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
38.017951
-122.135262
Mortgage Asistance 877-227-4341 