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

14 Dec

No. F059476

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                                                                                                                           

Wells Fargo in Laredo, Texas

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. (9th 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. (9th 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

Advertisements

2 Responses to “MARK J. DEMUCHA AND CHERYL M. DEMUCHA, a Reply Brief that worked”

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. The Trustee sale can be set aside « Timothymccandless's Weblog - December 20, 2011

    […] MARK J. DEMUCHA AND CHERYL M. DEMUCHA, a Reply Brief that worked (timothymccandless.wordpress.com) […]

  2. 2932.5 is dead in 2nd district they can’t read “or other encumbrance” « Timothymccandless's Weblog - January 10, 2012

    […] MARK J. DEMUCHA AND CHERYL M. DEMUCHA, a Reply Brief that worked (timothymccandless.wordpress.com) […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: