan Chase Bank is the successor in interest to Long Beach Mortgage Company, through Washington Mutual, is hearsay. Defendants offered no evidence to establish that JPMorgan Chase Bank had the beneficial interest under the 2003 deed of trust to assign to the Bank. The truthfulness of the contents of the Assignment of Deed of Trust remains subject to dispute (StorMedia, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p. 457, fn. 9), and plaintiffs dispute the truthfulness of the contents of all of the recorded documents.
Judicial notice of the recorded documents did not establish that the Bank was the beneficiary or that CRC was the trustee under the 2003 deed of trust. Defendants failed to establish “facts justifying judgment in [their] favor” (Bono, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 1432), through their request for judicial notice.

Because the non-judicial foreclosure process is subject to strict scrutiny, and given the material failure of a condition precedent by Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s agent, the entire non-judicial foreclosure process is invalid. Therefore, the Deed of trust and the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale cannot be admitted into evidence, as no lawful foundation can be laid. Robert Herrera et al., v. Deutsche Bank National Trust company et al, Third Appellate District case attached 6-28-2011.
Moreover, Defendant Salazar contends that Plaintiff never maintained a recorded interest in the subject real property at any time during the foreclosure proceedings in this case. In order to enforce the power of sale pursuant to California Civil Code section 2924, the secured instrument must be properly acknowledged and recorded pursuant to California Civil Code section 2932.5. The power of sale may only be exercised under California Code of Civil Procedure section 2924, if and only if, the secured interest of the current beneficiary has been properly acknowledged and recorded. In this instance, it was not.
Thus, there is a major substantive failure in the non-judicial foreclosure process and the transaction cannot stand. In order for GMAC to have proceeding the first instance under Civil Code section 2924 et seq., it was required to be record owner, which was not.
As such, Plaintiff GMAC is not entitled to obtain possession of the Subject Property as such evidence overcomes the rebuttable presumption of correctness of the sale.
Secured interests in real property are demonstrated by recordation so that the entire world will know that a party maintains a secured interest therein. That is why interests in real property are recorded and deeds are submitted as evidence to assert rights of interest and title. It is a fundamental precept of property law that in order to enforce the power of sale, the beneficiary of a deed of trust must be able to prove the existence of their secured interest in the subject property. Here, GMAC has never demonstrated that it ever had such a secured interest.
There are no valid recorded assignments recorded by GMAC as the new beneficiary of the Deed of Trust executed by Defendants thus, under California Civil Code Section 2924, plaintiff could enforce the power of sale. Thus, this non-judicial foreclosure of this particular property is invalid and plaintiff GMAC is not the lawful owner of this property and not entitled to obtain possession pursuant to California Civil Procedure Section 1161a.
II.
THE COURT HAS POWER TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE FROM TRIAL, ON GROUNDS ANALOGOUS TO A GENERAL DEMURRER.
The court has power to consider and grant an objection to all evidence under Evidence Code sections 353 and 400 et seq. If no cause of action or defense is stated by the respective pleading, then no “factual issue” any longer exists, and therefore no evidence may be admitted on grounds of “relevance” under Evidence Code sections 400 et seq.
It is well established that a party may bring an in limine objection in order to exclude all evidence, as a sort of general demurrer or “motion for judgment on the pleadings”. “Although not in form a motion, this method of attacking the pleading is identical in purpose to a general demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings and is governed by the same rules. [Citations.]” 5 WITKIN, Cal.Proc.3rd page 386, “Pleading” at §953. See also 6 WITKIN, Cal.Proc.3rd pages 571-573, “Proceedings Without Trial” at §§272-273.
According to 5 WITKIN, Cal.Proc.3rd page 340, “Pleading” at §899, a “general” demurrer concerns only the defense that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or defense. That is precisely what defendant contends here: the Unlawful Detainer Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted, because it fails to plead a necessary element of compliance with Civil Code sections 2932.5 and 2924 et al.
III.
THE COURT MUST STRICTLY ENFORCE
THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A FORECLOSURE.
The harshness of non-judicial foreclosure has been recognized. “The exercise of the power of sale is a harsh method of foreclosing the rights of the grantor.” Anderson v. Heart Federal Savings (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 202, 6 215, citing to System Inv. Corporation v. Union Bank (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 137, 153. The statutory requirements are intended to protect the trustor from a wrongful or unfair loss of his property Moeller v. Lien (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 822, 830; accord, Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496, 503; Lo Nguyen v. Calhoun (6th District 2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 428, 440, and a valid foreclosure by the private power of sale requires strict compliance with the requirements of the statute. Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.), Deeds of Trust and Mortgages, Chapter 10 §10.179; Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn., 208 Cal. App. 3d 202, 211 (3d Dist. 1989), reh’g denied and opinion modified, (Mar. 28, 1989); Miller v. Cote (4th Dist. 1982) 127 Cal. App. 3d 888, 894; System Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank (2d Dist. 1971) 21 Cal. App. 3d 137, 152-153; Bisno v. Sax (2d Dist. 1959) 175 Cal. App. 2d 714, 720.
It has been a cornerstone of foreclosure law that the statutory requirements, intending to protect the trustor from a wrongful or unfair loss of the property, must be complied with strictly. Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.), Deeds of Trust and Mortgages, Chapter 10 §10.182. “Close” compliance does not count. As a result, any trustee’s sale based on a statutorily deficient Notice of Default is invalid (emphasis added). Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.), Deeds of Trust and Mortgages, Chapter 10 §10.182; Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. (3dDist. 1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 202, 211, reh’g denied and opinion modified, (Mar. 28, 1989); Miller v. Cote (4th Dist. 1982) 127 Cal. App. 3d 888, 894; System Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank (2d Dist. 1971) 21 Cal. App. 3d 137, 152-153; Saterstrom v. Glick Bros. Sash, Door & Mill Co.(3d Dist. 1931) 118 Cal. App. 379.
It is a fundamental precept of property law that in order to enforce the power of sale, the beneficiary of a deed of trust must be able to prove the existence of their secured interest in the subject property. Here, GMAC has never demonstrated that it ever had such a secured interest.
Additionally, any trustee’s sale based on a statutorily deficient Notice of Trustee Sale is invalid. Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. (3d Dist. 1989) 11 208 Cal.App. 3d 202, 211, reh’g denied and opinion modified, (Mar. 28, 1989). The California Sixth District Court of Appeal observed, “Pursuing that policy [of judicial interpretation], the courts have fashioned rules to protect the debtor, one of them being that the notice of default will be strictly construed and must correctly set forth the amounts required to cure the default.” Sweatt v. The Foreclosure Co., Inc. (1985 – 6th District) 166 Cal.App.3d 273 at 278, citing to Miller v. Cote (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 888, 894 and SystemInv. Corp. v. Union Bank (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 137, 152-153.
The same reasoning applies even to a notice of a trustee’s sale. Courts will set aside a foreclosure sale when there has been fraud, when the sale has been improperly, unfairly, or unlawfully conducted, or when there has been such a mistake that it would be inequitable to let it stand. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n v. Reidy (1940) 15 Cal. 2d 243, 248; Whitman v. Transtate Title Co.(4th Dist. 1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 312, 322-323; In re Worcester (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1224, 1228. See also Smith v. Williams (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 617, 621; Stirton v. Pastor (4th Dist. 1960) 177 Cal. App. 2d 232, 234; Brown v. Busch (3d Dist. 1957) 152 Cal.App. 2d 200, 203-204.
In this case, there is no evidence whether GMAC maintained a properly acknowledged and recorded security instrument in the subject property, anytime during the non-judicial foreclosure process. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was recorded on December 9, 2010 when defendant De Vries’ property was sold at a trustee sale on November 15, 20102011when they have not complied with the requirements of California non-judicial foreclosure law. The foreclosers made no reasonable efforts to insure that it is acting under the authority of a lawsuit beneficiary.
A primary concern in this matter is the fact that GMAC had no legal right to foreclose upon the home of Defendant De Vries, even if she had not paid as required, if the same GMAC has not fully complied with Civil Code section 2932.5 and 2924. The basis for its noncompliance, and why this precludes a finding that Plaintiff’s title was “duly perfected”, is set forth below.
IV.
SINCE 2008, THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THE POWER OF SALE OF A SECURED INSTRUMENT IN REAL PROPERTY IS MANDATED BY CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2932.5 WHICH ALLOWS AN ASSIGNEE TO PROCEED WITH A NON-JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE PROVIDING THAT THE ASSIGNMENT IS PROPERLY ACKNOWLEDGED AND RECORDED.

In 2008, the California Legislature added Civil Code section 2932.5. The previous section is of particular relevance here:
Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded.

There is no assignment ever recorded by GMAC. See also Code of Civil Procedure section 459: “it is not necessary to state the facts showing such performance, but it may be stated generally that the party duly performed all the conditions on his part required thereby; if such allegations be controverted, the party pleading must establish on the trial the facts showing such performance.”
Nonetheless, this pleading of compliance that “[o]ne of the below necessary requirements was met by the Beneficiary:” violates another rule of pleading, namely, that allegations be made positively. “Pleading in the alternative is not permitted. The opposing party is entitled to a distinct statement of the facts claimed by the pleader to exist, and a statement in the alternative is uncertain and ambiguous. It is no answer to an objection to averments made alternatively to say that, if either of the averments is true, a cause of action is alleged. Such a pleading is vulnerable to special demurrer, and there is authority that the defect cannot be cured by verdict or by judgment by default. But where the point is raised for the first time on appeal, it is not ground for reversal if the appellant was not prejudiced by the uncertainty.” 49 Cal.Jur.3d (1979 ed.), pages 412-413, “Pleading” at §51.
The noncompliance with California’s law of pleading here is prejudicial. The issue of whether or not the lender recorded a receiver’s deed is expected to be a major factual issue at the trial. It is true that defendant SALAZAR might use contention interrogatories and other specially worded interrogatories to find out what factual theory, exactly, underlies the cryptic alternative statement that “[o]ne of the below necessary requirements was met by the Beneficiary:”. And defendant SALAZAR must still then, at that point, discover the evidence upon which Plaintiff (or, more precisely, Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest) relies in contending that there was compliance with California Civil Code subsection 2932.5.
CONCLUSION
The public record shows, as a matter of law, that PLAINTIFF GMAC and Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest did not comply with the requirement to disclose according to Code of Civil Procedure subsection 2932.5 Although the Plaintiff could supply this information and cure the pleading error here, yet such an reparative measure will not cure the invalidity of that there they complied with Civil Code 2924 and that no document was recorded with the Office of the County Recorder. Until that defect is repaired, there cannot be any “duly perfected title” that serves as the basis for Plaintiff’s Unlawful Detainer case. The case must be stopped, and that may be done by an exclusion of all evidence, as prayed for above.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 4, 2011 LAW OFFICES OF
TIMOTHY MCCANDLESS ESQ.

_____________________________________
Timothy L. McCandless, Esq.,
Attorney for Defendant
ZENKARLA S. SALAZAR

 

Open Yahoo! Axis application

California Eviction Defense Manual

Chapter Outlines

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

1

Overview of Unlawful Detainer Law

I.    SCOPE OF THIS BOOK   §1.1

II.    LANDLORD’S ALTERNATIVES TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION   §1.2

III.    ETHICS   §1.3

IV.    SUMMARY OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCESS   §1.4

A.   Description of Unlawful Detainer Action   §1.5

B.   Reduced Time Frame Governing Unlawful Detainer Procedure   §1.6

C.   Landlord Must Strictly Comply With Statutory Requirements   §1.7

D.   Notice Requirements   §1.8

E.   Bases for Terminating Tenancy; Applicable Notice   §1.9

1.   Termination Requiring 3-Day Notice (Longer Notice Permitted)   §1.10

2.   Termination Requiring 30-Day or 60-Day Notice   §1.11

3.   Termination Requiring Other Notice   §1.12

4.   Termination Requiring No Notice   §1.13

F.   Jurisdiction and Venue   §1.14

G.   Default Judgment   §1.15

H.   Bases for Defending Unlawful Detainer Actions   §1.16

I.   Trial

1.   Tenant Entitled to Jury Trial if Answer Presents Admissible Defenses   §1.17

2.   Rent and Damages Awardable to Landlord   §1.18

J.   Posttrial Motions   §1.19

K.   Execution by Sheriff   §1.20

V.    SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL TENANT RESPONSES TO LANDLORD’S ACTIONS   §1.20A

VI.    INVALIDITY OF LEASE PROVISION WAIVING TENANT’S RIGHTS   §1.21

VII.    WRIT OF IMMEDIATE POSSESSION   §1.22

VIII.    UNAVAILABILITY OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER IF TENANT IS NO LONGER IN POSSESSION OF PREMISES   §1.23

Back to Top

2

Relationship of Unlawful Detainer to Other Actions

I.    ISSUES NOT COGNIZABLE IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS   §2.1

II.    COORDINATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER WITH OTHER ACTIONS   §2.2

A.   Coordination of Complex Actions   §2.2A

B.   Transfer of Noncomplex Actions   §2.2B

C.   Consolidation of Actions Pending in Same County   §2.2C

III.    CONVERSION OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION TO ACTION FOR EJECTMENT   §2.3

IV.    SEVERING POSSESSION ISSUE FROM RENT-DUE ISSUE   §2.4

V.    TENANT’S SUIT FOR DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; STAY OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION

A.   Overview: Can Unlawful Detainer Actions Be Enjoined?  §2.5

B.   Obtaining Injunctive Relief

1.   Legal Basis; Grounds   §2.5A

2.   The Newby Exception: Adequate Remedy at Law   §2.5B

3.   Overcoming Newby Limitations   §2.5C

4.   Procedure; Bond Required   §2.5D

VI.    LANDLORD’S SUIT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF   §2.6

VII.    ACTIONS AFTER ENTRY OF JUDGMENT   §2.7

VIII.    ARBITRATION PROVISION IN LEASE   §2.8

IX.    ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS   §2.9

X.    BANKRUPTCY   §2.10

Back to Top

3

Self-Help by Landlord

I.    USE OF SELF-HELP BY LANDLORD   §3.1

II.    FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER   §3.2

A.   Examples of Forcible Entry and Detainer   §3.3

B.   Retaking Abandoned Premises Is Not Forcible Entry or Detainer   §3.4

C.   Recovering Punitive Damages for Forcible Entry or Detainer Requires Showing of Malice   §3.5

III.    SHUTTING OFF UTILITIES OR OTHERWISE BARRING TENANT’S USE OF PROPERTY

A.   Civil Code §789.3   §3.6

B.   Remedies Under Public Utilities Code and CC §1942.2   §3.6A

IV.    OTHER ACTIONS BY LANDLORD THAT MAKE PREMISES UNINHABITABLE   §3.7

V.    SELF-HELP EVICTIONS OF TENANTS IN RESIDENTIAL HOTELS   §3.8

VI.    SELF-HELP EVICTIONS OF LODGERS   §3.9

VII.    SELF-HELP EVICTIONS OF OCCUPANTS OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING   §3.10

VIII.    SELF-HELP EVICTIONS OF HOTEL GUESTS   §3.11

IX.    ANTI-HARASSMENT STATUTE (CC §1940.2)   §3.12

Back to Top

4

Representing the Tenant; Office Procedures

I.    OFFICE PROCEDURES   §4.1

II.    LAW OFFICE AUTOMATION   §4.2

III.    LEGAL REFERENCE MATERIALS   §4.3

A.   Necessary Legal Sources and Forms   §4.4

B.   Useful Additional Library Materials   §4.5

IV.    INITIAL STEPS BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER TO REPRESENT TENANT

A.   Initial (Telephone) Contact With Prospective Client   §4.6

B.   Form: Telephone Intake Form   §4.7

C.   Scheduling Meeting With Prospective Client   §4.8

D.   Conflict of Interest in Representing Tenant

1.   Performing a Conflicts Check   §4.9

2.   Common Conflict Situations in Unlawful Detainer Actions   §4.10

E.   Initial Meeting With Prospective Client   §4.11

F.   Use of Client Interview Questionnaire   §4.12

G.   Form: Client Interview Questionnaire   §4.13

H.   Conduct of Initial Meeting   §4.14

I.   Investigate Tenant’s Relationship With Former Counsel and Any Litigation History   §4.15

J.   Contact Landlord’s Attorney for Preliminary Look at Opposing View of Case   §4.16

K.   Initial Assessment of Case   §4.17

L.   Scope of Initial Assessment   §4.18

M.   Allaying Tenant’s Fears   §4.19

V.    REPRESENTATION OF TENANT

A.   Decision to Represent Tenant   §4.20

1.   If Attorney Will Not Represent or Assist Tenant   §4.21

2.   When More Time Needed for Decision on Representation   §4.22

3.   Form: Substitution of Attorney—Civil (Without Court Order) (Judicial Council Form MC-050; Mandatory)   §4.23

4.   If Attorney and Tenant Agree That Attorney Will Represent or Assist Tenant   §4.24

5.   Disclosure Regarding Professional Liability Insurance   §4.24A

B.   Representation Agreements and Ground Rules   §4.25

1.   Delegating Tasks to Client   §4.26

2.   Contents of Representation Agreement   §4.27

3.   Form: Representation Agreement—Private Practitioner   §4.28

4.   Form: Client Retainer Agreement—Legal Services Organization   §4.29

C.   Limited Scope Representation (Unbundling)

1.   Applicable Law   §4.29A

2.   Checklist: Tenant Fee Agreement   §4.29B

D.   Deposit of Rent Due Into Client Trust Account   §4.30

E.   Form: Requirement for Deposit of Rent Into Attorney-Client Trust Account   §4.31

VI.    PROCEDURE AFTER REPRESENTATION IS UNDERTAKEN

A.   Ascertain Goal of Representation   §4.32

1.   Ascertain Whether Tenant Wants to Continue Living in Rental Unit   §4.33

2.   Goal of Representation Is Not Necessarily Successful Defense of Unlawful Detainer Action   §4.34

B.   Counsel Should Investigate Facts of Case   §4.35

C.   Determining Defense Strategy   §4.36

D.   Making Choices on Strategy and Tactics   §4.37

E.   Example of Strategic and Tactical Choices in Procedure When Defective 3-Day Notice Was Served   §4.38

1.   Strategy and Tactics: Filing Motion to Quash Service of Summons or Demurrer   §4.39

2.   Strategy and Tactics: Filing an Answer   §4.40

3.   Strategy and Tactics: Filing Motion for Summary Judgment   §4.41

F.   Counsel Should Simultaneously File Pleadings, Conduct Discovery, and Negotiate   §4.42

Back to Top

5

Grounds for Eviction

I.    GROUNDS FOR EVICTION GENERALLY   §5.1

II.    GROUNDS FOR EVICTION BASED ON TENANT’S DEFAULT; 3-DAY NOTICE REQUIRED   §5.2

III.    REASONS FOR TERMINATION NOT BASED ON TENANT’S DEFAULT; NOTICE REQUIRED   §5.3

IV.    REASONS FOR TERMINATION NOT BASED ON TENANT’S DEFAULT; NOTICE NOT REQUIRED   §5.4

V.    TERMINATING MOBILEHOME PARK TENANCIES   §5.5

VI.    EVICTION BROUGHT BY CITY PROSECUTOR OR CITY ATTORNEY   §5.6

Back to Top

6

Three-Day Notice

I.    PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF 3-DAY NOTICE   §6.1

A.   Purpose of 3-Day Notice   §6.2

B.   If 3-Day Notice Is Defective   §6.3

II.    IMMEDIATE TENANT RESPONSE TO SERVICE OF 3-DAY NOTICE (BEFORE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED)   §6.4

III.    STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTE IS REQUIRED   §6.5

IV.    NOTICE REQUIRED EVEN IF LEASE PROVIDES THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY   §6.6

V.    COMPUTATION OF NOTICE PERIOD   §6.7

VI.    NOTICE IS VALID EVEN THOUGH IT CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE REASON FOR EVICTION   §6.8

VII.    NOTICE MAY BE WITHDRAWN   §6.9

VIII.    FORM OF NOTICE   §6.10

A.   Notice Must Be in Writing   §6.11

B.   Description of Premises in Notice   §6.12

C.   Signature on Notice   §6.13

D.   Demand for Possession Must Be Unequivocal   §6.14

E.   Statement of Three Days in Notice Itself May Not Be Required   §6.15

F.   Notice May Declare Election of Forfeiture   §6.16

G.   Demand for Rent and Charges

1.   Notice to Quit Must Include Demand for Rent as Alternative   §6.17

2.   Notice Must Specify No More Than Rent Actually Due   §6.18

a.   Precise Amount of Rent Need Not Be Specified if Calculation of Rent Depends on Tenant’s Accounting   §6.19

b.   Statement of Rent Due, and Additional Claims in Notice   §6.20

                           c.   Effect of Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act   §6.20A

3.   Notice Seeks Less Than Actual Amount Owed   §6.21

4.   One-Year Limitation on Amount of Rent That Can Be Demanded   §6.22

5.   Inclusion of Late Charges in Notice   §6.23

6.   Validity of Late Charges Landlord Claims Are Due

a.   As Liquidated Damages   §6.24

b.   As Violation of Usury Law   §6.24A

IX.    SERVICE OF NOTICE

A.   When Notice May Be Served   §6.25

1.   “Holidays” Defined   §6.26

2.   When Tenant May Perform Under Notice   §6.27

B.   Method of Service   §6.28

C.   Statutory Requirements for Service of 3-Day Notice   §6.29

X.    WHEN 3-DAY NOTICE IS BASED ON FAILURE TO PAY RENT   §6.30

XI.    TENDER OF RENT

A.   Method of Tender of Rent   §6.31

B.   Proof That Tender Was Made   §6.32

C.   Depositing Money in Landlord’s Bank Account   §6.33

D.   Effect of Tender of Rent on Obligation to Pay Rent   §6.34

E.   Time of Tender of Rent

1.   Tender of Rent Before Service of Notice   §6.35

2.   Tender of Rent After Notice Is Served and Before Notice Period Expires   §6.36

3.   Tender of Rent After Notice Period Has Expired   §6.37

XII.    WHEN 3-DAY NOTICE IS BASED ON DEFAULT UNDER LEASE OTHER THAN FAILURE TO PAY RENT

A.   Violation of Covenant in Lease Generally; Statutory Basis for 3-Day Notice   §6.38

1.   Express and Implied Covenants   §6.39

2.   Trivial or Technical Breach Not Sufficient   §6.40

3.   Waiver and Estoppel   §6.41

4.   Repeated Acceptance of Late Rent   §6.42

5.   Effect of Tenant’s Performance   §6.43

6.   Whether Notice Must Be Given in Alternative   §6.44

7.   Stating the Breach   §6.45

B.   Violation of Covenant Against Subletting, Assignment, or Waste; Maintaining Nuisance; or Using Premises for Unlawful Purpose   §6.46

1.   Subletting, Assignment, and Waste   §6.47

2.   Nuisance   §6.48

3.   Unlawful Purpose   §6.49

XIII.    SALE UNDER EXECUTION, MORTGAGE, OR TRUST DEED   §6.50

XIV.    COMMON FLAWS IN 3-DAY NOTICE OR ITS SERVICE THAT RENDER NOTICE INEFFECTIVE   §6.51

XV.    EFFECT OF SERVICE OF MORE THAN ONE NOTICE   §6.52

Back to Top

7

Thirty-Day/Sixty-Day Notices and Termination Without Notice

I.    TERMINATING PERIODIC TENANCIES

A.   Using 30-Day Notice   §7.1

B.   Using 60-Day Notice   §7.1A

II.    IMMEDIATE TENANT RESPONSE TO SERVICE OF NOTICE   §7.2

III.    TENANT REMAINS IN POSSESSION AFTER TERMINATION

A.   “Holdover” Tenant Defined   §7.3

B.   Tenant Serves Landlord With Notice of Termination and Remains in Possession After Termination Period   §7.4

C.   Term Has Expired but Tenant Holds Over   §7.5

D.   Termination of Employment of Resident Employee   §7.6

E.   Death of Tenant   §7.7

F.   Expiration of Fixed-Term Lease   §7.8

G.   Effect of Landlord’s Acceptance of Rent After Expiration of Fixed Term   §7.9

H.   Effect of Clause Providing for Automatic Extension or Renewal   §7.9A

I.   Lodger Who Holds Over in Owner-Occupied Dwelling   §7.10

J.   Expiration of Periodic (Generally Month-to-Month) Lease   §7.11

IV.    LENGTH OF PERIOD OF NOTICE

A.   Shortened Notice Periods by Agreement   §7.12

B.   Date on Which Mailed Notice Is Effective   §7.13

C.   Notice Period Must Expire Before Complaint Can Be Filed   §7.14

V.    WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE; ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS   §7.15

VI.    FORM OF NOTICE

A.   Notice Must Be in Writing   §7.16

B.   Description of Premises and Signature   §7.17

C.   Notice Cannot Be in the Alternative   §7.18

D.   Statement of 30 or 60 Days   §7.19

E.   Cover Sheet; Evictions After Foreclosure   §7.19A

VII.    APPORTIONMENT OF RENT   §7.20

VIII.    METHOD OF SERVICE   §7.21

IX.    TENANCY AT WILL   §7.22

X.    EFFECT OF SERVICE OF 30-DAY OR 60-DAY NOTICE IN CONJUNCTION WITH SERVICE OF 3-DAY NOTICE   §7.23

XI.    COMMON FLAWS IN NOTICE OR ITS SERVICE, RENDERING NOTICE INEFFECTIVE   §7.24

Back to Top

8

Service of Notices on Tenant

I.    EVALUATING SERVICE OF NOTICE   §8.1

II.    METHODS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE   §8.2

A.   Personal Service   §8.3

B.   Substituted Service (CCP §1162(a)(2))   §8.4

C.   Service by Posting, Delivery, and Mail (CCP §1162(a)(3))   §8.5

1.   Service by Posting Alone Is Insufficient   §8.6

2.   Service by Mail Alone Is Insufficient   §8.7

D.   Extension of Tenant’s Time to Act When Notice Is Mailed   §8.8

1.   Notice Effective on Receipt   §8.8A

2.   Notice Effective on Mailing   §8.8B

3.   Effective Date of Notice Extended by CCP §1013   §8.8C

4.   Rationale Favoring Extension of Response Period Under CCP §1013 When Notice Is Mailed   §8.9

III.    IMPROPER SERVICE

A.   Effect of Defective Service of Notice   §8.10

B.   Actual Receipt of Improperly Served Notice   §8.11

IV.    EFFECT OF SERVICE ON PERSONS OTHER THAN TENANT   §8.12

A.   Occupants Who Are Neither Tenants nor Subtenants   §8.13

B.   Cotenants   §8.14

C.   Subtenants   §8.15

V.    EXAMPLES OF COMMON MISTAKES IN SERVICE   §8.16

VI.    PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE   §8.17

Back to Top

9

Negotiating Strategies

I.    IMPORTANCE OF NEGOTIATION AND EARLY SETTLEMENT   §9.1

A.   Definitions of Terms: “Negotiation,” “Target Point,” “Resistance Level,” and “Bottom Line”   §9.2

B.   Determining Tenant’s Goals and Expectations   §9.3

C.   Determining the Bargaining Range   §9.4

D.   Possible Bargaining Outcomes   §9.5

E.   Evaluating Case   §9.6

II.    KEY FACTORS TOWARD SETTLEMENT IN TENANT’S FAVOR

A.   Merits of Tenant’s Case   §9.7

B.   Whether Tenant Is Willing to Relinquish Possession   §9.8

C.   Whether Tenant Is Impervious to Judgment for Damages   §9.9

D.   Whether Rental Agreement Contains Attorney Fee Clause   §9.10

III.    DEVELOPING A BARGAINING STRATEGY   §9.11

A.   Look for Means to Strengthen Tenant’s Case and Weaken Landlord’s   §9.12

B.   Tenant’s Attorney Must Be Ready to Move Quickly to Take Advantage of Settlement Opportunities   §9.13

C.   Tenant’s Attorney Should Be Aware of Landlord’s Goals and Fears   §9.14

D.   Determining How Much to Demand in Initial Settlement Offer   §9.15

IV.    ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FACING OPPOSING COUNSEL KNOWN TO TENANT’S COUNSEL   §9.16

V.    USING BARGAINING TACTICS   §9.17

VI.    COMMUNICATING WARNINGS TO OPPOSING PARTY   §9.18

VII.    WHEN LANDLORD’S COUNSEL APPEARS TO BE DRAWING OUT ACTION TO GENERATE FEES   §9.19

VIII.    DRAFTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT   §9.20

IX.    EVALUATING SUCCESS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT   §9.21

Back to Top

10

Proceeding in Forma Pauperis

I.    AUTHORITY FOR OBTAINING WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS   §10.1

II.    RIGHT TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS   §10.2

III.    SUBSTANTIVE SHOWING OF INDIGENCE   §10.3

IV.    CLASSES OF CLAIMANTS AND CATEGORIES FOR WHICH FEES AND COSTS MAY BE WAIVED   §10.4

V.    FEES AND COSTS IN TRIAL COURT

A.   Types of Fees and Costs Waived by Initial Application   §10.5

B.   Waiver of Other Fees and Costs   §10.6

C.   Applying to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

1.   Procedure for Request for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs   §10.7

2.   Grant of Waiver of Court Fees and Costs Without Hearing   §10.7A

3.   Hearing on Applicant’s Entitlement to Waiver of Court Fees and Costs   §10.7B

4.   Court Issues and Serves Order on Request to Waive Court Fees   §10.7C

5.   Effect of Denial of Waiver on Pleadings Already Filed by Applicant   §10.7D

6.   Procedure for Subsequent Determinations of Fee Waiver Eligibility   §10.8

D.   Right to Waiver or Reimbursement of Discovery Costs   §10.9

E.   Right to Appointment of Attorney   §10.10

VI.    FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL

A.   Proceeding in Forma Pauperis   §10.11

1.   Filing Fees   §10.11A

2.   Fees for Transcript   §10.11B

3.   Fees for Interpreter   §10.11C

4.   Appeal Bond Fees   §10.11D

B.   Review of Denial of Request   §10.12

Back to Top

11

Service of Summons and Complaint; Motion to Quash Service of Summons

I.    SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT   §11.1

II.    IMMEDIATE ACTIONS THAT CAN BE TAKEN ON TENANT’S BEHALF AFTER SERVICE OF SUMMONS   §11.2

III.    ATTEMPTS TO AVOID SERVICE OF SUMMONS   §11.3

IV.    FORM OF SUMMONS   §11.4

V.    FORM: SUMMONS—UNLAWFUL DETAINER—EVICTION (JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM SUM-130)   §11.5

VI.    SERVICE OF PROCESS   §11.6

A.   Methods of Service   §11.7

B.   Strict Construction of Service Statutes   §11.8

C.   Effect of Defective Service   §11.9

D.   New Summons Need Not Be Served With Service of Amended Complaint   §11.10

E.   Return of Service   §11.11

F.   Personal Service   §11.12

G.   Substituted Service   §11.13

1.   Substituted Service on Individual Defendant   §11.14

2.   Substituted Service on Business Entity   §11.15

3.   Showing Reasonable Diligence   §11.16

4.   Recital on Return of Service   §11.17

H.   Service by Mail With Acknowledgment of Receipt   §11.18

I.   Service by Posting and Mailing   §11.19

J.   Order Allowing Service by Posting   §11.20

K.   Completion Date of Service by Posting   §11.21

L.   Service by Publication   §11.22

VII.    SPECIAL APPEARANCE REQUIRED ON MOTION TO QUASH

A.   What Constitutes a General Appearance   §11.23

B.   Making a Special Appearance   §11.24

VIII.    GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO QUASH   §11.25

A.   Error in Filled-Out Summons   §11.26

B.   Failure to Properly Serve All Required Papers   §11.27

C.   Motion to Quash When Cause of Action Is Not Properly Unlawful Detainer   §11.28

D.   Complaint Contains Another Cause of Action in Addition to Unlawful Detainer   §11.29

E.   Complaint Prays for Damages Not Allowed in Unlawful Detainer   §11.30

F.   Defendant Erroneously Designated

1.   Pleading Requirements; “Doe” Defendants   §11.31

2.   Entering Judgment Against “Doe” Defendant   §11.32

IX.    CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO FIVE-DAYS-TO-ANSWER REQUIREMENT   §11.33

X.    MOTION TO QUASH—PROCEDURE

A.   Time to File Motion; Effect of Motion on Time to File Answer   §11.34

B.   Form of Notice   §11.35

C.   Hearing on Motion to Quash; Burden of Proof   §11.36

D.   Filing Fees   §11.37

XI.    FORM: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TENANT   §11.38

XII.    FORM: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS   §11.39

XIII.    EFFECT OF GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH   §11.40

XIV.    EFFECT OF DENIAL OF MOTION TO QUASH   §11.41

XV.    APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE IF MOTION DENIED   §11.42

XVI.    POSSIBLE EFFECT OF CCP §1167.4 ON WHETHER TIME FOR FILING RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS IS TOLLED BY PETITION FOR WRIT   §11.43

XVII.    CHART: TIMELINE FOR TENANT ACTIONS IF SUMMONS OR SERVICE OF SUMMONS WAS DEFECTIVE   §11.44

Back to Top

12

Default Judgments

I.    PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT   §12.1

II.    CHECKLIST: OBTAINING RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT   §12.2

III.    SERVICE OF APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT; LANDLORD’S OBLIGATION TO INFORM TENANT   §12.3

IV.    EFFECT OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT; LATE FILING OF RESPONSE   §12.4

V.    ENTRY OF DEFAULT; WRIT OF IMMEDIATE POSSESSION   §12.5

VI.    PROVE-UP HEARING FOR RELIEF OTHER THAN RESTITUTION   §12.6

VII.    PROCEDURE FOR ENTERING DEFAULT IF SERVICE WAS BY PUBLICATION   §12.7

VIII.    SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT   §12.8

A.   Stipulation to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment   §12.9

B.   Form: Stipulation to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Order   §12.10

C.   Procedures for Applying to Set Aside Default   §12.11

D.   Grounds for Setting Aside Default and Default Judgment   §12.12

1.   Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect (CCP §473)

a.   Relief May Be Granted for Client or Attorney Error   §12.13

b.   Relief Must Be Granted for Attorney Error   §12.14

c.   Time Limitations on Bringing Motion Under CCP §473   §12.15

d.   Showing in Support of Motion; Declaration   §12.16

e.   Excuses for Default; Examples   §12.17

(1)  Mistake of Fact   §12.18

(2)  Attorney’s Mistake of Law   §12.19

(3)  Excusable Neglect   §12.20

(4)  Fraud   §12.21

2.   Clerical Mistakes; Vacating Void Judgments (CCP §473, ¶4)   §12.22

a.   Judgment Void on Its Face   §12.23

b.   Judgment Void in Fact, But Not Void on Its Face   §12.24

3.   When Service of Summons Does Not Result in Actual Notice to Party (CCP §473.5)   §12.25

4.   Motion or Separate Action in Equity Available to Vacate Judgment on Ground of Fraud or Mistake   §12.26

5.   Erroneously Entered Default or Default Judgment   §12.27

6.   Examples of Erroneously Entered Defaults and Default Judgments   §12.28

IX.    WHEN WRIT OF EXECUTION HAS BEEN ISSUED   §12.29

X.    FORMS: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

A.   Form: Notice of Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Supporting Memorandum   §12.30

B.   Form: Declaration Supporting Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment   §12.30A

XI.    ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT   §12.31

XII.    FORM: ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT   §12.32

XIII.    EFFECT OF ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT   §12.33

Back to Top

13

Demurring and Moving to Strike

I.    ATTACKING LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT   §13.1

II.    THE DEMURRER   §13.2

A.   Grounds for General Demurrer   §13.3

B.   Grounds for Special Demurrer   §13.4

C.   Sustaining Demurrer With or Without Leave to Amend   §13.5

D.   Demurrer Permitted on Grounds of No Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter   §13.6

E.   Effect of Another Pending Unlawful Detainer Action   §13.7

F.   Parties

1.   Improper Defendant   §13.8

2.   Improper Plaintiff   §13.9

G.   Venue and Trial Court Location   §13.10

H.   Description of Premises With Reasonable Certainty   §13.11

I.   Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship   §13.12

J.   Notice of Termination

1.   Alleging Service of Notice   §13.13

2.   Alleging Proper Notice   §13.13A

3.   Alleging Contents of Notice   §13.14

a.   Default in Rent   §13.15

b.   Breach of Covenant Other Than Nonpayment of Rent   §13.16

c.   Subletting, Waste, Nuisance, or Use for Unlawful Purpose   §13.17

d.   Expiration of Term

(1)  Fixed Term   §13.18

(2)  Periodic Tenancy   §13.19

K.   Tenant Continues in Possession   §13.20

L.   Fraud, Force, or Violence   §13.21

M.   Compliance With Implied Warranty of Habitability   §13.22

N.   Statute of Limitations   §13.23

O.   Checklist: Demurrable Defects in Complaint   §13.23A

P.   Form: Demurrer to Complaint   §13.24

III.    MOTION TO STRIKE   §13.25

A.   Irrelevant, False, or Improper Allegations   §13.26

B.   Defects Not Subject to Demurrer   §13.27

C.   Improper Request for Damages   §13.28

D.   Necessary Allegations for Finding Statutory Damages   §13.29

E.   Rental Value of Premises After Suit Brought   §13.30

F.   Attorney Fee Provision in Lease   §13.31

G.   Verification   §13.32

H.   Failure to State “§1161a” in Caption   §13.32A

I.   Sample Form: Motion to Strike   §13.33

IV.    PROCEDURE FOR DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

A.   Answer May Be Filed With Demurrer   §13.34

B.   Timing of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Strike   §13.35

C.   Supporting Memorandum   §13.36

D.   Effect of Overruling of Demurrer   §13.37

E.   Frivolous Demurrers   §13.38

F.   Motion to Strike   §13.39

V.    FILING FEES   §13.40

VI.    EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD   §13.41

VII.    MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS   §13.42

VIII.    SPECIAL (ANTI-SLAPP) MOTION TO STRIKE   §13.43

Back to Top

14

Answering and Alleging Affirmative Defenses

I.    RIGHT TO ANSWER   §14.1

II.    USE OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORMS   §14.2

III.    TIME TO ANSWER   §14.3

IV.    GOOD CAUSE TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER

A.   Length of Extension   §14.4

B.   Steps Tenant Should Take to Get Extension of Time to File Answer   §14.5

V.    DENIALS   §14.6

VI.    BASES FOR DENIALS   §14.7

VII.    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES   §14.8

A.   Priority of Title After Foreclosure Sale   §14.9

B.   Implied Warranty of Habitability and Retaliatory Eviction   §14.10

C.   “Equitable” Defenses   §14.11

D.   Laches   §14.12

E.   Other Affirmative Defenses   §14.13

F.   Illegal Discrimination   §14.13A

1.   Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act as Defense   §14.14

a.   Application of Unruh Act to Landlords   §14.15

b.   Prohibition of Arbitrary Discrimination Under Unruh Act   §14.16

c.   Minimum Income Policy   §14.17

d.   Examples of Reach of Unruh Act   §14.18

2.   Discrimination Based on Age

a.   Discrimination Against Families With Children   §14.19

b.   Senior Citizen Housing   §14.20

3.   Discrimination Under Federal Fair Housing Acts   §14.21

4.   Discrimination Under California Fair Employment and Housing Act   §14.22

5.   Family Day Care Home   §14.22A

6.   Immigration Status   §14.22B

7.   Domestic Violence   §14.22C

G.   Other Violations of Housing Statutes and Ordinances

1.   Certificate of Occupancy Violations   §14.23

2.   Landlord’s Duty to Repair; “Repair and Deduct” Statutes (CC §§1941–1942.5)   §14.24

3.   Violation of Tenantability Statutes (CC §1942.4)   §14.24A

a.   Indications That Premises Are Untenantable   §14.25

b.   Conditions Rebuttably Presumed to Breach Habitability Requirements   §14.26

c.   If Tenant Causes Condition of Premises   §14.27

d.   Tenant’s Remedies   §14.28

e.   Waiver of Tenant’s Rights   §14.29

4.   Statutory Violations Under Rent Control   §14.30

H.   Fraud   §14.31

I.   Adhesion Contract   §14.32

J.   Waiver and Estoppel   §14.33

K.   Express Promise to Repair   §14.34

1.   Dependent or Independent Covenants   §14.35

2.   Oral Promise Made Before Written Lease   §14.36

a.   Consideration   §14.37

b.   Statute of Frauds   §14.38

c.   Parol Evidence Rule as Applied to Leases   §14.39

                           d.   Dependency of Covenants   §14.40

3.   Tenant’s Arguments for Admission of Oral Promise Made Before or at Time of Execution of Written Agreement   §14.41

4.   Oral Promise Made Before Entry Into Oral Lease   §14.42

5.   Promise Made Subsequent to Lease   §14.43

6.   When Tenant Makes Promise to Repair   §14.43A

L.   Implied Covenant of Good Faith   §14.44

M.   Actual Partial Eviction   §14.45

N.   Notice Served More Than One Year After Rent Due   §14.46

O.   Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment   §14.47

P.   Offsets   §14.48

Q.   When Tenant Has Vacated Premises   §14.49

VII.    VERIFICATION   §14.50

VIII.    FILING ANSWER AFTER RULING ON DEMURRER   §14.51

IX.    EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD   §14.52

X.    AMENDING ANSWER   §14.53

XI.    CROSS-COMPLAINTS   §14.54

A.   When Tenant Has Vacated Premises   §14.55

B.   When Landlord Fails to Challenge Cross-Complaint   §14.56

C.   Procedure   §14.57

D.   Form: Answer—Unlawful Detainer (Judicial Council Form UD-105) [Deleted]   §14.58

Back to Top

15

Affirmative Defenses—Implied Warranty of Habitability

I.    INTRODUCTION

A.   Adoption of Implied Warranty of Habitability: Hinson v Delis; Green v Superior Court   §15.1

B.   Definition of Implied Warranty of Habitability   §15.2

C.   Supreme Court Rationale in Adopting Implied Warranty Doctrine   §15.3

D.   Landlord May Be Held in Breach Even if Another Is Responsible for Defect   §15.4

E.   Time Within Which Landlord Must Correct Defects   §15.5

II.    USES OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DOCTRINE   §15.6

A.   When Warranty Used in Suit for Affirmative Damages and Other Relief   §15.7

B.   Procedure When Using Warranty as Defense in Unlawful Detainer Action   §15.8

C.   Effect of Tenant Prevailing at Trial on Warranty Defense   §15.9

III.    ESTABLISHING BREACH OF WARRANTY

A.   Facilities Covered   §15.10

1.   Government-Owned Housing   §15.11

2.   Portions of Premises Covered by Warranty of Habitability   §15.12

B.   Housing and Building Code Violations

1.   Sources of Housing and Building Code Standards   §15.13

2.   Examples of Housing and Building Code Violations   §15.13A

3.   Jury Instructions Relating to Code Violations   §15.14

4.   Defects Actionable Under Implied Warranty or Negligence But Not Covered by Housing and Building Codes   §15.15

C.   Failure to Protect Tenants From Criminal Acts   §15.16

1.   Determining Whether Landlord Has a Duty to Protect Against Criminal Acts   §15.17

2.   Examples of Duty Not Found or Duty Held Not Breached   §15.18

3.   Examples of Duty Found or Landlord Held in Breach   §15.19

4.   Breach of Duty Raised by Allegation of Breach of Implied Warranty   §15.20

5.   Level of Security at Time Tenant Moves Into Premises   §15.21

6.   Proving Causation   §15.21A

D.   Seriousness of Defects

1.   Requirement That Defects Be Serious   §15.22

2.   Examples of Defects Held Serious Enough to Constitute Breach of Implied Warranty   §15.23

3.   Evidence of Breach   §15.24

a.   Proving That Existing Conditions Violate Code   §15.25

b.   Presumption of Breach of Habitability Standards   §15.26

c.   Viewing the Premises   §15.27

E.   Special Problems

1.   Premises Uninhabitable at Inception of Tenancy   §15.28

2.   Premises Become Uninhabitable After Tenant Is Served With Notice of Termination   §15.29

3.   Waiver of Warranty   §15.30

4.   Defect Caused by Tenant’s Wrongful Action   §15.31

5.   Defects Caused by Acts of Nature   §15.32

IV.    NOTICE OF DEFECT   §15.33

V.    REASONABLE TIME TO REPAIR NOT REQUIRED   §15.34

VI.    PROTECTIVE ORDERS   §15.35

A.   When Protective Orders Are Appropriate   §15.36

B.   Advantages to Tenant of Voluntary Deposit Into Attorney’s Trust Account   §15.37

VII.    DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY   §15.38

A.   Relief Based on Affirmative Defense of Breach of Implied Warranty   §15.39

1.   Period During Which Damages Accrue   §15.40

2.   Tenant Must Pay “Reasonable Rent” Even if Warranty Breached   §15.41

3.   Various Approaches to Measuring Damages   §15.42

a.   “Difference-in-Value” Approach   §15.43

b.   “Discomfort-and-Annoyance” Approach   §15.44

c.   “Percentage-Reduction-of-Use” Approach   §15.45

4.   Limits on Amount by Which Rent May Be Reduced   §15.46

5.   Amount of Rent Reduction in Subsidized Housing   §15.46A

6.   Nominal Damage Awards   §15.47

B.   Actions Brought Under CC §1942.4   §15.48

C.   Actions Based on Tort of Breach of Implied Warranty   §15.49

D.   Hybrid View of Warranty of Habitability—Contract and Tort   §15.50

VIII.    EFFECT OF RECENT PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY LANDLORD   §15.51

        IX.    LACK OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY   §15.52

Back to Top

16

Affirmative Defenses—Retaliatory Evictions

I.    LEGAL FRAMEWORK   §16.1

II.    SEVERAL SOURCES OF LAW MAY APPLY SIMULTANEOUSLY   §16.2

A.   Civil Code §1942.5

1.   Tenants’ Actions on Habitability (CC §1942.5(a))

a.   Protected Parties and Acts   §16.3

b.   Limitations on Protection

(1)  Tenant Cannot Be in Default in Payment of Rent   §16.4

(2)  Tenant May Not Invoke CC §1942.5(a) More Than Once a Year   §16.5

(3)  Protective Period Under CC §1942.5 Limited to 180 Days   §16.6

(4)  Defense Unavailable in Ellis Act Evictions   §16.6A

2.   Tenant Union Activity (CC §1942.5(c))   §16.7

3.   Exercise of “Rights Under Law” (CC §1942.5(c))   §16.8

a.   Additional Examples of Acts Protected by CC §1942.5(c)   §16.9

b.   Examples of Acts Protected Before Enactment of CC §1942.5   §16.10

4.   Tenant Cannot Waive Rights (CC §1942.5(d))   §16.11

5.   Notice and Burden of Proof (CC §1942.5(e))   §16.12

6.   Procedure for Proving Retaliation When Landlord Includes Grounds in Notice (CC §1942.5(e))   §16.13

7.   Remedies (CC §1942.5(f)–(g)); Punitive Damages and Attorney Fees   §16.14

8.   Remedies Not Exclusive (CC §1942.5(h))   §16.15

B.   Public Policy; Retaliation for Refusal to Commit Crime Improper   §16.16

C.   Victims of Domestic Violence   §16.16A

D.   Other Statutory Rights

1.   Retaliation Based on Tenant’s Assertion of Statutory Rights; Implied Protection   §16.17

2.   Retaliation Based on Tenant’s Assertion of Statutory Rights; Express Statutory Protection   §16.18

3.   Common Law   §16.19

4.   Local Rent Control Ordinances   §16.20

5.   Constitution   §16.21

III.    LIMITATIONS ON RETALIATORY EVICTION DEFENSE   §16.21A

IV.    PROOF OF RETALIATORY MOTIVE

A.   Sole or Dominant Motive   §16.22

B.   Treatment of Mixed Motives in Labor Law   §16.23

C.   Presumptions and Burden of Proof   §16.24

D.   Evidence   §16.25

E.   Analogies Drawn From Labor Law to Prove Retaliatory Motive   §16.26

F.   Form: Affirmative Defense on Ground of Retaliatory Eviction   §16.27

Back to Top

17

Special Considerations Governing Evictions in Rent-Controlled Cities

Myron Moskovitz
Sonya Bekoff Molho
Steven A. MacDonald
Denise McGranahan
Sallyann Molloy

I.    SCOPE OF LOCAL RENT CONTROL ORDINANCES

A.   Local Control Versus State Preemption   §17.1

B.   Statewide Vacancy Decontrol

1.   Existing Housing   §17.1A

a.   Phase-In Periods   §17.1B

b.   Lease Restrictions on Subletting Allowed   §17.1C

c.   Exceptions to Preemptive Effect   §17.1D

2.   New Construction and Single-Unit Exclusions   §17.1E

a.   Phase-In Periods for Condominiums and Single-Family Homes   §17.1F

b.   Exceptions to Preemptive Effect   §17.1G

II.    PRACTICE CONSIDERATIONS IN RENT CONTROL JURISDICTIONS   §17.2

III.    CITIES SUBJECT TO RENT CONTROL   §17.3

IV.    EVICTIONS AND RENT CONTROL

A.   Overview   §17.4

B.   Just Cause for Eviction   §17.5

1.   Failure to Pay Rent   §17.6

2.   Failure to Cure Violation of Rental Agreement   §17.7

3.   Conduct Constituting a Nuisance   §17.8

4.   Use of Premises for Illegal Purpose   §17.9

5.   Refusal to Permit Landlord Access to Premises   §17.10

6.   Refusal to Execute New Lease   §17.11

7.   Subletting   §17.12

8.   Violation of Lease Restricting Occupancy   §17.12A

a.   Exception: Relative or Domestic Partner of Tenant   §17.12B

b.   Exception: Surviving Relative of Deceased Tenant   §17.12C

                           c.   Exception: Landlord Knowingly Accepts Rent From Occupant   §17.12D

9.   Rehabilitation of Unit   §17.13

10.   Demolition or Conversion of Units—Ellis Act Evictions   §17.14

a.   Constitutional Challenges; Preemption   §17.14A

b.   Effect of Other State Laws   §17.14B

11.   Occupancy by Owner or Owner’s Relative   §17.15

a.   Representing Tenants in Evictions for Owner Occupancy   §17.16

b.   Good Faith in Owner-Occupancy Evictions   §17.17

12.   Grounds Not Stated in Ordinance: Termination of Manager; Foreclosure   §17.18

13.   Failure to Use Premises as Principal Residence   §17.18A

C.   Notice and Pleading Requirements   §17.19

D.   Burdens of Proof and Presumptions   §17.20

E.   Defenses to Evictions   §17.21

F.   Statute of Limitations   §17.22

G.   Damages for Unlawful Evictions   §17.23

H.   Attorney Fees   §17.24

V.    NEGOTIATING AND DEFENDING ELLIS ACT EVICTIONS

A.   Preliminary Considerations

1.   Scope of Ellis Act   §17.25

2.   Representing Organized Tenants   §17.26

3.   Factual Investigation

a.   Review Notices and Status of All Affected Units   §17.27

b.   Explain Ellis Process to Client   §17.28

c.   Ascertain Client’s Age, Health, and Economic Status   §17.29

d.   Investigate Unexpired Leases   §17.30

B.   Relocation Benefits   §17.31

1.   Benefits Available for Displaced Tenants Regardless of Income   §17.32

2.   Landlord’s Misrepresentation of Availability of Benefits   §17.33

3.   Documentation Proving Eligibility   §17.34

4.   Other Issues Affecting Payment of Benefits

a.   Timely Payment   §17.35

b.   Waiver of Relocation Fees   §17.36

c.   One Fee per Unit   §17.37

d.   Services in Lieu of Fees   §17.38

e.   Failure to Pay Fees   §17.39

C.   Technical Defenses Based on Notice and Filing Requirements   §17.40

D.   Unexpired Leases   §17.41

E.   Tenant’s Options Regarding Unlawful Detainer Action Under Ellis Act

1.   Answering the Complaint   §17.42

2.   Retaliatory Eviction Defense Limited   §17.43

3.   Failure to Take All Units Off Market   §17.44

4.   Other Possible Defenses   §17.45

F.   Discovering Violations After Eviction

1.   Use of Ellis Act to Move Out Long-Term Tenants   §17.46

2.   Use of Post-Ellis Property for Home Ownership   §17.47

a.   Effect of State and Local Subdivision Laws   §17.48

b.   Effect of State and Local Laws Regulating Apartment Conversions   §17.49

Back to Top

18

Special Considerations Governing Evictions From Federally Assisted Housing

Catherine M. Bishop
Nancy Ann Palandati
Deborah A. Collins

I.    “FEDERALLY ASSISTED LOW-INCOME HOUSING” DEFINED   §18.1

II.    ASCERTAINING WHETHER TENANT LIVES IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING AND, IF SO, WHAT KIND   §18.2

III.    TYPES OF FEDERAL HOUSING PROGRAMS   §18.3

A.   Public Housing   §18.3A

B.   Section 8   §18.3B

C.   HUD-Assisted and -Subsidized Housing   §18.3C

D.   HUD-Assisted Units Threatened With Prepayment of Mortgage or Opt-Out of Section 8 Contract   §18.3D

E.   Rural Housing Service (RHS) Subsidized Rental Housing   §18.3E

F.   Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)   §18.3F

G.   Other State and Local Programs   §18.3G

IV.    SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS IN EVICTION ACTIONS

A.   Application of State Law   §18.4

B.   Evictions After Foreclosure

1.   Preemptive Measures Governing Evictions   §18.4A

2.   Postponing Sale of Multifamily Residential Buildings   §18.4B

C.   Good Cause Requirement   §18.5

1.   Public Housing   §18.6

2.   Project-Based Section 8 and HUD-Assisted and -Subsidized Housing   §18.7

3.   Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program   §18.8

4.   Rural Housing Service (RHS) Rental Housing   §18.9

5.   State and Local Housing Programs for Low-Income Families   §18.10

6.   Other Housing Programs for Low-Income Families   §18.11

D.   Facts Constituting Good Cause   §18.12

1.   Failure to Pay Rent   §18.13

2.   Serious Tenant Wrongdoing, Including Criminal Activity

a.   Violation of Lease or State or Federal Law   §18.14

                           b.   Drug or Criminal Activity

(1)  Statutory Authorization and Standards for Eviction   §18.15

(2)  Federal Standards Upheld in Rucker   §18.16

(3)  When State Law Standards Apply   §18.16A

(4)  Aftermath of Rucker; Unresolved Issues   §18.17

(5)  Permission to Obtain Criminal Records, Drug Treatment Information   §18.17A

c.   Exception: Victims of Domestic Violence Protected   §18.17B

3.   Violation of Program Regulations   §18.18

4.   Examples of Improper Grounds for Evicting Tenant   §18.19

E.   Defending Evictions

1.   Project Owner’s Abuse of Power   §18.20

2.   Defensive Strategies in PHA Evictions   §18.20A

                     3.   Bankruptcy Discharge of Delinquent Rent in Public or Subsidized Housing   §18.20B

V.    EVICTION PROCEDURES: NOTICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OR MEETING   §18.21

A.   Notice Requirements   §18.22

B.   Pretermination Grievance Hearing or Meeting   §18.23

C.   Notice and Hearing Required Before Forfeiture Under Federal Antidrug Statute   §18.24

               D.   Relief From Forfeiture   §18.25

VI.    DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION FROM FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING   §18.26

       VII.    ENJOINING EVICTIONS FROM FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING   §18.27

Back to Top

19

Special Considerations Governing Evictions in Commercial Tenancies

Myron Moskovitz
Clifford R. Horner

I.    OVERVIEW OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER IN COMMERCIAL TENANCIES   §19.1

II.    THREE-DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT

A.   Lease Provisions May Affect Eviction Procedures   §19.2

B.   Statutory Requirements

1.   Estimated Rent (CCP §1161.1)   §19.3

2.   When Rent Is Not Estimated   §19.4

3.   Service Requirements   §19.5

4.   Landlord’s Acceptance of Partial Tender of Rent   §19.6

III.    THREE-DAY NOTICE FOR VIOLATION OF COVENANT OTHER THAN PAYMENT OF RENT   §19.7

A.   Covenants Restricting Assignments

1.   Common Law Rules   §19.8

2.   Statutory Law   §19.9

B.   Covenants Regarding Tenant Improvements   §19.9A

C.   Covenants Restricting Change in Use   §19.10

IV.    TERMINATION NOTICES FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE   §19.10A

V.    TERMINATION UNDER EXPRESS LEASE PROVISIONS   §19.10B

VI.    DEFENDING EVICTION BY ASSERTING BREACH OF LEASE BY LANDLORD

A.   Covenant to Repair; Implied Warranty of Habitability

1.   Dependent Versus Independent Covenants   §19.11

2.   Argument Favoring Adoption of Dependent Covenant Doctrine in Commercial Leases   §19.12

a.   Minimize Litigation   §19.13

b.   Eliminate Unfair Burdens on Tenant   §19.14

c.   Protect Tenant’s Right to Pursue Livelihood   §19.15

d.   No Impact on Summary Nature of Unlawful Detainer   §19.16

e.   Out-of-State Decisions Favor Interdependent Covenants   §19.17

3.   Effect of Toxic Mold Legislation   §19.17A

B.   Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment   §19.18

C.   Other Contractual Defenses   §19.18A

D.   Implied Warranty of Fitness   §19.19

E.   Implied Covenant of Good Faith   §19.20

1.   Duty to Maintain Third Party Leases   §19.21

2.   Sublessor Required to Exercise Option to Extend Master Lease   §19.22

3.   “No Compete” Covenant Applied to Expansion of Shopping Center   §19.23

4.   Good Faith Covenant Applied in Favor of Landlord   §19.24

VII.    NONCONTRACTUAL DEFENSES TO COMMERCIAL EVICTION ACTIONS

A.   Retaliatory Eviction   §19.25

B.   Good Cause to Terminate Petroleum Distributorship   §19.26

C.   Equitable Defenses   §19.27

VIII.    LANDLORD’S RIGHT OF ENTRY PENDING EVICTION   §19.28

Back to Top

20

Effect of Sale of Property on Unlawful Detainer Proceedings

I.    EFFECT OF SALE OF PROPERTY ON UNLAWFUL DETAINER   §20.1

A.   Sale Before Eviction Action Is Begun   §20.2

B.   Sale After Eviction Action Has Begun   §20.3

II.    EVICTING AFTER SALE UNDER CCP §1161a   §20.4

A.   Use of 30-Day Notice on Residential Owner’s Tenant or 60-Day or 90-Day Notice After Foreclosure   §20.5

1.   When 60-Day Notice Applies   §20.6

2.   Additional Preforeclosure Notice of Sale   §20.7

3.   Postponing Sale of Multifamily Residential Buildings   §20.7A

4.   When 90-Day Notice Applies   §20.8

B.   Litigating Title in Unlawful Detainer Action   §20.9

C.   Effect of Local Eviction Control Ordinances   §20.10

D.   Effect of Section 8 Eviction Controls   §20.11

E.   Postforeclosure Bank Eviction Policies   §20.12

F.   Defending Postforeclosure Evictions: Priority of Title, Title Dispute, Improper Foreclosure, or Improper Notice Following Foreclosure   §20.13

III.    UTILITY CUTOFFS   §20.14

Back to Top

21

Effect of Filing Bankruptcy on Proceedings in Unlawful Detainer

I.    EFFECT OF TENANT FILING BANKRUPTCY

A.   Automatic Stay on Evictions   §21.1

B.   Exceptions to Stay for Residential Tenancies

1.   After Entry of Judgment for Eviction   §21.1A

2.   When Eviction Based on Endangerment of Property or Illegal Use of Controlled Substance   §21.1B

C.   Significant Changes Under 2005 Act   §21.1C

II.    LANDLORD MAY SEEK RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY   §21.2

III.    PENALTY FOR IMPROPER FILING OF BANKRUPTCY   §21.3

IV.    LEASE CLAUSES PURPORTING TO TERMINATE LEASE ON FILING OF BANKRUPTCY   §21.4

V.    TERMINATION OF UTILITIES AND OTHER SERVICES   §21.5

VI.    ASSUMPTION OF LEASE BY TRUSTEE   §21.6

VII.    SECURITY DEPOSITS   §21.7

VIII.    DISADVANTAGES TO TENANT OF FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY   §21.8

IX.    FILING PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY AS TACTIC IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION   §21.9

Back to Top

22

Summary Judgment

I.    PURPOSE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT   §22.1

II.    TIMING OF MOTION   §22.2

III.    BURDEN OF PROOF   §22.2A

IV.    FACTUAL BASES FOR TENANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT   §22.3

V.    MOVING PARTY’S SUPPORTING PAPERS   §22.4

VI.    OPPOSING PARTY’S COUNTERDECLARATIONS; ORDERS   §22.5

VII.    SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES   §22.6

Back to Top

23

Discovery

I.    PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY   §23.1

II.    STATUTORY METHODS OF DISCOVERY   §23.2

III.    AVAILABILITY OF DISCOVERY IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER   §23.3

IV.    DEFENSE STRATEGY SHOULD INCLUDE PLAN FOR DISCOVERY   §23.4

V.    FORMAL AND INFORMAL DISCOVERY METHODS   §23.5

VI.    FORMULATING A DISCOVERY PLAN

A.   When to Make and Implement Plan   §23.6

B.   Coordinating Various Discovery Techniques   §23.7

C.   Timeline for Initiating Tenant Discovery Directed to Landlord   §23.8

D.   Actions to Take if Discovery Cannot Be Completed Before Trial Date   §23.9

VII.    PURSUING DISCOVERY BEFORE ACTION FILED   §23.10

A.   Methods of Discovery Available Before Action Is Filed   §23.11

B.   Procedure for Pursuing Discovery Before Action Is Filed   §23.12

C.   Usefulness of Pursuing Discovery Before Action Is Filed   §23.13

VIII.    DISCOVERY AFTER SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ARE SERVED   §23.14

A.   Time Limits on Responding to Discovery Requests   §23.15

B.   Preventing Setting of Trial Date Before Discovery Is Complete   §23.16

C.   Petitioning for Writ of Mandate if Court Refuses to Extend Trial Date   §23.17

IX.    METHODS OF DISCOVERY   §23.18

A.   Oral Depositions   §23.19

1.   Usefulness of Depositions   §23.20

2.   Expense of Depositions   §23.21

3.   Procedure for Oral Depositions

a.   When Deposition May Be Taken   §23.22

b.   Setting Depositions of Parties   §23.23

c.   Setting Depositions of Nonparties   §23.24

d.   Witness and Mileage Fees   §23.25

e.   Procedures at Deposition   §23.26

f.   Inspection of Documents at Deposition   §23.27

g.   Reviewing, Correcting, and Approving Deposition   §23.28

B.   Written Interrogatories   §23.29

1.   Usefulness of Written Interrogatories   §23.30

2.   Disadvantages of Written Interrogatories   §23.31

3.   Limit on Number of Interrogatories That May Be Propounded   §23.32

4.   Form: Declaration for Additional Discovery   §23.33

5.   Procedure for Propounding Written Interrogatories   §23.34

C.   Pretrial Demand for Production of Documents or Inspection   §23.35

1.   Usefulness of Demand for Production   §23.36

2.   Introduction Into Evidence of Documents Produced   §23.37

3.   Tactical Considerations in Requesting Production   §23.38

4.   Protective Orders Against Request for Production   §23.39

D.   Requests for Admissions   §23.40

1.   Usefulness of Requests for Admissions   §23.41

2.   Procedure for Requests for Admissions   §23.42

3.   Form: Declaration in Support of Request for Additional Admissions   §23.43

4.   Effect of Failure to Respond to Request for Admissions   §23.44

5.   Effect of Failure to Admit Fact Later Found True   §23.45

6.   Requests for Admissions May Not Be Combined With Other Discovery Requests   §23.46

7.   Effect of Admission Made in Response to Request   §23.47

8.   Admissions and Responses Are Not Filed But Retained by Parties   §23.48

X.    SANCTIONS FOR REFUSAL TO MAKE DISCOVERY   §23.49

A.   Categories of Sanctions That May Be Imposed   §23.50

B.   What Constitutes Misuse of Discovery Process   §23.51

C.   Specific Sanctions That Court May Impose   §23.52

Back to Top

24

Rights of Occupants Not Named in Lease

I.    OCCUPANTS WHO ARE NOT NAMED IN LEASE   §24.1

II.    PREJUDGMENT CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION   §24.2

A.   Service of Prejudgment Claim to Right to Possession Form

1.   Service by Marshal, Sheriff, or Process Server   §24.3

2.   Time of Service   §24.4

3.   Service on Occupants Other Than Tenant or Subtenant   §24.5

B.   Effect of Proper Service by Landlord of Prejudgment Claim Form   §24.6

C.   Effect of Inadequate Service by Landlord of Prejudgment Claim Form   §24.7

D.   Judicial Council Form CP10.5: Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession   §24.8

III.    POSTJUDGMENT CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION   §24.9

A.   Removal of Occupant by Sheriff or Marshal   §24.10

B.   Procedure by Occupant in Making Postjudgment Claim of Right to Possession   §24.11

C.   Judicial Council Form CP10: Claim of Right to Possession and Notice of Hearing   §24.12

IV.    HEARING ON CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION   §24.13

V.    PROCEDURE AT HEARING ON CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION   §24.14

VI.    PROCEEDING WITH ENFORCEMENT OF WRIT OF POSSESSION   §24.15

Back to Top

25

Trial

I.    SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL

A.   Request and Counter-Request to Set Trial   §25.1

B.   Setting Date for Trial   §25.2

C.   Effects of Local Practices   §25.3

1.   Trial by Temporary Judge   §25.4

2.   Procedure After Trial Date Is Set   §25.5

D.   Resetting Trial Date   §25.6

1.   Procedure If Parties Do Not Agree on New Trial Date   §25.7

2.   Determining Whether Moving Party Has Shown Good Cause   §25.8

3.   Determining Whether There Is Reasonable Probability Plaintiff Will Prevail at Trial   §25.9

4.   Determining Damages Landlord Might Suffer   §25.10

5.   Reduction of Damages Based on Diminution of Value or Setoff   §25.11

6.   Order to Deposit Potential Damages   §25.12

7.   Advancing Trial Date on Tenant’s Failure to Make Deposit   §25.13

8.   Costs of Escrow Recoverable by Prevailing Party   §25.14

9.   Distribution of Funds Held in Escrow After Trial   §25.15

II.    IF TENANT VACATES PREMISES BEFORE TRIAL   §25.16

III.    PRETRIAL CONFERENCE   §25.17

IV.    RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL   §25.18

A.   Jury Instructions   §25.19

B.   Waiver of Jury Trial

1.   Bases for Waiver   §25.20

2.   Requesting Jury Trial After Waiver   §25.21

3.   Tenant’s Right to Jury Trial on Equitable Issues   §25.22

a.   Examples of Legal Issues   §25.23

b.   Examples of Equitable Defenses   §25.24

C.   Jury Verdicts

1.   General and Special Verdicts   §25.24A

2.   Judgment Based on Jury Verdict   §25.24B

V.    DISQUALIFYING JUDGE   §25.25

A.   Challenge for Cause (CCP §170.1)   §25.26

1.   Conditions That May Not Be Used as Grounds to Disqualify Judge   §25.27

2.   Bias or Prejudice   §25.28

3.   Procedure for Disqualification   §25.29

B.   Peremptory Challenges (CCP §170.6)

1.   Grounds for Challenge   §25.30

2.   Procedure for Peremptory Challenges   §25.31

3.   Time Limits for Moving to Challenge   §25.32

4.   Effect of Challenge   §25.33

C.   Tactical Considerations   §25.34

VI.    SUBPOENAS

A.   Subpoenas for Witnesses   §25.35

B.   Subpoena Not Necessary to Require Attendance of Party or Agent   §25.36

C.   Service of Subpoena   §25.37

               D.   Fees for Appearing in Court in Response to Subpoena   §25.38

E.   Subpoena Duces Tecum (Books and Papers)   §25.39

1.   Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum; Affidavit of Good Cause Necessary   §25.40

2.   Fees for Appearing in Court in Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum   §25.41

3.   Subpoena Duces Tecum Not Necessary for Party   §25.42

F.   Penalties for Disobeying Subpoena   §25.43

VII.    EVIDENCE PROBLEMS

A.   Prima Facie Case; Nonsuit   §25.44

B.   Proof of Tenant’s Possession   §25.45

C.   Proof of Service of Notice   §25.46

D.   Proof of Rent Due   §25.47

E.   Judicial Notice   §25.48

F.   Use of Books and Records   §25.49

G.   Laying Foundation for Admission of Business Record   §25.50

H.   Proof of Damages   §25.51

I.   Waiver of Rent During Trial   §25.52

J.   Proving Retaliatory Eviction   §25.53

1.   Strength of Retaliatory Motive   §25.54

2.   Evidence of “Just Cause” to Evict   §25.55

3.   Evidence of Retaliatory Motive

a.   Evidence Inferred by Conduct   §25.56

b.   Indirect Evidence   §25.57

K.   Fees for Appointment of Interpreter   §25.58

VIII.    TRIAL BRIEFS   §25.59

IX.    CONTINUANCES   §25.60

A.   Grounds for Continuance   §25.61

1.   Unavailability of Counsel   §25.62

2.   Unavailability of Party   §25.63

3.   Unavailability of Witness   §25.64

4.   Other Statutory Grounds for Granting Continuance   §25.65

5.   Unexpected Testimony   §25.66

B.   Procedure for Obtaining Continuance   §25.67

1.   Good Cause Required   §25.67A

2.   Stipulation for Continuance   §25.67B

3.   Conditions for Obtaining Continuance   §25.67C

4.   Appealability of Order Denying Continuance   §25.67D

X.    DEFAULTS AT TRIAL   §25.67E

XI.    CONFORMING PLEADINGS TO PROOF

A.   General Law for Ordinary Civil Actions   §25.68

B.   Special Law for Unlawful Detainer Complaints

1.   Amendment Based on Trial Evidence   §25.68A

2.   Amendments Before Trial Excluded   §25.68B

3.   Permissible Scope of Amendments   §25.68C

C.   Amended Versus Supplemental Complaint   §25.68D

XII.    STATEMENT OF DECISION   §25.69

Back to Top

26

Judgment

I.    JUDGMENTS IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS   §26.1

         II.    CONDITIONING JUDGMENT FOR TENANT ON PAYMENT OF RENT   §26.2

        III.    TENANT MUST BE IN POSSESSION   §26.3

        IV.    WHAT COURT CAN AWARD

A.   Judgment Can Grant Possession of Premises   §26.4

               B.   “Rent” and “Damages”   §26.5

                     1.   Determining Whether Amount Due Is Rent or Damages; Period Covered   §26.6

                     2.   Rent   §26.7

                     3.   Apportionment of Rent   §26.8

                     4.   Damages

a.   Damages Occurring Before Holdover   §26.9

                           b.   Reasonable Rental Value During Holdover   §26.10

                           c.   Damages Against Subtenant   §26.11

                           d.   Damages After Judgment   §26.12

                           e.   Statutory Damages for Malicious Holdover   §26.13

               C.   Forfeiture   §26.14

               D.   Notice May Specify Election to Declare Forfeiture   §26.15

               E.   Interest May Be Awarded   §26.16

               F.   Costs May Be Awarded   §26.17

               G.   Attorney Fees Authorized by Lease or Statute   §26.18

                     1.   Reciprocity of Attorney Fee Provision   §26.19

                     2.   Award of Fees Under Invalid Rental Agreement   §26.20

                     3.   Prevailing Party   §26.21

                     4.   Entitlement to Attorney Fees on Tender and Deposit of Amount Owed   §26.22

                     5.   Prevailing Party When Tenant Raises Habitability as Affirmative Defense   §26.23

                     6.   Size of Fee Award; Local Fee Schedules   §26.24

                     7.   Fees Awardable After Settlement Offer Rejected   §26.25

8.   Fees Awardable Beyond Court’s Jurisdictional Limit   §26.26

9.   Fees Awardable to Public Interest Attorneys   §26.27

10.   Fees Awardable for All Issues Argued   §26.28

11.   Attorney Fees Payable to Party—Not to Attorney   §26.29

12.   Attorney Fees Awardable as Sanctions Regardless of Lease Provision   §26.30

13.   Effect of Voluntary Dismissal   §26.31

14.   Fees Awardable for Enforcement of Right Important to Public Interest   §26.32

15.   Procedures for Requesting Fees   §26.33

16.   Related Statutes Providing for Award of Attorney Fees   §26.34

H.   Limitation on Award for Judgments in Municipal Court of Less Than $10,000   §26.35

I.   Witness Fees May Be Awarded   §26.36

J.   Costs of Execution of Judgment May Be Recovered   §26.37

V.    EFFECT OF JUDGMENT ON CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING   §26.38

VI.    RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT OF JUDGMENT   §26.38A

VII.    UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT FORMS

A.   Form: Order for Judgment for Defendant Conditioned on Payment of Rent After Trial (Warranty of Habitability)   §26.39

B.   Form: Judgment—Unlawful Detainer (Judicial Council Form UD‑110)   §26.40

C.   Form: Judgment—Unlawful Detainer Attachment (Judicial Council Form UD‑110S)   §26.41

D.   Form: Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (Unlawful Detainer) (Judicial Council Form UD‑115)   §26.42

Back to Top

27

Posttrial Motions

I.    POSTTRIAL MOTIONS COVERED   §27.1

II.    FIVE-DAY STATUTORY STAY OF EXECUTION (FOR APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF POSSESSION)   §27.2

III.    DISCRETIONARY STAY OF EXECUTION

A.   Pending Hearing on Posttrial Motions   §27.3

B.   Temporary Stay Based on Hardship   §27.4

C.   Form: Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution   §27.5

D.   Form: Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution   §27.6

IV.    MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING VERDICT   §27.7

A.   Grounds for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict   §27.8

B.   Procedure for Making Notice of Motion   §27.9

C.   Time of Ruling on Motion   §27.10

D.   Form: Notice of Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict   §27.11

E.   Form: Order Granting or Denying Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict   §27.12

V.    MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL   §27.13

A.   Grounds for Motion for New Trial   §27.14

B.   Court’s Power to Vacate or Modify Judgment   §27.15

C.   Notice of Motion for New Trial   §27.16

D.   Time for Making Motion for New Trial   §27.17

E.   Form: Notice of Motion for New Trial   §27.18

F.   Form: Declaration in Support of Notice of Motion for New Trial   §27.19

G.   Hearing on Motion   §27.20

H.   Court’s Time to Rule on Motion   §27.21

VI.    MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE JUDGMENT   §27.22

A.   Notice of Motion   §27.23

B.   Time for Making Motion   §27.24

C.   Form: Notice of Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter Different Judgment   §27.25

D.   Form: Order Granting Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter Different Judgment (CCP §663)   §27.26

VI.    APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM FORFEITURE   §27.27

A.   Grounds for Relief From Forfeiture   §27.28

B.   Rent Must Be Paid and Other Covenants Performed   §27.29

C.   Procedure for Seeking Relief From Forfeiture   §27.30

D.   Form: Application for Relief From Forfeiture   §27.31

E.   Effect of Grant or Denial of Relief   §27.32

Back to Top

28

Enforcement of Judgment—Removing Tenant and Tenant’s Belongings

I.    REMOVING TENANT   §28.1

A.   Contents of Writ   §28.2

B.   Sending Scare Notice to Tenant After Judgment Is Entered   §28.3

C.   Procedures for Serving and Enforcing Writ of Possession   §28.4

D.   Sheriff Must Evict if Tenant Does Not Vacate Within 5 Days   §28.5

E.   Effect of Failure by Sheriff to Act by Return Date of Writ   §28.6

F.   Judicial Council Form EJ‑130: Writ of Possession of Real Property   §28.7

II.    SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT PRACTICES AND CHARGES   §28.8

III.    DISPOSITION OF TENANT’S PERSONAL PROPERTY

A.   Personal Property Not Removed by Tenant   §28.9

B.   Recovery of Personal Property After Eviction   §28.10

C.   Treating Tenant’s Personal Property as Lost or Abandoned   §28.11

D.   Claim by Tenant for Personal Property (CC §1965)   §28.12

E.   Advantages and Disadvantages of Requesting Surrender   §28.13

F.   Form: Claim for Return of Personal Property Under CC §1965   §28.14

IV.    DISPOSITION OF LOST PROPERTY   §28.15

V.    DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY ABANDONED BY TENANT   §28.16

A.   Landlord Must Store Abandoned Property in Safe Place   §28.17

B.   Notice Requirements for Disposal of Abandoned Property   §28.18

C.   Release of Property to Owner on Payment of Costs   §28.19

D.   Storage Costs   §28.20

E.   Sale of Unclaimed Property; Liability of Landlord   §28.21

VI.    EXECUTION ON TENANT’S PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LANDLORD’S POSSESSION   §28.22

VII.    SETTING ASIDE IMPROPER EXECUTION SALE   §28.23

VIII.    SUPPLEMENTAL COST BILL   §28.24

IX.    MOTION TO QUASH OR RECALL WRIT OF EXECUTION   §28.25

X.    CLAIM OF EXEMPTION   §28.26

A.   Judicial Council Form EJ‑160: Claim of Exemption   §28.27

B.   Hearing on Objections to Claim of Exemption   §28.28

C.   Judgment on Claim of Exemption   §28.29

XI.    WAGE GARNISHMENTS   §28.30

Back to Top

29

Appeals

I.    APPEAL PROCEDURES   §29.1

A.   Limited Civil Cases: Timeline for Action After Entry of Judgment   §29.2

B.   Unlimited Civil Cases: Timeline for Action After Entry of Judgment   §29.3

II.    APPEALABLE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS   §29.4

III.    VACATING PREMISES DOES NOT MOOT TENANT’S APPEAL   §29.5

IV.    FRIVOLOUS APPEALS   §29.6

V.    OBTAINING IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT   §29.7

VI.    STAY PENDING APPEAL   §29.8

A.   Evaluating Need for Stay Pending Appeal   §29.9

B.   Proper Judge   §29.10

C.   Grounds on Which Stay May Be Granted   §29.11

VII.    UNDERTAKING ON APPEAL   §29.12

VIII.    FORM: WAIVER OF SECURITY   §29.13

IX.    FORM: NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY   §29.14

X.    REVIEW OF DENIAL OF STAY   §29.15

XI.    CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION MUST BE SHOWN   §29.16

XII.    SCOPE OF TRIAL COURT JURISDICTION PENDING APPEAL   §29.17

XIII.    EVALUATING WHETHER TO APPEAL   §29.18

XIV.    SUMMARY OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

A.   Applicable Rules   §29.19

B.   Appeals From Limited Civil Cases   §29.20

C.   Appeals From Other Superior Court Actions   §29.21

D.   Standard of Review   §29.22

E.   Initiating Appeal

1.   Notice of Appeal   §29.23

2.   Form: Notice of Appeal   §29.24

3.   Form: Notice of Appeal/Cross-Appeal (Limited Civil Case) (Judicial Council Form APP-102)   §29.25

4.   Form: Notice Designating Record on Appeal (Limited Civil Case) (Judicial Council Form APP-103)   §29.26

5.   Filing Deadlines Applicable to Appeals From Limited Civil Cases   §29.27

6.   Filing Deadlines Applicable to Other Superior Court Judgments   §29.28

7.   Record on Appeal   §29.29

a.   Electronic Recording or Agreed Statement   §29.30

b.   Form: Proposed Statement on Appeal (Limited Civil Case) (Judicial Council Form APP-104)   §29.31

c.   Requesting Reporter’s Transcript   §29.32

F.   Filing Briefs in Appellate Division of Superior Court   §29.33

G.   Filing Briefs in Court of Appeal   §29.34

H.   Purpose of Oral Argument   §29.35

I.   Decision on Appeal and Rehearing   §29.36

J.   Relief for Tenant After Reversal   §29.37

K.   Costs and Attorney Fees on Appeal   §29.38

L.   Abandonment of Appeal   §29.39

M.   Transfer to District Court of Appeal

1.   Transfer of Appeal of Limited Civil Case From Superior Court to Court of Appeal   §29.40

2.   When Transfer Is Denied by District Court   §29.41

Back to Top

30

Civil Writs

I.    CIVIL WRITS IN GENERAL    §30.1

II.    NATURE AND SCOPE OF WRIT    §30.2

A.   Conditions Under Which Writ of Mandate Will Issue    §30.3

B.   Alternative and Peremptory Writs of Mandate    §30.4

C.   Factors in Deciding Whether to Seek Writ    §30.5

III.    OBTAINING A STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL OR DECISION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE   §30.6

IV.    PERSUADING COURT THAT WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED    §30.7

A.   Inadequacy of Other Remedy Must Be Shown    §30.8

B.   No Direct Appeal    §30.9

C.   Common Situations in Which Relief by Writ Is Sought    §30.10

D.   Direct Appeal Possible    §30.11

V.    PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING WRIT

A.   Relief Must First Be Sought in Lower Court    §30.12

B.   Court in Which Writ Petition Must Be Filed    §30.13

C.   Applicable Statutes and Rules of Court    §30.14

D.   Names of Parties    §30.15

E.   Time Limitation    §30.16

F.   Procedures in Superior Court    §30.17

G.   Pleadings in Mandamus Proceeding    §30.18

1.   Contents of Petition    §30.19

2.   Common Errors in Petitions for Writ    §30.20

3.   Opposition to Issuance of Writ    §30.21

H.   Hearing    §30.22

I.   Issuance of Peremptory Writ    §30.23

J.   Mootness    §30.24

K.   Damages and Costs    §30.25

VI.    REVIEW OF SUPERIOR COURT ACTION ON WRIT    §30.26

VII.    APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TO SUPREME COURT    §30.27

Back to Top

31

Return of Security Deposit and Disposition of Last Month’s Rent

I.    TENANT’S RIGHTS IN SECURITY DEPOSIT AND LAST MONTH’S RENT    §31.1

II.    PAYMENTS TO LANDLORD ON SIGNING OF LEASE THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED “SECURITY”    §31.2

III.    SECURITY “DISGUISED” AS ADVANCE RENT    §31.3

IV.    EFFECT OF DESIGNATION OF DEPOSIT AS “LAST MONTH’S RENT” RATHER THAN “SECURITY DEPOSIT”    §31.4

V.    LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF SECURITY THAT MAY BE REQUIRED    §31.5

VI.    TENANT’S CLAIM TO SECURITY HAS PRIORITY OVER THAT OF LANDLORD’S CREDITORS    §31.6

VII.    SECURITY MAY NOT BE NONREFUNDABLE    §31.7

VIII.    PROVING AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT    §31.8

IX.    LIMITS ON LANDLORD’S USE OF SECURITY DEPOSIT    §31.9

X.    LANDLORD’S DUTY TO RETURN DEPOSIT    §31.10

A.   Tenant’s Right to Request Inspection of Premises and Cure Deficiencies; Use of Deposit    §31.10A

B.   Tenant’s Right to Refund of Security Deposit Balance and Accounting    §31.10B

XI.    LANDLORD’S SALE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF PREMISES    §31.11

XII.    INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT    §31.12

XIII.    DAMAGES FOR LANDLORD’S IMPROPER RETENTION OF DEPOSIT    §31.13

XIV.    EFFECT ON UNLAWFUL DETAINER    §31.14

Back to Top

1

Overview of Unlawful Detainer Law

I.    SCOPE OF THIS BOOK   §1.1

II.    LANDLORD’S ALTERNATIVES TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION   §1.2

III.    ETHICS   §1.3

IV.    SUMMARY OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCESS   §1.4

A.   Description of Unlawful Detainer Action   §1.5

B.   Reduced Time Frame Governing Unlawful Detainer Procedure   §1.6

C.   Landlord Must Strictly Comply With Statutory Requirements   §1.7

D.   Notice Requirements   §1.8

E.   Bases for Terminating Tenancy; Applicable Notice   §1.9

1.   Termination Requiring 3-Day Notice (Longer Notice Permitted)   §1.10

2.   Termination Requiring 30-Day or 60-Day Notice   §1.11

3.   Termination Requiring Other Notice   §1.12

4.   Termination Requiring No Notice   §1.13

F.   Jurisdiction and Venue   §1.14

G.   Default Judgment   §1.15

H.   Bases for Defending Unlawful Detainer Actions   §1.16

I.   Trial

1.   Tenant Entitled to Jury Trial if Answer Presents Admissible Defenses   §1.17

2.   Rent and Damages Awardable to Landlord   §1.18

J.   Posttrial Motions   §1.19

K.   Execution by Sheriff   §1.20

V.    SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL TENANT RESPONSES TO LANDLORD’S ACTIONS   §1.20A

VI.    INVALIDITY OF LEASE PROVISION WAIVING TENANT’S RIGHTS   §1.21

VII.    WRIT OF IMMEDIATE POSSESSION   §1.22

VIII.    UNAVAILABILITY OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER IF TENANT IS NO LONGER IN POSSESSION OF PREMISES   §1.23

Back to Top

2

Relationship of Unlawful Detainer to Other Actions

I.    ISSUES NOT COGNIZABLE IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS   §2.1

II.    COORDINATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER WITH OTHER ACTIONS   §2.2

A.   Coordination of Complex Actions   §2.2A

B.   Transfer of Noncomplex Actions   §2.2B

C.   Consolidation of Actions Pending in Same County   §2.2C

III.    CONVERSION OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION TO ACTION FOR EJECTMENT   §2.3

IV.    SEVERING POSSESSION ISSUE FROM RENT-DUE ISSUE   §2.4

V.    TENANT’S SUIT FOR DECLARATORY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; STAY OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION

A.   Overview: Can Unlawful Detainer Actions Be Enjoined?  §2.5

B.   Obtaining Injunctive Relief

1.   Legal Basis; Grounds   §2.5A

2.   The Newby Exception: Adequate Remedy at Law   §2.5B

3.   Overcoming Newby Limitations   §2.5C

4.   Procedure; Bond Required   §2.5D

VI.    LANDLORD’S SUIT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF   §2.6

VII.    ACTIONS AFTER ENTRY OF JUDGMENT   §2.7

VIII.    ARBITRATION PROVISION IN LEASE   §2.8

IX.    ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS   §2.9

X.    BANKRUPTCY   §2.10

Back to Top

3

Self-Help by Landlord

I.    USE OF SELF-HELP BY LANDLORD   §3.1

II.    FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER   §3.2

A.   Examples of Forcible Entry and Detainer   §3.3

B.   Retaking Abandoned Premises Is Not Forcible Entry or Detainer   §3.4

C.   Recovering Punitive Damages for Forcible Entry or Detainer Requires Showing of Malice   §3.5

III.    SHUTTING OFF UTILITIES OR OTHERWISE BARRING TENANT’S USE OF PROPERTY

A.   Civil Code §789.3   §3.6

B.   Remedies Under Public Utilities Code and CC §1942.2   §3.6A

IV.    OTHER ACTIONS BY LANDLORD THAT MAKE PREMISES UNINHABITABLE   §3.7

V.    SELF-HELP EVICTIONS OF TENANTS IN RESIDENTIAL HOTELS   §3.8

VI.    SELF-HELP EVICTIONS OF LODGERS   §3.9

VII.    SELF-HELP EVICTIONS OF OCCUPANTS OF TRANSITIONAL HOUSING   §3.10

VIII.    SELF-HELP EVICTIONS OF HOTEL GUESTS   §3.11

IX.    ANTI-HARASSMENT STATUTE (CC §1940.2)   §3.12

Back to Top

4

Representing the Tenant; Office Procedures

I.    OFFICE PROCEDURES   §4.1

II.    LAW OFFICE AUTOMATION   §4.2

III.    LEGAL REFERENCE MATERIALS   §4.3

A.   Necessary Legal Sources and Forms   §4.4

B.   Useful Additional Library Materials   §4.5

IV.    INITIAL STEPS BEFORE DECIDING WHETHER TO REPRESENT TENANT

A.   Initial (Telephone) Contact With Prospective Client   §4.6

B.   Form: Telephone Intake Form   §4.7

C.   Scheduling Meeting With Prospective Client   §4.8

D.   Conflict of Interest in Representing Tenant

1.   Performing a Conflicts Check   §4.9

2.   Common Conflict Situations in Unlawful Detainer Actions   §4.10

E.   Initial Meeting With Prospective Client   §4.11

F.   Use of Client Interview Questionnaire   §4.12

G.   Form: Client Interview Questionnaire   §4.13

H.   Conduct of Initial Meeting   §4.14

I.   Investigate Tenant’s Relationship With Former Counsel and Any Litigation History   §4.15

J.   Contact Landlord’s Attorney for Preliminary Look at Opposing View of Case   §4.16

K.   Initial Assessment of Case   §4.17

L.   Scope of Initial Assessment   §4.18

M.   Allaying Tenant’s Fears   §4.19

V.    REPRESENTATION OF TENANT

A.   Decision to Represent Tenant   §4.20

1.   If Attorney Will Not Represent or Assist Tenant   §4.21

2.   When More Time Needed for Decision on Representation   §4.22

3.   Form: Substitution of Attorney—Civil (Without Court Order) (Judicial Council Form MC-050; Mandatory)   §4.23

4.   If Attorney and Tenant Agree That Attorney Will Represent or Assist Tenant   §4.24

5.   Disclosure Regarding Professional Liability Insurance   §4.24A

B.   Representation Agreements and Ground Rules   §4.25

1.   Delegating Tasks to Client   §4.26

2.   Contents of Representation Agreement   §4.27

3.   Form: Representation Agreement—Private Practitioner   §4.28

4.   Form: Client Retainer Agreement—Legal Services Organization   §4.29

C.   Limited Scope Representation (Unbundling)

1.   Applicable Law   §4.29A

2.   Checklist: Tenant Fee Agreement   §4.29B

D.   Deposit of Rent Due Into Client Trust Account   §4.30

E.   Form: Requirement for Deposit of Rent Into Attorney-Client Trust Account   §4.31

VI.    PROCEDURE AFTER REPRESENTATION IS UNDERTAKEN

A.   Ascertain Goal of Representation   §4.32

1.   Ascertain Whether Tenant Wants to Continue Living in Rental Unit   §4.33

2.   Goal of Representation Is Not Necessarily Successful Defense of Unlawful Detainer Action   §4.34

B.   Counsel Should Investigate Facts of Case   §4.35

C.   Determining Defense Strategy   §4.36

D.   Making Choices on Strategy and Tactics   §4.37

E.   Example of Strategic and Tactical Choices in Procedure When Defective 3-Day Notice Was Served   §4.38

1.   Strategy and Tactics: Filing Motion to Quash Service of Summons or Demurrer   §4.39

2.   Strategy and Tactics: Filing an Answer   §4.40

3.   Strategy and Tactics: Filing Motion for Summary Judgment   §4.41

F.   Counsel Should Simultaneously File Pleadings, Conduct Discovery, and Negotiate   §4.42

Back to Top

5

Grounds for Eviction

I.    GROUNDS FOR EVICTION GENERALLY   §5.1

II.    GROUNDS FOR EVICTION BASED ON TENANT’S DEFAULT; 3-DAY NOTICE REQUIRED   §5.2

III.    REASONS FOR TERMINATION NOT BASED ON TENANT’S DEFAULT; NOTICE REQUIRED   §5.3

IV.    REASONS FOR TERMINATION NOT BASED ON TENANT’S DEFAULT; NOTICE NOT REQUIRED   §5.4

V.    TERMINATING MOBILEHOME PARK TENANCIES   §5.5

VI.    EVICTION BROUGHT BY CITY PROSECUTOR OR CITY ATTORNEY   §5.6

Back to Top

6

Three-Day Notice

I.    PURPOSE AND EFFECT OF 3-DAY NOTICE   §6.1

A.   Purpose of 3-Day Notice   §6.2

B.   If 3-Day Notice Is Defective   §6.3

II.    IMMEDIATE TENANT RESPONSE TO SERVICE OF 3-DAY NOTICE (BEFORE COMPLAINT HAS BEEN FILED)   §6.4

III.    STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTE IS REQUIRED   §6.5

IV.    NOTICE REQUIRED EVEN IF LEASE PROVIDES THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY   §6.6

V.    COMPUTATION OF NOTICE PERIOD   §6.7

VI.    NOTICE IS VALID EVEN THOUGH IT CONTAINS MORE THAN ONE REASON FOR EVICTION   §6.8

VII.    NOTICE MAY BE WITHDRAWN   §6.9

VIII.    FORM OF NOTICE   §6.10

A.   Notice Must Be in Writing   §6.11

B.   Description of Premises in Notice   §6.12

C.   Signature on Notice   §6.13

D.   Demand for Possession Must Be Unequivocal   §6.14

E.   Statement of Three Days in Notice Itself May Not Be Required   §6.15

F.   Notice May Declare Election of Forfeiture   §6.16

G.   Demand for Rent and Charges

1.   Notice to Quit Must Include Demand for Rent as Alternative   §6.17

2.   Notice Must Specify No More Than Rent Actually Due   §6.18

a.   Precise Amount of Rent Need Not Be Specified if Calculation of Rent Depends on Tenant’s Accounting   §6.19

b.   Statement of Rent Due, and Additional Claims in Notice   §6.20

                           c.   Effect of Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act   §6.20A

3.   Notice Seeks Less Than Actual Amount Owed   §6.21

4.   One-Year Limitation on Amount of Rent That Can Be Demanded   §6.22

5.   Inclusion of Late Charges in Notice   §6.23

6.   Validity of Late Charges Landlord Claims Are Due

a.   As Liquidated Damages   §6.24

b.   As Violation of Usury Law   §6.24A

IX.    SERVICE OF NOTICE

A.   When Notice May Be Served   §6.25

1.   “Holidays” Defined   §6.26

2.   When Tenant May Perform Under Notice   §6.27

B.   Method of Service   §6.28

C.   Statutory Requirements for Service of 3-Day Notice   §6.29

X.    WHEN 3-DAY NOTICE IS BASED ON FAILURE TO PAY RENT   §6.30

XI.    TENDER OF RENT

A.   Method of Tender of Rent   §6.31

B.   Proof That Tender Was Made   §6.32

C.   Depositing Money in Landlord’s Bank Account   §6.33

D.   Effect of Tender of Rent on Obligation to Pay Rent   §6.34

E.   Time of Tender of Rent

1.   Tender of Rent Before Service of Notice   §6.35

2.   Tender of Rent After Notice Is Served and Before Notice Period Expires   §6.36

3.   Tender of Rent After Notice Period Has Expired   §6.37

XII.    WHEN 3-DAY NOTICE IS BASED ON DEFAULT UNDER LEASE OTHER THAN FAILURE TO PAY RENT

A.   Violation of Covenant in Lease Generally; Statutory Basis for 3-Day Notice   §6.38

1.   Express and Implied Covenants   §6.39

2.   Trivial or Technical Breach Not Sufficient   §6.40

3.   Waiver and Estoppel   §6.41

4.   Repeated Acceptance of Late Rent   §6.42

5.   Effect of Tenant’s Performance   §6.43

6.   Whether Notice Must Be Given in Alternative   §6.44

7.   Stating the Breach   §6.45

B.   Violation of Covenant Against Subletting, Assignment, or Waste; Maintaining Nuisance; or Using Premises for Unlawful Purpose   §6.46

1.   Subletting, Assignment, and Waste   §6.47

2.   Nuisance   §6.48

3.   Unlawful Purpose   §6.49

XIII.    SALE UNDER EXECUTION, MORTGAGE, OR TRUST DEED   §6.50

XIV.    COMMON FLAWS IN 3-DAY NOTICE OR ITS SERVICE THAT RENDER NOTICE INEFFECTIVE   §6.51

XV.    EFFECT OF SERVICE OF MORE THAN ONE NOTICE   §6.52

Back to Top

7

Thirty-Day/Sixty-Day Notices and Termination Without Notice

I.    TERMINATING PERIODIC TENANCIES

A.   Using 30-Day Notice   §7.1

B.   Using 60-Day Notice   §7.1A

II.    IMMEDIATE TENANT RESPONSE TO SERVICE OF NOTICE   §7.2

III.    TENANT REMAINS IN POSSESSION AFTER TERMINATION

A.   “Holdover” Tenant Defined   §7.3

B.   Tenant Serves Landlord With Notice of Termination and Remains in Possession After Termination Period   §7.4

C.   Term Has Expired but Tenant Holds Over   §7.5

D.   Termination of Employment of Resident Employee   §7.6

E.   Death of Tenant   §7.7

F.   Expiration of Fixed-Term Lease   §7.8

G.   Effect of Landlord’s Acceptance of Rent After Expiration of Fixed Term   §7.9

H.   Effect of Clause Providing for Automatic Extension or Renewal   §7.9A

I.   Lodger Who Holds Over in Owner-Occupied Dwelling   §7.10

J.   Expiration of Periodic (Generally Month-to-Month) Lease   §7.11

IV.    LENGTH OF PERIOD OF NOTICE

A.   Shortened Notice Periods by Agreement   §7.12

B.   Date on Which Mailed Notice Is Effective   §7.13

C.   Notice Period Must Expire Before Complaint Can Be Filed   §7.14

V.    WITHDRAWAL OF NOTICE; ACCEPTANCE OF RENT PAYMENTS   §7.15

VI.    FORM OF NOTICE

A.   Notice Must Be in Writing   §7.16

B.   Description of Premises and Signature   §7.17

C.   Notice Cannot Be in the Alternative   §7.18

D.   Statement of 30 or 60 Days   §7.19

E.   Cover Sheet; Evictions After Foreclosure   §7.19A

VII.    APPORTIONMENT OF RENT   §7.20

VIII.    METHOD OF SERVICE   §7.21

IX.    TENANCY AT WILL   §7.22

X.    EFFECT OF SERVICE OF 30-DAY OR 60-DAY NOTICE IN CONJUNCTION WITH SERVICE OF 3-DAY NOTICE   §7.23

XI.    COMMON FLAWS IN NOTICE OR ITS SERVICE, RENDERING NOTICE INEFFECTIVE   §7.24

Back to Top

8

Service of Notices on Tenant

I.    EVALUATING SERVICE OF NOTICE   §8.1

II.    METHODS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE   §8.2

A.   Personal Service   §8.3

B.   Substituted Service (CCP §1162(a)(2))   §8.4

C.   Service by Posting, Delivery, and Mail (CCP §1162(a)(3))   §8.5

1.   Service by Posting Alone Is Insufficient   §8.6

2.   Service by Mail Alone Is Insufficient   §8.7

D.   Extension of Tenant’s Time to Act When Notice Is Mailed   §8.8

1.   Notice Effective on Receipt   §8.8A

2.   Notice Effective on Mailing   §8.8B

3.   Effective Date of Notice Extended by CCP §1013   §8.8C

4.   Rationale Favoring Extension of Response Period Under CCP §1013 When Notice Is Mailed   §8.9

III.    IMPROPER SERVICE

A.   Effect of Defective Service of Notice   §8.10

B.   Actual Receipt of Improperly Served Notice   §8.11

IV.    EFFECT OF SERVICE ON PERSONS OTHER THAN TENANT   §8.12

A.   Occupants Who Are Neither Tenants nor Subtenants   §8.13

B.   Cotenants   §8.14

C.   Subtenants   §8.15

V.    EXAMPLES OF COMMON MISTAKES IN SERVICE   §8.16

VI.    PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE   §8.17

Back to Top

9

Negotiating Strategies

I.    IMPORTANCE OF NEGOTIATION AND EARLY SETTLEMENT   §9.1

A.   Definitions of Terms: “Negotiation,” “Target Point,” “Resistance Level,” and “Bottom Line”   §9.2

B.   Determining Tenant’s Goals and Expectations   §9.3

C.   Determining the Bargaining Range   §9.4

D.   Possible Bargaining Outcomes   §9.5

E.   Evaluating Case   §9.6

II.    KEY FACTORS TOWARD SETTLEMENT IN TENANT’S FAVOR

A.   Merits of Tenant’s Case   §9.7

B.   Whether Tenant Is Willing to Relinquish Possession   §9.8

C.   Whether Tenant Is Impervious to Judgment for Damages   §9.9

D.   Whether Rental Agreement Contains Attorney Fee Clause   §9.10

III.    DEVELOPING A BARGAINING STRATEGY   §9.11

A.   Look for Means to Strengthen Tenant’s Case and Weaken Landlord’s   §9.12

B.   Tenant’s Attorney Must Be Ready to Move Quickly to Take Advantage of Settlement Opportunities   §9.13

C.   Tenant’s Attorney Should Be Aware of Landlord’s Goals and Fears   §9.14

D.   Determining How Much to Demand in Initial Settlement Offer   §9.15

IV.    ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FACING OPPOSING COUNSEL KNOWN TO TENANT’S COUNSEL   §9.16

V.    USING BARGAINING TACTICS   §9.17

VI.    COMMUNICATING WARNINGS TO OPPOSING PARTY   §9.18

VII.    WHEN LANDLORD’S COUNSEL APPEARS TO BE DRAWING OUT ACTION TO GENERATE FEES   §9.19

VIII.    DRAFTING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT   §9.20

IX.    EVALUATING SUCCESS OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT   §9.21

Back to Top

10

Proceeding in Forma Pauperis

I.    AUTHORITY FOR OBTAINING WAIVER OF COURT FEES AND COSTS   §10.1

II.    RIGHT TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS   §10.2

III.    SUBSTANTIVE SHOWING OF INDIGENCE   §10.3

IV.    CLASSES OF CLAIMANTS AND CATEGORIES FOR WHICH FEES AND COSTS MAY BE WAIVED   §10.4

V.    FEES AND COSTS IN TRIAL COURT

A.   Types of Fees and Costs Waived by Initial Application   §10.5

B.   Waiver of Other Fees and Costs   §10.6

C.   Applying to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

1.   Procedure for Request for Waiver of Court Fees and Costs   §10.7

2.   Grant of Waiver of Court Fees and Costs Without Hearing   §10.7A

3.   Hearing on Applicant’s Entitlement to Waiver of Court Fees and Costs   §10.7B

4.   Court Issues and Serves Order on Request to Waive Court Fees   §10.7C

5.   Effect of Denial of Waiver on Pleadings Already Filed by Applicant   §10.7D

6.   Procedure for Subsequent Determinations of Fee Waiver Eligibility   §10.8

D.   Right to Waiver or Reimbursement of Discovery Costs   §10.9

E.   Right to Appointment of Attorney   §10.10

VI.    FEES AND COSTS ON APPEAL

A.   Proceeding in Forma Pauperis   §10.11

1.   Filing Fees   §10.11A

2.   Fees for Transcript   §10.11B

3.   Fees for Interpreter   §10.11C

4.   Appeal Bond Fees   §10.11D

B.   Review of Denial of Request   §10.12

Back to Top

11

Service of Summons and Complaint; Motion to Quash Service of Summons

I.    SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT   §11.1

II.    IMMEDIATE ACTIONS THAT CAN BE TAKEN ON TENANT’S BEHALF AFTER SERVICE OF SUMMONS   §11.2

III.    ATTEMPTS TO AVOID SERVICE OF SUMMONS   §11.3

IV.    FORM OF SUMMONS   §11.4

V.    FORM: SUMMONS—UNLAWFUL DETAINER—EVICTION (JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORM SUM-130)   §11.5

VI.    SERVICE OF PROCESS   §11.6

A.   Methods of Service   §11.7

B.   Strict Construction of Service Statutes   §11.8

C.   Effect of Defective Service   §11.9

D.   New Summons Need Not Be Served With Service of Amended Complaint   §11.10

E.   Return of Service   §11.11

F.   Personal Service   §11.12

G.   Substituted Service   §11.13

1.   Substituted Service on Individual Defendant   §11.14

2.   Substituted Service on Business Entity   §11.15

3.   Showing Reasonable Diligence   §11.16

4.   Recital on Return of Service   §11.17

H.   Service by Mail With Acknowledgment of Receipt   §11.18

I.   Service by Posting and Mailing   §11.19

J.   Order Allowing Service by Posting   §11.20

K.   Completion Date of Service by Posting   §11.21

L.   Service by Publication   §11.22

VII.    SPECIAL APPEARANCE REQUIRED ON MOTION TO QUASH

A.   What Constitutes a General Appearance   §11.23

B.   Making a Special Appearance   §11.24

VIII.    GROUNDS FOR MOTION TO QUASH   §11.25

A.   Error in Filled-Out Summons   §11.26

B.   Failure to Properly Serve All Required Papers   §11.27

C.   Motion to Quash When Cause of Action Is Not Properly Unlawful Detainer   §11.28

D.   Complaint Contains Another Cause of Action in Addition to Unlawful Detainer   §11.29

E.   Complaint Prays for Damages Not Allowed in Unlawful Detainer   §11.30

F.   Defendant Erroneously Designated

1.   Pleading Requirements; “Doe” Defendants   §11.31

2.   Entering Judgment Against “Doe” Defendant   §11.32

IX.    CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO FIVE-DAYS-TO-ANSWER REQUIREMENT   §11.33

X.    MOTION TO QUASH—PROCEDURE

A.   Time to File Motion; Effect of Motion on Time to File Answer   §11.34

B.   Form of Notice   §11.35

C.   Hearing on Motion to Quash; Burden of Proof   §11.36

D.   Filing Fees   §11.37

XI.    FORM: MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF TENANT   §11.38

XII.    FORM: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS   §11.39

XIII.    EFFECT OF GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH   §11.40

XIV.    EFFECT OF DENIAL OF MOTION TO QUASH   §11.41

XV.    APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE IF MOTION DENIED   §11.42

XVI.    POSSIBLE EFFECT OF CCP §1167.4 ON WHETHER TIME FOR FILING RESPONSIVE PLEADINGS IS TOLLED BY PETITION FOR WRIT   §11.43

XVII.    CHART: TIMELINE FOR TENANT ACTIONS IF SUMMONS OR SERVICE OF SUMMONS WAS DEFECTIVE   §11.44

Back to Top

12

Default Judgments

I.    PROCEDURE FOR OBTAINING JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT   §12.1

II.    CHECKLIST: OBTAINING RELIEF FROM ENTRY OF DEFAULT   §12.2

III.    SERVICE OF APPLICATION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT; LANDLORD’S OBLIGATION TO INFORM TENANT   §12.3

IV.    EFFECT OF ENTRY OF DEFAULT; LATE FILING OF RESPONSE   §12.4

V.    ENTRY OF DEFAULT; WRIT OF IMMEDIATE POSSESSION   §12.5

VI.    PROVE-UP HEARING FOR RELIEF OTHER THAN RESTITUTION   §12.6

VII.    PROCEDURE FOR ENTERING DEFAULT IF SERVICE WAS BY PUBLICATION   §12.7

VIII.    SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT   §12.8

A.   Stipulation to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment   §12.9

B.   Form: Stipulation to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Order   §12.10

C.   Procedures for Applying to Set Aside Default   §12.11

D.   Grounds for Setting Aside Default and Default Judgment   §12.12

1.   Mistake, Inadvertence, Surprise, or Excusable Neglect (CCP §473)

a.   Relief May Be Granted for Client or Attorney Error   §12.13

b.   Relief Must Be Granted for Attorney Error   §12.14

c.   Time Limitations on Bringing Motion Under CCP §473   §12.15

d.   Showing in Support of Motion; Declaration   §12.16

e.   Excuses for Default; Examples   §12.17

(1)  Mistake of Fact   §12.18

(2)  Attorney’s Mistake of Law   §12.19

(3)  Excusable Neglect   §12.20

(4)  Fraud   §12.21

2.   Clerical Mistakes; Vacating Void Judgments (CCP §473, ¶4)   §12.22

a.   Judgment Void on Its Face   §12.23

b.   Judgment Void in Fact, But Not Void on Its Face   §12.24

3.   When Service of Summons Does Not Result in Actual Notice to Party (CCP §473.5)   §12.25

4.   Motion or Separate Action in Equity Available to Vacate Judgment on Ground of Fraud or Mistake   §12.26

5.   Erroneously Entered Default or Default Judgment   §12.27

6.   Examples of Erroneously Entered Defaults and Default Judgments   §12.28

IX.    WHEN WRIT OF EXECUTION HAS BEEN ISSUED   §12.29

X.    FORMS: MOTION TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT

A.   Form: Notice of Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment; Supporting Memorandum   §12.30

B.   Form: Declaration Supporting Motion to Set Aside Default and Default Judgment   §12.30A

XI.    ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT   §12.31

XII.    FORM: ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT   §12.32

XIII.    EFFECT OF ORDER SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT AND DEFAULT JUDGMENT   §12.33

Back to Top

13

Demurring and Moving to Strike

I.    ATTACKING LEGAL SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT   §13.1

II.    THE DEMURRER   §13.2

A.   Grounds for General Demurrer   §13.3

B.   Grounds for Special Demurrer   §13.4

C.   Sustaining Demurrer With or Without Leave to Amend   §13.5

D.   Demurrer Permitted on Grounds of No Jurisdiction Over Subject Matter   §13.6

E.   Effect of Another Pending Unlawful Detainer Action   §13.7

F.   Parties

1.   Improper Defendant   §13.8

2.   Improper Plaintiff   §13.9

G.   Venue and Trial Court Location   §13.10

H.   Description of Premises With Reasonable Certainty   §13.11

I.   Existence of Landlord-Tenant Relationship   §13.12

J.   Notice of Termination

1.   Alleging Service of Notice   §13.13

2.   Alleging Proper Notice   §13.13A

3.   Alleging Contents of Notice   §13.14

a.   Default in Rent   §13.15

b.   Breach of Covenant Other Than Nonpayment of Rent   §13.16

c.   Subletting, Waste, Nuisance, or Use for Unlawful Purpose   §13.17

d.   Expiration of Term

(1)  Fixed Term   §13.18

(2)  Periodic Tenancy   §13.19

K.   Tenant Continues in Possession   §13.20

L.   Fraud, Force, or Violence   §13.21

M.   Compliance With Implied Warranty of Habitability   §13.22

N.   Statute of Limitations   §13.23

O.   Checklist: Demurrable Defects in Complaint   §13.23A

P.   Form: Demurrer to Complaint   §13.24

III.    MOTION TO STRIKE   §13.25

A.   Irrelevant, False, or Improper Allegations   §13.26

B.   Defects Not Subject to Demurrer   §13.27

C.   Improper Request for Damages   §13.28

D.   Necessary Allegations for Finding Statutory Damages   §13.29

E.   Rental Value of Premises After Suit Brought   §13.30

F.   Attorney Fee Provision in Lease   §13.31

G.   Verification   §13.32

H.   Failure to State “§1161a” in Caption   §13.32A

I.   Sample Form: Motion to Strike   §13.33

IV.    PROCEDURE FOR DEMURRER AND MOTION TO STRIKE

A.   Answer May Be Filed With Demurrer   §13.34

B.   Timing of Hearing on Demurrer and Motion to Strike   §13.35

C.   Supporting Memorandum   §13.36

D.   Effect of Overruling of Demurrer   §13.37

E.   Frivolous Demurrers   §13.38

F.   Motion to Strike   §13.39

V.    FILING FEES   §13.40

VI.    EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD   §13.41

VII.    MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON PLEADINGS   §13.42

VIII.    SPECIAL (ANTI-SLAPP) MOTION TO STRIKE   §13.43

Back to Top

14

Answering and Alleging Affirmative Defenses

I.    RIGHT TO ANSWER   §14.1

II.    USE OF JUDICIAL COUNCIL FORMS   §14.2

III.    TIME TO ANSWER   §14.3

IV.    GOOD CAUSE TO EXTEND TIME TO ANSWER

A.   Length of Extension   §14.4

B.   Steps Tenant Should Take to Get Extension of Time to File Answer   §14.5

V.    DENIALS   §14.6

VI.    BASES FOR DENIALS   §14.7

VII.    AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES   §14.8

A.   Priority of Title After Foreclosure Sale   §14.9

B.   Implied Warranty of Habitability and Retaliatory Eviction   §14.10

C.   “Equitable” Defenses   §14.11

D.   Laches   §14.12

E.   Other Affirmative Defenses   §14.13

F.   Illegal Discrimination   §14.13A

1.   Violation of Unruh Civil Rights Act as Defense   §14.14

a.   Application of Unruh Act to Landlords   §14.15

b.   Prohibition of Arbitrary Discrimination Under Unruh Act   §14.16

c.   Minimum Income Policy   §14.17

d.   Examples of Reach of Unruh Act   §14.18

2.   Discrimination Based on Age

a.   Discrimination Against Families With Children   §14.19

b.   Senior Citizen Housing   §14.20

3.   Discrimination Under Federal Fair Housing Acts   §14.21

4.   Discrimination Under California Fair Employment and Housing Act   §14.22

5.   Family Day Care Home   §14.22A

6.   Immigration Status   §14.22B

7.   Domestic Violence   §14.22C

G.   Other Violations of Housing Statutes and Ordinances

1.   Certificate of Occupancy Violations   §14.23

2.   Landlord’s Duty to Repair; “Repair and Deduct” Statutes (CC §§1941–1942.5)   §14.24

3.   Violation of Tenantability Statutes (CC §1942.4)   §14.24A

a.   Indications That Premises Are Untenantable   §14.25

b.   Conditions Rebuttably Presumed to Breach Habitability Requirements   §14.26

c.   If Tenant Causes Condition of Premises   §14.27

d.   Tenant’s Remedies   §14.28

e.   Waiver of Tenant’s Rights   §14.29

4.   Statutory Violations Under Rent Control   §14.30

H.   Fraud   §14.31

I.   Adhesion Contract   §14.32

J.   Waiver and Estoppel   §14.33

K.   Express Promise to Repair   §14.34

1.   Dependent or Independent Covenants   §14.35

2.   Oral Promise Made Before Written Lease   §14.36

a.   Consideration   §14.37

b.   Statute of Frauds   §14.38

c.   Parol Evidence Rule as Applied to Leases   §14.39

                           d.   Dependency of Covenants   §14.40

3.   Tenant’s Arguments for Admission of Oral Promise Made Before or at Time of Execution of Written Agreement   §14.41

4.   Oral Promise Made Before Entry Into Oral Lease   §14.42

5.   Promise Made Subsequent to Lease   §14.43

6.   When Tenant Makes Promise to Repair   §14.43A

L.   Implied Covenant of Good Faith   §14.44

M.   Actual Partial Eviction   §14.45

N.   Notice Served More Than One Year After Rent Due   §14.46

O.   Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment   §14.47

P.   Offsets   §14.48

Q.   When Tenant Has Vacated Premises   §14.49

VII.    VERIFICATION   §14.50

VIII.    FILING ANSWER AFTER RULING ON DEMURRER   §14.51

IX.    EXTENSION OF TIME TO PLEAD   §14.52

X.    AMENDING ANSWER   §14.53

XI.    CROSS-COMPLAINTS   §14.54

A.   When Tenant Has Vacated Premises   §14.55

B.   When Landlord Fails to Challenge Cross-Complaint   §14.56

C.   Procedure   §14.57

D.   Form: Answer—Unlawful Detainer (Judicial Council Form UD-105) [Deleted]   §14.58

Back to Top

15

Affirmative Defenses—Implied Warranty of Habitability

I.    INTRODUCTION

A.   Adoption of Implied Warranty of Habitability: Hinson v Delis; Green v Superior Court   §15.1

B.   Definition of Implied Warranty of Habitability   §15.2

C.   Supreme Court Rationale in Adopting Implied Warranty Doctrine   §15.3

D.   Landlord May Be Held in Breach Even if Another Is Responsible for Defect   §15.4

E.   Time Within Which Landlord Must Correct Defects   §15.5

II.    USES OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY DOCTRINE   §15.6

A.   When Warranty Used in Suit for Affirmative Damages and Other Relief   §15.7

B.   Procedure When Using Warranty as Defense in Unlawful Detainer Action   §15.8

C.   Effect of Tenant Prevailing at Trial on Warranty Defense   §15.9

III.    ESTABLISHING BREACH OF WARRANTY

A.   Facilities Covered   §15.10

1.   Government-Owned Housing   §15.11

2.   Portions of Premises Covered by Warranty of Habitability   §15.12

B.   Housing and Building Code Violations

1.   Sources of Housing and Building Code Standards   §15.13

2.   Examples of Housing and Building Code Violations   §15.13A

3.   Jury Instructions Relating to Code Violations   §15.14

4.   Defects Actionable Under Implied Warranty or Negligence But Not Covered by Housing and Building Codes   §15.15

C.   Failure to Protect Tenants From Criminal Acts   §15.16

1.   Determining Whether Landlord Has a Duty to Protect Against Criminal Acts   §15.17

2.   Examples of Duty Not Found or Duty Held Not Breached   §15.18

3.   Examples of Duty Found or Landlord Held in Breach   §15.19

4.   Breach of Duty Raised by Allegation of Breach of Implied Warranty   §15.20

5.   Level of Security at Time Tenant Moves Into Premises   §15.21

6.   Proving Causation   §15.21A

D.   Seriousness of Defects

1.   Requirement That Defects Be Serious   §15.22

2.   Examples of Defects Held Serious Enough to Constitute Breach of Implied Warranty   §15.23

3.   Evidence of Breach   §15.24

a.   Proving That Existing Conditions Violate Code   §15.25

b.   Presumption of Breach of Habitability Standards   §15.26

c.   Viewing the Premises   §15.27

E.   Special Problems

1.   Premises Uninhabitable at Inception of Tenancy   §15.28

2.   Premises Become Uninhabitable After Tenant Is Served With Notice of Termination   §15.29

3.   Waiver of Warranty   §15.30

4.   Defect Caused by Tenant’s Wrongful Action   §15.31

5.   Defects Caused by Acts of Nature   §15.32

IV.    NOTICE OF DEFECT   §15.33

V.    REASONABLE TIME TO REPAIR NOT REQUIRED   §15.34

VI.    PROTECTIVE ORDERS   §15.35

A.   When Protective Orders Are Appropriate   §15.36

B.   Advantages to Tenant of Voluntary Deposit Into Attorney’s Trust Account   §15.37

VII.    DAMAGES FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY   §15.38

A.   Relief Based on Affirmative Defense of Breach of Implied Warranty   §15.39

1.   Period During Which Damages Accrue   §15.40

2.   Tenant Must Pay “Reasonable Rent” Even if Warranty Breached   §15.41

3.   Various Approaches to Measuring Damages   §15.42

a.   “Difference-in-Value” Approach   §15.43

b.   “Discomfort-and-Annoyance” Approach   §15.44

c.   “Percentage-Reduction-of-Use” Approach   §15.45

4.   Limits on Amount by Which Rent May Be Reduced   §15.46

5.   Amount of Rent Reduction in Subsidized Housing   §15.46A

6.   Nominal Damage Awards   §15.47

B.   Actions Brought Under CC §1942.4   §15.48

C.   Actions Based on Tort of Breach of Implied Warranty   §15.49

D.   Hybrid View of Warranty of Habitability—Contract and Tort   §15.50

VIII.    EFFECT OF RECENT PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY LANDLORD   §15.51

        IX.    LACK OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY   §15.52

Back to Top

16

Affirmative Defenses—Retaliatory Evictions

I.    LEGAL FRAMEWORK   §16.1

II.    SEVERAL SOURCES OF LAW MAY APPLY SIMULTANEOUSLY   §16.2

A.   Civil Code §1942.5

1.   Tenants’ Actions on Habitability (CC §1942.5(a))

a.   Protected Parties and Acts   §16.3

b.   Limitations on Protection

(1)  Tenant Cannot Be in Default in Payment of Rent   §16.4

(2)  Tenant May Not Invoke CC §1942.5(a) More Than Once a Year   §16.5

(3)  Protective Period Under CC §1942.5 Limited to 180 Days   §16.6

(4)  Defense Unavailable in Ellis Act Evictions   §16.6A

2.   Tenant Union Activity (CC §1942.5(c))   §16.7

3.   Exercise of “Rights Under Law” (CC §1942.5(c))   §16.8

a.   Additional Examples of Acts Protected by CC §1942.5(c)   §16.9

b.   Examples of Acts Protected Before Enactment of CC §1942.5   §16.10

4.   Tenant Cannot Waive Rights (CC §1942.5(d))   §16.11

5.   Notice and Burden of Proof (CC §1942.5(e))   §16.12

6.   Procedure for Proving Retaliation When Landlord Includes Grounds in Notice (CC §1942.5(e))   §16.13

7.   Remedies (CC §1942.5(f)–(g)); Punitive Damages and Attorney Fees   §16.14

8.   Remedies Not Exclusive (CC §1942.5(h))   §16.15

B.   Public Policy; Retaliation for Refusal to Commit Crime Improper   §16.16

C.   Victims of Domestic Violence   §16.16A

D.   Other Statutory Rights

1.   Retaliation Based on Tenant’s Assertion of Statutory Rights; Implied Protection   §16.17

2.   Retaliation Based on Tenant’s Assertion of Statutory Rights; Express Statutory Protection   §16.18

3.   Common Law   §16.19

4.   Local Rent Control Ordinances   §16.20

5.   Constitution   §16.21

III.    LIMITATIONS ON RETALIATORY EVICTION DEFENSE   §16.21A

IV.    PROOF OF RETALIATORY MOTIVE

A.   Sole or Dominant Motive   §16.22

B.   Treatment of Mixed Motives in Labor Law   §16.23

C.   Presumptions and Burden of Proof   §16.24

D.   Evidence   §16.25

E.   Analogies Drawn From Labor Law to Prove Retaliatory Motive   §16.26

F.   Form: Affirmative Defense on Ground of Retaliatory Eviction   §16.27

Back to Top

17

Special Considerations Governing Evictions in Rent-Controlled Cities

Myron Moskovitz
Sonya Bekoff Molho
Steven A. MacDonald
Denise McGranahan
Sallyann Molloy

I.    SCOPE OF LOCAL RENT CONTROL ORDINANCES

A.   Local Control Versus State Preemption   §17.1

B.   Statewide Vacancy Decontrol

1.   Existing Housing   §17.1A

a.   Phase-In Periods   §17.1B

b.   Lease Restrictions on Subletting Allowed   §17.1C

c.   Exceptions to Preemptive Effect   §17.1D

2.   New Construction and Single-Unit Exclusions   §17.1E

a.   Phase-In Periods for Condominiums and Single-Family Homes   §17.1F

b.   Exceptions to Preemptive Effect   §17.1G

II.    PRACTICE CONSIDERATIONS IN RENT CONTROL JURISDICTIONS   §17.2

III.    CITIES SUBJECT TO RENT CONTROL   §17.3

IV.    EVICTIONS AND RENT CONTROL

A.   Overview   §17.4

B.   Just Cause for Eviction   §17.5

1.   Failure to Pay Rent   §17.6

2.   Failure to Cure Violation of Rental Agreement   §17.7

3.   Conduct Constituting a Nuisance   §17.8

4.   Use of Premises for Illegal Purpose   §17.9

5.   Refusal to Permit Landlord Access to Premises   §17.10

6.   Refusal to Execute New Lease   §17.11

7.   Subletting   §17.12

8.   Violation of Lease Restricting Occupancy   §17.12A

a.   Exception: Relative or Domestic Partner of Tenant   §17.12B

b.   Exception: Surviving Relative of Deceased Tenant   §17.12C

                           c.   Exception: Landlord Knowingly Accepts Rent From Occupant   §17.12D

9.   Rehabilitation of Unit   §17.13

10.   Demolition or Conversion of Units—Ellis Act Evictions   §17.14

a.   Constitutional Challenges; Preemption   §17.14A

b.   Effect of Other State Laws   §17.14B

11.   Occupancy by Owner or Owner’s Relative   §17.15

a.   Representing Tenants in Evictions for Owner Occupancy   §17.16

b.   Good Faith in Owner-Occupancy Evictions   §17.17

12.   Grounds Not Stated in Ordinance: Termination of Manager; Foreclosure   §17.18

13.   Failure to Use Premises as Principal Residence   §17.18A

C.   Notice and Pleading Requirements   §17.19

D.   Burdens of Proof and Presumptions   §17.20

E.   Defenses to Evictions   §17.21

F.   Statute of Limitations   §17.22

G.   Damages for Unlawful Evictions   §17.23

H.   Attorney Fees   §17.24

V.    NEGOTIATING AND DEFENDING ELLIS ACT EVICTIONS

A.   Preliminary Considerations

1.   Scope of Ellis Act   §17.25

2.   Representing Organized Tenants   §17.26

3.   Factual Investigation

a.   Review Notices and Status of All Affected Units   §17.27

b.   Explain Ellis Process to Client   §17.28

c.   Ascertain Client’s Age, Health, and Economic Status   §17.29

d.   Investigate Unexpired Leases   §17.30

B.   Relocation Benefits   §17.31

1.   Benefits Available for Displaced Tenants Regardless of Income   §17.32

2.   Landlord’s Misrepresentation of Availability of Benefits   §17.33

3.   Documentation Proving Eligibility   §17.34

4.   Other Issues Affecting Payment of Benefits

a.   Timely Payment   §17.35

b.   Waiver of Relocation Fees   §17.36

c.   One Fee per Unit   §17.37

d.   Services in Lieu of Fees   §17.38

e.   Failure to Pay Fees   §17.39

C.   Technical Defenses Based on Notice and Filing Requirements   §17.40

D.   Unexpired Leases   §17.41

E.   Tenant’s Options Regarding Unlawful Detainer Action Under Ellis Act

1.   Answering the Complaint   §17.42

2.   Retaliatory Eviction Defense Limited   §17.43

3.   Failure to Take All Units Off Market   §17.44

4.   Other Possible Defenses   §17.45

F.   Discovering Violations After Eviction

1.   Use of Ellis Act to Move Out Long-Term Tenants   §17.46

2.   Use of Post-Ellis Property for Home Ownership   §17.47

a.   Effect of State and Local Subdivision Laws   §17.48

b.   Effect of State and Local Laws Regulating Apartment Conversions   §17.49

Back to Top

18

Special Considerations Governing Evictions From Federally Assisted Housing

Catherine M. Bishop
Nancy Ann Palandati
Deborah A. Collins

I.    “FEDERALLY ASSISTED LOW-INCOME HOUSING” DEFINED   §18.1

II.    ASCERTAINING WHETHER TENANT LIVES IN FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING AND, IF SO, WHAT KIND   §18.2

III.    TYPES OF FEDERAL HOUSING PROGRAMS   §18.3

A.   Public Housing   §18.3A

B.   Section 8   §18.3B

C.   HUD-Assisted and -Subsidized Housing   §18.3C

D.   HUD-Assisted Units Threatened With Prepayment of Mortgage or Opt-Out of Section 8 Contract   §18.3D

E.   Rural Housing Service (RHS) Subsidized Rental Housing   §18.3E

F.   Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)   §18.3F

G.   Other State and Local Programs   §18.3G

IV.    SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS IN EVICTION ACTIONS

A.   Application of State Law   §18.4

B.   Evictions After Foreclosure

1.   Preemptive Measures Governing Evictions   §18.4A

2.   Postponing Sale of Multifamily Residential Buildings   §18.4B

C.   Good Cause Requirement   §18.5

1.   Public Housing   §18.6

2.   Project-Based Section 8 and HUD-Assisted and -Subsidized Housing   §18.7

3.   Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program   §18.8

4.   Rural Housing Service (RHS) Rental Housing   §18.9

5.   State and Local Housing Programs for Low-Income Families   §18.10

6.   Other Housing Programs for Low-Income Families   §18.11

D.   Facts Constituting Good Cause   §18.12

1.   Failure to Pay Rent   §18.13

2.   Serious Tenant Wrongdoing, Including Criminal Activity

a.   Violation of Lease or State or Federal Law   §18.14

                           b.   Drug or Criminal Activity

(1)  Statutory Authorization and Standards for Eviction   §18.15

(2)  Federal Standards Upheld in Rucker   §18.16

(3)  When State Law Standards Apply   §18.16A

(4)  Aftermath of Rucker; Unresolved Issues   §18.17

(5)  Permission to Obtain Criminal Records, Drug Treatment Information   §18.17A

c.   Exception: Victims of Domestic Violence Protected   §18.17B

3.   Violation of Program Regulations   §18.18

4.   Examples of Improper Grounds for Evicting Tenant   §18.19

E.   Defending Evictions

1.   Project Owner’s Abuse of Power   §18.20

2.   Defensive Strategies in PHA Evictions   §18.20A

                     3.   Bankruptcy Discharge of Delinquent Rent in Public or Subsidized Housing   §18.20B

V.    EVICTION PROCEDURES: NOTICE AND ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OR MEETING   §18.21

A.   Notice Requirements   §18.22

B.   Pretermination Grievance Hearing or Meeting   §18.23

C.   Notice and Hearing Required Before Forfeiture Under Federal Antidrug Statute   §18.24

               D.   Relief From Forfeiture   §18.25

VI.    DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED FOR WRONGFUL EVICTION FROM FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING   §18.26

       VII.    ENJOINING EVICTIONS FROM FEDERALLY ASSISTED HOUSING   §18.27

Back to Top

19

Special Considerations Governing Evictions in Commercial Tenancies

Myron Moskovitz
Clifford R. Horner

I.    OVERVIEW OF UNLAWFUL DETAINER IN COMMERCIAL TENANCIES   §19.1

II.    THREE-DAY NOTICE TO PAY RENT OR QUIT

A.   Lease Provisions May Affect Eviction Procedures   §19.2

B.   Statutory Requirements

1.   Estimated Rent (CCP §1161.1)   §19.3

2.   When Rent Is Not Estimated   §19.4

3.   Service Requirements   §19.5

4.   Landlord’s Acceptance of Partial Tender of Rent   §19.6

III.    THREE-DAY NOTICE FOR VIOLATION OF COVENANT OTHER THAN PAYMENT OF RENT   §19.7

A.   Covenants Restricting Assignments

1.   Common Law Rules   §19.8

2.   Statutory Law   §19.9

B.   Covenants Regarding Tenant Improvements   §19.9A

C.   Covenants Restricting Change in Use   §19.10

IV.    TERMINATION NOTICES FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE   §19.10A

V.    TERMINATION UNDER EXPRESS LEASE PROVISIONS   §19.10B

VI.    DEFENDING EVICTION BY ASSERTING BREACH OF LEASE BY LANDLORD

A.   Covenant to Repair; Implied Warranty of Habitability

1.   Dependent Versus Independent Covenants   §19.11

2.   Argument Favoring Adoption of Dependent Covenant Doctrine in Commercial Leases   §19.12

a.   Minimize Litigation   §19.13

b.   Eliminate Unfair Burdens on Tenant   §19.14

c.   Protect Tenant’s Right to Pursue Livelihood   §19.15

d.   No Impact on Summary Nature of Unlawful Detainer   §19.16

e.   Out-of-State Decisions Favor Interdependent Covenants   §19.17

3.   Effect of Toxic Mold Legislation   §19.17A

B.   Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment   §19.18

C.   Other Contractual Defenses   §19.18A

D.   Implied Warranty of Fitness   §19.19

E.   Implied Covenant of Good Faith   §19.20

1.   Duty to Maintain Third Party Leases   §19.21

2.   Sublessor Required to Exercise Option to Extend Master Lease   §19.22

3.   “No Compete” Covenant Applied to Expansion of Shopping Center   §19.23

4.   Good Faith Covenant Applied in Favor of Landlord   §19.24

VII.    NONCONTRACTUAL DEFENSES TO COMMERCIAL EVICTION ACTIONS

A.   Retaliatory Eviction   §19.25

B.   Good Cause to Terminate Petroleum Distributorship   §19.26

C.   Equitable Defenses   §19.27

VIII.    LANDLORD’S RIGHT OF ENTRY PENDING EVICTION   §19.28

Back to Top

20

Effect of Sale of Property on Unlawful Detainer Proceedings

I.    EFFECT OF SALE OF PROPERTY ON UNLAWFUL DETAINER   §20.1

A.   Sale Before Eviction Action Is Begun   §20.2

B.   Sale After Eviction Action Has Begun   §20.3

II.    EVICTING AFTER SALE UNDER CCP §1161a   §20.4

A.   Use of 30-Day Notice on Residential Owner’s Tenant or 60-Day or 90-Day Notice After Foreclosure   §20.5

1.   When 60-Day Notice Applies   §20.6

2.   Additional Preforeclosure Notice of Sale   §20.7

3.   Postponing Sale of Multifamily Residential Buildings   §20.7A

4.   When 90-Day Notice Applies   §20.8

B.   Litigating Title in Unlawful Detainer Action   §20.9

C.   Effect of Local Eviction Control Ordinances   §20.10

D.   Effect of Section 8 Eviction Controls   §20.11

E.   Postforeclosure Bank Eviction Policies   §20.12

F.   Defending Postforeclosure Evictions: Priority of Title, Title Dispute, Improper Foreclosure, or Improper Notice Following Foreclosure   §20.13

III.    UTILITY CUTOFFS   §20.14

Back to Top

21

Effect of Filing Bankruptcy on Proceedings in Unlawful Detainer

I.    EFFECT OF TENANT FILING BANKRUPTCY

A.   Automatic Stay on Evictions   §21.1

B.   Exceptions to Stay for Residential Tenancies

1.   After Entry of Judgment for Eviction   §21.1A

2.   When Eviction Based on Endangerment of Property or Illegal Use of Controlled Substance   §21.1B

C.   Significant Changes Under 2005 Act   §21.1C

II.    LANDLORD MAY SEEK RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY   §21.2

III.    PENALTY FOR IMPROPER FILING OF BANKRUPTCY   §21.3

IV.    LEASE CLAUSES PURPORTING TO TERMINATE LEASE ON FILING OF BANKRUPTCY   §21.4

V.    TERMINATION OF UTILITIES AND OTHER SERVICES   §21.5

VI.    ASSUMPTION OF LEASE BY TRUSTEE   §21.6

VII.    SECURITY DEPOSITS   §21.7

VIII.    DISADVANTAGES TO TENANT OF FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY   §21.8

IX.    FILING PETITION IN BANKRUPTCY AS TACTIC IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION   §21.9

Back to Top

22

Summary Judgment

I.    PURPOSE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT   §22.1

II.    TIMING OF MOTION   §22.2

III.    BURDEN OF PROOF   §22.2A

IV.    FACTUAL BASES FOR TENANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT   §22.3

V.    MOVING PARTY’S SUPPORTING PAPERS   §22.4

VI.    OPPOSING PARTY’S COUNTERDECLARATIONS; ORDERS   §22.5

VII.    SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES   §22.6

Back to Top

23

Discovery

I.    PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY   §23.1

II.    STATUTORY METHODS OF DISCOVERY   §23.2

III.    AVAILABILITY OF DISCOVERY IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER   §23.3

IV.    DEFENSE STRATEGY SHOULD INCLUDE PLAN FOR DISCOVERY   §23.4

V.    FORMAL AND INFORMAL DISCOVERY METHODS   §23.5

VI.    FORMULATING A DISCOVERY PLAN

A.   When to Make and Implement Plan   §23.6

B.   Coordinating Various Discovery Techniques   §23.7

C.   Timeline for Initiating Tenant Discovery Directed to Landlord   §23.8

D.   Actions to Take if Discovery Cannot Be Completed Before Trial Date   §23.9

VII.    PURSUING DISCOVERY BEFORE ACTION FILED   §23.10

A.   Methods of Discovery Available Before Action Is Filed   §23.11

B.   Procedure for Pursuing Discovery Before Action Is Filed   §23.12

C.   Usefulness of Pursuing Discovery Before Action Is Filed   §23.13

VIII.    DISCOVERY AFTER SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT ARE SERVED   §23.14

A.   Time Limits on Responding to Discovery Requests   §23.15

B.   Preventing Setting of Trial Date Before Discovery Is Complete   §23.16

C.   Petitioning for Writ of Mandate if Court Refuses to Extend Trial Date   §23.17

IX.    METHODS OF DISCOVERY   §23.18

A.   Oral Depositions   §23.19

1.   Usefulness of Depositions   §23.20

2.   Expense of Depositions   §23.21

3.   Procedure for Oral Depositions

a.   When Deposition May Be Taken   §23.22

b.   Setting Depositions of Parties   §23.23

c.   Setting Depositions of Nonparties   §23.24

d.   Witness and Mileage Fees   §23.25

e.   Procedures at Deposition   §23.26

f.   Inspection of Documents at Deposition   §23.27

g.   Reviewing, Correcting, and Approving Deposition   §23.28

B.   Written Interrogatories   §23.29

1.   Usefulness of Written Interrogatories   §23.30

2.   Disadvantages of Written Interrogatories   §23.31

3.   Limit on Number of Interrogatories That May Be Propounded   §23.32

4.   Form: Declaration for Additional Discovery   §23.33

5.   Procedure for Propounding Written Interrogatories   §23.34

C.   Pretrial Demand for Production of Documents or Inspection   §23.35

1.   Usefulness of Demand for Production   §23.36

2.   Introduction Into Evidence of Documents Produced   §23.37

3.   Tactical Considerations in Requesting Production   §23.38

4.   Protective Orders Against Request for Production   §23.39

D.   Requests for Admissions   §23.40

1.   Usefulness of Requests for Admissions   §23.41

2.   Procedure for Requests for Admissions   §23.42

3.   Form: Declaration in Support of Request for Additional Admissions   §23.43

4.   Effect of Failure to Respond to Request for Admissions   §23.44

5.   Effect of Failure to Admit Fact Later Found True   §23.45

6.   Requests for Admissions May Not Be Combined With Other Discovery Requests   §23.46

7.   Effect of Admission Made in Response to Request   §23.47

8.   Admissions and Responses Are Not Filed But Retained by Parties   §23.48

X.    SANCTIONS FOR REFUSAL TO MAKE DISCOVERY   §23.49

A.   Categories of Sanctions That May Be Imposed   §23.50

B.   What Constitutes Misuse of Discovery Process   §23.51

C.   Specific Sanctions That Court May Impose   §23.52

Back to Top

24

Rights of Occupants Not Named in Lease

I.    OCCUPANTS WHO ARE NOT NAMED IN LEASE   §24.1

II.    PREJUDGMENT CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION   §24.2

A.   Service of Prejudgment Claim to Right to Possession Form

1.   Service by Marshal, Sheriff, or Process Server   §24.3

2.   Time of Service   §24.4

3.   Service on Occupants Other Than Tenant or Subtenant   §24.5

B.   Effect of Proper Service by Landlord of Prejudgment Claim Form   §24.6

C.   Effect of Inadequate Service by Landlord of Prejudgment Claim Form   §24.7

D.   Judicial Council Form CP10.5: Prejudgment Claim of Right to Possession   §24.8

III.    POSTJUDGMENT CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION   §24.9

A.   Removal of Occupant by Sheriff or Marshal   §24.10

B.   Procedure by Occupant in Making Postjudgment Claim of Right to Possession   §24.11

C.   Judicial Council Form CP10: Claim of Right to Possession and Notice of Hearing   §24.12

IV.    HEARING ON CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION   §24.13

V.    PROCEDURE AT HEARING ON CLAIM OF RIGHT TO POSSESSION   §24.14

VI.    PROCEEDING WITH ENFORCEMENT OF WRIT OF POSSESSION   §24.15

Back to Top

25

Trial

I.    SETTING CASE FOR TRIAL

A.   Request and Counter-Request to Set Trial   §25.1

B.   Setting Date for Trial   §25.2

C.   Effects of Local Practices   §25.3

1.   Trial by Temporary Judge   §25.4

2.   Procedure After Trial Date Is Set   §25.5

D.   Resetting Trial Date   §25.6

1.   Procedure If Parties Do Not Agree on New Trial Date   §25.7

2.   Determining Whether Moving Party Has Shown Good Cause   §25.8

3.   Determining Whether There Is Reasonable Probability Plaintiff Will Prevail at Trial   §25.9

4.   Determining Damages Landlord Might Suffer   §25.10

5.   Reduction of Damages Based on Diminution of Value or Setoff   §25.11

6.   Order to Deposit Potential Damages   §25.12

7.   Advancing Trial Date on Tenant’s Failure to Make Deposit   §25.13

8.   Costs of Escrow Recoverable by Prevailing Party   §25.14

9.   Distribution of Funds Held in Escrow After Trial   §25.15

II.    IF TENANT VACATES PREMISES BEFORE TRIAL   §25.16

III.    PRETRIAL CONFERENCE   §25.17

IV.    RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL   §25.18

A.   Jury Instructions   §25.19

B.   Waiver of Jury Trial

1.   Bases for Waiver   §25.20

2.   Requesting Jury Trial After Waiver   §25.21

3.   Tenant’s Right to Jury Trial on Equitable Issues   §25.22

a.   Examples of Legal Issues   §25.23

b.   Examples of Equitable Defenses   §25.24

C.   Jury Verdicts

1.   General and Special Verdicts   §25.24A

2.   Judgment Based on Jury Verdict   §25.24B

V.    DISQUALIFYING JUDGE   §25.25

A.   Challenge for Cause (CCP §170.1)   §25.26

1.   Conditions That May Not Be Used as Grounds to Disqualify Judge   §25.27

2.   Bias or Prejudice   §25.28

3.   Procedure for Disqualification   §25.29

B.   Peremptory Challenges (CCP §170.6)

1.   Grounds for Challenge   §25.30

2.   Procedure for Peremptory Challenges   §25.31

3.   Time Limits for Moving to Challenge   §25.32

4.   Effect of Challenge   §25.33

C.   Tactical Considerations   §25.34

VI.    SUBPOENAS

A.   Subpoenas for Witnesses   §25.35

B.   Subpoena Not Necessary to Require Attendance of Party or Agent   §25.36

C.   Service of Subpoena   §25.37

               D.   Fees for Appearing in Court in Response to Subpoena   §25.38

E.   Subpoena Duces Tecum (Books and Papers)   §25.39

1.   Service of Subpoena Duces Tecum; Affidavit of Good Cause Necessary   §25.40

2.   Fees for Appearing in Court in Response to Subpoena Duces Tecum   §25.41

3.   Subpoena Duces Tecum Not Necessary for Party   §25.42

F.   Penalties for Disobeying Subpoena   §25.43

VII.    EVIDENCE PROBLEMS

A.   Prima Facie Case; Nonsuit   §25.44

B.   Proof of Tenant’s Possession   §25.45

C.   Proof of Service of Notice   §25.46

D.   Proof of Rent Due   §25.47

E.   Judicial Notice   §25.48

F.   Use of Books and Records   §25.49

G.   Laying Foundation for Admission of Business Record   §25.50

H.   Proof of Damages   §25.51

I.   Waiver of Rent During Trial   §25.52

J.   Proving Retaliatory Eviction   §25.53

1.   Strength of Retaliatory Motive   §25.54

2.   Evidence of “Just Cause” to Evict   §25.55

3.   Evidence of Retaliatory Motive

a.   Evidence Inferred by Conduct   §25.56

b.   Indirect Evidence   §25.57

K.   Fees for Appointment of Interpreter   §25.58

VIII.    TRIAL BRIEFS   §25.59

IX.    CONTINUANCES   §25.60

A.   Grounds for Continuance   §25.61

1.   Unavailability of Counsel   §25.62

2.   Unavailability of Party   §25.63

3.   Unavailability of Witness   §25.64

4.   Other Statutory Grounds for Granting Continuance   §25.65

5.   Unexpected Testimony   §25.66

B.   Procedure for Obtaining Continuance   §25.67

1.   Good Cause Required   §25.67A

2.   Stipulation for Continuance   §25.67B

3.   Conditions for Obtaining Continuance   §25.67C

4.   Appealability of Order Denying Continuance   §25.67D

X.    DEFAULTS AT TRIAL   §25.67E

XI.    CONFORMING PLEADINGS TO PROOF

A.   General Law for Ordinary Civil Actions   §25.68

B.   Special Law for Unlawful Detainer Complaints

1.   Amendment Based on Trial Evidence   §25.68A

2.   Amendments Before Trial Excluded   §25.68B

3.   Permissible Scope of Amendments   §25.68C

C.   Amended Versus Supplemental Complaint   §25.68D

XII.    STATEMENT OF DECISION   §25.69

Back to Top

26

Judgment

I.    JUDGMENTS IN UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTIONS   §26.1

         II.    CONDITIONING JUDGMENT FOR TENANT ON PAYMENT OF RENT   §26.2

        III.    TENANT MUST BE IN POSSESSION   §26.3

        IV.    WHAT COURT CAN AWARD

A.   Judgment Can Grant Possession of Premises   §26.4

               B.   “Rent” and “Damages”   §26.5

                     1.   Determining Whether Amount Due Is Rent or Damages; Period Covered   §26.6

                     2.   Rent   §26.7

                     3.   Apportionment of Rent   §26.8

                     4.   Damages

a.   Damages Occurring Before Holdover   §26.9

                           b.   Reasonable Rental Value During Holdover   §26.10

                           c.   Damages Against Subtenant   §26.11

                           d.   Damages After Judgment   §26.12

                           e.   Statutory Damages for Malicious Holdover   §26.13

               C.   Forfeiture   §26.14

               D.   Notice May Specify Election to Declare Forfeiture   §26.15

               E.   Interest May Be Awarded   §26.16

               F.   Costs May Be Awarded   §26.17

               G.   Attorney Fees Authorized by Lease or Statute   §26.18

                     1.   Reciprocity of Attorney Fee Provision   §26.19

                     2.   Award of Fees Under Invalid Rental Agreement   §26.20

                     3.   Prevailing Party   §26.21

                     4.   Entitlement to Attorney Fees on Tender and Deposit of Amount Owed   §26.22

                     5.   Prevailing Party When Tenant Raises Habitability as Affirmative Defense   §26.23

                     6.   Size of Fee Award; Local Fee Schedules   §26.24

                     7.   Fees Awardable After Settlement Offer Rejected   §26.25

8.   Fees Awardable Beyond Court’s Jurisdictional Limit   §26.26

9.   Fees Awardable to Public Interest Attorneys   §26.27

10.   Fees Awardable for All Issues Argued   §26.28

11.   Attorney Fees Payable to Party—Not to Attorney   §26.29

12.   Attorney Fees Awardable as Sanctions Regardless of Lease Provision   §26.30

13.   Effect of Voluntary Dismissal   §26.31

14.   Fees Awardable for Enforcement of Right Important to Public Interest   §26.32

15.   Procedures for Requesting Fees   §26.33

16.   Related Statutes Providing for Award of Attorney Fees   §26.34

H.   Limitation on Award for Judgments in Municipal Court of Less Than $10,000   §26.35

I.   Witness Fees May Be Awarded   §26.36

J.   Costs of Execution of Judgment May Be Recovered   §26.37

V.    EFFECT OF JUDGMENT ON CONSUMER CREDIT REPORTING   §26.38

VI.    RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT OF JUDGMENT   §26.38A

VII.    UNLAWFUL DETAINER JUDGMENT FORMS

A.   Form: Order for Judgment for Defendant Conditioned on Payment of Rent After Trial (Warranty of Habitability)   §26.39

B.   Form: Judgment—Unlawful Detainer (Judicial Council Form UD‑110)   §26.40

C.   Form: Judgment—Unlawful Detainer Attachment (Judicial Council Form UD‑110S)   §26.41

D.   Form: Stipulation for Entry of Judgment (Unlawful Detainer) (Judicial Council Form UD‑115)   §26.42

Back to Top

27

Posttrial Motions

I.    POSTTRIAL MOTIONS COVERED   §27.1

II.    FIVE-DAY STATUTORY STAY OF EXECUTION (FOR APPLICATION FOR RESTORATION OF POSSESSION)   §27.2

III.    DISCRETIONARY STAY OF EXECUTION

A.   Pending Hearing on Posttrial Motions   §27.3

B.   Temporary Stay Based on Hardship   §27.4

C.   Form: Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution   §27.5

D.   Form: Memorandum in Support of Ex Parte Application for Stay of Execution   §27.6

IV.    MOTION FOR JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING VERDICT   §27.7

A.   Grounds for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict   §27.8

B.   Procedure for Making Notice of Motion   §27.9

C.   Time of Ruling on Motion   §27.10

D.   Form: Notice of Motion for Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict   §27.11

E.   Form: Order Granting or Denying Judgment Notwithstanding Verdict   §27.12

V.    MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL   §27.13

A.   Grounds for Motion for New Trial   §27.14

B.   Court’s Power to Vacate or Modify Judgment   §27.15

C.   Notice of Motion for New Trial   §27.16

D.   Time for Making Motion for New Trial   §27.17

E.   Form: Notice of Motion for New Trial   §27.18

F.   Form: Declaration in Support of Notice of Motion for New Trial   §27.19

G.   Hearing on Motion   §27.20

H.   Court’s Time to Rule on Motion   §27.21

VI.    MOTION TO SET ASIDE AND VACATE JUDGMENT   §27.22

A.   Notice of Motion   §27.23

B.   Time for Making Motion   §27.24

C.   Form: Notice of Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter Different Judgment   §27.25

D.   Form: Order Granting Motion to Vacate Judgment and Enter Different Judgment (CCP §663)   §27.26

VI.    APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM FORFEITURE   §27.27

A.   Grounds for Relief From Forfeiture   §27.28

B.   Rent Must Be Paid and Other Covenants Performed   §27.29

C.   Procedure for Seeking Relief From Forfeiture   §27.30

D.   Form: Application for Relief From Forfeiture   §27.31

E.   Effect of Grant or Denial of Relief   §27.32

Back to Top

28

Enforcement of Judgment—Removing Tenant and Tenant’s Belongings

I.    REMOVING TENANT   §28.1

A.   Contents of Writ   §28.2

B.   Sending Scare Notice to Tenant After Judgment Is Entered   §28.3

C.   Procedures for Serving and Enforcing Writ of Possession   §28.4

D.   Sheriff Must Evict if Tenant Does Not Vacate Within 5 Days   §28.5

E.   Effect of Failure by Sheriff to Act by Return Date of Writ   §28.6

F.   Judicial Council Form EJ‑130: Writ of Possession of Real Property   §28.7

II.    SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT PRACTICES AND CHARGES   §28.8

III.    DISPOSITION OF TENANT’S PERSONAL PROPERTY

A.   Personal Property Not Removed by Tenant   §28.9

B.   Recovery of Personal Property After Eviction   §28.10

C.   Treating Tenant’s Personal Property as Lost or Abandoned   §28.11

D.   Claim by Tenant for Personal Property (CC §1965)   §28.12

E.   Advantages and Disadvantages of Requesting Surrender   §28.13

F.   Form: Claim for Return of Personal Property Under CC §1965   §28.14

IV.    DISPOSITION OF LOST PROPERTY   §28.15

V.    DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY ABANDONED BY TENANT   §28.16

A.   Landlord Must Store Abandoned Property in Safe Place   §28.17

B.   Notice Requirements for Disposal of Abandoned Property   §28.18

C.   Release of Property to Owner on Payment of Costs   §28.19

D.   Storage Costs   §28.20

E.   Sale of Unclaimed Property; Liability of Landlord   §28.21

VI.    EXECUTION ON TENANT’S PERSONAL PROPERTY IN LANDLORD’S POSSESSION   §28.22

VII.    SETTING ASIDE IMPROPER EXECUTION SALE   §28.23

VIII.    SUPPLEMENTAL COST BILL   §28.24

IX.    MOTION TO QUASH OR RECALL WRIT OF EXECUTION   §28.25

X.    CLAIM OF EXEMPTION   §28.26

A.   Judicial Council Form EJ‑160: Claim of Exemption   §28.27

B.   Hearing on Objections to Claim of Exemption   §28.28

C.   Judgment on Claim of Exemption   §28.29

XI.    WAGE GARNISHMENTS   §28.30

Back to Top

29

Appeals

I.    APPEAL PROCEDURES   §29.1

A.   Limited Civil Cases: Timeline for Action After Entry of Judgment   §29.2

B.   Unlimited Civil Cases: Timeline for Action After Entry of Judgment   §29.3

II.    APPEALABLE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS   §29.4

III.    VACATING PREMISES DOES NOT MOOT TENANT’S APPEAL   §29.5

IV.    FRIVOLOUS APPEALS   §29.6

V.    OBTAINING IMMEDIATE TEMPORARY STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT   §29.7

VI.    STAY PENDING APPEAL   §29.8

A.   Evaluating Need for Stay Pending Appeal   §29.9

B.   Proper Judge   §29.10

C.   Grounds on Which Stay May Be Granted   §29.11

VII.    UNDERTAKING ON APPEAL   §29.12

VIII.    FORM: WAIVER OF SECURITY   §29.13

IX.    FORM: NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY   §29.14

X.    REVIEW OF DENIAL OF STAY   §29.15

XI.    CLEAR ABUSE OF DISCRETION MUST BE SHOWN   §29.16

XII.    SCOPE OF TRIAL COURT JURISDICTION PENDING APPEAL   §29.17

XIII.    EVALUATING WHETHER TO APPEAL   §29.18

XIV.    SUMMARY OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

A.   Applicable Rules   §29.19

B.   Appeals From Limited Civil Cases   §29.20

C.   Appeals From Other Superior Court Actions   §29.21

D.   Standard of Review   §29.22

E.   Initiating Appeal

1.   Notice of Appeal   §29.23

2.   Form: Notice of Appeal   §29.24

3.   Form: Notice of Appeal/Cross-Appeal (Limited Civil Case) (Judicial Council Form APP-102)   §29.25

4.   Form: Notice Designating Record on Appeal (Limited Civil Case) (Judicial Council Form APP-103)   §29.26

5.   Filing Deadlines Applicable to Appeals From Limited Civil Cases   §29.27

6.   Filing Deadlines Applicable to Other Superior Court Judgments   §29.28

7.   Record on Appeal   §29.29

a.   Electronic Recording or Agreed Statement   §29.30

b.   Form: Proposed Statement on Appeal (Limited Civil Case) (Judicial Council Form APP-104)   §29.31

c.   Requesting Reporter’s Transcript   §29.32

F.   Filing Briefs in Appellate Division of Superior Court   §29.33

G.   Filing Briefs in Court of Appeal   §29.34

H.   Purpose of Oral Argument   §29.35

I.   Decision on Appeal and Rehearing   §29.36

J.   Relief for Tenant After Reversal   §29.37

K.   Costs and Attorney Fees on Appeal   §29.38

L.   Abandonment of Appeal   §29.39

M.   Transfer to District Court of Appeal

1.   Transfer of Appeal of Limited Civil Case From Superior Court to Court of Appeal   §29.40

2.   When Transfer Is Denied by District Court   §29.41

Back to Top

30

Civil Writs

I.    CIVIL WRITS IN GENERAL    §30.1

II.    NATURE AND SCOPE OF WRIT    §30.2

A.   Conditions Under Which Writ of Mandate Will Issue    §30.3

B.   Alternative and Peremptory Writs of Mandate    §30.4

C.   Factors in Deciding Whether to Seek Writ    §30.5

III.    OBTAINING A STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING APPEAL OR DECISION ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE   §30.6

IV.    PERSUADING COURT THAT WRIT SHOULD BE GRANTED    §30.7

A.   Inadequacy of Other Remedy Must Be Shown    §30.8

B.   No Direct Appeal    §30.9

C.   Common Situations in Which Relief by Writ Is Sought    §30.10

D.   Direct Appeal Possible    §30.11

V.    PROCEDURE IN OBTAINING WRIT

A.   Relief Must First Be Sought in Lower Court    §30.12

B.   Court in Which Writ Petition Must Be Filed    §30.13

C.   Applicable Statutes and Rules of Court    §30.14

D.   Names of Parties    §30.15

E.   Time Limitation    §30.16

F.   Procedures in Superior Court    §30.17

G.   Pleadings in Mandamus Proceeding    §30.18

1.   Contents of Petition    §30.19

2.   Common Errors in Petitions for Writ    §30.20

3.   Opposition to Issuance of Writ    §30.21

H.   Hearing    §30.22

I.   Issuance of Peremptory Writ    §30.23

J.   Mootness    §30.24

K.   Damages and Costs    §30.25

VI.    REVIEW OF SUPERIOR COURT ACTION ON WRIT    §30.26

VII.    APPEAL FROM DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TO SUPREME COURT    §30.27

Back to Top

31

Return of Security Deposit and Disposition of Last Month’s Rent

I.    TENANT’S RIGHTS IN SECURITY DEPOSIT AND LAST MONTH’S RENT    §31.1

II.    PAYMENTS TO LANDLORD ON SIGNING OF LEASE THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERED “SECURITY”    §31.2

III.    SECURITY “DISGUISED” AS ADVANCE RENT    §31.3

IV.    EFFECT OF DESIGNATION OF DEPOSIT AS “LAST MONTH’S RENT” RATHER THAN “SECURITY DEPOSIT”    §31.4

V.    LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF SECURITY THAT MAY BE REQUIRED    §31.5

VI.    TENANT’S CLAIM TO SECURITY HAS PRIORITY OVER THAT OF LANDLORD’S CREDITORS    §31.6

VII.    SECURITY MAY NOT BE NONREFUNDABLE    §31.7

VIII.    PROVING AMOUNT OF SECURITY DEPOSIT    §31.8

IX.    LIMITS ON LANDLORD’S USE OF SECURITY DEPOSIT    §31.9

X.    LANDLORD’S DUTY TO RETURN DEPOSIT    §31.10

A.   Tenant’s Right to Request Inspection of Premises and Cure Deficiencies; Use of Deposit    §31.10A

B.   Tenant’s Right to Refund of Security Deposit Balance and Accounting    §31.10B

XI.    LANDLORD’S SALE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF PREMISES    §31.11

XII.    INTEREST ON SECURITY DEPOSIT    §31.12

XIII.    DAMAGES FOR LANDLORD’S IMPROPER RETENTION OF DEPOSIT    §31.13

XIV.    EFFECT ON UNLAWFUL DETAINER    §31.14

 

 

 

The Free House Myth

posted by Katie Porter
As challenges to whether a “bank” (usually actually a securitized
trust) has the right to foreclose because it owns the note and mortgage become more common, rumors swirl about the ability to use such tactics to get a “free house.” There are a few instances of consumer getting a free house, see here and here, for examples, but these are extreme situations not premised on ownership, but on a more fundamental flaw with the mortgage. In general, the idea that even a successful ownership challenge will create a free house to the borrower is an urban myth. I’ll explain why below, but there is a policy point here. The myth of the free house drives policymakers to complain about the moral hazard risks of holding mortgage companies to the law and tries to set up homeowners who are paying their mortgages against those who are not. It serves the banks’ political agenda to be able to point to the “free house” as an obviously unacceptable alternative of consumers winning legal challenges. It’s key then to understand that the “free house” is largely a creature of consumers’
and banks’ over-active imaginations.

In sorting out why even a successful ownership challenge does not give homeowners a free house, it is helpful to parse some key concepts. The first one is standing, which is the right of a party to ask a court for the relief it seeks. This comes in different flavors, including constitutional standing, but in the foreclosure context, usually boils down to whether the moving party is the “real party in interest.” In re Veal, the recent decision from the 9th Circuit BAP authored by Judge Bruce Markell, mentioned previously on Credit Slips , contains a discussion of standing in the foreclosure context. At least in part, the concern of the real party in interest doctrine is to make sure that the plaintiff is the right person to get legal relief in order to protect the defendant from a later action by the person truly entitled to relief. Note that standing is a concept that only applies in court; here that means in judicial foreclosures. In states that allow non-judicial foreclosure, the issue is slightly different. Does the party initiating the non-judicial foreclosure have the authority to do so under the state statute authorizing the sale? For example, cases such as In re Salazar discuss whether a recorded assignment of the mortgage is needed, as opposed to an unrecorded assignment, to initiate a foreclosure. Under either standing or statutory authority, a “win” by the homeowner leads to the same result. The foreclosure cannot proceed.

But this win is not the same as a free house. Just because a party lacked standing or statutory authority does not mean that there is not some party out there that does have the authority to foreclosure. Nor does a win on standing mean that there cannot be action taken to give the initial foreclosing party the authority that they need, which might occur by transferring possession of the note or by executing a series of assignments, to foreclose at a later date. Unless other problems exist, there is still a valid note that obligates the homeowner to pay money due and there is still a mortgage encumbering the house. The homeowner does not get a free house. Rather, the homeowner just doesn’t lose her house today to foreclosure. These are pretty different outcomes!

This doesn’t mean that I think the standing/ownership issue is inconsequential. For homeowners, a successful challenge that results in the dismissal of a foreclosure can lead to a loan modification or the delay itself can give the homeowner the time to find another solution. For investors in mortgage-backed securities, the problems with paperwork likely increase their loss severities in foreclosure, both because of increased litigation costs and because of delay in correcting problems. (And there may be even more serious problems for investors relating to whether the transfers even succeeded in putting the homes in the trust.) But we shouldn’t confuse these issues with the idea that what is at stake in sorting out this mess is giving a “free house” to some Americans, despite the lamentations of this LaSalle Bank lawyer after a judge ruled that LaSalle as trustee lacked standing to foreclose. A fruitful discussion of these issues needs to begin with a clear understanding of the consequences of the problem, as well as empirical evidence on how widespread these problems are.
The free house is political handwringing, not legal reality.

July 18, 2011 at 4:22 AM in Mortgage Debt & Home Equity Comments It’s certainly not a “free” house. I think it’ll be a nightmare for homeowners who prevail in one of these actions to try and sell their homes. Just because party X can’t foreclose doesn’t mean that there isn’t a valid mortgage still on the property. No buyer is going to want to buy (and no title insurer will want to insure) unless that mortgage is paid off. And that means determining who is the mortgagee.
Adverse possession and/or quiet title actions might help solve some of this, but they are not self-executing solutions. Homeowners will have to go to court and litigate. That’s expensive and it takes time. So, at best, these homeowners are getting not “free” houses but houses with a severely depressed value.

Posted by: Adam Levitin | July 18, 2011 at 06:46 AM

The author skims the surface of the latte and finds after skimming the surface there is no more cream. Duh.
The Banks are often appearing as trustees on behalf of NY Trusts most of which died on or about 2008. If the trusts are dead than who has the right to appear in court? Nemo est hires viventis. No one is the heir of a living person and I would suggest, no one is the a trustee able to act on behalf of a dead trust. If the paper was successfully transferred to the trust, then perhaps the thousands of suckers who bought a RMBS are the owners. But if the paper was never successfully transferred, then the trusts and the trustees are certainly not the owners with standing. The original lenders might be but after phony documents have been created assigning the note and the mortgage to dead trusts, how could they possibly have the right of ownership?
The “myth” of the free houses was created not by consumers “oy!!” but by the very Banks who are picking up “free” houses every day by pretending to be trustees acting on behalf of dead trusts or trusts that never properly held the mortgages and notes. It is very much like Ronald Reagan calling a nuclear submarine the Corpus Christie or calling armed combatants “peacekeepers.” The “free house” was the Orwellian double speak created by Bankers for Bankers and their judicial minions and hand maidens have adopted their language very well.

—
Jake Naumer
Resolution Advisors
3187 Morgan Ford
St Louis Missouri 63116
314 961 7600
Fax Voice Mail 314 754 9086

MERS in California

From LivingLies:
I think that everyone is missing the #1 problem MERS has in CA.
MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent and cannot legally assign the Promissory Note, making any foreclosure by other than the original lender wrongful, for the following reasons.
1) Under established and binding Ca law, a Nominee can’t assign the Note. Born V. Koop 1962 200 C. A. 2d 519[200 CalApp2d Page 527, 528
2) On most Notes, the term Nominee is not included and MERS never takes ownership, making it unenforceable and unassignable by MERS.
Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association, 265 F. 2d 643 [647,648
3) Ca Civil Code §2924, et seq. is exhaustive and a Nominee is never included as an acceptable form of “authorized agent” in a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure.
Finally, GOMES V. COUNTRYYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, IS FLAWED!
a) The Gomes case simply failed to address and apply the established and binding definition of a nominee.
b) The first thing the Deed of Trust does is (i) take away MERS right to payments and (ii) take away the right to enforce the Note.
c) REGARDLESS WHAT A BORROWER AGREES TO, a borrower cannot legally grant MERS the right to assign the note or any of the rights of the note owner.
________________________________________
MERS Fatal Flaws
MERS cannot legally assign a Promissory Note because, MERS is a Non-Authorized Agent under Established and Binding California Real Property Law and the borrower can’t provide that power to MERS.
First, a Nominee is someone who is nominated potentially for a future position. Much like being nominated for President, yet a Presidential Nominee doesn’t receive any powers until the person actually becomes President.
Second, in the Deed of Trust MERS is identified “Solely as a Nominee” and as the Beneficiary. Which is logically and legally impossible, because a party can only be either the nominated Beneficiary or the Beneficiary. You can’t “not be” and “be” the beneficiary at the same time.
Third, Ca Civil Code §2924, et seq. is exhaustive and a Nominee is never included as an acceptable form of “authorized agent” in a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure.
Fourth, MERS acts “Solely as a Nominee” for lenders, and under Established California Law a “Nominee” is a “Non-Authorized” form of agent, which fails to comply with California Civil Code §§ 2924 through 2924k, as a nominee inherently lacks the right to enforce or assign, the Note or real property ownership rights, per the following case.
“In Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438., Cisco could not enforce the land sale contract because he was not a party to it, the court, at pages 583-584, said: “The word ‘nominee’ in its commonly accepted meaning connotes the delegation of authority to the nominee in a representative or nominal capacity only, and does not connote the transfer or assignment to the nominee of any property in or ownership of the rights of the person nominating him.”
Born V. Koop 1962 200 C. A. 2d 519[200 CalApp2d Page 527, 528], see file below
Fifth, in addition to MERS’ inherit lack of authority, MERS is not a party to the Note and the Note fails to use the words, for example “ Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB or Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB Nominee”.
“The purpose of the document in question here was to offer an obligation to Harold L. Shaw alone and not to his nominee or any other person whomsoever.”
Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association, 265 F. 2d 643 [647,648], see file below
Finally, GOMES V. COUNTRYYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., 192 Cal.App.4th 1149, IS FLAWED!
a) The Gomes case simply failed to address and apply the established and binding definition of a nominee.
b) The first thing the Deed of Trust does is (i) take away MERS right to payments and (ii) take away the right to enforce the Note.
c) REGARDLESS WHAT A BORROWER AGREES TO, a “Borrower” cannot legally grant MERS the right to assign the note or any of the rights of the note owner.
“It is no defense to deceit that false statement was made pursuant to some statutory scheme such as statutory procedures for trustee’s sale (§ 2924 et seq.).” Block v. Tobin (App. 1 Dist. 1975) 119 Cal.Rptr. 288, 45 Cal.App.3d 214.

“It is true, as Defendants repeatedly assert, that California Civil Code § 2924, et seq. authorizes non-judicial foreclosure in this state. It is not the case, however, that the availability of a non-judicial foreclosure process somehow exempts lenders, trustees, beneficiaries, servicers, and the numerous other (sometimes ephemeral) entities involved in dealing with Plaintiffs from following the law.” Sacchi vs. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. US Central District Court of California CV 11-1658 AHM (CWx), June 24, 2011
Therefore, without an endorsement on the Note and an assignment directly from the original lender, assignments by MERS; the substitution of the Trustee; and trustee sale are unlawful and void.

“The assignment of the lien without a transfer of the debt was a nullity in law.” (Polhemus v. Trainer, 30 Cal. 685; Peters v. Jamestown Box Co., 5 Cal. 334; Hyde v. Mangan, 88 Cal. 319;
Jones on Pledges, secs. 418, 419; Van Ewan v. Stanchfield, 13 Minn. 75.)
“A lien is not assignable unless by the express language of the statute.”
(Jones on Liens, sec. 982; Wingard v. Banning, 39 Cal. 343; Ruggles v. Walker, 34 Vt. 468; Wing v. Griffin, 1 Smith, E.D. 162; Holly v. Hungerford, 8 Pick. 73; Daubigny v. Duval, 5 Tenn. 604.)
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, DAVIS, BELAU & CO. V. NATIONAL SUR. CO., 139 CAL 223, 224 (1903)

“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.”
CARPENTER V. LONGAN, 83 U. S. 271 (1872), U.S. Supreme Court
“California courts have repeatedly allowed parties to pursue additional remedies for misconduct arising out of a nonjudicial foreclosure sale when not inconsistent with the policies behind the statutes”
California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 1053,1070
“(2) Whenever a court becomes aware that a contract is illegal, it has a duty to refrain from entertaining an action to enforce the contract. (3) Furthermore the court will not permit the parties to maintain an action to settle or compromise a claim based on an illegal contract”
Bovard v. American Horse Enterprises, Inc., 201 Cal.App.3d 832 (1988)

On April 11th, 2011,
The Honorable Judge Margaret M. Mann made very clear the following,
based upon California Supreme Court and U.S. Supreme court cases:
• Assignments must be recorded before the foreclosure sale
• Recorded assignments are necessary despite MERS’ role
• MERS’s system is not an alternative to statutory foreclosure law
Bankruptcy No: 10-17456-MM13 re: Eleazar Salazar,

see attached below Mann_order_salazar.pdf

2) Nothing under California Civil Code §§ 2924 through 2924k applies, unless there is a legal chain of title for the Deed of Trust with the Note from the original lender to MERS, and then to the foreclosing party.

The First Fatal Flaw – MERS never takes ownership of the underlying Note, Voiding the “Original” Deed of Trust.
Under California Law, the named Beneficiary on the Deed of Trust must have ownership of the underlying Note. MERS consistently claims to be only “Holding the Note” as a Nominee for the original lender, never “Owning the Note”.

Why MERS doesn’t have ownership of the Note:
1. There is no assignment or indorsement of the Note from the original lender to MERS.
2. The Deed of Trust is not a substitute for an Assignment or legal transfer of the Note from the Original lender to MERS.
“It is well established law in the Ninth Circuit that the assignment of a trust deed does not assign the underlying promissory note and right to be paid, and that the security interest is incident of the debt.” Rickie Walker case, see attached
3. MERS is a mortgage exchange not unlike a stock exchange. It allows banks to buy and sell home mortgages much like stock. Stock exchanges don’t own the stock on their exchange, only the investors do.
4. A Nominee in California cannot own the Note,
“The word “nominee” in its commonly accepted meaning, connotes the delegation of authority to the nominee in a representative or nominal capacity only, and does not connote the transfer or assignment to the nominee of any property in or ownership of the rights of the person nominating him.”
Cisco v. Van Lew, 60 Cal.App.2d 575, 583-584, 141 P.2d 433, 438.
5. In California, a Note payable to the original lender is not a bearer instrument, the original lender must indorse or assign the Note to MERS.
See Cal Com. Code §§3109,3201,3203,3204. and Rickie Walker case Order, and P&A pg6 attached below
6. MERS requires that the owner of the Note never claim MERS as a “Note-Owner”
MERS Membership Rule 8 Foreclosure, Section 2(a)(i), page 25, 26, see attached below
7. MERS consistently argues in court that it does not own the promissory notes,
MERS v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE No. S-04-786, see attached below
8. Finally, Moeller v. Lien and CCC § 2924 DOES NOT “EXPRESSLY” EXCLUDE
OR SUPERCEDE CA Comercial Code § 3301, OR ANY OTHER CA LAWS!
In the case of California Golf, L.L.C. v. Cooper, 163 Cal. App. 4th 1053, 78 Cal. Rptr. 3d 153, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 850 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2008), the Appellate Court held that the remedies of 2924h were not exclusive.
9. U.S. Supreme Court decision, Carpenter v. Longan (Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271, 21 L.Ed. 313 [1873])):
“The note and mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity. Case law in virtually every state follows Carpenter.”

Deed of Trust is also void, without a recorded assignment of the Deed of Trust for each transfer of the Note:
1. MERS Involvement in the loan effectively stripped the deed of trust lien from the land and a foreclosure is not legally possible, Bellistri v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 284 S.W.3d 619 (Mo.App. E.D.,2009), attached below
2. Any assignment of the Deed of Trust & Note from MERS to a successor is void and fraudulent.
RICKIE WALKER CASE, see attached below
Therefore, MERS definition of “Holding the Note” is not the legal equivalent of “Owning the Note”;
California Civil Code section 2924 for foreclosure only applies if MERS owned the note.

The Second Fatal Flaw – MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title and the debt may be uncollectible.
When a Note is sold, it has to be indorsed the same way you basically sign a check for deposit or cashing.

Under California Law the Note is not a bearer instrument, but an instrument payable only to a specifically identified person, per California Commercial Code §3109; any transfer of the Note requires a legal Negotiation, Endorsement and a physical delivery of the note to the transferee to perfect the transfer, per California Commercial Codes §§3201, 3203, 3204.
see attached Rickie Walker Order.

“MERS Basics “Registration vs. Recording. (PPT Slide)
o MERS is not a system of legal record nor a replacement for the public land records.
o Mortgages must be recorded in the county land records.
o MERS is a tracking system. No interests are transferred on the MERS® System, only tracked.”,
MERS Southeast Legal Seminar – MERS Basics slide 7,
see attached below. or http://www.mersinc.org/files/filedownload.aspx?id=63&table=DownloadFile

“A mortgage note holder can sell a mortgage note to another in what has become a gigantic secondary market. . . . For these servicing companies to perform their duties satisfactorily, the note and mortgage were bifurcated.”
MERSCORP President and CEO, R.K. Arnold, Yes, There is Life on MERS, Prob.& Prop., Aug. 1997, at p.16, see attached below

Clear Title May Not Derive From A Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value).
In the case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Taylor, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain:
“Numerous authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant Archer acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief.” (Emphasis added, internal citations omitted).

This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated:
“It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties.” (Emphasis added).

In Alliance Mortgage Co. v. Rothwell (1995) 10 Cal. 4th 1226, 1231 [44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 352, 900 P.2d 601], the California Supreme Court concluded that:
“ ‘the antideficiency laws were not intended to immunize wrongdoers from the consequences of their fraudulent acts’ ” and that, if the court applies a proper measure of damages, “ ‘fraud suits do not frustrate the antideficiency policies because there should be no double recovery for the beneficiary.’ ” (Id. at p. 1238.)
Great Article source: http://www.exclusiveforeclosures.net/real-estate-foreclosures/doan-on-%E2%80%9Cproduce-the-note%E2%80%9D/

Therefore, any attempt to collect by other than the original lender may be impossible without a legal chain of title, because MERS tracking system is not a legal chain of title.

Source: https://sites.google.com/site/mersfatalflawsincalifornia/

________________________________________
MERS Defense Flaw
Legal Disclaimer: All information contained on this website is alleged and general in nature, and should not be construed as legal advice or a substitute for legal advice. It was not written by an attorney and should only be reviewed by an attorney.

MERS alleged status as of November 18th, 2010

PROTECTION FROM VOIDABILITY IS ONLY PROVIDED FOR THE YEARS TAXES ARE PAID.

On July 21, 2010 MERS registered with the California Secretary of State.
MERS registration was necessary, and not retroactive for the following reasons:
1. MERS needed to register with the State of California, because MERS is Not a Foreign Lending Institution nor claims to be, therefore California Corporate Code § 191(d) does not exempt MERS from California Corporate Code §2105.
“the court cannot conclude that MERS falls within any of the five enumerated examples of “foreign lending institutions,” and the court declines to address sua sponte whether MERS otherwise satisfies subsection (d).”. . . “the enforcement of any loans by trustee’s sale, judicial process or deed in lieu of foreclosure or otherwise. . .” “Accordingly, section 191(c)(7) does not exempt MERS’s activity.”
CHAMPLAIE v. BAC, No. 2:09-cv-01316-LKK-DAD (E.D.Cal. 10-22-2009) pg23,24, attached below
As a result of MERS intentional failure from obtaining a certificate of qualification from the California Secretary of State as a “Beneficiary”, including filing returns and paying taxes, MERS is not allowed the right to defend a lawsuit when named as or defending its actions in a “Beneficiary” capacity, pursuant to California Revenue & Taxation Code Section §§ 23301, 23301.6, 23304.1.
“A suspended corporation is not allowed to exercise the powers and privileges of a corporation in good standing, including the right to sue or defend a lawsuit while its taxes remain unpaid”
PERFORMANCE PLASTERING v. RICHMOND AM. HOMES, 153 Cal.App.4th 659 (2007) 63 Cal.Rptr.3d 537
2. MERS must first produce a Certificate of Relief from Voidability for the time prior to July 21, 2010, California Revenue & Tax Code 23305.1 and file with this Superior Court Clerk receipt of payment to the California Secretary of State for taxes and penalties, California Corporations Code §2203(c).
“UMML qualified to transact intrastate business, but failed to pay the necessary fees, penalties and taxes.
The trial court correctly dismissed the complaint without prejudice.”
United Medical Management Ltd. v. Gatto, 49 Cal. App. 4th 1732 – Cal: Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate
“we will dismiss a nonqualified foreign corporation’s appeal if we determine the nonqualified foreign corporation transacted
intrastate business in California.9 (Corp. Code, §§ 2105, 2203.) We believe this approach advances the policies of preventing tax evasion through the even-handed administration of the tax laws, while encouraging qualification of foreign corporations by prohibiting a delinquent corporation from enjoying the privileges of a going concern.”

“9 Pursuant to Corporations Code § 2203, subdivision (c), and as recognized in United Medical, supra, and Mediterranean Exports, Inc. v. Superior Court, supra, a nonqualified foreign corporation is prohibited from maintaining an action in state court only until it complies with Corporations Code section 2105, pays to the Secretary of State a penalty of $250 and the fees for filing the required statement, and files with the court clerk receipts substantiating payment of such fees and franchise taxes and any other business taxes. Since the tax liability will be the issue presented to us, we will allow a nonqualified foreign corporation to maintain an action before us if it presents evidence substantiating it has qualified with the Secretary of State and paid the $250 penalty pursuant to Corporations Code section 2203, subdivision (c).”
In the Matter of the Appeal of Reitman Atlantic Corporation, 2001-SBE-002-A, See attached below

3. MERS will very likely cite one of these two cases:
United Medical Management Ltd. v. Gatto 49 Cal.App.4th 1732 (1996),
or Perlas v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Systems, Inc., 2010 WL 3079262 * 7, an unpublished case as of 10/18/2010
Both of which are based upon this case:
“A nonqualified corporation subject to a misdemeanor prosecution and on conviction to a heavy fine for doing business without complying with the law, is permitted to qualify, be restored to full legal competency and have its prior transactions given full effect.” (Tucker v. Cave Springs Min. Corp. (1934) 139 Cal. App. 213, 217 [33 P.2d 871].
So demand MERS filing of receipts and that Certificate of Relief from Voidability!
191 CHAMPLAIE_v_BAC_HOME_LOANS_SERVICING_LP_E_D_Cal_10-22-2009
atto, 49 Cal. App. 4th 1732 – Cal_ Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate Dist., 5th Div. 1996 – Google Scholar
bellistri-v-ocwen

Joseph Born v. Koop
mann-order_salazar
MERS RULES(June2009)
MERS Southeast Legal Seminar (11.10.04) final

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE – NE Supreme Court
Ott v. Home Savings & Loan Association
Perlas v. MERS
R.K. Arnold, MERS Admits Bifurcation
Reitman Atlantic Corporation BOE
Reitman Atlantic Corporation BOE
Rickie_Walker_P_and_A
RickieWalkerOrder

David and Goliath as court overturns case dissmissal

A Bakersfield homeowner is taking on a bank, in a battle that could have sweeping implications for people facing foreclosure.

Mark Demucha wants Wells Fargo to prove it owns his home loan. And, if his lawsuit is successful, it could set a legal precedent that slows or even stops foreclosures across the state.

“Filled out the same paperwork over and over again.”

Mark Demucha says all he wanted was to keep his house. “Sent it to them over and over again. I couldn’t give you the exact time frame, but it’s ridiculous,” he said.

But, after a year of trying to get a loan modification from Wells Fargo… “I had to do something to protect my family. to protect my home.”

He felt all washed up. “Not yes, not no, not anything. They didn’t respond.”

Demucha turned to family friend Michael Finley who happens to be a lawyer.

“A company that does not have a legal right to collect mortgage payments should not have the right to foreclose,” said Finley.

Now, in a case that could have far-reaching implications, Demucha and Finley say they have one simple request. “If they are going to take my house, I should be able to see they have a legal right to take it from me,” said Demucha. “They come to me and want me to have every single piece of paper I was ever supposed to have. But, when I say ‘hey where is my promissory note?’ they look at me like I’m a thief.”

That’s because Wells Fargo didn’t loan Demucha the money to buy his house. Another company called CTX Mortgage, did.

Banks, at the time, seemed like they were almost using the housing market as a roulette wheel or a craps table. They were shoving debt around like it was a card game.

Like so many millions of homeowners, Demucha’s loan was sold to another lender, a common practice because it’s profitable to the banks.

In the old days, any time ownership of a property and its loan changed hands, it would be recorded at the Hall of Records at a cost of $18. For the mortgage industry, that took too long and on a large scale cost too much money. So they privatized it by creating the mortgage electronic registration system, a company headquartered in Reston, Virginia.

The sole purpose of MERS was to cut out the county clerk, allowing one mortgage company to quickly and electronically transfer a loan to another mortgage company.

On Tuesday, a spokeswoman told 17 News, MERS holds title to about 60% of the country’s home mortgages or about 32 million loans. MERS is basically an electronic handshake between banks, saying we have a deal.

But, MERS has turned into a headache for some lenders as homeowners across the country have successfully challenged the company’s legal standing in court. Others like Demucha are demanding their lender produce loan documents which may have been lost or even destroyed in the MERS shuffle.

“Why should the bank not still be required to possess a single piece of paper that they are the right place to home the consumer should make the payments?”

Earlier this month, a state appellate court agreed, overturning a Kern County judge’s ruling that Wells Fargo could foreclose on the home.

The case is headed back to our county where the same judge will have to decide if Wells Fargo can prove it legitimately holds title to the Demucha’s home.

“I wish I were David and they were Goliath. This would have been an easier fight. They are like an army of Goliaths and I’m like David with his hands tied behind his back,” said Demucha.

Wells Fargo spokesman Tom Goyda couldn’t comment on the specifics of this case but acknowledged the appellate court had sent the case back to the Kern County trial court to rule on several issues. Goyda noted the appeals court did not actually rule on the case and that Wells Fargo would continue to try the case in court.

A spokeswoman for MERS said her company said she couldn’t comment because they are not part of this lawsuit. Demucha and his attorney are basically asking for Wells Fargo to go away and to restore the couple’s credit.

“Wells Fargo essentially ignored them until the fifth district appellate court said Wells Fargo you can’t ignore Mark and Sherry Demucha any more,” said Finley.

The appellate court ruling has arrived back here in Kern County but a hearing has not yet been scheduled.

pending lawsuits and homeowners winnning

Mark DeMucha v Wells Fargo Bank; Kutak Rock LLP; Homeowner Wins a California Appeal; Reversed and R

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60748498/Mark-DeMucha-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Kutak-Rock-LLP-Loses-a-California-Appeal-Reversed-and-Remanded

Added by PENDING LAWSUIT on July 24, 2011 at 9:30am — No Comments

Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo re: KOSAR PETITION WHY ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED, WITH PREJUDICE, FO

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60658486/WELLS-FARGO-v-KOSAR-MOTION-TO-STAY-AND-PETITION-FOR-RULE-TO-SHOW-CAUSE-WHY-ACTION-SHOULD-NOT-BE-DISMISSED-WITH-PREJUDICE-FOR-WIDESPREAD-SYSTEMIC-A

Added by PENDING LAWSUIT on July 22, 2011 at 3:00pm — No Comments

BARRY FAGAN v WELLS FARGO BANK re: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD’S CEASE

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60623511/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Request-for-Judicial-Notice-Re-FEDERAL-RESERVE-BOARD-CONSENT-ORDER-Dated-JULY-20-2011

Added by PENDING LAWSUIT on July 22, 2011 at 2:26pm — No Comments

Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank re: Cease and Desist Order In the Matter of: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY a

http://www.scribd.com/doc/60477940/Cease-and-Desist-Order-In-the-Matter-of-WELLS-FARGO-COMPANY-and-WELLS-FARGO-FINANCIAL-INC

Added by PENDING LAWSUIT on July 20, 2011 at 4:30pm — No Comments

Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank; TD Service Company; Ebert Appraisal Service; COMPLAINT

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57477739/Barry-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-TD-Service-Company-et-al-COMPLAINT

Added by PENDING LAWSUIT on July 20, 2011 at 4:30pm — No Comments

Barry Fagan v Wells Fargo Bank and The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) FOIA COVER-UP

http://www.scribd.com/doc/57585259/OCC-Letter-Re-Fagan-v-Wells-Fargo-Bank-Denial-of-Documents-through-FOIA

Ten pages are being withheld by the authority of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a (k)(2) and the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552 (b)(8) and 12 C.F.R. 4.12(b)(8), relating to a record contained in or related to an examination,…

MERS and invalid assignments

Brand New, Hot Off The Presses MERS Policy Bulletin

July 24th, 2011 | Author: Matthew D. Weidner, Esq.

After years of claiming that assignments don’t matter and the date of assignment certainly doesn’t matter, the MERS Monster has finally changed its tune, effective July 21, 2011:

The Certifying Officer must execute the assignment of the Security Instrument from MERS before initiating foreclosure proceedings or filing Legal Proceedings and promptly send the assignment of the Security Instrument for recording in the applicable public land records

Well, harumph says I…what of all those damn post filing assignments?  What about all them specious arguments made in courtrooms all across this country that said the date of assignment didn’t matter?  What about the absurd argument that an “equitable assignment” had already occurred? (despite the fact that neither the pooling and servicing a agreement nor law permit such assignments)  For foreclosure cases already adjudged this is problematic and for all those hundreds of thousands still pending, this change in policy is exhibit #1 in the argument that a post filing assignment cannot confer standing.

This certainly ain’t “Ding Dong The Witch Is Dead”, it’s just another stanza in “Humpty Dumpty Sat on A Wall”

And all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again.

Humpty Dumpty is our real property recording system that was developed over hundreds of years in this country.  A key read is Hernando Desoto’s “The Mystery of Capital” for a long explanation that our country’s success is tied largely to our real property record system that has been completely obliterated in just a few short years by all this mortgage madness.  What is most astonishing (and the biggest indictment of the whole MERS madness) is the fact that no law, legislation or court decision was ever rendered to justify the MERS system prior to its widespread implementation.  It was merely spread all across this country like a virulent virus that was transmitted and lay dormant in the property records impacting millions of homes all across America.

MERS Policy Bulletin

Ask for a 402 hearing and then dissmiss the eviction !!!

If the court follows the rules of evidence (and they do) if proper objections are filed. No eviction of a secuitized loan should ever prevail on an eviction; they cannot produce the foundation to authenticate the Trustees Deed it is based upon preliminary facts that they are unable and unwilling to bring to court. The Assignments Civil code 2932.5 , The Servicer, The Accounting, The Trustee, MERS, The Robo signer, The person that purportedly contacted the Borrower Trustor, The compliance documents with Civil Code 2924, all these are preliminary facts upon which the admission of the Trustees Deed depend Evidence code 400,401,402,403. Check out this motion !!

Timothy L. McCandless, Esq.  (SBN 147715)

LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS

Attorney for Defendant,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SOLANO

SOLANO COURT/ LIMITED JURISDICTION

FANNIE MAE et al,

Plaintiff,

v.

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)Case No.:

 

DEFENDANT’S IN LIMINE MOTION TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE (RE:FACIALLY INVALID DEED OF TRUST)

TRIAL DATE:  Tues., June 15, 2010 ) 

To the Court, to Plaintiff FANNIE MAE, and its attorney of record:

            PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, on Tuesday, June 15, 2010, at 8:30 AM, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Defendant, MICHELLE CABESAS, will in limine judicii move the court, and hereby does move, for an order excluding from trial all evidence proffered by Plaintiff FANNIE MAE.

          The motion will be heard in Department  26, at 1:30 p.m. in front of the Honorable Judge Davis  of the Solano Court of the above-captioned court.

The motion will be brought pursuant to Evidence Code sections 353 and 400 et seq., Code of Civil Procedure section 430.10(b), and related decisional law.

The ground of the motion will be that the Unlawful Detainer Complaint, together with the publicly-filed “Deed of Trust” that is necessarily incorporated into it, is facially invalid because the  Beneficiary did not have the power of sale. Such irregularities should constitute sufficient grounds to set aside the entire non-judicial foreclosure process. Therefore, the Trustee’s Deed After Sale should not be admitted as no lawful basis exists for its execution. Additionally, the Notice of Default, and Notice of Default Declaration should be excluded.

The failure of Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s agent to perform a condition precedent pursuant to Civil Code Section 2923.5 is fatal. The Notice of Default Declaration fails is several regards, (1) the language of the Notice does not comply with the statute because it does not set forth facts of how the statute was performed; (2) the Declaration is not sworn under penalty of perjury; (3) the only date of the Declaration is the date of execution which is one day prior to the Notice of Default which was recorded only five days later, thus, thirty days did not pass from the date of execution of the Declaration and the date of recordation. As such, under Section 2923.5, the Notice of Default Declaration is void and could not support the recordation of the Notice of Default.  Because the non-judicial foreclosure process is subject to strict scrutiny, and given the material failure of a condition precedent by Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s agent, the entire non-judicial foreclosure process is invalid.  Therefore, the Trustee’s Deed After Sale cannot be admitted into evidence, as no lawful foundation can be laid.

//

DATED:  June 14, 2010.                  ________________________________________

LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS

By: Timothy P. McCandless, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant,

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The court’s records for this case will show that Plaintiff FANNIE MAE filed its Complaint on or about  August 4, 2009.   The apparent foreclosing beneficiary was plaintiff, FANNIE MAE.  [See attachment to Unlawful Detainer Complaint entitled “Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale.”]

This motion ensued in its present form, because sufficient time did not remain before trial, in order to permit Defendant CABESAS to bring a regularly-noticed general demurrer or “motion for judgment on the pleadings”.

II.

THE COURT HAS POWER TO EXCLUDE ALL EVIDENCE FROM TRIAL, ON GROUNDS ANALOGOUS TO A GENERAL DEMURRER.

            The court has power to consider and grant an objection to all evidence under Evidence Code sections 353 and 400 et seq.  If no cause of action or defense is stated by the respective pleading, then no “factual issue” any longer exists, and therefore no evidence may be admitted on grounds of “relevance” under Evidence Code sections 400 et seq.

It is well established that a party may bring an in limine objection in order to exclude all evidence, as a sort of general demurrer or “motion for judgment on the pleadings”.  “Although not in form a motion, this method of attacking the pleading is identical in purpose to a general demurrer and motion for judgment on the pleadings and is governed by the same rules.  [Citations.]”  5 WITKIN, Cal.Proc.3^rd page 386, “Pleading” at §953.  See also 6 WITKIN, Cal.Proc.3^rd pages 571-573, “Proceedings Without Trial” at §§272-273.

According to 5 WITKIN, Cal.Proc.3^rd page 340, “Pleading” at §899, a “general” demurrer concerns only the defense that the pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action or defense.  That is precisely what defendant contends here: the Unlawful Detainer Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

III.

THE COURT MUST STRICTLY ENFORCE

THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR A FORECLOSURE.

            The harshness of non-judicial foreclosure has been recognized. “The exercise of the power of sale is a harsh method of foreclosing the rights of the grantor.” Anderson v. Heart Federal Savings (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 202, 6 215, citing to System Inv. Corporation v. Union Bank (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 137, 153.  The statutory requirements are intended to protect the trustor from a wrongful or unfair loss of his property Moeller v. Lien (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 822, 830; accord, Hicks v. E.T. Legg & Associates (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 496, 503; Lo Nguyen v. Calhoun (6^th District 2003) 105 Cal.App.4th 428, 440, and a valid foreclosure by the private power of sale requires strict compliance with the requirements of the statute. Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.), Deeds of Trust and Mortgages, Chapter 10 §10.179; Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn., 208 Cal. App. 3d 202, 211 (3d Dist. 1989), reh’g denied and opinion modified, (Mar. 28, 1989); Miller v. Cote (4th Dist. 1982) 127 Cal. App. 3d 888, 894; System Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank (2d Dist. 1971) 21 Cal. App. 3d 137, 152-153; Bisno v. Sax (2d Dist. 1959) 175 Cal. App. 2d 714, 720.

It has been a cornerstone of foreclosure law that the statutory requirements, intending to protect the trustor from a wrongful or unfair loss of the property, must be complied with strictly. Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.), Deeds of Trust and Mortgages, Chapter 10 §10.182.   “Close” compliance does not count. As a result, any trustee’s sale based on a statutorily deficient Notice of Default is invalid (emphasis added). Miller & Starr, California Real Estate (3d ed.), Deeds of Trust and Mortgages, Chapter 10 §10.182; Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. (3dDist. 1989) 208 Cal. App. 3d 202, 211, reh’g denied and opinion modified, (Mar. 28, 1989); Miller v. Cote (4th Dist. 1982) 127 Cal. App. 3d 888, 894; System Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank (2d Dist. 1971) 21 Cal. App. 3d 137, 152-153; Saterstrom v. Glick Bros. Sash, Door & Mill Co.(3d Dist. 1931) 118 Cal. App. 379.

Additionally, any trustee’s sale based on a statutorily deficient Notice of Trustee Sale is invalid.  Anderson v. Heart Federal Sav. & Loan Assn. (3d Dist. 1989) 11 208 Cal.App. 3d 202, 211, reh’g denied and opinion modified, (Mar. 28, 1989). The California Sixth District Court of Appeal observed, “Pursuing that policy [of judicial interpretation], the courts have fashioned rules to protect the debtor, one of them being that the notice of default will be strictly construed and must correctly set forth the amounts required to cure the default.” Sweatt v. The Foreclosure Co., Inc. (1985 – 6th District) 166 Cal.App.3d 273 at 278, citing to Miller v. Cote (1982) 127 Cal.App.3d 888, 894 and SystemInv. Corp. v. Union Bank (1971) 21 Cal.App.3d 137, 152-153.

The same reasoning applies even to a notice of a trustee’s sale.  Courts will set aside a foreclosure sale when there has been fraud, when the  sale has been improperly, unfairly, or unlawfully conducted, or when there has  been such a mistake that it would be inequitable to let it stand. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n v. Reidy (1940) 15 Cal. 2d 243, 248; Whitman v. Transtate Title Co.(4th Dist. 1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 312, 322-323; In re Worcester (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1224, 1228.  See also Smith v. Williams (1961) 55 Cal. 2d 617, 621; Stirton v. Pastor (4^th Dist. 1960) 177 Cal. App. 2d 232, 234; Brown v. Busch (3d Dist. 1957) 152 Cal.App. 2d 200, 203-204.

If somehow these foreclosing predecessor-in-interest can establish this standing, or right, to extrajudicially foreclose, still it should be prevented from pursuing this eviction action, because such an action, if successful, would result in a wrongful foreclosure, due to the predecessor-in-interest’s exercise of a non-existent extrajudicial power.

IV.

PLAINTIFF, OR PLAINTIFF’S PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST,

DID NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO EXTRAJUDICIALLY FORECLOSE

The foreclosing predecessor-in-interest simply did not have the right to foreclose under the subject trust deed, because the notice of default  facially invalid.

The reason why the security instrument is not valid, is because it is facially void        !  A copy of the subject trust deed – a public record!! — is attached hereto.  Further, the trueness of the copy is readily verifiable, since it is a publicly-recorded document.  Clear as daylight, contact with the trustor 30 days prior to the notice was imjpossible. The was no lender MERS is not a lender Plaintiff  did not get the assignment  till 7/8/2009  . The notice of default was recorded 7/31/2009 only 23 days after the assignment.

A trust deed adds a third party, of sorts, namely the beneficiary.  It has been observed that a trust deed naming a purely fictitious person as beneficiary may be void.  Woodward v. McAdam (1894), 101 Cal. 438.  It has been held that a trust deed might be void for uncertainty, where the deed of trust does not name or describe any of the beneficiaries, but only classified them by reference to a common attribute.  Watkins v. Bryant (1891), 91 Cal. 492.  There seems to be no common-sense reason why the same principle should not apply to the designation of the grantee/ trustee, even were the law of deeds not generally applicable to trust deeds.

Beneficiary did not have the power of sale. Such irregularities should constitute sufficient grounds to set aside the entire non-judicial foreclosure process. Therefore, the Trustee’s Deed After Sale should not be admitted as no lawful basis exists for its execution. Additionally, the Notice of Default, and Notice of Default Declaration should be excluded.

The failure of Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s agent to perform a condition precedent pursuant to Civil Code Section 2923.5 is fatal. The Notice of Default Declaration fails is several regards, (1) the language of the Notice does not comply with the statute because it does not set forth facts of how the statute was performed; (2) the Declaration is not sworn under penalty of perjury; (3) the only date of the Declaration is the date of execution which is one day prior to the Notice of Default which was recorded only five days later, thus, thirty days did not pass from the date of execution of the Declaration and the date of recordation. As such, under Section 2923.5, the Notice of Default Declaration is void and could not support the recordation of the Notice of Default.  Because the non-judicial foreclosure process is subject to strict scrutiny, and given the material failure of a condition precedent by Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s agent, the entire non-judicial foreclosure process is invalid.  Therefore, the Trustee’s Deed After Sale cannot be admitted into evidence, as no lawful foundation can be laid.

CONCLUSION

          The Plaintiff’s entire case rests upon the “facial” or “on the public record” legitimacy of the extrajudicial foreclosure by its predecessor-in-interest.  The foreclosure was facially void.  The case should be dismissed, upon the court’s determination that no factual “issue” remains.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED:  June 14, 2010             _______________________________________

LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS

By: Timothy P. McCandless

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

Judicial Notice ?? not so fast

 All banks love to use judicial notice to establish their position but with all the robo signing the evidence is being excluded.

ROBERT HERRERA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

DEUTSCHE

1

BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. C065630.

 Court of Appeals of California, Third District, El Dorado.Filed May 31, 2011.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

 MURRAY, J.

SUMMARY

 Plaintiffs Robert and Gail Herrera lost their house in South Lake Tahoe to a nonjudicial foreclosure sale.They brought suit to set aside that sale. They challenge whether the parties that conducted the sale,defendants Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (the Bank) and California Reconveyance Company(CRC), were in fact the beneficiary and trustee, respectively, under a deed of trust secured by theirproperty, and thus had authority to conduct the sale. Plaintiffs also contend that they are entitled to berepaid for the expenses they incurred in repairing and insuring the property and paying back taxes if defendants are successful in establishing their interest in the property.Defendants moved for summary judgment. In support of their motion, they requested that the trialcourt take judicial notice of recorded documents, including an Assignment of Deed of Trust and aSubstitution of Trustee. Defendants asserted that these documents established the authority of theBank and CRC to conduct the foreclosure sale. Defendants also provided a declaration by a custodian of records for CRC, in which the custodian did not expressly declare that the Bank was the beneficiary andCRC the trustee. Instead, she merely

declared that an Assignment of Deed of Trust and a Substitutionof Trustee had been recorded

and these recorded documents indicated the Bank had been assigned thedeed of trust and that CRC had been substituted as trustee.Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment after the trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. They contend defendants failed to carry their burden in moving for summary judgment andthe trial court erred in taking judicial notice of and accepting as true the contents of certain recordeddocuments. We agree and reverse the judgment in part. For the reasons discussed herein, we affirm the judgment as to the fourth cause of action, plaintiffs’ claim of unjust enrichment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 In June of 2008, plaintiffs purchased the property at 739 Alameda Avenue, South Lake Tahoe (theProperty) at a foreclosure sale. On February 27, 2009, CRC recorded a “Notice of Default and Election toSell [the Property] Under Deed of Trust.” On May 29, 2009, CRC recorded a Notice of Trustee’s Sale. OnJuly 6, 2009, CRC recorded a Trustee’s Deed upon Sale, showing the Property had been conveyed to theBank, as foreclosing beneficiary. Plaintiffs brought suit against the Bank, CRC and others to set aside thesale, cancel the trustee’s deed, quiet title to the Property, and for unjust enrichment.In the first cause of action, plaintiffs sought to set aside the trustee’s sale. Plaintiffs alleged theypurchased “this run-down, filthy, distressed property” at a foreclosure sale, rehabilitated and repairedthe Property and paid over $4,000 in back property taxes. They had no idea there might be a deed of trust from 2003, as it did not appear in the title search. About a year later, after plaintiffs had completed repair work on the Property, the Bank, “some mega-too-big-to-fail recipient of billions of tax payer dollars” asserted an ownership interest in the Property. The Bank claimed to be the owner of the Property by virtue of a trustee’s deed recorded “by an entity purporting to be the trustee.”

In seeking to set aside the trustee’s sale, plaintiffs alleged that during the year they were the owners of the Property, they never received any notices of assignment of trustee’s deeds or notices of deficiency,nor did they receive any notices of trustee’s sale or trustee’s deeds. They alleged, on information and belief, that “CRC may be, or have been the Trustee, on a purported Trustee’s sale of the subjectproperty, to an entity which may have transferred whatever interest may have been acquired in the trustee’s sale to Defendant Deutsch[e].” Plaintiffs alleged CRC was not the trustee and had no authority to conduct a trustee’s sale, and believed no such sale had taken place. They further alleged any promissory note supporting the 2003 deed of trust was “time barred by the statute” and the maker, if any, “was lulled into believing that no action would be taken to enforce the 2003 [deed of trust] becauseno collection actions were taken within a reasonable time and no legally required notices of deficiency were sent or recorded.”In the second cause of action, plaintiffs sought to cancel the trustee’s deed. Plaintiffs alleged the original promissory note and deed of trust no longer existed and the Bank’s deed was invalid “as it is based solely upon purported copies which have no force and effect.”The third cause of action was to quiet title to the Property. Plaintiffs alleged defendants had no original,verifiable promissory note or deed of trust and had no standing to foreclose. They further alleged all rights, title and interest asserted by defendants “were sublimated into a non-functional `security’ instrument that gives no one entity rights in individual notes and deeds of trust.” No defendant had aninterest in the Property, but they had placed a cloud upon plaintiffs’ title.In the fourth cause of action, entitled unjust enrichment, plaintiffs alleged they had paid back taxes,insured the Property, and repaired deferred maintenance. If defendants were successful in claiming an interest in the Property, plaintiffs wanted to be repaid for their expenditures.The Bank and CRC moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication on each cause of action,contending there was no triable issue of fact as to any of plaintiffs’ claims. They claimed the undispute devidence showed that the loan was in default, the Bank was the beneficiary under the deed of trust and CRC was the trustee. The default was not cured and CRC properly noticed the trustee’s sale. Notice of the sale was sent to plaintiffs and California law did not require the original promissory note to foreclose. The Bank and CRC further contended that to quiet title, plaintiffs must allege tender, or anoffer of tender, of the amount owed. They also contended there was no evidence of unjust enrichment.In support of their motion, defendants requested that the court take judicial notice of certain documents pursuant to Evidence Code sections 451, subdivision (f) and 452, subdivisions (d), (g) and (h).These documents were:(1) the Trustee’s Deed upon Sale recorded August 13, 2008, under which plaintiffs took title to theProperty;(2) a Grant Deed recorded December 13, 2002, showing the transfer of the Property to Sheryl Kotz;(3) the Deed of Trust recorded April 30, 2003, with Sheryl Kotz as trustor and Long Beach MortgageCompany as trustee and beneficiary (the 2003 deed of trust);(4) an Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded February 27, 2009, assigning all interest under the 2003deed of trust to the Bank by JPMorgan Chase Bank, as successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank,successor in interest to Long Beach Mortgage Company;(5) a Substitution of Trustee recorded February 27, 2009, under which the Bank substituted CRC astrustee under the 2003 deed of trust;(6) a “Notice of Default and Election to Sell [the Property] Under Deed of Trust” recorded February 27,2009;(7) a Notice of Trustee’s Sale under the 2003 deed of trust recorded May 29, 2009; and(8) a Trustee’s Deed upon Sale recorded July 6, 2009, under which the Bank, as foreclosing beneficiary,was the grantee of the Property.

To support their motion, defendants also provided the declaration of Deborah Brignac. Brignac was avice-president of CRC and a custodian of records for CRC. She was one of the custodians of records forthe loan that was the subject of plaintiffs’ complaint. She declared that the CRC loan records were madein the ordinary course of business by persons with a duty to make such records and were made aboutthe time of the events reflected in the records. In April of 2003, “Shelia” [sic] Kotz 2

obtained a $340,000loan from Long Beach Mortgage Company, and the loan was secured by a deed of trust on the Property.The 2003 deed of trust provided for a power of sale if the borrower defaulted and failed to cure thedefault. It also provided that successor trustees could be appointed.Brignac further declared that as of February 26, 2009, $10,970.50 was “owed” on the note.

3

An assignment of the 2003 deed of trust was recorded February 27, 2009, indicating the transfer of all interest in the 2003 deed of trust to the Bank. A Substitution of Trustee was recorded the same date.According to Brignac’s declaration, the Bank’s substitution “substitutes the original trustee, Long Beach Mortgage Company for [CRC].”Brignac further declared that a Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust was recorded on February 27, 2009, and copies were sent to plaintiffs on March 4, 2009, as shown in the affidavits of mailing attached to her declaration. A Notice of Trustee’s Sale was recorded on May 29, 2009. Copies of this notice were mailed to plaintiffs, as shown in the attached affidavits of mailing.

4

The loan was not reinstated. The Property was sold at a trustee’s sale on June 25, 2009. At the time of sale, the total unpaid debt was $336,328.10. At no time before the trustee’s sale did plaintiffs tender the unpaid debt.The Bank and CRC filed a separate statement of undisputed facts setting forth the facts as stated in Brignac’s declaration.In response, plaintiffs admitted the description of the Property and that they purchased it on June 24,2008, at a foreclosure sale; they disputed all of the remaining facts. They asserted that the Brignac declaration was without foundation and contained hearsay and that all of the recorded documents contained hearsay.In their opposition to the motion for summary judgment, plaintiffs began with a diatribe against the”Foreclosure Industry,” asserting the industry operated “as if the Evidence Code, the law of contracts,assignments, deeds of trust and foreclosure are merely optional.” They contended defendants failed tomeet their burden of proof for summary judgment because their request for judicial notice and Brignac’sdeclaration were inadmissible hearsay. They further contended the notice of default and the notice of trustee’s sale failed to meet statutory requirements of California law. Finally, they asserted defendants lacked standing to foreclose because they had not produced even a copy of the promissory note.Plaintiffs moved to strike the declaration of Brignac as lacking foundation and containing hearsay. They also opposed the request for judicial notice. They argued the recorded documents were all hearsay.Citing only the Federal Rules of Evidence and federal case law grounded on the federal rules, plaintiffs argued a court cannot take judicial notice of disputed facts contained in a hearsay document. Plaintiffs disputed “virtually everything” in the recorded documents, arguing one can record anything, regardless of its accuracy or correctness.The trial court overruled plaintiffs’ hearsay objections, denied plaintiffs’ motion to strike the Brignac declaration, granted defendants’ request for judicial notice, and granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issue of material fact. Judgment was entered in favor of the Bankand CRC.

DISCUSSION

I. Law of Summary Judgment and Standard of Review

 A defendant “may move for summary judgment in any action or proceeding if it is contended that theaction has no merit.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (a).) “A defendant . . . has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if that party has shown that one or more elements of thecause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established, or that there is a complete

defense to that cause of action. Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to theplaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to that cause of action ora defense thereto.”(Id.,subd. (p)(2).) “The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all thepapers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party isentitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Id.,subd.(c).)”When the defendant moves for summary judgment, in those circumstances in which the plaintiff wouldhave the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence, the defendant must present evidencethat would preclude a reasonable trier of fact from finding that it was more likely than not that thematerial fact was true [citation], or the defendant must establish that an element of the claim cannot beestablished, by presenting evidence that the plaintiff `does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain,needed evidence.'” (Kahn v. EastSide Union High School Dist.(2003)31 Cal.4th 990, 1003.) A defendantmoving for summary judgment must “present evidence, and not simply point out that the plaintiff doesnot possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.

(2001)25Cal.4th 826, 854, fn. omitted.)We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. (Bussv. Superior Court(1997)16 Cal.4th 35, 60.) “Inundertaking our independent review of the evidence submitted, we apply the same three-step analysisas the trial court. [Citation.] First, we identify the issues framed by the pleadings. Next, we determinewhether the moving party has established facts justifying judgment in its favor. Finally, if the movingparty has carried its initial burden, we decide whether the opposing party has demonstrated theexistence of a triable, material fact issue. [Citation.]”((2002)103 Cal.App.4th 1409, 431-1432 (Bono).)

II. First, Second and Third Causes of Action

 While plaintiffs’ complaint is hardly a model of clarity, it seeks to undo the foreclosure sale. The firstthree causes of action  to set aside the sale, cancel the trustee’s deed and quiet title  claim, amongother things, that the Bank and CRC had no authority to conduct the foreclosure sale. On this point,plaintiffs allege the Bank claims to be the owner of the Property by virtue of a trustee’s deed recorded”by an entity purporting to be the trustee.” They further allege CRC was not the trustee and had noauthority to conduct the sale; the sale did not take place or was improperly held. The first three causesof action of plaintiffs’ complaint are based on the allegations that the Bank had no interest in theProperty and CRC was not the trustee and had no authority to conduct a trustee’s sale. Thus, initialissues framed by the pleadings are whether the Bank was the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trustand whether CRC was the trustee under that deed of trust. The fourth cause of action for unjustenrichment raises different issues and will be discussed separately in part III. of the Discussion, post.

 Defendants moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiffs’ allegations were not supported bythe undisputed facts. They asserted CRC was the trustee pursuant to the Substitution of Trustee recorded by the Bank as beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust.To establish that CRC was the trustee and thus had authority to conduct the trustee’s sale, defendants requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the recorded Assignment of Deed of Trust, which showed the Bank was the beneficiary. Defendants also requested that the trial court take judicial notice of the recorded Substitution of Trustee, which showed the Bank, as beneficiary, had substituted CRC as trustee.Matters that may be judicially noticed can support a motion for summary judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., §437c, subd. (b)(1).) However, plaintiffs contend the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of thedisputed facts contained within the recorded documents. We agree.”`Judicial notice is the recognition and acceptance by the court, for use by the trier of fact or by the court, of the existence of a matter of law or fact that is relevant to an issue in the action without requiring formal proof of the matter.'” (Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell , Green, Pekich, Cruz&McCort (2001)91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

“Judicial notice may not be taken of any matter unless authorized or required by law.” (Evid.Code, §450.) “Matters that are subject to judicial notice are listed in Evidence Code sections 451 and 452. Amatter ordinarily is subject to judicial notice only if the matter is reasonably beyond dispute. [Citation.]”(Fremont Indemnity Co. v.Fremont General Cor p.(2007)148 Cal.App.4th 97, 113.)”Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or acceptinga particular interpretation of its meaning.” (Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage(1986)184 Cal.App.3d 369,374.) While courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of mattersstated therein. (Love v. Wol f(1964)226 Cal.App.2d 378, 403.) “When judicial notice is taken of adocument, . . . the truthfulness and proper interpretation of the document are disputable.” (StorMedia,Inc. v. Superior Court(1999)20 Cal.4th 449, 457, fn. 9 (StorMedia).)This court considered the scope of judicial review of a recorded document in Poseidon Development , Inc.v. Woodland Lane Estates , LLC(2007)152 Cal.App.4th 1106(Poseidon ). “[T]he fact a court may take judicial notice of a recorded deed, or similar document, does not mean it may take judicial notice of factual matters stated therein. [Citation.] For example, the First Substitution recites that Shanley `is thepresent holder of beneficial interest under said Deed of Trust.’ By taking judicial notice of the FirstSubstitution, the court does not take judicial notice of this fact, because it is hearsay and it cannot beconsidered not reasonably subject to dispute.” (Id.

at p. 1117.)The same situation is present here. The Substitution of Trustee recites that the Bank “is the presentbeneficiary under” the 2003 deed of trust. As in Poseidon, this fact is hearsay and disputed; the trialcourt could not take judicial notice of it. Nor does taking judicial notice of the Assignment of Deed of Trust establish that the Bank is the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust. The assignment recites thatJPMorgan Chase Bank, “successor in interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, SUCCESSOR IN INTERESTTO LONG BEACH MORTGAGE COMPANY” assigns all beneficial interest under the 2003 deed of trust tothe Bank. The recitation that JPMorgan Chase Bank is the successor in interest to Long Beach MortgageCompany, through Washington Mutual, is hearsay. Defendants offered no evidence to establish thatJPMorgan Chase Bank had the beneficial interest under the 2003 deed of trust to assign to the Bank. Thetruthfulness of the contents of the Assignment of Deed of Trust remains subject to dispute (StorMedia,supra,20 Cal.4th at p. 457, fn. 9), and plaintiffs dispute the truthfulness of the contents of all of therecorded documents.Judicial notice of the recorded documents did not establish that the Bank was the beneficiary or thatCRC was the trustee under the 2003 deed of trust. Defendants failed to establish “facts justifying judgment in [their] favor” (Bono ,supra,103 Cal.App.4th at p. 1432), through their request for judicialnotice.Defendants also relied on Brignac’s declaration, which declared that the 2003 deed of trust permittedthe beneficiary to appoint successor trustees. Brignac, however, did not simply declare the identity of the beneficiary and the new trustee under the 2003 deed of trust. Instead, she declared that anAssignment of Deed of Trust and a Substitution of Trustee were recorded on February 27, 2009. Thesefacts add nothing to the judicially noticed documents; they establish only that the documents wererecorded.Brignac further declared that “[t]he Assignment of Deed of Trust indicatesthat JPMorgan Bank [sic],successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank, successor in interest to Long Beach MortgageCompany, transfers all beneficial interest in connection with the [deed of trust] to Deutsche BankNational Trust Company as Trustee for Long Beach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-4.” (Italics added.) Thisdeclaration is insufficient to show the Bank is the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust. A supportingdeclaration must be made on personal knowledgeand “show affirmatively that the affiant is competentto testify to the matters stated.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (d).) Brignac’s declaration does notaffirmatively show that she can competently testify the Bank is the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust. At most, her declaration shows she can testify as to what the Assignment of Deed of Trust

 But the factual contents of the assignment are hearsay and defendants offered no exception to the hearsay rule prior to oral argument to make these factual matters admissible.At oral argument, defendants contended that the recorded documents were actually business records and admissible under the business record exception. We note that Brignac did not provide any information in her declaration establishing that the sources of the information and the manner and time of preparation were such as to indicate trustworthiness. (Evid.Code, § 1271, subd. (d).)5

Information concerning this foundational element was conspicuously lacking.

6

Yet, this information was critical in light of the evidentiary gap establishing the purported assignments from Long Beach Mortgage Company to Washington Mutual Bank to JP Morgan Chase Bank. The records used to generate theinformation in the Assignment of Deed of Trust, if they exist, were undoubtedly records not prepared byCRC, but records prepared by Long Beach Mortgage Company, Washington Mutual and JP Morgan Chase. Defendants have not shown how Brignac could have provided information about the source of that information or how those documents were prepared. (See

Cooley v. Superior Court(2006)140Cal.App.4th 1039[district attorney unable to attest to attributes of subpoenaed records in hispossession relevant to their authenticity and trustworthiness]; Evid.Code, § 1561.) Moreover, the timingof those purported assignments relative to the recording of those events on the Assignment of Deed of Trust cannot be found in the Brignac declaration or anywhere else in the record.We also note that Brignac did not identify either the February 27, 2009 Assignment of Deed of Trust, oranother key document, the February 27, 2009 Substitution of Trustee, as business records in herdeclaration. Rather, she referenced both documents in her declaration by stating that “[a] recordedcopy” was attached as an exhibit. In light of the request for judicial notice, we take this statement tomean that the exhibits represented copies of records on file at the county recorder’s office.

7

On amotion for summary judgment, the affidavits or declarations of the moving party are strictly construedagainst the moving party. (Mann v. Cracchiolo(1985)38 Cal.3d 18, 35 (Mann).) Of course, had thedocuments reflecting the assignments and the substitution been offered as business records, therewould have been no need to request that the court take judicial notice of them. Accordingly, we rejectdefendants’ newly advanced theory.Brignac’s declaration is lacking in yet another way. It is confusing as to the effect of the Substitution of Trustee. She declares, “The Substitution by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as Trustee for LongBeach Mortgage Loan Trust 2003-4 substitutes the original trustee, Long Beach Mortgage Company forCalifornia Reconveyance Company.” Brignac’s declaration (and defendants’ statement of undisputedfacts) can be read to state that the Bank substituted Long Beach Mortgage Company for CRC as trustee,rather than that CRC was substituted for Long Beach Mortgage Company. We must strictly construe thisstatement against the moving party. (Mann,supra,38 Cal.3d at p. 35.) Even if we were to construeBrignac’s declaration to state that the Bank substituted CRC as trustee under the 2003 deed of trust, itwould be insufficient to establish CRC is the trustee. A declaration that the Substitution of Trustee bythe Bank made CRC trustee would require admissible evidence that the Bank was the beneficiary underthe 2003 deed of trust and thus had the authority to substitute the trustee. As explained ante, defendants failed to provide admissible evidence that the Bank was the beneficiary under the 2003 deedof trust.At oral argument, defendants asserted that plaintiffs’ hearsay objections to their separate statement of facts did not comply with the California Rules of Court. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1354(b).) Fromthis, defendants impliedly suggest those objections should be ignored by this court. Whether theobjections complied with the rules of court is of no moment at this juncture. The trial court ruled onthose objections in its order granting summary judgment, stating “Plaintiffs’ hearsay objections areoverruled.” The wording of the court’s order (drafted by defendants) suggests the ruling was made onsubstantive evidentiary grounds, not procedural grounds, and there is no evidence in the record to thecontrary.

Because defendants failed to present facts to establish that the Bank was beneficiary and CRC wastrustee under the 2003 deed of trust, and therefore had authority to conduct the foreclosure sale,triable issues of material fact remain as to the first three causes of action. The trial court erred ingranting summary judgment and it would be error to grant summary adjudication as to any of thosecauses of action.

III. Fourth Cause of Action

 Defendants moved for summary judgment or, alternatively, for summary adjudication as to each causeof action. Accordingly, we consider whether summary adjudication was proper as to the fourth cause of action.The fourth cause of action is entitled “Unjust Enrichment.” Plaintiffs allege that, in the event the Bank issuccessful in asserting its claim to the Property, defendants should pay plaintiffs all monies theyexpended on the Property for back taxes, insurance and deferred maintenance. In their motion forsummary judgment or summary adjudication, defendants contend there can be no claim of unjustenrichment because the Bank had a right to protect its security interest in the Property and it is”inconceivable” CRC was unjustly enriched once plaintiffs defaulted on their obligation.”There is no cause of action for unjust enrichment. Rather, unjust enrichment is a basis for obtainingrestitution based on quasi-contract or imposition of a constructive trust. (1 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law(10th ed. 2005) Contracts, §§ 1015, 1016, pp. 1104-1105.)” (McKell v. Washington Mutual , Inc.(2006)142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1490.) Plaintiffs fail to plead a basis for restitution; they allege only that theyspent money on the Property and they would like the money back if they lose the Property.The fourth cause of action pleads no recognizable legal claim and thus is subject to summaryadjudication. “The procedure for resolving a summary judgment motion  presupposes

that the pleadings are adequate to put in issue a cause of action or defense thereto. [Citation.] However a pleading may be defective in failing to allege an element of a cause of action or in failing to intelligibly identify a defense thereto. In such a case, the moving party need not address a missing element or, obviously, respond to assertions which are unintelligible or make out no recognizable legal claim. The summary judgment proceeding is thereby necessarily transmuted into a test of the pleadings and the summary judgment motion into a motion for judgment on the pleadings. In these circumstances it has been said that adefendant’s `motion for summary judgment necessarily includes a test of the sufficiency of the complaint and as such is in legal effect a motion for judgment on the pleadings.’ [Citation.]”(FPIDevelopment , Inc. v. Nakashima(1991)231 Cal.App.3d 367, 382.)Since plaintiffs failed to properly plead a right to restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment, the trialcourt did not err in granting summary adjudication as to the fourth cause of action.

DISPOSITION

 The judgment is reversed with directions to vacate the order granting summary judgment and to enter anew order denying summary judgment, and granting defendants summary adjudication of the fourthcause of action only. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule8.278(a)(3).)We concur:RAYE, P. J.NICHOLSON, J.

Footnotes

1. The name of defendant Deutsche Bank National Trust Company was misspelled “Deutsch” by plaintiffs in the complaint and other filings. We use the correct spelling in our opinion.

Back to Reference

 

One West False statements

False Statements

06/28/2011

California Bankruptcy Judge Laura Stuart Taylor has joined the ranks of judges who will not tolerate fraudulent documents produced by banks to foreclose. Judge Taylor entered an Order To Show Cause why OneWest Bank, FSB, should not incur “a significant coercive sanction intended to deter any future tender of misleading evidence to any court of this district.” Judge Taylor ordered OneWest to appear before her on July 29, 2011, to show cause as to why it should not be subject to compensatory and/or coercive sanctions, in the case In re Jessie M. Arizmendi, Bk. No. 09-19263-PB13, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of California. The case involves a motion for relief from stay filed by OneWest supported with a declaration of Brian Burnett, who declared under penalty of perjury that OneWest was the real party in interest in connection with the Motion because OneWest was the current beneficiary under the terms of a promissory note and Deed of Trust.

According to the Burnett declaration, OneWest received its interest in the Trust Deed pursuant to an Assignment from MERS. The assignment of the Trust Deed and the Note showed the transfer from MERS as nominee for the original lender directly to OneWest in 2010.

At trial, however, OneWest’s witness, Charles Boyle, testified that the beneficiary of the loan was actually Freddie Mac. Based on this conflict, the Court required post-trial briefings.

According to the Court, “OneWest, in its post-trial brief, provided a standing argument based on a new version of the Note, which attached an allonge dated July 24, 2007 evidencing a transfer from Original Lender to IndyMac Bank, FSB and bore an endorsement in blank from IndyMac Bank, FSB. This was new information not presented in the OneWest Declaration and this note was not identical to the note authenticated by the OneWest Declaration and attached to the OneWest Proof of Claim.

This Court is concerned, thus, that OneWest provided false or misleading evidence to the Court and that OneWest did so willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and/or for an inappropriate purpose.”

According to research by Fraud Digest, Brian Burnett has used many different job titles when signing mortgage-related documents for OneWest, often using different titles on the same day, including:

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Acoustic Home Loans;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Aegis Wholesale Corporation;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for American Brokers Conduit;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Beach First National Bank;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Credit Suisse Financial Corp.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for CTX Mortgage Company, LLC;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for DHI Mortgage Company, Ltd.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Express Capital Lending;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Finasure Home Loans, LLC;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for First Magnus Financial Corporation;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for First Meridian Mortgage;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Flick Mortgage Investors, Inc.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Home Loan Center, Inc. d/b/a LendingTree Loans;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Impac Funding Corp., d/b/a Impac Lending Group;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for IndyMac Bank, FSB;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for LoanCity;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for MortgageIt, Inc.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for NetBank, a Federal Savings Bank;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for New American Funding, a California Corporation;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Opteum Financial Services, LLC;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for OneWest Bank, FSB;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Quicken Loans, Inc.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Sloan Mortgage Group, Inc.;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for Taylor, Bean & Whitaker;

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for TM Capital, Inc.

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for d/b/a Fedfirst Mortgage Corporation; and

– Assistant Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as Nominee for UBS AG.

July 29, 2011, may be the day that Brian Burnett and OneWest are held accountable for the thousands of mortgage assignments – with false statements regarding the history and ownership of mortgages – presented to courts to foreclose.

Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase finally !!

From ChaseChase.org:

Federal District Court

Javaheri v. JPMorgan Chase, Case No. CV10-8185 ODW

Otis D. Wright II, Judge, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles
Douglas Gillies, attorney for Daryoush Javaheri

Plaintiff sued to halt a foreclosure initiated by JPMorgan Chase and California Reconveyance Co. Chase responded with a Motion to Dismiss. Two times the court granted Chase’s motion with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint and Chase again moved to dismiss.

In opposing the motion, Plaintiff requested that the court take judicial notice of:

(1) the Congressional Oversight Panel November Oversight Report (COP Report) released on November 16, 2010 – http://cop.senate.gov/documents/cop-111610-report.pdf

(2) Federal Reserve System Consent Order in the Matter of JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., Docket No. 11-023-B-HC and 11- 023-B-DEO, dated April 13, 2011 – www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/enforcement/enf20110413a5.pdf

Judge Wright denied Chase’s motion to dismiss five causes of action – wrongful foreclosure, quiet title, violation of Cal Civ. Code Sec. 2923.5, quasi contract, and declaratory relief.

• Second Amended Complaint 4/12/2011
• Chase’s Motion to Dismiss SAC 4/28/2011
• Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 5/16/2011
• Request for Judicial Notice 5/16/2011
• Chase’s Reply Memorandum 5/23/2011
• Order Denying Motion to Dismiss 6/2/2011

2924 unconstitutional ???

2924 unconstitutional  Check out this pro per complaint they raise some interesting issues.

PJATSI+Supplemental+Complaint+March+25+2011

current rulings on wrongful foreclosure

20.  TIME:  9:00   CASE#: MSC11-00162  CASE NAME: CHRISTINA PENNES  vs.  PNC MORTGAGE  HEARING ON DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT of PENNES  FILED BY PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION * TENTATIVE RULING: *     Defendant PNC Bank, N.A.’s Demurrer to each cause of action within the Complaint is sustained with leave to amend in part and without leave to amend in part. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., section 430.10, subd. (e).)   1st cause of action for Cancellation of Instruments (Assignment of Deed of Trust), 2nd cause of action for Cancellation of Instruments (Notice of Default), and  3rd cause of action for Cancellation of Instruments (Notice of Default), sustained with leave to amend. Actions to remove a cloud on title, under Civil Code section 3412, are equitable in nature, and differ from actions to quiet title in that they are aimed at a particular instrument or piece of evidence. Reiner v. Danial (1989) 211 Cal. App. 3d 682, 689.  To state a cause of action to remove a cloud, instead of pleading in general terms that the defendant claims an adverse interest, the plaintiff must allege, inter alia, facts showing actual invalidity of the apparently valid instrument or piece of evidence. (5 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, sections 671-674, pp. 97-99.) Plaintiffs have not met this burden. See Complaint par 20, Ex D. See also, Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal. App. 4th 1149 1154-55 [under Civ C  section 2924(a)(1), a trustee, mortgagee, or beneficiary, or any of their authorized agents, may initiate the foreclosure process. Nowhere, however, does the statute provide for a judicial action to determine whether the person initiating the foreclosure process is indeed authorized, and the court saw no ground for implying such an action, which would have been inconsistent with the policy behind nonjudicial foreclosure of providing a quick, inexpensive and efficient remedy.]   4th cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, sustained with leave to amend. The elements of a common-law cause of action for damages for wrongful foreclosure are:  (1) Trustee or mortgagee caused an illegal, fraudulent or willfully oppressive sale of real property; (2) pursuant to a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed of trust; and (3) the Trustor or mortgagor sustained damages. (Munger v. Moore (1970) 11 Cal. App. 3d 1, 7; see 4 Witkin, Sum. Of Cal. Law (10th ed. 2005) Secured Transactions in Real Property, §168.) The Plaintiffs  do not allege that the foreclosure sale has taken place. Thus, Plaintiffs fail to plead a necessary element of this cause of action.   5th cause of action for violation of UCL,  and 8th caused of action for violation of Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act [Civ C section 1788], sustained without leave to amend. California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) prohibits any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practice. (B&P Code section 17200.)  The broad scope of the statute encompasses both anti-competitive business practices and practices injurious to consumers. (Cel‑Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co. (1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.) This cause of action is based in part upon the 8th cause of action for violation of the Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act [Civ C § 1788.] The Rosenthal Debt Collection Practices Act [RDCPA] prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair practices in the collection of consumer debts.  (Civ. Code  section 1788, et. Seq.)  Consumer debt is statutorily defined as money, property or the equivalent owed by reason of a consumer credit transaction, which in turn is defined as a transaction in which property, etc. is acquired on credit for personal, family or household purposes. Cal. Civ. Code  section 1788.2(b), (e)-(f), (h).  There are no California State Court opinions to date applying this statute to the enforcement of deeds of trust or to foreclosure proceedings.   6th cause of action for quiet title, sustained with leave to amend: To state a claim for quiet title,  the complaint shall be verified. CCP section 761.020.  The Complaint is not verified.  Additionally, in order to quiet title, plaintiff  must tender the entire outstanding principal.  See, e.g., Aguilar v. Bocci (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 475, 477 [Plaintiff cannot quiet title without discharging his debt; the cloud upon his title persists until the debt is paid.]   7th cause of action for rescission, sustained without leave to amend. To state a claim for contract rescission, plaintiff must allege some grounds for rescission-fraud, mistake, coercion, etc. (Civ. Code, § 1689, subd. (b).) plaintiffs do not meet hits pleading burden. Plaintiffs Opposition does not address this cause of action, therefore, they concede that it has no merit.   9th cause of action for  violation of Civ C § 2923.5, sustained with leave to amend: Actual contact is not required. See, Civil Code section 2923.59(g). Additionally, the only remedy for a Section 2923.5 violation is a postponement of the foreclosure sale to enable the defendants to comply with the requirements of the statute — not a claim for damages. (Mabry v. Superior Court (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 235.) The Plaintiffs do not allege that a foreclosure sale date has been noticed. Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice is granted. (Evid. Code, section 452(c)[public records].   In light of the ruling on the general demurrer, the special demurrer is moot. (Cal. Code Civ. Proc., section 430.10, subd. (f).)

21.  TIME:  9:00   CASE#: MSC11-00162  CASE NAME: CHRISTINA PENNES  vs.  PNC MORTGAGE  HEARING ON MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT  FILED BY PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION * TENTATIVE RULING: *   In llight of the ruling on the general demurrer, the Motion to Strike is moot.

17200 Unfair Business Practices maybe thats what it is

– Cause of Action for Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 –
“The UCL does not proscribe specific activities, but broadly prohibits
any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and
unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. The UCL governs
anti-competitive business practices as well as injuries to consumers,
and has as a major purpose the preservation of fair business
competition. By proscribing “any unlawful business practice,” section
17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful
practices that the unfair competition law makes independently
actionable.  Because section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it
establishes three varieties of unfair competition-acts or practices
which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent. In other words, a
practice is prohibited as “unfair” or “deceptive” even if not
“unlawful” and vice versa.”  Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.,
160 Cal. App. 4th 638, 643-644 (2008) (citations and quotations
omitted).

“Unfair” Prong

[A]ny finding of unfairness to competitors under section 17200 [must]
be tethered to some legislatively declared policy or proof of some
actual or threatened impact on competition. We thus adopt the
following test: When a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury
from a direct competitor’s “unfair” act or practice invokes section
17200, the word “unfair” in that section means conduct that threatens
an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or
spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or
the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly
threatens or harms competition.

Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.,
20 Cal. 4th 163, 186-187 (1999).

“Fraudulent” Prong

The term “fraudulent” as used in section 17200 does not refer to the
common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the
public are likely to be deceived. Unless the challenged conduct
targets a particular disadvantaged or vulnerable group, it is judged
by the effect it would have on a reasonable consumer.

Puentes, 160 Cal. App. 4th at 645 (citations and quotations
omitted).

“Unlawful” Prong

By proscribing “any unlawful” business practice, Business and
Professions Code section 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and
treats them as unlawful practices that the UCL makes independently
actionable. An unlawful business practice under Business and
Professions Code section 17200 is an act or practice, committed
pursuant to business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by
law. Virtually any law -federal, state or local – can serve as a
predicate for an action under Business and Professions Code section
17200.

Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1373, 1382-1383 (2010)
(citations and quotations omitted).

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes
must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the
statutory elements of the violation.”  Khoury v. Maly’s of California,
Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619 (1993) (citations and quotations
omitted).

Possession of the note in California does not apply the whole UCC fpr that matter does not apply

Possession of the original promissory note – “Under Civil
Code section 2924, no party needs to physically possess the promissory
note.” Sicairos v. NDEX West, LLC, 2009 WL 385855 (S.D. Cal. 2009)
(citing CCC § 2924(a)(1); see also Lomboy v. SCME Mortgage Bankers,
2009 WL 1457738 * 12-13 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“Under California law, a
trustee need not possess a note in order to initiate foreclosure under
a deed of trust.”).

Quiet title by code and verified

Cause of Action to Quiet Title – To assert a cause of action
to quiet title, the complaint must be verified and meet the other
pleading requirements set forth in CCP § 761.020.

The complaint shall be verified and shall include all of the following:

(a)A description of the property that is the subject of the action. In the case of tangible personal property, the description shall include its usual location. In the case of real property, the description shall include both its legal description and its street address or common designation, if any.

(b)The title of the plaintiff as to which a determination under this chapter is sought and the basis of the title. If the title is based upon adverse possession, the complaint shall allege the specific facts constituting the adverse possession.

(c)The adverse claims to the title of the plaintiff against which a determination is sought.

(d)The date as of which the determination is sought. If the determination is sought as of a date other than the date the complaint is filed, the complaint shall include a statement of the reasons why a determination as of that date is sought.

(e)A prayer for the determination of the title of the plaintiff against the adverse claims.

Wrongful foreclosure and California Judge Firmat

Orange County (Cali) Superior Court Judge Firmat posted these notes on
the law and motion calendar to assist attorneys pleading various
theories in wrongful foreclosure cases etc.  Some interesting
points….

FOOTNOTES TO DEPT. C-15 LAW AND MOTION CALENDARS

Note 1 – Cause of Action Under CCC § 2923.5, Post Trustee’s Sale –
There is no private right of action under Section 2923.5 once the
trustee’s sale has occurred.  The “only remedy available under the
Section is a postponement of the sale before it happens.”  Mabry v.
Superior  Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208, 235 (2010).

Note 2 – Cause of Action Under CCC § 2923.6 – There is no private
right of action under Section 2923.6, and it does not operate
substantively.  Mabry v. Superior Court, 185 Cal. App. 4th 208,
222-223 (2010).  “Section 2923.6 merely expresses the hope that
lenders will offer loan modifications on certain terms.”  Id. at 222.

Note 3 – Cause of Action for Violation of CCC §§ 2923.52 and / or
2923.53 – There is no private right of action.  Vuki v. Superior
Court, 189 Cal. App. 4th 791, 795 (2010).

Note 4 –  Cause of Action for Fraud, Requirement of Specificity – “To
establish a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must
prove: (1) the defendant represented to the plaintiff that an
important fact was true; (2) that representation was false; (3) the
defendant knew that the representation was false when the defendant
made it, or the defendant made the representation recklessly and
without regard for its truth; (4) the defendant intended that the
plaintiff rely on the representation; (5) the plaintiff reasonably
relied on the representation; (6) the plaintiff was harmed; and, (7)
the plaintiff’s reliance on the defendant’s representation was a
substantial factor in causing that harm to the plaintiff. Each element
in a cause of action for fraud must be factually and specifically
alleged. In a fraud claim against a corporation, a plaintiff must
allege the names of the persons who made the misrepresentations, their
authority to speak for the corporation, to whom they spoke, what they
said or wrote, and when it was said or written.”  Perlas v. GMAC
Mortg., LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 429, 434 (2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).

Note 5 –Fraud – Statute of Limitations- The statute of limitations for
fraud is three years.  CCP § 338(d).  To the extent Plaintiff wishes
to rely on the delayed discovery rule, Plaintiff must plead the
specific facts showing (1) the time and manner of discovery and (2)
the inability to have made earlier discovery despite reasonable
diligence.”  Fox v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 35 Cal. 4th 797, 808
(2005).

Note 6 – Cause of Action for Negligent Misrepresentation – “The
elements of negligent misrepresentation are (1) the misrepresentation
of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable ground for
believing it to be true, (3) with intent to induce another’s reliance
on the fact misrepresented, (4) justifiable reliance on the
misrepresentation, and (5) resulting damage.  While there is some
conflict in the case law discussing the precise degree of
particularity required in the pleading of a claim for negligent
misrepresentation, there is a consensus that the causal elements,
particularly the allegations of reliance, must be specifically
pleaded.”  National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v. Cambridge
Integrated Services Group, Inc., 171 Cal. App. 4th 35, 50 (2009)
(citations and quotations omitted).

Note 7 – Cause of Action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty by Lender –
“Absent special circumstances a loan transaction is at arm’s length
and there is no fiduciary relationship between the borrower and
lender. A commercial lender pursues its own economic interests in
lending money. A lender owes no duty of care to the borrowers in
approving their loan. A lender is under no duty to determine the
borrower’s ability to repay the loan. The lender’s efforts to
determine the creditworthiness and ability to repay by a borrower are
for the lender’s protection, not the borrower’s.”  Perlas v. GMAC
Mortg., LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 429, 436 (2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).

Note 8 – Cause of Action for Constructive Fraud – “A relationship need
not be a fiduciary one in order to give rise to constructive fraud.
Constructive fraud also applies to nonfiduciary “confidential
relationships.” Such a confidential relationship may exist whenever a
person with justification places trust and confidence in the integrity
and fidelity of another. A confidential relation exists between two
persons when one has gained the confidence of the other and purports
to act or advise with the other’s interest in mind. A confidential
relation may exist although there is no fiduciary relation ….”
Tyler v. Children’s  Home Society, 29 Cal. App. 4th 511, 549 (1994)
(citations and quotations omitted).

Note 9 – Cause of Action for an Accounting – Generally, there is no
fiduciary duty between a lender and borrower.  Perlas v. GMAC Mortg.,
LLC, 187 Cal. App. 4th 429, 436 (2010).  Further, Plaintiff (borrower)
has not alleged any facts showing that a balance would be due from the
Defendant lender to Plaintiff.  St. James Church of Christ Holiness v.
Superior Court, 135 Cal. App. 2d 352, 359 (1955).  Any other duty to
provide an accounting only arises when a written request for one is
made prior to the NTS being recorded.  CCC § 2943(c).

Note 10 – Cause of Action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing – “[W]ith the exception of bad faith insurance
cases, a breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing permits
a recovery solely in contract.  Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood
Apartments, 171 Cal. App. 4th 1004, 1054 (2009).  In order to state a
cause of action for Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and
Fair Dealing, a valid contract between the parties must be alleged.
The implied covenant cannot be extended to create obligations not
contemplated by the contract.  Racine & Laramie v. Department of Parks
and Recreation, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1026, 1031-32 (1992).

Note 11 – Cause of Action for Breach of Contract – “A cause of action
for damages for breach of contract is comprised of the following
elements: (1) the contract, (2) plaintiff’s performance or excuse for
nonperformance, (3) defendant’s breach, and (4) the resulting damages
to plaintiff. It is elementary that one party to a contract cannot
compel another to perform while he himself is in default. While the
performance of an allegation can be satisfied by allegations in
general terms, excuses must be pleaded specifically.”  Durell v. Sharp
Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1350, 1367 (2010) (citations and
quotations omitted).

Note 12 – Cause of Action for Injunctive Relief – Injunctive relief is
a remedy and not a cause of action.  Guessous v. Chrome Hearts, LLC,
179 Cal. App. 4th 1177, 1187 (2009).

Note 13 – Cause of Action for Negligence – “Under the common law,
banks ordinarily have limited duties to borrowers. Absent special
circumstances, a loan does not establish a fiduciary relationship
between a commercial bank and its debtor. Moreover, for purposes of a
negligence claim, as a general rule, a financial institution owes no
duty of care to a borrower when the institution’s involvement in the
loan transaction does not exceed the scope of its conventional role as
a mere lender of money. As explained in Sierra-Bay Fed. Land Bank
Assn. v. Superior Court (1991) 227 Cal.App.3d 318, 334, 277 Cal.Rptr.
753, “[a] commercial lender is not to be regarded as the guarantor of
a borrower’s success and is not liable for the hardships which may
befall a borrower. It is simply not tortious for a commercial lender
to lend money, take collateral, or to foreclose on collateral when a
debt is not paid. And in this state a commercial lender is privileged
to pursue its own economic interests and may properly assert its
contractual rights.”  Das v. Bank of America, N.A., 186 Cal. App. 4th
727, 740-741 (2010) (citations and quotations omitted).

Note 14 – Cause of Action to Quiet Title – To assert a cause of action
to quiet title, the complaint must be verified and meet the other
pleading requirements set forth in CCP § 761.020.

Note 15 – Causes of Action for Slander of Title – The recordation of
the Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee’s Sale are privileged
under CCC § 47, pursuant to CCC § 2924(d)(1), and the recordation of
them cannot support a cause of action for slander of title against the
trustee.  Moreover, “[i]n performing acts required by [the article
governing non-judicial foreclosures], the trustee shall incur no
liability for any good faith error resulting from reliance on
information provided in good faith by the beneficiary regarding the
nature and the amount of the default under the secured obligation,
deed of trust, or mortgage. In performing the acts required by [the
article governing nonjudicial foreclosures], a trustee shall not be
subject to [the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act].”  CCC §
2924(b).

Note 16 – Cause of Action for Violation of Civil Code § 1632 – Section
1632, by its terms, does not apply to loans secured by real property.
CCC § 1632(b).

Note 17 – Possession of the original promissory note – “Under Civil
Code section 2924, no party needs to physically possess the promissory
note.” Sicairos v. NDEX West, LLC, 2009 WL 385855 (S.D. Cal. 2009)
(citing CCC § 2924(a)(1); see also Lomboy v. SCME Mortgage Bankers,
2009 WL 1457738 * 12-13 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (“Under California law, a
trustee need not possess a note in order to initiate foreclosure under
a deed of trust.”).

Note 18 – Statute of Frauds, Modification of Loan Documents – An
agreement to modify a note secured by a deed of trust must be in
writing signed by the party to be charged, or it is barred by the
statute of frauds.  Secrest v. Security Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust 2002-2,
167 Cal. App. 4th 544, 552-553 (2008).

Note 19 – Statute of Frauds, Forebearance Agreement – An agreement to
forebear from foreclosing on real property under a deed of trust must
be in writing and signed by the party to be charged or it is barred by
the statute of frauds.  Secrest v. Security Nat. Mortg. Loan Trust
2002-2, 167 Cal. App. 4th 544, 552-553 (2008).

Note 20 – Tender – A borrower attacking a voidable sale must do equity
by tendering the amount owing under the loan.  The tender rule applies
to all causes of action implicitly integrated with the sale.  Arnolds
Management Corp. v. Eischen, 158 Cal. App. 3d 575, 579 (1984).

Note 21 – Cause of Action for Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 –
“The UCL does not proscribe specific activities, but broadly prohibits
any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice and
unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising. The UCL governs
anti-competitive business practices as well as injuries to consumers,
and has as a major purpose the preservation of fair business
competition. By proscribing “any unlawful business practice,” section
17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful
practices that the unfair competition law makes independently
actionable.  Because section 17200 is written in the disjunctive, it
establishes three varieties of unfair competition-acts or practices
which are unlawful, or unfair, or fraudulent. In other words, a
practice is prohibited as “unfair” or “deceptive” even if not
“unlawful” and vice versa.”  Puentes v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., Inc.,
160 Cal. App. 4th 638, 643-644 (2008) (citations and quotations
omitted).

“Unfair” Prong

[A]ny finding of unfairness to competitors under section 17200 [must]
be tethered to some legislatively declared policy or proof of some
actual or threatened impact on competition. We thus adopt the
following test: When a plaintiff who claims to have suffered injury
from a direct competitor’s “unfair” act or practice invokes section
17200, the word “unfair” in that section means conduct that threatens
an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the policy or
spirit of one of those laws because its effects are comparable to or
the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly
threatens or harms competition.

Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.,
20 Cal. 4th 163, 186-187 (1999).

“Fraudulent” Prong

The term “fraudulent” as used in section 17200 does not refer to the
common law tort of fraud but only requires a showing members of the
public are likely to be deceived. Unless the challenged conduct
targets a particular disadvantaged or vulnerable group, it is judged
by the effect it would have on a reasonable consumer.

Puentes, 160 Cal. App. 4th at 645 (citations and quotations
omitted).

“Unlawful” Prong

By proscribing “any unlawful” business practice, Business and
Professions Code section 17200 “borrows” violations of other laws and
treats them as unlawful practices that the UCL makes independently
actionable. An unlawful business practice under Business and
Professions Code section 17200 is an act or practice, committed
pursuant to business activity, that is at the same time forbidden by
law. Virtually any law -federal, state or local – can serve as a
predicate for an action under Business and Professions Code section
17200.

Hale v. Sharp Healthcare, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1373, 1382-1383 (2010)
(citations and quotations omitted).

“A plaintiff alleging unfair business practices under these statutes
must state with reasonable particularity the facts supporting the
statutory elements of the violation.”  Khoury v. Maly’s of California,
Inc., 14 Cal. App. 4th 612, 619 (1993) (citations and quotations
omitted).

Note 22 – Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress –  Collection of amounts due under a loan or restructuring a
loan in a way that remains difficult for the borrower to repay is not
“outrageous” conduct.  Price v. Wells Fargo Bank, 213 Cal. App. 3d
465, 486 (1989).

Note 23 – Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional
Distress – Emotional distress damages are not recoverable where the
emotional distress arises solely from property damage or economic
injury to the plaintiff.  Butler-Rupp v. Lourdeaux, 134 Cal. App. 4th
1220, 1229 (2005).

Note 24 – Cause of Action for Conspiracy – There is no stand-alone
claim for conspiracy.  Applied Equipment Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia
Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 510-511 (1994).

Note 25 – Cause of Action for Declaratory Relief – A claim for
declaratory relief is not “proper” since the dispute has crystallized
into COA under other theories asserted in other causes of actions in
the complaint.  Cardellini v. Casey, 181 Cal. App. 3d 389, 397-398
(1986).

Note 26 – Cause of Action for Violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Acts – Foreclosure activities are not considered “debt
collection” activities.  Gamboa v. Trustee Corps, 2009 WL 656285, at
*4 (N.D. Cal. March 12, 2009).

Note 27 – Duties of the Foreclosure Trustee – The foreclosure
trustee’s rights, powers and duties regarding the notice of default
and sale are strictly defined and limited by the deed of trust and
governing statutes.  The duties cannot be expanded by the Courts and
no other common law duties exist.  Diediker v. Peelle Financial Corp.,
60 Cal. App. 4th 288, 295 (1997).

Note 28 – Unopposed Demurrer – The Demurrer is sustained [w/ or w/o]
leave to amend [and the RJN granted].  Service was timely and good and
no opposition was filed.
Failure to oppose the Demurrer may be construed as having abandoned
the claims.  See, Herzberg v. County of Plumas, 133 Cal. App. 4th 1,
20 (2005) (“Plaintiffs did not oppose the County’s demurrer to this
portion of their seventh cause of action and have submitted no
argument on the issue in their briefs on appeal.  Accordingly, we deem
plaintiffs to have abandoned the issue.”).

Note 29 – Responding on the Merits Waives Any Service Defect – “It is
well settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion
and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of
any defects or irregularities in the notice of the motion.”  Tate v.
Superior Court, 45 Cal. App. 3d 925, 930 (1975) (citations omitted).

Note 30 – Unargued Points – “Contentions are waived when a party fails
to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority.”
Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo, 111 Cal. App. 4th 1210, 1215
(2003).

Note 31 – Promissory Estoppel – “The doctrine of promissory estoppel
makes a promise binding under certain circumstances, without
consideration in the usual sense of something bargained for and given
in exchange. Under this doctrine a promisor is bound when he should
reasonably expect a substantial change of position, either by act or
forbearance, in reliance on his promise, if injustice can be avoided
only by its enforcement. The vital principle is that he who by his
language or conduct leads another to do what he would not otherwise
have done shall not subject such person to loss or injury by
disappointing the expectations upon which he acted. In such a case,
although no consideration or benefit accrues to the person making the
promise, he is the author or promoter of the very condition of affairs
which stands in his way; and when this plainly appears, it is most
equitable that the court should say that they shall so stand.”  Garcia
v. World Sav., FSB, 183 Cal. App. 4th 1031, 1039-1041 (2010)
(citations quotations and footnotes omitted).

Note 32 – Res Judicata Effect of Prior UD Action – Issues of title are
very rarely tried in an unlawful detainer action and moving party has
failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that the title issue was
fully and fairly adjudicated in the underlying unlawful detainer.
Vella v. Hudgins, 20 Cal. 3d 251, 257 (1977).  The burden of proving
the elements of res judicata is on the party asserting it.  Id. The
Malkoskie case is distinguishable because, there, the unlimited
jurisdiction judge was convinced that the title issue was somehow
fully resolved by the stipulated judgment entered in the unlawful
detainer court.  Malkoskie v. Option One Mortg. Corp., 188 Cal. App.
4th 968, 972 (2010).

Note 33 – Applicability of US Bank v. Ibanez – The Ibanez case, 458
Mass. 637 (January 7, 2011), does not appear to assist Plaintiff in
this action.  First, the Court notes that this case was decided by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court, such that it is persuasive authority, and
not binding authority.  Second, the procedural posture in this case is
different than that found in a case challenging a non-judicial
foreclosure in California.  In Ibanez, the lender brought suit in the
trial court to quiet title to the property after the foreclosure sale,
with the intent of having its title recognized (essentially validating
the trustee’s sale).  As the plaintiff, the lender was required to
show it had the power and authority to foreclose, which is
established, in part, by showing that it was the holder of the
promissory note.  In this action, where the homeowner is in the role
of the plaintiff challenging the non-judicial foreclosure, the lender
need not establish that it holds the note.

Note 34 – Statutes of Limitations for TILA and RESPA Claims – For TILA
claims, the statute of limitations for actions for damages runs one
year after the loan origination.  15 U.S.C. § 1640(e).  For actions
seeking rescission, the statute of limitations is three years from
loan origination.  15 U.S.C. § 1635(f).  For RESPA, actions brought
for lack of notice of change of loan servicer have a statute of
limitation of three years from the date of the occurrence, and actions
brought for payment of kickbacks for real estate settlement services,
or the conditioning of the sale on selection of certain title services
have a statute of limitations of one year from the date of the
occurrence.  12 U.S.C. § 2614.

Yau v. Deutsche FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Yau_-_complaint_First_Amended_Pleading.78103044

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas
Request for IMMEDIATE RELIEF:

Lenore L. Albert, Esq. SBN 210876
LAW OFFICES OF LENORE ALBERT
7755 Center Avenue, Suite #1100
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Telephone (714) 372-2264
Facsimile (419) 831-3376
Email: lenorealbert@msn.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs and the Class
EDDIE YAU, GLORIA YAU,
ROBERT H. RHOADES, NICOLE
RHOADES, STEVE BURKE, CHEN
PI AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE PI TRUST
DATED MAY 17, 2004, SALIM
BENSRHIR, KIMBERLY
CHRISTENSEN, ALICE MBAABU,
CARMEN ARBALLO, ANGELA
BROWN, ANTHONY JOHNSON,
OTIS BANKS, RICHARD
APOSTOLOS, REGAN OWEN,
JENNIFER OWEN, JOANNE
ANDERSON, JEREMY JOHN DALE,
DOUGLAS L. EDMAN, and
DOUGLAS L. EDMAN and ERIC
EDMAN as trustees of the HIGH
DESERT ENTERPRISES TRUST,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
TRUST COMPANY, DEUTSCHE
1. Breach/Unjust Enrichment
2. HAMP Breach/Unjust Enrichment
3. Breach of Contract – Third Party Ben.
4. Declaratory Relief/Default Cured
5. Declaratory Relief/Unsecured Creditor
6. Declaratory Relief/Fees and Costs
7. Fraud
8. Injunctive Relief
9. Accounting
10.Unlawful/Unfair Acts §17200
11.Fraud
12.Declaratory Relief/Injunction
[ ]
***
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. SACV11-0006-JVS (RNBx)
Assigned for all purposes to the honorable:
James V. Selna
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT
Demand for Jury Trial
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and
INJUNCTION filed Concurrently herewith

BANK TRUST COMPANY
AMERICAS and AURORA LOAN
SERVICES, LLC, Inclusive,
Defendants.
***
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, bring this action on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
(“DBNT” or “Defendant”). Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas (“DBTCA” or
“Defendant”) and Aurora Loan Services, LLC. (“Aurora” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs
allege the following on information and belief, except as to those allegations which
pertain to the named Plaintiffs:
1. Plaintiffs bring this action to challenge the defendants’ manipulation and use of
the federal and state programs surrounding the mortgage crisis, such as HAMP and other
foreclosure prevention services.
2. The defendants defaulted the plaintiffs and those similarly situated then offered
them federal and state home retention programs such as Home Affordability
Modification Program agreements (HAMP).
3. After the Plaintiffs made their post default payments as requested, the
defendants never-the-less denied the permanent modification, did not cure the default or
reinstate the plaintiffs’ loans on the grounds they couldn’t get the loan to work.
4. The program guidelines state that if the Net Present Value (“NPV”) of the loan
modification is greater than the NPV at foreclosure, then the lenders modify the
loan.
1. Introduction
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the defendants were
already made whole upon the loans because these loans were securitized with credit
default swaps (“CDS”) and other security interests, and the CDS were factored into the
NPV and not merely the amount that the defendants may receive on a foreclosure sale.
6. The securitization of their loans with CDS was never revealed to the plaintiffs
and the Class prior to their default.
7. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 USC § 1331
wherein the action arises under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.
8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this action by the
fact that the Defendants are corporations conducting business in the state of California.
9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 USC § 1392 because the action
involves real property located in both the Central and Southern District of California; and
pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(b) inasmuch as defendant DBNT and DBTCA reside in the
Central District of California, and a substantial part of the events or omissions on which
the claims are based occurred in this District.
10.Plaintiffs Eddie Yau and Gloria Yau (the “Yaus,” “plaintiff,” “plaintiffs” or
“borrowers”) are a married couple residing in Vista, California. Plaintiff is now, and at
all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property
2. Jurisdiction and Venue
3. The Parties
commonly known as 1307 Summer Court, Vista, California 92084 (“subject property”).
Douglas L. Edman was the borrower on the loan.
11.Plaintiffs Robert Rhoades and Nicole Rhoades (the “Rhoades,” “plaintiff,” or
“borrowers”) are a married couple residing in Chino, California. Plaintiff is now, and at
all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property
commonly known as 7746 Holland Park, Chino, California 92401 (“subject property”).
Robert Rhoades was the borrower on the loan.
12.Plaintiff Steve Burke is an adult residing in Paradise, California. Plaintiff is
now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real
property commonly known as 5871 Pine Circle, Paradise, California 95969 (“subject
property”). Steve Burke was the borrower on the loan.
13.Plaintiff Chen Pi, acting on her own behalf and as trustee for the Pi Trust dated
May 17, 2004 resides in La Puente California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times
mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property commonly
known as17116 Samgerry Dr., La Puente, California (“subject property”). Chen Pi was
the borrower on the loan.
14.Plaintiff Otis Banks is an individual residing in Inglewood, California. Plaintiff
is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real
property commonly known as 5408-5408 ½ 8TH Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90045
(“subject property”). Otis Banks was the borrower on the loan.

15.Plaintiff Salim Bensrhir and Kimberly Christensen are a married couple
residing in Los Angeles, California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein
relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property commonly known as 842 N
Dillon Street, Los Angeles, California 90026 (“subject property”). Salim Bensrhir and
Kimberly Christensen were the borrowers on the loan.
16.Plaintiff Alice Mbaabu is an individual residing in Fontana, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 13536 Whipple Street, Fontana, California
92336 (“subject property”). Alice Mbaabu was the borrower on the loan.
17.Plaintiff Carmen Arballo is an individual residing in Chino, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 6952 Gloria Street, Chino, California 91710
(“subject property”). Carmen Arballo was the borrower on the loan.
18.Plaintiff Angela Brown is an individual residing in Stockton, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 4516 Abruzzi Circle, Stockton, California
95206 (“subject property”). Angela Brown was the borrower on the loan.
19.Plaintiff Anthony Johnson is an individual is an individual residing in Corona,
California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint
was the owner of real property commonly known as 382 Minaret Street, Corona, CA
92881 (“subject property”). Anthony R. Johnson was the borrower on the loan.
20.Plaintiff Richard Apostolos is an individual residing in Perris, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 21200 Mountain Ave., Perris, California
92570 (“subject property”). Richard Apostolos was the borrower on the loan.
21.Regan Owen and Jennifer Owen are a married couple residing in Chula Vista,
California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint
was the owner of real property commonly known as 2872 Ranch Gate Rd., Chula Vista,
California (“subject property”). Regan Owen was the borrower on the loan.
22.Plaintiff Joanne Anderson is an individual residing in Laguna Niguel,
California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint
was the owner of real property commonly known as 24291 Park Pl Dr, Laguna Niguel,
CA 92677 (“subject property”). Joanne Anderson was the borrower on the loan.
23. Jeremy John Dale is an individual residing in Paynes Creek, California.
Plaintiff is now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the
owner of real property commonly known as 30510 HWY 36 East, Paynes Creek,
California 96075 (“subject property”). Jeremy John Dale was the borrower on the loan.
24.Douglas L. Edman is an individual residing in Malibu, California. Plaintiff is
now, and at all times mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real
property commonly known as 612 Thrift Road, Malibu, California 90265 (“subject
property”). Douglas L. Edman was the borrower on the loan.
25.Douglas L. Edman and Eric Edman as trustees of the HIGH DESERT
ENTERPRISES TRUST reside in Malibu, California. Plaintiff is now, and at all times
mentioned herein relevant to this complaint was the owner of real property commonly
known as 612 Thrift Road, Malibu, California 90265 (“subject property”). Douglas L.
Edman was the borrower on the loan. Then after the loan was made, the property was
transferred by Douglas L. Edman to Douglas L. Edman, Trustee of the High Desert
Enterprises Trust.
26.Defendant DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY (“DBNT”
or “Custodian”) has its principal place of business at 1761 Saint Andrews Place, Santa
Ana, CA 92705.
27.Defendant DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS
(“DBTCA”) has its principal place of business at 1761 Saint Andrews Place, Santa Ana,
CA 92705. When DBNT and DBTCA are mentioned together in this complaint they
may be referred to as “Deutsche Bank.”
28.Defendant AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC (“Aurora” or “loan servicer”) is
headquartered in Littleton, Colorado and regularly conducts business in the state of
California.

29. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and allege thereon that their loans are in
securitized trusts where the defendants are either the Servicer, Custodian, or Trustee of
that trust.
30.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that DBNTC and
DBTCA act as board members and are referred to as the Company each with different
duties in the trusts.
31.DBNTC and DBTCA are both subsidiaries created by nonparty Deutsche Bank
Company (“DBC”) which has its principal place of business in Germany. Plaintiff is
informed and believes and alleges thereon DBNTC and DBTCA were either acting in
concert, instructing, adopting, ratifying, assisting DBC’s conduct as alleged in this
complaint through an agency or contractual relationship. As such, the actions or failure
to act are the actions or failure to act of each other.
32.Nonparty FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC (“Fannie Mae”) entered into an
agreement with defendant Aurora of which the plaintiffs and the Class were intended
beneficiaries.
33.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that each defendant is
responsible in some manner for the occurrences alleged in this complaint, and that
plaintiff’s damages were proximately caused by the defendants and at all times
mentioned in this complaint, were the agents, servants, representatives, and/or employees
of their co-defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged were acting in the
scope of their authority as agents, servants, representatives, family members and/or
employees, and with the permission and consent of their co-defendants.
34.Additionally, plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that each
defendant assisted, aided and abetted, adopted, ratified, approved, or condoned the
actions of every other defendant and that each corporate defendant, if any, was acting as
the alter ego of the other in the acts alleged herein.
35.On March 4, 2009 President Obama signed into law the Making Home
Affordable Plan as part of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. It is in
two parts: the Home Affordable Refinance program (“HARP”) and the Home Affordable
Modification program (“HAMP”).
36.Under these programs, the U.S. Department of the Treasury directed the large
national bank servicers to take corrective action by providing loan modifications that
produced more sustainable loan payments.
37.On March 4, 2009 the U.S. Department of the Treasury explained,
38.With the information now available, servicers can begin immediately to modify
eligible mortgages under the Modification program so that at-risk borrowers can better
afford their payments.
39.Aurora entered into a Servicer Participation Agreement for the HAMP program
with Fannie Mae; the latter acted as Financial Agent of the United States. ( ).
3. Statutory and Regulatory Scheme
Exhibit 1

40.However, Aurora failed and refused to put Mr. Yau immediately into a
modification program until they first defaulted and gave Notice of Sale of Mr. Yau’s
home. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that defendant Aurora first
caused Notices of Default and Notice of Foreclosure Sale to be served on the Class prior
to placing the Class into a temporary HAMP also.
41.By March 2010, the White House fortified the HAMP program because only
borrowers out of the it was aimed at were placed in a
more affordable home loan.
42.Thereafter, the contract between Aurora and Fannie Mae was amended and
restated on or about September 1, 2010. The Amended and restated contract is attached
hereto and fully incorporated herein as .
43.The United States Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of Currency (hereinafter
the “OCC”) regulates the banking industry such as defendant Deutsche Bank. The OCC
mandated that the largest banks institute HAMP programs.
44.The Office of Thrift Supervision (hereinafter the “OTS”) regulates loan
services such as defendant Aurora.
45.According to the Aurora Loan Services – Issuer Profile dated June 24, 2008 by
Analyst Kathleen Tillwitz, Aurora Loan Services was a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lehman Brothers Bank, FSB, servicing 20,000 to 110,380 (or 21.4% of their loans) in
170,000 3 to 4 million borrowers
Exhibit 2
California. As of February 29, 2008 Aurora serviced 514,831 mortgage loans totaling
$113.2 billion dollars.
46.On 11/19/10 the OCC supplied the following written testimony:
47.HAMP guidelines now preclude the servicer from initiating a foreclosure
action until the borrower has been determined to be ineligible for a HAMP modification.
48.Aurora actions in working with the borrowers on the loans at issue in this
complaint violated and continue to violate these directives.
49.Under the contract, the Servicer of the loan must perform a Net Present Value
(NPV) Test to compare the value of the money that it would receive if the loan were
modified with the value it could expect from foreclosure.
50. If the servicer and owner of the loan can expect a greater return from modifying
the loan, the loan is considered NPV positive and the servicer and owner then
modify the loan. ( )
51. In plaintiff’s case, plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that the
defendants as the servicer and owner of the loan could have expected no more than onethird
of what the plaintiff would have paid under the HAMP loan modification which
would have been anywhere from $934,560.00 to over $1 million dollars.
52.As servicer of the loan, Aurora must modify the loan unless the contractual
agreement it has with the actual holder of the loan prohibits modification. In that case,
must
Exhibit 4
the servicer is required to use reasonable efforts to obtain waivers or approval of a
modification from the owner and/or investor
53.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that Aurora failed to
disclose to Fannie Mae that loans like the Yau’s which appear to nicely fit under the
program’s protected class, were actually the loans that would never become permanently
modified because these loans were backed by CDS and such. Signing up as a servicer of
the HAMP program, was a carrot to lure distressed homeowners into default.
54.The defendants signed up for exemptions with the California Commissioner for
the same reason, motive or to assist in effectuating this plan.
55.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon defendant failed to make
these material disclosures to Fannie Mae and the California Commissioner, so the
defendants could use the guise of being able to offer these “Programs” to maximize their
own profit by luring homeowners into default, dragging out the process and obtaining
more money from the defaulted homeowner than otherwise would likely occur if the
homeowner did not have hope they may qualify for one of the foreclosure alternatives,
such as HAMP.
56. In the Yau’s case, who were initially only behind by $5,000.00, if they had
known and understood the truth to this scheme, they would have had an incentive to find
a short term loan or other capital to cure the late payment prior to default instead of
relying on their lender to place them in a foreclosure alternative program; they most
$3.86 Trillion dollars.
likely would have never entered into the mortgage in the first place; and surely would
have never paid a dime to the defendants after they gave notice of default and
foreclosure.
57.The impact of Aurora’s practice of defaulting before processing a foreclosure
alternative request by a homeowner, then dragging out the process while the homeowner
is making monthly payments and denying blocks of HAMP modifications after obtaining
a temporary modification is nothing more than a financial “Death Spiral” for the
homeowner.
58.At all times herein mentioned, plaintiff and the Class believed that they were
eligible for HAMP.
59.Although the plaintiffs and the Class complied with the terms of the post
default program agreements, Defendants refused to cure the default, offer such a
permanent modification under the program or to take corrective action by providing loan
modifications that produced more sustainable loan payments to plaintiff.
60.The market size for credit default swaps by 2008 in the United States was
estimated to be Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
Critics assert that naked CDS should be banned, comparing them to
buying fire insurance on your neighbor’s house, which creates a huge
incentive for arson.1 [emphasis added]
61. In essence the defendants bet against the borrower from the beginning then
used the Federal Government through the federal HAMP program to take even more
money from the defaulting homeowner in this class knowing that they would never grant
this class of homeowners a permanent loan modification or any other type of relief. The
defendants never fully disclosed or adequately explained this to Fannie Mae/Freddie
Mac. The entire program failed to the assist the very class of homeowners it was
intended to protect.
62.On or about February 2, 2011 the Securities and Exchange Commission started
accepting comment on creating an exchange called “Swap Execution Facilities” under
the in order to create
greater transparency with Credit Default Swaps which the SEC refers to as “Security
Based Swaps.”
63.The plaintiffs and the Class in this Complaint are the class of homeowners
these federal and state programs, including the HAMP program were intended to protect.
64.The plaintiffs and the Class were led to believe that they would have the
opportunity to cure their default and be reinstated, but no matter how much they paid the
defendants each month or what they signed, it never happened and they were kept in
constant foreclosure status the entire time while doling out money and their private
financial information to the defendants.
65.Plaintiff alleges defendants intended to, did and still continue to use these
Programs to manipulate more money from the Plaintiffs and the Class.
66.After obtaining the agreements with Fannie Mae and the California
Commissioner, the defendants used the guise of offering these “Programs” to lure
homeowners into default, drag out the process and confuse the homeowners on the type
of alternative temporary program they were placing the homeowner in just to get them to
shell out more money to the defendants after a Notice of Default and Notice of Sale was
filed and served.
67.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that defendant Aurora
knew or had reason to know that defendant Deutsche Bank bought credit default swaps
or other types investment security/insurance that were either worth more than making the
loan modifications permanent prior to default on these blocks of homes when entering to
the contract with Fannie Mae or defendants failed to properly calculate the Net Present
Value (“NPV”) on these loan modifications. But Aurora never disclosed these facts to
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac.
68.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that these CD swaps and
other financial arrangements and the NPV calculations as applied to these asset-backed
loans were material facts and as such Defendants had a duty to disclose these material
facts under the agreement with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac or comply with the terms with
regard to NPV calculations.
69.Even if such material facts were disclosed to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, these
material facts were never disclosed to the intended beneficiaries of the agreements
between Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac and Aurora, the plaintiffs and the Class.
70. If it is later interpreted that the facts were disclosed to Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
but the defendants were forbidden from using the gains they could expect to receive from
the CDS by defaulting the homeowners, then the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
breached that covenant to the injury of the plaintiffs.
71.As intended beneficiaries of the agreements between Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
and Aurora, the Plaintiffs and the Class were injured due to the failure to disclose these
material facts and/or comply with the terms of the agreement.
72. The impact of defendants’ practice and/or scheme as more fully described
below was nothing more than a financial “Death Spiral” to the borrower resulting in
making extortion like payments after giving a complete disclosure of their remaining
financial assets, and allowing their credit to be decimated or face foreclosure sale.
73.And even if these borrowers had the ability to reinstate their loans, under this
scheme the proceeds the defendants received on default would not be applied to the loan
but become a windfall to the defendants, still leaving the homeowner’s credit and
financial health badly battered, making the entire scheme outrageous, despicable and
deserving of punitive or exemplary damages.
74.The plaintiffs each received a written agreement such as a temporary HAMP
agreement after default appearing to give the plaintiffs an opportunity to save their home
if they made the requested payments.
75.Plaintiffs and those similarly situated made all payments, however the
defendants did not cure the default, reinstate the loan or permanently modify the loan.
76.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that at all times
mentioned in this complaint, the defendants knew California was not a deficiency
judgment state and understood their actions of collecting payment after default without
cure or reinstatement was unlawful.
77.Yet, the defendants collected money from the plaintiffs before satisfying the
debt with the security.
78.Mr. Burke has paid the defendants approximately $20,279.00 since the Notice
of Default dated 9/16/08 originally for $6,312.74.
79.Plaintiff, Mr. Apostolos has paid $27,928.00 after his Notice of Default dated
6/7/10 in the amount of $33,014.53 and turned over approximately $7,000.00 payments
to his attorney to be held in trust for payments on his home.
4. General Factual Allegations
80.Plaintiff Ms. Brown has paid the defendants approximately $24,728.00 after
her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also placed
additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
81.Plaintiff Mr. Salem Benshir and Kimberly Christensen has paid the defendants
approximately $51,991.25 after their Notice of Default dated 11/16/08 in the amount of
$10,495.23.
82.Plaintiff Regan Owens and Jennifer Owens paid the defendants approximately
$38,059.00 after their Notice of Default dated 3/10/09 in the amount of $27,371.99.
83.Plaintiff Ms. Chen Pi has paid the defendants approximately $24,728.00 after
her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also placed
additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
84.Plaintiff Ms. Alice Mbaabu has paid the defendants approximately $24,728.00
after her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also placed
additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
85.Plaintiff Ms. Carmen Arballo has paid the defendants approximately
$24,728.00 after her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also
placed additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
86.Plaintiff Mr. Anthony Johnson has paid the defendants approximately
$24,728.00 after her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also
placed additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
87.Plaintiff Mr. Otis Banks has paid the defendants approximately $24,728.00
after her Notice of Default dated 2/14/09 in the amount of $5,899.60 and also placed
additional payments in trust with her attorney and/or deposited with the court.
88. In fact, each of the named plaintiffs and those similarly situated have entered
into agreements with the defendants after default and tendered payments as requested.
89. In 2009, 632,573 California properties had some type of foreclosure filed on its
property record.2
90.According to a California Consumer Banking article dated December 13, 2010,
the outlook for 2011 is worse.
91.The number of foreclosures is expected to increase in 2011 as more mortgage
defaults work their way through the pipeline. Rick Sharga, a senior vice president for
RealtyTrac, said there were approximately 1.2 million bank repossessions in 2010,
900,000 in 2009, and “We expect we will top both of those numbers in 2011,” he said.3
92.Quality Loan Service Corporation, agent of defendant Aurora Loan Services,
LLC recorded over foreclosure type filings in in 2010
alone.
93.Recently, the Attorney General of Arizona was quoted by Business Week as
stating
What I’m most angry about is the simultaneous modifications and
foreclosures… We need to look for a stipulated judgment in all 50 states,
that if someone is in modification, they can’t be foreclosed.
(www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-28/arizona-seeks-changes-tobanks-
home-loan-modification-process.html).
94.The plaintiffs and the Class were led to believe that they would have an
opportunity to cure their default, receive a modification and have their loan reinstated,
but no matter how much they paid the defendants each month or what they signed, it
never happened. Attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as is a true and
correct copy of the Yaus’ Temporary HAMP Agreement.
95.Some plaintiffs signed temporary modification agreements, others were
actually placed in limited modification Special Forbearance agreements, and some were
placed in both after notice of default.
96. Defendant Aurora contracted with Fannie Mae to provide foreclosure
prevention services intending to benefit homeowners with affordable loan modifications.
In return Aurora would be compensated over in taxpayer funds as
incentive to do so. Attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as is a true
and correct copy of the original Agreement between Aurora and Fannie Mae.
Exhibit 3
$2.873 Billion dollars
Exhibit 1
97.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that Aurora Loan
Services made and/or is making more money on defaults and/or foreclosures than on the
loan modifications and knew it would do so when entering into the contract with Fannie
Mae.
98.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that defendant Aurora
knew or had reason to know that defendant Deutsche Bank bought credit default swaps
or other types investment security/insurance that were either worth more than making the
loan modifications permanent prior to default on these blocks of homes when entering to
the contract with Fannie Mae or they failed to report the way they were calculating NPV
under the agreement. But Aurora never disclosed these facts to Fannie Mae.
99.Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that these CDS and other
financial arrangements were material facts and as such Defendants had a duty to disclose
these material facts under the agreement or the NPV calculations violated the terms of
the agreement with Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Attached hereto and fully incorporated
herein as is a true and correct copy of the March 4, 2009 Home Affordable
Modification Program Guidelines including the NPV calculations.
100. But defendants never disclosed or adequately explained these material facts.
101. Assistant Treasury Secretary Herbert M. Allison admitted that modifying
mortgages has been more difficult than administration officials had anticipated.”
Exhibit 4
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas

“Certainly we’ve seen a lot of frustration with this program since its
inception,” he told lawmakers. “We did not fully envision the
challenges we would encounter.” (http://rismedia.com/2010-03-
28/white-house-to-adjust-troubled-mortgage-modification-program/)
102. Section 5 of the Servicer agreement between Aurora and Fannie Mae
contains the representations, warranties and covenants which state in part:
(b) Servicer is in compliance with, and covenants that all
Services will be performed in compliance with all applicable
Federal, state and local law, regulations, regulatory guidance,
statutes, ordinances, codes and requirements, including, but not
limited to, the Truth in Lending Act, 15 USC 1601 et seq., the
home Ownership and Equity Protection Act, 15 USC 1639, the
Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 USC 41 et seq., the Equal
Credit Opportunity Act, 15 USC 701 et seq., the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, 15 USC 1681 et seq., the fair Housing Act and
other Federal and state laws designed to prevent unfair,
discriminatory or predatory lending practices and all applicable
laws governing tenant rights…Servicer is not aware of any
other legal or financial impediments to performing its
obligations under the Program in which Servicer participates or
the Agreement and shall promptly notify Fannie Mae of any
financial and/or operational impediments which may impair its
ability to perform its obligations under such Programs or the
Agreement…
(c) Servicer covenants that:…all data …that is relied upon by
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac in calculating the Purchase Price or
in performing any compliance review will be true, complete and
accurate in all material respects, and consistent with all relevant
business records, as and when provided.
(d) Servicer covenants that it will(i) perform the Services
required under the Program Documentation and the Agreement
in accordance with the practices, high professional standards of
care, and degree of attention used in a well-managed
operation…

(f) Servicer acknowledges that the provision of false or
misleading information to Fannie Mae or Freddie mac in
connection with any of the Programs or pursuant to the
Agreement may constitute a violation of: (a) Federal criminal
law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity
violations found in Title 18 of the United States Code; or (b) the
civil False Claims Act (31 USC § 3729-3733). Servicer
covenants to disclose to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac any
credible evidence, in connection with the Servicers, that a
management official, employee, or contractor of Servicer has
committed, or may have committed, a violation of the
referenced statutes.
(g) Servicer covenants to disclose to Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac any other facts or information that the Treasury, Fannie
Mae or Freddie Mac should reasonably expect to know about
Servicer and its contractors to help protect the reputational
interests of the Treasury, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in
managing and monitoring the Programs in which Servicer
participates.” ( page A-2 to A-4 ; Exhibit 2 page B-3
to B-4)
103. Plaintiff alleges that defendants breached these covenents.
104. Defendants used the offering of the federal HAMP Program as an incentive
to get the homeowners to default on their loans which would trigger payment on the CDS
without any care about placing the homeowners at risk of a foreclosure sale and then
have the homeowners like the plaintiffs in this case continue to make monthly payments
on them while in default facing a foreclosure sale all to the defendants’ financial benefit.
105. On July 7, 2007 plaintiff Eddie Yau borrowed $608,000.00 from
Homecomings Financial, LLC on a 30 year negative adjustable rate note to purchase his
Exhibit 1
8. Factual Allegations of the Yaus Repesenting the HAMP Subclass
home where he lives with his wife. His payments were supposed to be fixed at $2,402.34
per month for the first five years of the loan.
106. Mr. Yau, a retired military veteran and mechanic, has no mortgage or home
lending financial experience beyond basic financial matters.
107. Plaintiff, as trustor, executed and delivered a deed of trust, conveying the
real property described herein to secure payment of the principal sum and interest as
provided in the note and as part of the same transaction to Homecomings Financial, LLC
which was then later assigned, sold or transferred by the lender to either DBNT or
DBTCA as beneficiary and serviced by defendant Aurora.
108. Mr. Yau missed his July 2008 payment and telephoned defendant Aurora
Loan Services and explained he was experiencing financial difficulties due to a decrease
in his income and inquired as to alternatives to foreclosure.
109. On or about September 24, 2008 defendant Aurora Loan Services sent a
letter explaining the following programs it offered and that by entering into the programs
the borrower “will avoid the loss of your home through foreclosure or further impairment
on your credit.”
“Repayment Plan: If you recently experienced a temporary reduction
in income or an increase in living expenses, a repayment plan will
allow you to repay the past due amount over a specified period of
time.
Forbearance Plan: You may be able to suspend or reduce your
mortgage payments for a short period of time. Thereafter, we would
review your current financial situation and determine what home
retention option would best assist you in bringing your loan current.
Loan Modification: A loan modification may offer you the ability to
change on or more of the terms of your mortgage. This may assist
you with providing an affordable payment and avoiding foreclosure.
Again, we would need to review your financial situation and ability to
pay. If your loan is current and you anticipate that you may have
difficulty in making the increased monthly payment, we may be able
to assist you with a loan modification that will provide you with an
affordable payment based on your current financial information.
110. Then on December 02, 2008 defendant Aurora Loan Services wrote Mr.
Yau which stated:
“Based upon the information that you provided during your telephone
conversation with Aurora, your loan may qualify for a loan
modification….You must provide documentation to support your
inability to reinstate the mortgage loan in one lump sum…under some
circumstances,
111. Then on December 19, 2008 Aurora Loan Services sent Mr. Yau a letter
noting Mr. Yau’s was in default in the amount of $4,828.68 and that
“If you do not bring your loan current within thirty (30) days of the
date of this letter, Aurora Loan Services may demand the entire
balance outstanding under the terms of your Mortgage/Deed of Trust.”
112. Aurora then followed up with the same letter of September 24, 2008 again
on December 24, 2008 and January 20, 2009.
113. Instead of sending Mr. Yau a loan modification plan, defendant Aurora
Loan Services sent him a Repayment Agreement expecting him to pay an additional
$802.78 per month ($3,207.12 per month for 6 months) which equaled a 33% increase in
you may be expected to pay a loan modification fee.”
[Emphasis added]
his monthly mortgage payment. This payment plan did not create a “more sustainable
payment plan.”
114. In 2009 the Yau’s financial situation became worse as their investments
were depleted from what was later characterized as a “Ponzi scheme.”
115. From that time up to June 2009, plaintiff would telephone defendant Aurora
seeking a modification and Aurora would take down information representing the
defendants would start the process, but the process was never started.
116. Mrs. Yau spoke to a person at Aurora Loan Services named Steve who
promised that someone from Aurora Loan Services would call them back no later than
June 1st about the Making Home Affordable Loan Program.
117. On June 16, 2009 defendant caused to be served and recorded a purported
Notice of Default and Election to Sell under Deed of Trust (NOD) alleging (a) that a
breach of the obligation secured by the deed of trust had occurred, consisting of Mr.
Yau’s failure to pay $12,655.67 as of 6/15/09, and (b) that the defendant, as beneficiary,
elected to sell, or to cause to be sold, the property to satisfy that obligation.4
4 However, that Notice of Default was outside the chain of title because Lawyers Title Company, as
the original trustee and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as the nominee did not
assign this right until June 24, 2009. Attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as is a
true and correct copy of the Assignment to Quality Loan Service which was not notarized until
6/24/09.
Exhibit 8

118. A few months later defendant Aurora Loan Services faxed a “customized
Home Affordable Modification Trial Period Plan (“Trial Period Plan”)” under HAMP
wherein Mr. Yau was supposed to make payments of $1,943.70 on 10/01/09, 11/01/09,
and 12/01/09.
119. The temporary HAMP agreement which is incorporated herein stated in part
“If I comply with the requirements in Section 2 and my
representations in Section 1 continue to be true in all material
respects, the Lender will send me a Modification Agreement for my
signature which will modify my Loan Documents as necessary to
reflect this new payment amount and waive any unpaid late charges
accrued to date.”
120. Aurora promised:
“If you qualify under the federal government’s Home Affordable
Modification program and comply with the terms of the Trial Period
Plan, we will modify your mortgage loan and you can avoid
foreclosure.”
121. These terms are boilerplate in all such agreements received by the coplaintiffs
and the class.
122. Mr. Yau believed he was eligible for HAMP and made the payments as laid
out in the agreement under Section 2, provided the necessary documents and his
representations in Section 1 continued to be true in all material respects, yet defendant
Aurora Loan Services failed and refused to send the Modification Agreement for him to
sign, or to cure the default and reinstate the loan.
123. On or about March 6, 2010 defendant Aurora Loan Services sent a letter to
Mr. Yau explaining,
“Unfortunately, we are unable to offer you a Home Affordable
Modification for the following reasons: Excessive Forbearance. We
are unable to offer you a Home Affordable Modification because we
are unable to create an affordable payment equal to 31% of your
reported monthly gross income without changing the terms loan
beyond the requirements of the program.”
124. Defendant’s representation in that letter was false. According to Aurora
Loan Service’s Customer Account Activity Statement the principal balance on the loan
was at $643,178.83 when he entered the temporary payment plan.
125. The contract required Aurora to place the Yaus into a permanent
modification if the NPV was greater under modification than a foreclosure sale. Plaintiffs
allege the defendants breached by failing to place them in the permanent modification.
126. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that Plaintiff’s home
at foreclosure would not have resulted in a sale in excess of the NPV of the modification.
127. Plaintiff through counsel, demanded defendant’s calculations used to deny
plaintiff’s modification and NPV. To date, defendant failed to provide plaintiff with a
HAMP-compliant modification or any documentation showing its calculations to justify
why a permanent modification was not offered to Plaintiff.
128. Mr. Yau’s loan accelerated from $643,178.83 to $649,482.15 during the
interim.
129. Along with the notice that Mr. Yau did not qualify for the loan modification,
defendant Aurora stated that Mr. Yau may qualify for other foreclosure alternatives such
as “Repayment Plan: allows you to repay the past due amount over a
specified period of time.
Forbearance Plan: allows you to suspend or reduce your mortgage
payments for a short period of time until a long term solution is
available.
Loan Modification: allows us to modify one or more of your original
mortgage terms which will provide you with an affordable payment
based on your current financial information.
Pre-foreclosure Sale (short sale): allows you to sell your property,
pay off your mortgage for an amount less than total pay off to avoid
foreclosure and minimize damage to your credit rating.
Deed in lieu of foreclosure: allows you to voluntarily deed your
property to Aurora Loan Services to payoff your mortgage. Taking
this action may not save your home, but it may help your ability to
qualify for another mortgage in the future.”
130. The Yaus telephoned Aurora and were assured that the defendants would
work with the Yaus and that they could cure their default by having the lender
temporarily forebear the terms of the agreement so that the Yaus could catch up.
131. Consequently, Mr. Yau continued making monthly payments on his home
and entered into a Special Forbearance Plan with defendant Aurora when they sent him
the application to sign.
132. On or about April 7. 2010 Defendant Aurora sent Plaintiffs a letter stating it
had enclosed a “Special Forbearance Agreement which has been prepared on your
behalf.” On page 2 of the agreement it stated “WHEREAS, customer has requested and
Lender has agreed to allow Customer to repay the Arrearage pursuant to a loan work-out
arrangement on the terms set forth herein.”
133. However, there was no real consideration and the agreement was illusory
because the Lender had been given the right to proceed with a foreclosure sale during the
term of the agreement at its discretion and the terms never gave the Yaus an opportunity
to repay the arrearage.
134. The Plan was not the same as advertised in its prior letters to Mr. Yau or as
represented on the telephone. The forbearance Plan did not allow Mr. Yau to suspend or
reduce his mortgage payments for a short period of time until a long term solution was
available.
135. Mr. Yau made the required $4,804.72 initial payment and monthly
payments of $2,875.00 but he was only getting further in debt.
136. The true facts were that his payments were increased to $2,875.00 per
month and no other terms of his loan were modified or suspended during the forbearance
period. He was still in default and the foreclosure sales were still pending.
137. Furthermore, the terms of the Agreement violated California law.
138. Mr.Yau continued to make the $2,875.00 monthly payments until this action
was filed.
139. Instead of putting Mr. Yau into a temporary modification, they delayed
processing, requesting the same documents they already had over and over again.
140. As a result of defendants’ unlawful practices, unfair acts and failure to place
Mr. Yau into a permanent HAMP loan modification on December 1, 2009, his loan as of
October 10, 2010 approached the HAMP cap.
Total Unpaid principal $664,711.59
Interest from 12/1/09 to 10/10/10 47,916.49
Escrow/Impound Overdraft 12,983.09
Corporate advance 3,652.84
Unpaid Late Charges 120.12
Recording Fee 37.00
Suspense Balance -2,345.75
Total: $727,075.38
141. On November 5, 2010 defendant Aurora sent notice that it intended on
increasing Mr. Yau’s monthly loan payment to $5,466.57 on 3/01/11.
142. Defendant then notified Mr. Yau it intended to sell his home on 12/13/10.
143. From September 2008 when Mr. Yau was behind by approximately
$5,000.00 through present plaintiff has paid defendants approximately $54,293.08. This
is very close to the amount he would have paid the defendants if he had never defaulted
on the loan in the first place ($2402.34*24 months = $57,656.16).
144. Plaintiff further alleges the defendants were deceptive and unlawful in their
handling of the loans and business practices. Examples in the Yaus’ case, include but are
not limited to the fact that defendant has not rescinded the Notice of Default or Notice of
foreclosure sale although the Notice was filed before Quality Loan Services received
assignment and as such is outside the chain of title. Failing to send the plaintiffs a loan
modification application until after they filed a Notice of Default. Additionally, flood
hazard insurance was not required on the Yaus loan but the defendants charged Mr. Yau
$1592.00 for flood hazard insurance after the loan went into default in addition to other
fees and charges for allegedly driving by the home and such. Also, Defendant obtained
an exemption to allow defendant Aurora to offer modifications and other programs in
excess of 38% of the borrower’s income from the California Commissioner but
defendant never notified plaintiff of that fact as required under California law and never
took the foreclosure off of the home when it was notified of this failure to notify.
Defendants failed and refused to request partition even after being notified only Mr. Yau
was on the Note and Mrs. Yau at most was a trustee and was given no consideration for
her name to be placed on their filed recordings as a “co-borrower” for non-judicial
foreclosure purposes.
5. Factual Allegations of Mr. Edman representing the Forebearance Class
145. Mr. Edman obtained a loan to build a home on his land in Malibu,
California.
146. On or about 12/07/06, for valuable consideration, plaintiff, as borrower
made, executed and delivered to his original lender a written promissory note in the
amount of $850,000.00, a true and correct copy of which is attached as and
incorporated by reference herein.
147. According to the terms of the Note, Mr. Edman was required to pay
$3,141.77 per month for the first five (5) years.
148. Plaintiff, as trustor, executed and delivered a deed of trust, conveying the
real property described herein to secure payment of the principal sum and interest as
provided in the note and as part of the same transaction which was then transferred to
defendant, as beneficiary.
149. Said deed of trust was recorded against the subject property in the Official
Records in Los Angeles County, California, a true and correct copy of which is attached
as and incorporated by reference herein.
150. On or about 1/14/09, defendant caused to be recorded a notice of default
and election to sell in the Official Records in Los Angeles, County, California alleging
(a) that a breach of the obligation secured by the deed of trust had occurred, consisting
of plaintiff’s alleged failure to pay $14,267.35 as of 1/13/09, and (b) that the defendant,
as beneficiary, elected to sell, or to cause to be sold, the trust property to satisfy that
Exhibit 10
Exhibit B

obligation, a true and correct copy of which is attached as and incorporated
by reference herein.
151. A week later on or about 1/23/09, defendants delivered a document to Mr.
Edman which represented a “Special Forbearance Agreement [] has been prepared on
your behalf.”
“WHEREAS, customer has requested and Lender has agreed to allow Customer to
repay the Arrearage pursuant to a loan work-out arrangement on the terms set forth
herein…NOW, THEREFORE…Lender shall forbear from exercising any or all of its
rights and remedies..” [pg 2]
“The amount of each Plan payment specified above includes both (1) the regularly
scheduled monthly payment, plus (2) the portion of the Arrearage specified above…
in the event Customer cures the Arrearage by making all Plan payments on or before
the Expiration Date, and is current with the payments then due, and no default then
exists under the Loan Documents and Agreement, Lender shall consider the Note
and Security Instrument to be current and in effect according to their original terms
and conditions.” Attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as is a
true and correct copy of the Special Forbearance Agreement entered into postdefault.
152. Consequently, Mr. Edman made the monthly payments on his home and
entered into a Special Forbearance Plan with defendant Aurora.
Exhibit 11
Exhibit 12

concert therewith after default, but whose default was not cured and loan was not
reinstated by defendants after plaintiff tendered the requested payments.
California homeowners who were denied permanent HAMP loan
agreements after entering in a temporary HAMP agreement with
defendant Aurora whose loans are held by DBNT as Custodian, and
making their payments as requested under the temporary HAMP
agreement.
California homeowners who were denied permanent HAMP loan
agreements after entering in a temporary limited modification Special
Forbearance agreement with defendant Aurora whose loans are held
by DBNT as Custodian, and making their payments as requested
under the temporary HAMP agreement.
159. Excluded from the Class are governmental entities, defendants, and their
affiliates, subsidiaries, current or former employees, officers, directors, agents,
representatives, their family members, the members of this Court and its staff.
160. Defendants subjected plaintiffs and each of their respective Classes to the
same unfair, unlawful and deceptive practices and harmed them in the same manner.
Now plaintiffs and each of their respective Classes seek to enforce the same rights and
remedies under the same substantive law.
161. Plaintiffs do not know the exact size or identities of the members of the
proposed class, since such information is in the exclusive control of the Defendants.
Plaintiffs believe that the Class encompasses over 41 individuals California homeowners
HAMP Subclass:
Forbearance Subclass:

which could reach into the thousands whose identities can be readily ascertained from
Defendant’s books and records. Defendants filed over 4,000 foreclosure documents with
the Orange County Recorder’s office in 2010 alone. Therefore, the proposed Class are so
numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.
162. Based on the market value of these homes in foreclosure and the size of the
payments made by the Class members under the temporary HAMP agreements and
thereafter, plaintiffs believe the amount in controversy could range anywhere from
$1,250,000 for the first 25 members to over $2 billion dollars for the entire anticipated
class.
163. All members of the Class have been subject to and affected by the same
conduct. The claims are based on wrongfully forcing the Class into default before
implementing a written foreclosure alternative program then wrongfully failing to cure
the default, reinstate the loan or permanently modifying the loan under HAMP and other
government programs after the Class made the payments as requested.
164. There are questions of law and fact that are common to the Class, and
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the Class. These
questions include, but are not limited to the following:
a. The validity of the contracts at issue in this case (
(5th Cir 1985) 759 F2d 466, 471);
See, Black Gold Marine,
Inc. v Jackson Marine Co.
b. The nature, scope and operation of defendants’ obligations to the borrowers
under the Servicer Participation Agreements entered into between Aurora
and Fannie Mae ( . (2nd Cir
1986) 799 F.2d 851, 856);
c. Whether the defendants must now be reclassified as unsecured creditors.
d. Whether the plaintiffs have cured their defaults and are entitled to
reconveyance upon payments of subsequent sums due and owing, if any.
e. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to reconveyance of their deeds.
f. The defendants’ obligations to the borrowers when the borrower holds a
CDS or some similar type of security/insurance against default on the
borrower’s loan;
g. Whether the existence of a CDS or similar type of security/insurance to a
borrower should be disclosed at the time the borrower signs the promissory
note and mortgage or as soon as the lender obtains a CDS contract that
could cover the loan.
h. Whether the failure to disclose the existence of a CDS or similar type of
security/insurance to a borrower before default is a breach of good faith and
fair dealing;
See, Topps Chewing Gum, Inc. v Fleer Corp
i. The Class’ right to terminate and rescind the contracts at issue in this action
( . (2nd
Cir. 1994) 17 F3d 38, 39-40).
j. The nature, scope and operation of defendants’ obligations to the borrowers
under the temporary HAMP agreements;
k. Whether the temporary HAMP agreements created any legally binding
obligation on the defendants;
l. Whether the agreements entered into by the borrowers after they were
denied a permanent HAMP agreement were void ab initio for failure or
partial failure of consideration;
m. Whether the agreements entered into by the borrowers after they were
denied a permanent HAMP agreement were illusory;
n. Whether the promissory note and mortgage agreements entered into by the
borrowers after the owner purchased a CDS or similar security/insurance
were void ab initio for failure to disclose this adverse interest or partial
failure of consideration;
o. Whether defendants actions failed to take corrective action by providing
loan modifications that produced more sustainable loan payments;
p. Whether the plaintiffs and the Class (“borrowers’”) payments after the
Notice of Default were the result of fraud of duress;
See, Leisure Time Productions, B.V. v Columbia Pictures Indus. Inc

q. Whether Aurora violated California law by using false, deceptive, and
misleading statements and omission in connection their collection of
Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s mortgage debt;
r. Whether defendants actions or failure to act constituted a breach of their
obligation of good faith and fair dealing;
s. Whether contracts implied in fact were created when Aurora required the
borrowers to continue to make payments after the temporary HAMP
agreement expired;
t. Whether Aurora was required to rescind or otherwise nullify the pending
foreclosure proceedings for all borrowers who were still being considered
for a HAMP modification after the OCC stated “HAMP guidelines now
preclude a servicer from initiating a foreclosure action until the borrower
has been deemed ineligible for a HAMP modification.”
u. Whether the disclosure of the credit default swaps or other types of
investment security/insurance were “material” under federal law;
v. Whether the plaintiff and the Class members are intended beneficiaries of
the agreement between defendant Aurora and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac;
w. Whether defendant Aurora breached its agreement with Fannie Mae/Freddie
Mac;
x. Whether defendant Aurora failed to disclose a material fact to Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac as required under its contract with them to the detriment
of its intended beneficiaries;
y. Whether defendants conduct as described in this Complaint constituted
fraud or duress;
z. Whether defendants were unjustly enriched;
aa.Whether defendants acts and practices described herein constitute unfair or
deceptive business practices under California Unfair Competition Law
(“UCL”)
bb.Whether injunctive relief is appropriate
cc.Whether specific performance is appropriate
dd.Whether punitive or exemplary damages are appropriate
165. The claims of the individual named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the
Class and do not conflict with the interests of any other members of the Class in that both
the Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class’ loans were all securitized in vehicles
that had default and other types of swaps placed on them, they were subjected to the
same conduct, the same terms, and tendered payments to the defendants after being
served with a Notice of Default pursuant to a post default foreclosure alternative
program.
166. The individually named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the Class. They are committed to the vigorous prosecution of the Class’
claims and have retained attorneys who are qualified to pursue this litigation.
167. A class action is superior to other methods for the fast and efficient
adjudication of this controversy. A class action regarding the issues in this case does not
create any problems of manageability.
168. The putative class action meets the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
169. The nature of notice to the proposed class required and/or contemplated is
the best practicable method possible and contemplated the defendant’s list when
disclosed would most likely be mailing to the property addresses affected by the filed
foreclosures and internet and other general notices are contemplated to ensure notice.
170. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to
the Class so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate
respecting the Class as a whole.
7. Claims for Relief
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Contract/Unjust Enrichment
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against All Defendants)
171. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 170 in this
cause of action as though fully set forth herein.
172. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
173. Defendant represented to plaintiff that by entering into the Special
Forbearance Agreement, the temporary HAMP agreement, or other written post-default
agreement, plaintiff would be able to save his home in that defendant would not sell
plaintiff’s home, and plaintiff would be able to either cure their default or receive a
permanent loan modification.
174. In reliance on defendants’ representations, plaintiff paid the defendants
after Notice of Default was served and recorded.
175. All of the terms in the forbearance agreements, temporary HAMP
agreements or other post-default agreements were drafted by the defendant, and not
negotiable.
176. Plaintiff had no bargaining power in negotiating the terms of these
agreements or the amounts of payments requested.
177. Defendants took the money then elected to sell the property through
foreclosure.
178. Plaintiff alleges said conduct constituted a breach of good faith and fair
dealing, was unconscionable, unjust and/or coercive.

179. As a result of defendant’s conduct, plaintiff was damaged financially.
180. Plaintiff seeks damages according to proof and reserves the right to seek
equitable remedies of unjust enrichment and disgorgement of profit made on the
Plaintiff under guise of performance of this agreement.
181. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 180 as though set forth in full herein.
182. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and the Subclass described above.
183. Defendant Aurora and the Plaintiffs and Class entered into a Temporary
HAMP agreement as alleged above, a true and correct copy of the Mr. Yau’s agreement
is attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as
184. Defendant Aurora agreed to permanently modify plaintiff and each
members of the Class’s loan if plaintiffs and the Class complied with the terms of the
temporary modification.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Unjust Enrichment/Breach of Temporary HAMP Agreement
(Plaintiffs, Eddie Yau, Gloria Yau, Rob Rhoades, Nicole Rhoades, Steve Burke,
Otis Banks, Richard Apostolos, Joanne Anderson and the HAMP Class against
all Defendants)
Exhibit 3.

185. Plaintiff and the Class complied with the terms of the temporary
modification, except for those terms and conditions that were excused or waived.
186. Defendant unjustifiably and inexcusably breached the contract by failing to
perform its obligations thereunder as described above.
187. As a result of defendant’s breach, plaintiff’s loan was not permanently
modified causing injury to the plaintiff and Class.
188. As a result of Defendants’ unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs and the Class have
sustained damages in an amount to be determined at trial (which include legal and other
fees in excess of the principal and interest due on their loans) and seek full
disgorgement and restitution of Defendants’ enrichments, benefits, and ill-gotten gains
acquired as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged above. Alternatively, Plaintiffs and
the Class seek specific performance or if specific performance cannot be granted,
reformation of the contract from temporary to permanent under the same monthly
payment terms for a term of 30 years or if reformation of the contract cannot be granted,
damages according to proof and reserve the right to seek equitable remedies to rescind
the payments made to defendants under guise of performance of this contract and
disgorgement of profits made on the Plaintiffs and the Class loans above reasonable
rental value of their homes from the time the loans originated.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Breach of Written Contracts – Third Party Beneficiary
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against all Defendants)
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
189. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege every allegation in paragraphs 1 through 188
as though set forth in full herein.
190. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
191. Plaintiffs and the Class members are third party beneficiaries to the
contract attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as and to the Amended
and Restated contract attached hereto and fully incorporated herein as .
192. Plaintiff and the Class are intended beneficiaries under the contracts.
193. Defendants Aurora and DBTCA and DBNTC, jointly and severally,
unjustifiably and inexcusably breached the Contract by failing to perform their
obligations thereunder as described above.
194. Defendants’ breach of the contract resulted in harm to plaintiff.
195. Pursuant to California Civil Code §1559 and/or federal law, plaintiff may
enforce the contract’s provisions.
196. Plaintiffs and the Class seek specific performance or if specific
performance cannot be granted, reformation of the contract from temporary to
permanent under the same monthly payment terms for a term of 30 years or if
reformation of the contract cannot be granted, damages according to proof and reserve
the right to seek equitable remedies to rescind the payments made to defendants under
phs 1 through 196 as though fully set forth herein.
198. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
199. An actual controversy exists between plaintiff and defendant concerning
their respective rights and duties pertaining to the subject property and described
transactions because plaintiff alleges there was a cure and reinstatement by mutual
consent.
200. As a result, plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration that
the default was cured, plaintiff is entitled to reconveyance upon payment of subsequent
sums and the defendant has no ability to foreclose on plaintiff’s home.
201. Such a declaration is appropriate at this time so that plaintiff may
determine his or her rights and duties before the subject property is sold at a foreclosure
sale.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief – Cure and Reinstatement by Mutual Consent
(All plaintiffs and classes against all defendants)
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief – One Action Rule
(All plaintiffs and classes against all defendants)
202. Plaintiff incorporated in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 201 and the allegations in the Second cause of action as though
fully set forth herein.
203. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
204. An actual controversy exists between plaintiff and defendant concerning
their respective rights and duties pertaining to the subject property and described
transactions because plaintiff alleges the defendant violated the One Action Rule so
defendant is reduced to the status of unsecured creditor, entitling plaintiff to injunctive
relief, attorney fees and costs of suit.
205. As a result, plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration the
defendants are reduced to the status of unsecured creditor(s), the defendants have no
ability to foreclose on plaintiff’s home as unsecured creditors, and plaintiff is entitled to
reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
206. Such a declaration is appropriate at this time so that plaintiff may
determine his or her rights and duties before the subject property is sold at a foreclosure
sale.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief
Improper Application and/or Calculation of Payments, Fees and Costs
(All plaintiffs and classes against all defendants)
207. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 206 as though fully set forth herein.
208. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
209. An actual controversy exists between plaintiff and defendant concerning
their respective rights and duties pertaining to the subject property and described
transactions because plaintiff alleges a breach of the obligation for which the deed of
trust is security has not occurred or is excused because the beneficiary improperly
applied and/or calculated plaintiff’s payments, costs, fees, insurance, taxes and other
charges prior to, during, and/or after default.
210. As a result, plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration of
plaintiff’s and defendant’s respective rights and duties; specifically that plaintiff did not
breach his or her obligations and as such the Notice of default and election to sell was
null and void.
211. Such a declaration is appropriate at this time so that plaintiff may
determine his or her rights and duties before the subject property is sold at a foreclosure
sale.
212. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
211 as though fully set out herein.
213. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
214. Consent to the special forbearance was not real or free in that it was
obtained solely through fraud and misrepresentations as herein alleged.
215. Plaintiffs thus seek to rescind the agreements under California Civil Code
section 1689(b)(1). Plaintiffs have retained no consideration provided by defendants
Aurora or Deutsche Bank that can be tendered back to Aurora or Deutsche Bank prior to
rescission.
216. Aurora led plaintiff to believe that it wanted to help Plaintiff maintain
ownership of their homes.
217. Aurora represented it wanted to help Plaintiff maintain ownership of his
home through the language of the special forbearance agreement which states
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud/Misrepresentation of Material Fact)
[By all plaintiffs and classes against all defendants)
“WHEREAS, Customer has requested and Lender has agreed to allow Customer to
repay the Arrearage pursuant to a loan work-out arrangement on the terms set forth
herein.” Aurora led Plaintiff to believe that their arrearage in payments that led to
default would be repaid if they made the payments under the special forbearance
agreement.
218. Plaintiff reasonably relied on defendant’s representations which led
Plaintiff to believe that the default on his home would be cured and his loan would
eventually be reinstated under the agreement.
219. At the time that Aurora made these representations, Aurora know or should
have known that they were not true.
220. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that Aurora would
ensure that the requested payments were never enough to repay the arrearage due to the
way the payments were applied.
221. Plaintiff is informed and believes and further alleges thereon that the notice
of default was on file before the special forbearance was offered so that Aurora could
execute the Trustee’s sale and foreclose after obtaining the payments knowing that the
arrearage would not be repaid.
222. Aurora made these representations with the purpose of persuading Plaintiff
to enter into the Special Forbearance agreements and to continue to make payments of
thousands of dollars.
223. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these representations.
224. Plaintiff would not have entered into the special forbearance agreement and
paid thousands of dollars to defendants Aurora and Deutsch Bank after default had he
known that he would not have had a genuine opportunity to save his home.
225. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct plaintiff has been financially
injured in an amount to be proven at trial and his credit has been damaged.
226. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 225 as though fully set forth herein.
227. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
228. Defendants beneficiary and trustee intend to sell and unless restrained will
sell or cause to be sold, the subject property, all to plaintiff’s great and irreparable injury
in that defendant has given notice that the trustee sale of the property will take place on
March 11, 2011 or anytime thereafter, and if the sales take place as scheduled, plaintiff
will forfeit it.
229. The scheduled sales should be enjoined by virtue of the facts alleged that
said sale is wrongful.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Injunctive Relief
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against all Defendants)
230. Plaintiff has no other plain, speedy, or adequate remedy, and the injunction
relief prayed for below is necessary and appropriate at this time to prevent irreparable
loss to plaintiff’s interests.
231. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 230 as though fully set forth herein.
232. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
233. The amount of money defendant owes to plaintiff or vice versa is unknown
and cannot be determined without an accounting.
234. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 233 as though set forth in full herein.
235. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Accounting
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against all Defendants)
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unfair and Unlawful Practices
(All plaintiffs and Classes against All Defendants)
236. California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) defines unfair competition to
include any “unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent” business act or practice. Cal Bus & Prof
Code 17200 et seq.
237. By its terms, the statute is broad in scope. “It governs „anti-competitive
business practices? as well as injuries to consumers, and has as a major purpose “the
preservation of fair business competition.” [Citations.]” (
(1999) 20 Cal.4th 163, 180.) “By defining
unfair competition to include any „ . . . business act or practice? [citation], the
UCL permits violations of other laws to be treated as unfair competition that is
independently actionable. [Citation.]” ( (2002) 27 Cal.4th 939, 949.)
In addition, under the UCL, “„a practice may be deemed unfair even if not specifically
proscribed by some other law.? [Citation.]” (
(2003) 29 Cal.4th 1134, 1143.) The remedies available under the UCL are
“cumulative . . . to the remedies or penalties available under all other laws of this state.”
(Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17205.) (2010)
238. Defendants have violated Cal Bus & Prof Code §17200 et seq with the
conduct as alleged above.
239. Such acts include but are not limited to:
a. Defendants have a pattern and practice of refusing to provide permanent
loan modifications to those borrowers who loans were placed in temporary
Cel-Tech Communications,
Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Co.
unlawful
Kasky v. Nike, Inc.
Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin
Corp.
Arce v Kaiser Foundations Health Plan, Inc.
HAMP plans but were covered by CDS or other securities/insurance, and
this refusal to provide permanent loan modifications constitutes an
unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice in violation of UCL,
and/or
b. Defendant Aurora engaged in “fraudulent” business practices under the
UCL because its temporary HAMP Agreements and post temporary HAMP
Agreements were intended and likely to mislead the public into believing
that if they made the additional payments that Aurora required they would
have an opportunity to cure their loan defaults with a permanent HAMP
modification or similar type of agreement prior to foreclosure. A true
opportunity to cure their defaults was “material” to Plaintiffs and the Class
within the meaning of , (2009) 46 Cal 4th 298, 325,
and/or
c. Aurora engaged in “unlawful” business practices under the UCL based on
its violations of the Security First Rule, Cal Code Civ Pro 726 which states
in pertinent part:
(a) There can be but one form of action for the recovery of any debt or
the enforcement of any right secured by mortgage upon real property
or an estate for years therein, which action shall be in accordance with
the provisions of this chapter. n the action the court may, by its
judgment, direct the sale of the encumbered real property or estate for
years therein (or so much of the real property or estate for years as
may be necessary), and the application of the proceeds of the sale to
In re Tobacco II Cases
the payment of the costs of court, the expenses of levy and sale, and
the amount due plaintiff, including, where the mortgage provides for
the payment of attorney’s fees, the sum for attorney’s fees as the court
shall find reasonable, not exceeding the amount named in the
mortgage.
(b) The decree for the foreclosure of a mortgage or deed of trust
secured by real property or estate for years therein shall declare the
amount of the indebtedness or right so secured and, unless judgment
for any deficiency there may be between the sale price and the amount
due with costs is waived by the judgment creditor or a deficiency
judgment is prohibited by Section 580b, shall determine the personal
liability of any defendant for the payment of the debt secured by the
mortgage or deed of trust and shall name the defendants against whom
a deficiency judgment may be ordered following the proceedings
prescribed in this section….
d. Aurora engaged in “unfair” business practices under the UCL because it
violated the laws and underlying legislative policies concerning: (1)
foreclosure prevention; (2) the unavailability of deficiency judgments after
a lender exercised its election to sell under non-judicial foreclosure; and (3)
the rights of contracting parties to enjoy the benefits of their agreements
after having paid valuable consideration for such benefits.
240. As a proximate result of defendant Aurora’s conduct, plaintiff was injured
financially and/or to his property rights. Aurora’s conduct as set forth herein resulted in
loss of money or property to Plaintiff.
241. Plaintiff seeks damages, disgorgement of profits on the CD Swaps,
injunctive relief in the form of correction of his/her, their damaged credit, cure of
default and reconveyance of the deed, and any other equitable relief that the court deems
appropriate.
242. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through
241 as though fully set out herein.
243. Plaintiffs bring this claim on their own behalf and on behalf of each
member of the Class and Subclass described above.
244. As more fully described above defendants concealed the following material
facts that they had a duty disclose:
e. Defendants Deutsche Bank and Aurora concealed the material fact that
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas as trustee was the
owner of the note and mortgage loan until after the plaintiffs and Class
were thrown into default on their loans.
f. Defendant Deutsche Bank concealed the material fact that the plaintiffs and
Class’s loans were covered with CDS or other similar security/insurance
after the defendant defaulted the plaintiffs and Class’s loans.
g. Defendant Aurora concealed a material fact that the way the contract was
written between Fannie Mae and Aurora, there was a substantial amount of
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Fraud/Concealment of Material Fact)
(All Plaintiffs and Classes against All Defendants)
loans aimed at receiving a more sustainable and affordable mortgage under
HAMP that would not pass the NPV test because the lenders such as
defendant Deutsche Bank had purchased credit default swaps or other types
of investment security/insurance against these mortgages.
245. In plain language, the very types of mortgages the federal HAMP program
was designed to protect were the very types of mortgages that were not being protected
by the terms of the agreement between Aurora and Fannie Mae. The lenders like
defendant Deutsche Bank knew it. The servicers such like defendant Aurora knew or
should have known it and the plaintiffs and the Class in this action didn’t have a clue.
246. Aurora was under a duty by the terms of the contract with Fannie Mae to
disclose this material fact to Fannie Mae when it entered into this Agreement or when it
learned of this material fact from defendant Deutsche Bank. The defendants were under
a duty to disclose the owner of the loan.
247. The suppression of this fact was likely to mislead and did mislead Fannie
Mae, the plaintiffs and the Class.
248. The representations and failure to disclose information and suppression of
the information herein alleged to have been made by defendant were made with the
intent to induce plaintiffs and the Class to act in the manner herein alleged in reliance
thereon.
249. In reliance upon the representation that defendants were qualified to offer
the HAMP program to plaintiffs and the Class and without knowing that their loans
were asset-backed pass-through securities held by Deutsche Bank who bought credit
default swaps or other types of investment security/insurance or what that really meant,
the plaintiffs and the members of the Class continued to make payments on their
mortgage after they were in default and entered into the temporary HAMP agreements
as described above believing if they continued to make their payments they would be
accepted into a permanent HAMP modification.
250. Plaintiffs and the members of the Class, at the time these failures to
disclose and suppressions of facts occurred, and at the time plaintiff took the actions
herein alleged, was ignorant of the existence of the facts which defendant suppressed
and failed to disclose. If plaintiff had been aware of the existence of the facts not
disclosed by defendant, plaintiff would not have paid these additional amounts to the
defendants after default; may not have even signed the note or mortgage loan; and most
likely would not have relied on defendant Aurora’s representations which lulled them
into default without looking beyond the servicer for an alternate solution.
251. As a proximate result of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct as herein alleged,
plaintiffs and the Class were induced to disclose all of their private financial information
and pay Aurora additional monies without any real consideration by reason of which
plaintiffs and the Class have been damaged in the sum of their payments so made.
252. Plaintiffs and the Class seek specific performance or if specific
performance cannot be granted, reformation or if reformation cannot be granted, offset,
equitable remedies to rescind the payments made to defendants under guise of
performance of this contract and disgorgement of profits made on the Plaintiffs and the
Class loans above reasonable rental value of their homes from the time the loans
originated.
253. The aforementioned conduct of defendant(s) was an intentional
misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the defendant(s)
with the intention on the part of the defendant(s) of thereby depriving plaintiff of
property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that
subjected plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of plaintiff’s
rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
254. Plaintiffs and the Class seek specific performance of the temporary HAMP
agreement by converting it to a permanent modification on the same terms and if
specific performance cannot be granted; rescission of all of the agreements as a result of
these failures of consideration. Plaintiffs have no other adequate remedy at law and will
suffer irreparable harm if the agreements are not rescinded and if the fees paid (which
included legal and other fees not required to be paid under their notes) are not returned.
TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief/Injunction
FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Yau v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Company Americas
(As between plaintiff Gloria Yau and all those similarly situated and all
defendants)
8. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
255. Plaintiff incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in
paragraphs 1 through 254 as though set forth in full herein.
256. Plaintiff Gloria Yau and all those similarly situated always held title in the
home described in the complaint and in the Notice of Default and Foreclosure Sale
attached hereto as exhibits.
257. Plaintiff Gloria Yau was not a signer on the Note and was not a coborrower
on the loan, in fact.
258. Defendants contend that they have the right to non-judicially foreclose on
plaintiff Gloria Yau’s home, and conduct a trustee’s sale relative to that property and
evict her.
259. Plaintiff contends that Defendants do not have a right to foreclose on her
portion of the home.
260. An actual controversy presently exists between Plaintiff Gloria Yau and
Defendants as to the existence of the ability or right to foreclose on her home and evict
her. A judicial decision is necessary and appropriate at this time so that Plaintiff Gloria
Yau and Defendants may ascertain their respective rights relative to Plaintiffs and the
Class’s homes and the appropriate injunction issued.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment
against defendants, Aurora Loan
Services, LLC, DBNTC, DBTCA and each of them, jointly and severally, as
follows:
A judicial determination and decree that:
the plaintiffs have cured their default and plaintiff is entitled to
reconveyance upon payment of subsequent sums;
the defendants, and each of them, have no legal right or authority to
foreclose on plaintiff’s home,
that the defendant is reduced to the status of an unsecured creditor,
that defendant improperly applied and/or calculated plaintiff’s payments
requiring a full accounting;
B. An accounting;
C. A permanent or final injunction to force defendants to request immediate
removal of default or foreclosure status and all other derogatory/negative
information from the Plaintiff’s credit reports and to refrain such derogatory
reporting in the future;
A permanent or final injunction, to effect full and fair relief consistent with the
law, including but not limited to forcing defendants to reconvey the deed of the
trust to the plaintiffs and Class and refrain from holding the debt out as
“secured” to any other creditors. Such injunctive relief could include, case
dismissals, rescissions of sales, reconveyance of deeds, cures of defaults,
reinstatement of loans at the principal and rate consistent with the rest of the
relief afforded by way of this Complaint.
Restitution to the Plaintiffs and the Class in amounts to be proven at trial;
Statutory damages and civil penalties;
Disgorgement of profits;
Costs of this action, including the fees and costs of experts;
Attorneys’ fees;
Prejudgment interest at the statutory rate;
Post-judgment interest;
Exemplary and Punitive Damages; and
Grant plaintiffs and the class such other and further relief as this Court finds
necessary and proper.
Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial.
Dated: March 11, 2011 LAW OFFICES OF LENORE ALBERT
By _______________
LENORE ALBERT, ESQ.
Attorney for the Plaintiffs and the Class

Yau_-_complaint_First_Amended_Pleading.78103044

Wrongfull foreclosure lawsuit vallejo

http://ahref=

http://www.balitangamerica.tv/foreclosure-lawsuits/?sms_ss=facebook&at_xt=4dd2daa3410e4e26%2C0