TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ.

SBN 147715
1
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS
2 13240 Amargosa Road
Victorville, California 92392
3
(760) 951-3663 Telephone
4
(909) 382-9956 Facsimile
5

6 Attorney for Plaintiff

7
Marciano E. Jose Jr.
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
IN AND FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
9

10
Marciano E. Jose Jr. CASE NO:
11
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR:
12
MONETARY DAMAGES
13 V. STATUTORY DAMAGES, PUNITIVE
DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
14 DECLARATORY RELIEF
15 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, CODE §2923.6;
16 INC.; CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE 2. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND
CORP.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC PROFESSIONS CODE §17200;
17 3. BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.;
AND FAIR DEALING;
18
and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive 4. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
5. VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1572;
19
6. FRAUD;
Defendants. 7. DECLARATORY RELIEF;
20
8. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;
21 9. TO SET ASIDE FORECLOSURE
10. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL
22 CODES §2923.5 AND §2924.

23

24 Plaintiff, Jose E. Marciano Jr., (Hereinafter referred as “Plaintiff”) alleges herein as follows:
25 I.

26

27 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

28

1
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 1. Plaintiff, Jose E. Marciano Jr., at all times relevant has been a resident of the County of
1

2 San Bernardino, State of California and the owner of Real Property, including but not

3 limited to the property at issue herein, 9379 Agave Drive, Hesperia, California 92345.
4
The Legal descriptions are as follows:
5
APN: 3057-022-04-0-000
6

7
2. Defendant, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC. (hereinafter
8
“GREENPOINT”) at all times herein mentioned was doing business in the County of
9

10
San Bernardino, State of California and was the original Lender for Plaintiff’s Trust

11 Deed and Note.

12
3. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., (hereinafter “MERS”) at all times
13
herein mentioned was presumed to being doing business in the County of San
14
Bernardino, State of California and alleged to be the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiffs’
15

16 Real Property as described above and as Situated in San Bernardino County California

17 4. Defendant CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE, CORP. (hereinafter “CAL-

18
WESTERN”) at all times herein mentioned was doing business in the County of San
19
Bernardino, State of California and was listed on the Notice of Default for the above
20
named Real Property.
21

22 5. Defendant, CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE, CORP (hereinafter “CAL-

23 WESTERN RECONVEYANCE”) at all times herein mentioned was doing business in

24
the County of San Bernardino, State of California and was listed on the Notice of
25
Trustee’s Sale for the above named Real Property.
26

27
6. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as

28 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious

2
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 names and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien,
1

2 or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s title, or any

3 cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true
4
names and capacities when ascertained.
5
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein
6

7
mentioned each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of

8 the remaining defendants. Plaintiff alleges that each and every defendant alleged herein
9 ratified the conduct of each and every other defendant. Plaintiff further alleges that at
10
all times said defendants were was acting within the purpose and scope of such agency
11
and employment.
12

13 8. Plaintiff purchased the foregoing Real Property and on or about February 7, 2007 his

14 purchase through GREENPOINT by virtue of a Trust Deed and Notes securing the
15
Loans. (See Exhibit “A”)
16
9. Plaintiff is informed and believe that directly after GREENPOINT caused Mortgage
17
Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) to go on title as the “Nominee Beneficiary”
18

19 this is routinely done in order to hide the true identity of the successive Beneficiaries

20 when and as the loan was sold. MERS, however, acted as if they were the actual
21
beneficiary although a Nominee is an entity in whose name a security is registered
22
through true ownership is held by another party, in other words MERS is not the
23

24
Beneficiary but is used to hide the true identity of the Beneficiary. Based on this

25 failure to disclose, and the lack of consideration paid by MERS, Plaintiffs allege that
26 the Deed of Trust were never perfected and are a nullity as the MERS recording
27

28

3
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 separates the Debt from the Lien, and this is more so especially upon a sale of the Note
1

2 and Trust Deed.

3 10. Plaintiff further alleges that MERS acts as a Nominee for more than one principal,
4
and conceals their identity therefore if a Nominee is the same as an agent MERS
5
cannot act as an agent for multiple Banks, insurance and title companies and Mortgage
6

7
Companies because of a serious Conflict of interest. In addition Plaintiff allege that a

8 Deed of Trust cannot lawfully be held by a Nominee who has no financial interest in
9 the instrument without disclosing the identity of the actual Beneficiary, and that if a
10
party with no interest in the Note records it in their name the recorded deed is Nullity.
11
11. Plaintiff further alleges that MERS failure to transfer beneficial interests as the Note
12

13 and deed are sold further renders the Deed recording a nullity.

14 12. Plaintiff further alleges that on or about July 15, 2008 , Defendants allege that Plaintiff
15
became in default of his loan. (See Exhibit “B”) However this default of the loan was
16
occasioned by the high payments, the structure of the loan and interest rate.
17
Furthermore, Plaintiff was not in default because of the prior breach of the terms of the
18

19 notes by Defendants, and each of them, and therefore, the performance of Plaintiff is

20 excused. In addition, the Declaration of Due Diligence attached to the Notice of

21
Default is void because the required “penalty of perjury” and signature of a person with
22
actual knowledge is missing which will be discussed later in the complaint.
23

24
13. Plaintiff further alleges that on or about April 20, 2009, Defendants recorded a Notice

25 of Trustee’s Sale. (See Exhibit “C”) The Notice of Trustee’s Sale is invalid because
26 the Notice of Default and/or Notice of Trustee’s Sale did not have the required valid
27
Declaration of Due Diligence as discussed later in the complaint.
28

4
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 14. Plaintiff alleges that the loan contract was procedurally and substantively
1

2 unconscionable because while the Plaintiff’s stated income at the time of making the

3 loan was unknown to plaintiff, whereas, the payment on the loan exceeded the
4
Plaintiffs’ entire spendable income, the employees and/or agents of GREENPOINT did
5
not disclose to Plaintiff the terms and conditions of the repayment, and Plaintiff
6

7
executed documents without any explanation whatsoever.

8 15. Plaintiff alleges that the employees and/or agents of GREENPOINT represented that
9 said employees and/or agents could work-around the fact that Plaintiff’s credit was not
10
in good standing and could get Plaintiff approved for the loan. Defendants did not
11
disclose at any time to Plaintiff that the initial loan payment would exceed his entire
12

13 income. Plaintiff alleges that the loan contract, deed of trust and accompanying

14 documents were offered to Plaintiff on a take it or leave it basis.

15
16. Further, on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants charged and
16
obtained improper fees for the placement of their loan as “sub-prime” when they
17
qualified for a prime rate mortgage which would have generated less in fees and
18

19 interest.

20 17. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the service of the purported note was,
21
without their knowledge, by some means transferred from or by Defendant
22
GREENPOINT either completely or by association or other means to MERS who
23

24
unknown to Plaintiff provided services in various forms to be determined to others

25 which were of such a nature to render them a “Servicer.”

26 18. Also on February 7, 2007, Plaintiff executed a “Deed of Trust” which cited the
27
lenders as GREENPOINT and stating in the definition section that:
28

5
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 (E) “MERS” is a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERS is a separate
1

2 corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and

3 assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.

4
19. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant GREENPOINT and a superior bargaining strength
5
over Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff is relegated only the opportunity to adhere to the
6

7
contract or reject it, that GREENPOINT drafted all of the documents related to the

8 loan, that no negotiations were possible between Plaintiff and GREENPOINT, and
9 MERS, and that the contract was a contract of adhesion.
10
20. Plaintiff alleges that the loan was unconscionable in that the repayment terms were
11
unfair and unduly oppressive, because the payments exceeded Plaintiffs entire
12

13 combined income and as such, Defendants, and each of them, cannot enforce the terms

14 and conditions of the loan against Plaintiffs, and any non-judicial foreclosure arising
15
there from is void.
16
21. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants, and each of
17
them, entered into a fraudulent scheme, the purpose of which was to make a loan to
18

19 Plaintiff, which Defendants, and each of them, were keenly aware that Plaintiff could

20 not afford, at a cost way above the then prevailing market rate, made loans to Plaintiff
21
and falsely represented to Plaintiff that they could not qualify for any other financing,
22
that Plaintiff could not qualify under any reasonably underwriting guidelines, that such
23

24
scheme was devised to extract illegal and undisclosed compensation from Plaintiff by

25 virtue of an undisclosed yield spread premium and which Defendants, and each of
26 them, shared in some presently unknown percentage.
27

28

6
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that their loans after they were
1

2 originated and funded were sold on multiple occasions, bundled into a group of Trust

3 Deeds and subsequently sold to investors as a Derivative, “Mortgage Backed Security”,

4
and that therefore none of these defendants, and each of them, owned this loan, or Note
5
and cannot be and are not the Beneficiary, or lawfully appointed trustee, and have no
6

7
right to declare a default, to cause notices of default to issue or to be recorded, or to

8 foreclose on Plaintiffs interest in the subject property, Defendants, and each of them,
9 were not the note Holder or the Note holder in due course or any Beneficiary at any
10
time in regards to this loan.
11
23. That none of these Defendants, and each of them, were ever disclosed as the
12

13 beneficiary in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2924 et seq.

14 Moreover The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1137, impacting residential
15
mortgage lenders, foreclosure procedures and eviction procedures. The Governor has
16
signed this law into effect and it has taken effect as Urgency Legislation. The law has
17
three pertinent parts. It amends California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(b)
18

19 regarding notice of an eviction. It adds a provision strengthening the right of local

20 governments to adopt “blight” ordinances and moreover, it modifies the non-judicial

21
foreclosure procedures set forth in California Civil Code Section 2924. The legislature
22
recognized that the need for such legislation by stating as follows:
23

24

25
“…It is essential to the economic health of California for the state to ameliorate
the deleterious effects on the state economy and local economies and the
26 California housing market that will result from the continued foreclosures of
residential properties in unprecedented numbers by modifying the foreclosures
27 process to require mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents to contact
28
borrowers and explore options that could avoid foreclosure…”

7
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 This law is effective immediately and extends on to January 1, 2013. This law
1

2 impacts owner-occupied primary residences only and only loans made on January 1, 2003

3 and December 3, 2007. California Civil Code Section 2924 states in part:
4
Foreclosure:
5
The primary purpose for the Statute is foreclosure procedures and imposes an
6

7
unprecedented duty upon lenders relating to contact with borrowers. The Statute amends

8 provisions of the non-judicial foreclosure procedures found in California Code of Civil

9 Procedure §2924, by adding requirements for meetings, due diligence, and notification of
10
counseling. Some of the more important provisions include all of the following:
11

12
• The lender, beneficiary or authorized agent must wait thirty (30) days after contact is
13
made with the borrower, or thirty days (30) after satisfying the due diligence requirements
14
set forth in the Statute, in order to commence the filing of a Notice of Default.
15

16 • The contact requires that the borrower’s financial situation be assessed and requires that

17 the borrower and lender explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.
18
This was not done by plaintiff or the lender.
19
• The Statute requires the lender or their authorized agent to advise the borrower that the
20
borrower has the right to a subsequent meeting within fourteen (14) days of the initial
21

22 contact.

23 • The borrower is to be provided a toll free telephone number available at HUD for
24
certified housing counseling agencies.
25
• The borrower may designate an authorized agent, such as a counseling service,
26

27
REALTOR® or attorney, to act as their authorized agent but must expressly approve any

28 workout agreement reached by that agent.

8
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 • The Notice of Default must include a declaration indicating that the lender has made the
1

2 contact or made a diligent effort to make the contact and will not apply in the event of

3 surrender of the property.

4
• If the Notice of Default was already recorded prior to the date of the Statute, this
5
declaration must be included in Notices of Sale.
6

7
• In the event that the lender is initially unable to contact the borrower, they must attempt

8 telephone contact on three separate occasions at three different times.

9 • The lender must provide the borrower with an (800) number that will be answered by a
10
live person during normal business hours and provide certain links to web pages. The web
11
page must be a prominent link and must link to the following information:
12

13 - Options for borrowers who cannot afford their payments.

14 - A list of financial documents to gather when discussing their options.

15
- A toll-free telephone number available by HUD for certified counseling services.
16
- A toll-free telephone number for borrower’s to discuss options to avoid foreclosure with
17
the lender or lender’s representative.
18

19 Defendants did not fully comply with this code therefore the title is not duly

20 perfected.
21

22 24. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that none of these alleged
23 beneficiaries or representatives of the Beneficiary have the original note to prove that
24
they are in fact the party authorized to conduct the foreclosure.
25
25. Plaintiff further alleges that the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property was not
26

27 executed in accordance with the requirements of California Civil Code Sections

28 2923.5, 2932.5 and Commercial Code section 3302 et seq.

9
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 26. That the notices and foreclosure failed to conform with the provisions of California
1

2 Civil Code Sections 2923.5, 2932.5 et seq., and Commercial Code section 3302

3 et seq. Furthermore, the Notice of Default did not have a penalty of perjury disclosure,
4
nor is the agent of personal knowledge. Therefore, it is not a valid declaration.
5
27. Plaintiff further alleges that California Civil Code section 2924 et seq. and its subparts
6

7
are being applied to Plaintiff in a manner that is unlawful, because at least in part the

8 party acting as the Trustee proceeded with the foreclosure of Plaintiff Subject Property
9 notwithstanding the fact that the Trustee was not in possession of the original Note,
10
that the Note when it was assigned, the assignment by GREENPOINT and its assigns,
11
did not covey the power of sale because it violated the terms of California Civil Code
12

13 section 2932.5, that the assignment when it was made, that the Note executed by

14 Plaintiff was no longer a negotiable instrument because the assignment was not
15
physically applied to the Note pursuant to the holding of Pribus v. Bush, (1981) 118
16
Cal.App.3d 1003, 173 Cal.Rptr. 747, although there was sufficient room on the back of
17
the Note to complete the assignment, and as such the foreclosure of Plaintiff’s subject
18

19 property did not conform to the strict mandates of Civil Code section 2924.76.

20 28. Plaintiff alleges that the employees and/or agents of GREENPOINT represented that
21
said employees and/or agents could work-around the fact that Plaintiff’s credit was not
22
in good standing and could get Plaintiff approved for the loan. Defendants did not
23

24
disclose at any time to Plaintiff that the initial loan payment would exceed their entire

25 income.
26 29. Plaintiff alleges that the loan contract, deed of trust and accompanying documents
27
were offered to Plaintiff on a take it or leave it basis.
28

10
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 30. That by virtue of the method and manner of Defendants carrying out Civil Code
1

2 section 2924 et seq., the foreclosure of the Subject Property is void ab initio as a matter

3 of law.
4
31. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are engaged in and continue to
5
engage in violations of California law including but, not limited to: Civil Code section
6

7
2924 et seq. and 2932.5 et seq., and unless restrained will continue to engage in such

8 misconduct, and that a public benefit necessitates that Defendants be restrained from
9 such conduct in the future.
10
II.
11
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE FINDINGS
12

13
32. Recently, the California Legislature found and declared the following in enacting
14
California Civil Code 2923.6 on July 8, 2008:
15

16

17 (a) California is facing an unprecedented threat to its state economy because

18 of skyrocketing residential property foreclosure rates in California. Residential

19 property foreclosures increased sevenfold from 2008 to 2007, in 2007, more than

20 84,375 properties were lost to foreclosure in California, and 254,824 loans went

21 into default, the first step in the foreclosure process.

22

23 (b) High foreclosure rates have adversely affected property values in

24 California, and will have even greater adverse consequences as foreclosure rates

25 continue to rise. According to statistics released by the HOPE NOW Alliance the

26 number of completed California foreclosure sales in 2007’ increased almost

27 threefold from 2002 in the first quarter to 5574 in the fourth quarter of that year.

28 Those same statistics report that 10,556 foreclosure sales, almost double the

11
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
1 number for the prior quarter, were completed just in the month of January 2008.
2 More foreclosures means less money for schools, public safety, and other key
3 services.
4

5 (c) Under specified circumstances, mortgage lenders and servicers are

6 authorized under their pooling and servicing agreements to modify mortgage loans
7 when the modification is in the best interest of investors. Generally, that
8 modification may be deemed to be in the best interest of investors when the net
9 present value of the income stream of the modified loan is greater than the amount
10 that would be recovered through the disposition of the real property security
11 through a foreclosure sale.
12

13 (d) It is essential to the economic health of California for the state to

14 ameliorate the deleterious effects on the state economy and local economies and
15 the California housing market that will result from the continued foreclosures of
16 residential properties in unprecedented numbers by modifying the foreclosure
17 process to require mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents to contact
18 borrowers and explore options that could avoid foreclosure. These Changes in
19 accessing the state's foreclosure process are essential to ensure that the process
20 does not exacerbate the current crisis by adding more foreclosures to the glut of
21 foreclosed properties already on the market when a foreclosure could have been
22 avoided. Those additional foreclosures will further destabilize the housing market
23 with significant, corresponding deleterious effects on the local and state economy.
24
(e) According to a survey released by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
25
Corporation (Freddie Mac) on January 31, 2008, 57 percent of the nation’s late-
26
paying borrowers do not know their lenders may offer alternative to help them
27
avoid foreclosure.
28

12
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
1

2 (f) As reflected in recent government and industry-led efforts to help troubled

3 borrowers, the mortgage foreclosure crisis impacts borrowers not only in
4 nontraditional loans, but also many borrowers in conventional loans.
5

6 (g) This act is necessary to avoid unnecessary foreclosures of residential

7 properties and thereby provide stability to California's statewide and regional
8 economies and housing market by requiring early contact and communications
9 between mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents and specified borrowers
10 to explore options that could avoid foreclosure and by facilitating the modification
11 or restructuring of loans in appropriate circumstances.
12
33. “Operation Malicious Mortgage’ is a nationwide operation coordinated by the U.S.
13

14 Department of Justice and the FBI to identify, arrest, and prosecute mortgage fraud

15 violators.” San Diego Union Tribune, June 19, 2008. As shown below, Plaintiffs were
16
victims of such mortgage fraud.
17
34. "Home ownership is the foundation of the American Dream. Dangerous mortgages
18

19
have put millions of families in jeopardy of losing their homes.” CNN Money,

20 December 24, 2007. The Loan which is the subject of this action to Plaintiff is of such
21 character.
22
35. "Finding ways to avoid preventable foreclosures is a legitimate and important concern
23
of public policy. High rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have substantial
24

25 spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets and the broader

26 economy. Therefore, doing what we, can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just
27
in the interest of the lenders and borrowers. It's in everybody's best interest." Ben
28
Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, May 9, 2008.

13
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 36. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had the duty to prevent such foreclosure, but failed to
1

2 so act.

3 37. "Most of these homeowners could avoid foreclosure if present loan holders would
4
modify the existing loans by lowering the interest rate and making it fixed, capitalizing
5
the arrearages, and forgiving a portion of the loan. The result would benefit lenders,
6

7
homeowners, and their communities.” CNN Money, id.

8 38. On behalf of President Bush, Secretary Paulson has encouraged lenders to voluntarily
9 freeze interest rates on adjustable-rate mortgages. Mark Zandl, chief economist for
10
Mood’s commented, “There is no stick in the plan. There are a significant number of
11
investors who would rather see homeowners default and go into foreclosure.” San
12

13 Diego Union Tribune, id.

14 39. “Fewer than l%· of homeowners have experienced any help "from the Bush-Paulson
15
plan.” San Diego Union Tribune, id. Plaintiffs' are not of that sliver that have
16
obtained help.
17
40. The Gravamen of Plaintiff's complaint is that Defendants violated State laws which
18

19 were specifically enacted to protect such abusive, deceptive, and unfair conduct by

20 Defendants, and that Defendants cannot legally enforce a non-judicial foreclosure.

21
41. Plaintiff is a "debtor" as defined by the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code
22
1788.2(h).
23

24
42. Defendants are engaged in the collection of debts from consumers using the mail and

25 telephone.
26 43. Defendants regularly attempt to collect consumer debts alleged to be due to another.
27

28

14
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 44. Defendants are "debt collectors" as defined by the Rosenthal Act, California Civil
1

2 Code §1788.2(c).

3 45. The purported debt which Defendants attempted to collect from Plaintiff was a
4
"consumer debt" as defined by the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code §1788.2(f).
5

7 Defendants Are Not Holders In Due Course Since Plaintiff Was Duped Into An

8 Improper Loan And There Is No Effective Endorsement:

9
46. Plaintiff incurred a "debt" as that term is defined by California Civil 17 Code
10

11
§1788(d), when he obtained a Loan on their Personal Residence.

12 47. The loan is memorialized via a Deed of Trust and Promissory Note, each of which
13 contain an attorney fees provision for the lender should they prevail in the enforcement
14
of their contractual rights.
15
48. Plaintiff has no experience beyond basic financial matters.
16

17 49. Plaintiff was never explained the full terms of their loan, including but not limited to

18 the rate of interest how the interest rate would be calculated, what the payment
19
schedule should be, the risks and disadvantages of the loan, the prepay penalties, the
20
maximum amount the loan payment could arise to.
21
50. Certain fees in obtaining the loan, were also not explained to the Plaintiff, including
22

23 but not limited to "underwriting fees," "MERS registration fee," "appraisal fees,"

24 "broker fees”, “loan tie in fees," etc.

25
51. A determination of whether Plaintiff would be able to make the payments as specified
26
in the loan was never truly made.
27

28
52. Plaintiff's income was never truly verified.

15
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 53. Plaintiff was rushed when signing the documents; the closing process provided no
1

2 time for review and took minutes to accomplish.

3 54. Plaintiff could not understand any of the documents and signed them based on
4
representations and the trust and confidence the Plaintiff placed in Defendants’
5
predecessors.
6

7
55. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants and/or Defendants' predecessors

8 established and implemented the policy of failing to disclose material facts about the
9 Loan, failing to verify Plaintiff's income, falsifying Plaintiff's income, agreeing to
10
accept a Yield Spread Premium, and causing Plaintiff's Loan to include a penalty for
11
early payment.
12

13 56. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors

14 established such policy so as to profit, knowing that Plaintiff would be unable to

15
perform future terms of the Loan.
16
57. Plaintiff was a victim of Fraud in the Factum since the forgoing misrepresentations
17
caused them to obtain the home loan without accurately realizing, the risks, duties, or
18

19 obligations incurred.

20 58. The Promissory Note contains sufficient space on the note itself for endorsement
21
whereby any assignment by allonge is ineffective pursuant to Pribus v. Bush, 118 Cal.
22
App. 3d 1003 (May 12, 1981).
23

24
59. Defendants are not holders in due course due to Fraud in Factum and ineffective

25 endorsement.
26

27

28

16
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
1 Defendants’ Lack Standing To Conduct A Non-Judicial Foreclosure
2 Pursuant To California Civil Code 2932.5
3

4 60. Defendants have no standing to enforce a non-judicial foreclosure.

5 61. Defendants are strangers to this transaction, and have no authority to go forward with
6
the foreclosure and Trustee's Sale.
7
62. Plaintiff executed a Promissory Note (hereinafter the “Note”) and a Deed of Trust to
8

9
GREENPOINT. (See “Exhibit A”)

10 63. GREENPOINT is the Lender and only party entitled to enforce the Note and any
11 security interest with it.
12
64. CAL-WESTERN is not listed anywhere in the Deed of Trust or Promissory Note.
13
65. CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE is not listed anywhere in the Deed of Trust or
14

15 Promissory Note

16 66. In California, California Civil Code § 2932.5 governs the Power of sale under an
17
assigned mortgage, and provides that the power of sale can only vest in a person
18
entitled to money payments: "Where a power to sell real property is given to a
19
mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of
20

21 money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment

22 becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of
23
sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and
24
recorded.”
25

26
67. The San Bernardino County Recorder's Office does not contain any evidence of a

27 recorded assignment from GREENPOINT.

28 68. GREENPOINT has never assigned their rights under the Note.

17
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 69. The power of sale may not be exercised by any of the Defendants since there was
1

2 never an' acknowledged and recorded assignment pursuant to California Civil Code §

3 2932.5.
4
70. Since the Defendants did not comply with California Civil Code§2932.5, the Notice
5
of Default provisions of California Civil Code § 2924 and Notice of Trustee’s Sale
6

7
were likewise never complied with.

8 71. CAL-WESTERN never complied with the Notice of Default and/or Notice of
9 Trustee’s Sale provisions of California Civil Code §2924. (See Exhibit “B”)
10
72. CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE never complied with the Notice of Default
11
and/or Notice of Trustee’s Sale provisions of California Civil Code §2924.
12

13 Defendants’ Lack of Standing to Enforce A Non-Judicial Foreclosure Pursuant To

14 California Commercial Code § 3301
15

16 73. A promissory note is person property and the deed of trust securing a note is a mere

17 incident of the debt it secures, with no separable ascertainable market value.

18
California Civil Code §§ 657, 663. Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co., 183 Cal. App.
19
3d 57, 62.
20
74. Any transfers of the notice and mortgage fundamentally flow back to the note:
21

22 "The assignment of a mortgage without a transfer of the Indebtedness confers no right,

23 since debt and security are inseparable and the mortgage alone is not a subject of
24
transfer, " Hyde v. Mangan (1891) 88 Cal. 319, 26 P 180, 1891 Cal LEXIS 693;
25
Johnson v, Razy (1919)181 Cal 342, 184 P 657; 1919 Cal LEXIS 358;
26

27
Bowman v. Sears (1923, Cal App) 63 Cal App 235, 218 P 489, 1923 Cal App LEXIS

28 199; Treat v. Burns (1932) 216 Cal 216, 13 P2d,724, 1932 Cal LEXIS 554.

18
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 80. ''A mortgagee's purported assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the
1

2 debt which is secured is a legal nullity.” Kelley V. Upshaw (1952) 39 Cal 2d 179,

3 246 P2d 23, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 248.

4
75. ''A trust deed has no assignable quality independent of the debt; it may not be
5
assigned or transferred apart from the debt; and an attempt to assign the trust deed
6

7
without a transfer of the debt is without effect.” Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc.

8 (1969 Cal. App. 1st Dist) 270 Cal. App. 2d 543, 76 Cal. Rptr. 529, 1969 Cal. App.
9 LEXIS 1556.
10
76. The Promissory Note is a negotiable instrument.
11
77. Transferring a Deed of Trust by itself does not allow enforcement of the instrument
12

13 unless the Promissory Note is properly negotiated.

14 78. Where an instrument has been transferred, enforceability is determined based upon
15
possession.
16
79. California Commercial Code § 3301 limits a negotiable instrument's enforcement to
17
the following:
18

19 "Person entitled. to enforce" an Instrument means (a) the holder of the instrument,

20 (b) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or
21
(c) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the
22
instrument pursuant to
23

24
Section 3309 or subdivision (d) of Section 3418. A person may be a person entitled

25 to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument
26 or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.
27
80. None of the Defendants are present holders of the instrument.
28

19
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 81. None of the Defendants are nonholders in possession of the instrument who has rights
1

2 of the holder.

3 82. None of the Defendants are entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section
4
3309 or subdivision (d) of Section 3418.
5
83. Defendants have no enforceable rights under California Commercial Code 3301(a) to
6

7
enforce the negotiable instrument.

8 84. Since there is no right to enforce the negotiable instrument, the Notice of Default
9 provisions of California Civil Code § 2924 and Notice of Sale provisions of California
10
Civil Code § 2924(f) were likewise never complied with, and there is no subsequent
11
incidental right to enforce any deed of trust and conduct a non-judicial foreclosure.
12

13 85. That the Trustee and the loan servicer are acting as agents of the Beneficiary and

14 signing documents as the agent of the agent of the agent of the Beneficiary for
15
Plaintiffs Notes and the notices therein, notwithstanding the fact that the Notes were
16
not negotiable prior to the sale of the Subject Property.
17
86. That by virtue of the method and manner of Defendants carrying out Civil Code
18

19 section 2924 et seq., the foreclosure of the Subject Property is void ab initio as a matter

20 of law.
21
87. MERS was NOT and never has been a Beneficiary of this loan or any other. MERS
22
is solely a registration service for tracking these Trust Deeds and mortgages and also
23

24
the Notes. MERS records these Trust Deeds in their name as a “nominee”, with NO

25 actual ownership interest in these Loans, the purpose is allegedly to allow the sale and
26 transfer of these instruments without the need for further recordation, however what
27
actually occurs is that the real Beneficiary remains obscured, and unknown. In
28

20
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 addition MERS is NOT a TRUSTEE and has no right to collect any TD payments on
1

2 the Note, neither does MERS have any right to enforce the notes or to be a party in

3 any Foreclosure proceedings. Yet MERS has represented itself under oath in this case
4
to be the BENEFICIARY and in that “stated” but “false” capacity has unlawfully
5
nominated a successive trustee.
6

7
88. While MERS remain on title as a “nominee” for the TD and Note both are sold on

8 several occasions afterward and ultimately bundled as a security and sold to a final
9 investor. MERS actually helps to conceal the real beneficiary which is in violation of
10
California statutory law, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 2924 et. Seq. The Beneficiary is
11
completely shielded and not disclosed as required. Also the forms that they used to
12

13 give Notices are defective.

14 89. Evidence in prior cases has demonstrated that MERS is nothing more than a
15
Registration Service, and does not even service the loan. MERS cannot prove or show
16
ownership in the form of an “original Note” (i) with proper indorsements, to them, or
17
that they are actually in the chain of ownership and (ii) to establish the actual
18

19 relationship of the holder of the Note, as a Holder in Due course, and (iii) with the right

20 to enforce the Note. April Charney, a lawyer at Jacksonville Are Legal Aid in Florida,
21
in 2007 had over 300 foreclosure cases dismissed or postponed due to “MERS”
22
attempting to foreclose on those Mortgages.
23

24

25 III.
26
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
27
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2923.6
28
(As Against All Defendants)

21
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
1

2
90. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the above paragraphs 1 through 89 as
3

4 though set forth fully herein.

5 91. Defendants’ Pooling and Servicing Agreement (hereinafter “PSA”) contains a duty to
6
maximize net present value to its investors and related parties.
7
92. California Civil Code 2923.6 broadens and extends this PSA duty by requiring
8

9
servicers to accept loan modifications with borrowers.

10 93. Pursuant to California Civil Code 2923.6(a), a servicer acts in the best interest of all
11 parties if it agrees to or implements a loan modification where the (1) loan is in
12
payment default, and (2) anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout
13
plan exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value basis.
14

15 94. California Civil Code 2923.6(b) now provides that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or

16 authorized agent offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a
17
modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other authority.
18
95. Plaintiff’s loan is presently in an uncertain state.
19
96. Plaintiff is willing, able, and ready to execute a modification of their loan on a
20

21 reasonable basis

22
(a) New Loan Amount: $101,065.00
23
(b) New Interest Rate: 4%
24
(c) New Loan Length: 30 years
25
(d) New Payment: $ 482.50
26

27 97. The present fair market value of the property is $179,000.00.

28

22
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 98. The Joint Economic Committee of Congress estimated in June, 2007, that the average
1

2 foreclosure results in $77, 935.00 in costs to the homeowner, lender, local government,

3 and neighbors.
4
99. Of the $77,935.00 in foreclosure costs, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress
5
estimates that the lender will suffer $50,000.00 in costs in conducting a non-judicial
6

7
foreclosure on the property, maintaining, rehabilitating, insuring, and reselling the

8 property to a third party. Freddie Mac places this loss higher at $58,759.00.
9 100. Pursuant to California Civil Code §2823.6, Defendants are now contractually
10
bound to accept the loan modification as provided above and tender is deemed made
11
pursuant to Defendants’ Pooling and Service Agreement, California Civil Code
12

13 2923.6(a), and California Civil Code 2923.6(b), taken individually or entirely.

14 Plaintiffs invoke the remedies embodied in the aforementioned agreement and/or codes
15
with a willingness to execute a modification of their loan.
16
101. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that tender, if any, is excused by obstruction or
17
prevention or imposition of unwarranted conditions by the person or corporate entity to
18

19 whom it was to be made.

20 102. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that obstruction or imposition of unwarranted

21
conditions by defendants occurred when defendants evaded the plaintiffs’ attempts to
22
provide tender as specified and encouraged by defendants’ pooling agreement,
23

24
California Civil Code 2923.6(a), and California Civil Code 2923.6(b). [Hudson v.

25 Morton, 231 Ala. 392, 165 So. 227 (1936); Loftis v. Alexander, 139 Ga. 346, 77 S.E.
26 169 (1913); Kennedy v. Neil, 333 Ill. 629, 165 N.E. 148 (1929); Borden v. Borden, 5
27
Mass. 67, 1809 WL 989 (1809); Loughney v. Quigley, 279 Pa. 396, 123 A. 84 (1924);
28

23
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Montague Corp. v. E.P. Burton Lumber Co., 136 S.C. 40, 134 S.E. 147 (1926);
1

2 Stansbury V. Embrey, 128 Tenn. 103, 158 S.W. 991 (1913); Loehr v. Dickson, 141

3 Wis. 332, 124 N.W. 293 (1910)]

4
103. Alternatively, Plaintiff further alleges that obstruction or imposition of unwarranted
5
conditions by defendants occurred when defendants manifested to the Plaintiffs that
6

7
tender, if made, will not be accepted, the Plaintiffs are excused from making tender as

8 it would be a futile gesture, and the law will not require the doing of a useless act.
9 [Simmons v. Swan, 275 U.S. 113, 48 S. Ct. 52, 72 L. Ed. 190 (1927); Lee v. Joseph E.
10
Seagram & Sons, Inc., 552 F.2d 447 (2d Cir. 1977); Buckner v. Tweed, 157 F.2d 211
11
(App. D.C. 1946); Peterson v. Hudson Ins. Co., 41 Ariz. 31, 15 P.2d 249 (1932);
12

13 Woods-Drury, Inc. v. Superior Court in and for City and County of San Francisco, 18

14 Cal. App. 2d 340, 63 P.2d 1184 (1st District 1936); Chesapeake Bay Distributing Co. v.
15
Buck Distributing Co., Inc. 60 Md. App. 210, 481 A.2d 1156 (1984); Issacs v.
16
Caterpillar, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 1359 (C.D. Ill. 1991); Platsis v. Diafokeris, 68 Md. App.
17
257, 511 A.2d 535 (1986)]
18

19 104. Alternatively, Plaintiff further alleges that obstruction or imposition of unwarranted

20 conditions by defendants occurred when defendants’ objection for want of actual

21
tender of money is waived by defendants’ refusal to receive the money if produced.
22
[Shaner v West Coast Life Ins. Co, 73F.2d 681 (C.C.A. 10th Cir. 1934); Buell v. White,
23

24
908 P.2d 1175 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995) (when party, who is willing and able to pay,

25 offers to pay another a sum of money and is advised that it will not be accepted, offer
26 amounts to tender even though money is not produced); Hall v. Norwalk Fire Ins. Co.,
27
57 Conn. 105, 17 A. 356 (1888); Lamar v. Sheppard, 84 Ga. 561, 10 S.E. 10984
28

24
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 (1890); Ventres v. Cobb, 105 Ill. 33, 1882 WL 10475 (1882); Metropolitan Credit
1

2 Union v. Matthes, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 326, 706 N.E.2d 296 (1999)].

4
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
5
(VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §17200
6
(As Against All Defendants)
7

8
105. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1
9
through 104, inclusive, as though set forth at length herein again.
10

11
106. Beginning in February 7, 2007 (date of deed), and continuing to the present time,

12 Defendants committed acts of unfair competition as defined by Business and

13 Professions Code § 17200, by engaging in the following practices:

14 107. These acts and practices, as described in the previous paragraphs, violate Business
15 and Professions Code § 17200 because their policies and practices described above
16 violate all the statutes as previously listed and California Civil Code § 1709, and
17 consequently, constitute and unlawful business act of practice within the meaning of
18 Business and Professions Code § 17200.
19

20 108. The harm to Plaintiff and to members of the general public outweighs the utility of

21 Defendants’ policy and practices, consequently, constitute an unlawful business act of

22
practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code §17200.
23
109. Further, the foregoing conduct threatens an incipient violation of a consumer law,
24

25
including, or violates the policy or spirit of such law or otherwise significantly

26 threatens or harms competition. Defendants’ practices described above are likely to

27
mislead the general public, and therefore, constitute a fraudulent business act of
28
practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code §17200. The

25
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices and false and
1

2 misleading advertising present a continuing threat to members of public in that other

3 consumers will be defrauded into closing on similar fraudulent loans. Plaintiffs and
4
other members of the general public have no other adequate remedy of law.
5
110. As a result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiff has lost money or property and
6

7
suffered injury in fact. Defendants received and continue to hold Plaintiff’s money and

8 other members of the public who fell victim to Defendants’ scheme.

9

10

11
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
12
BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
13
(Only Against GREENPOINT)
14

15

16
111. Plaintiff repeat and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 110 as though fully set forth
17
herein.
18

19 112. Plaintiff alleges that at all times there existed an implied covenant of good faith and

20 fair dealing requiring Defendants, and each of them, to safeguard, protect, or otherwise
21
care for the assets and rights of Plaintiffs. Said covenant prohibited Defendants from
22
activities interfering with or contrary to the rights of Plaintiffs.
23
113. Plaintiff alleges that the commencement of foreclosure proceedings upon the
24

25 property lawfully belonging to Plaintiffs without the production of documents

26 demonstrating the lawful rights for the foreclosure constitutes a breach of the covenant.
27
114. Defendants breach the provisions as contained within the “Deed of “Trust” which
28
cited the lender as GREENPOINT.

26
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 115. Defendants breached the provisions as contained within the “Adjustable Rate Note”
1

2 promising to pay GREENPOINT a monthly payment.

3 116. Plaintiff paid timely monthly payments in accordance with the “Adjustable Rate
4
Note” to GREENPOINT or its agents.
5
117. As a consequence and proximate result, Plaintiff has been damaged in a sum to be
6

7
proven at trial.

8
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
10
(Against all Defendants)
11

12 118. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 117 as though fully set forth
13 herein.
14
119. Plaintiff seeks a determination as to the legal status of the parties as to the
15
Adjustable Rate Note and the Deed of Trust.
16

17 120. The Adjustable Rate Note states that the Lender is GREENPOINT.

18 121. It also states, “Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled
19
to receive payment under this Note is called the “Note Holder.”
20
122. GREENPOINT sent to Plaintiff a statement with a coupon asking for payment.
21
123. The Deed of Trust which cited the lender as GREENPOINT and stating in the
22

23 definition section that:

24 “MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate

25
corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and
26
assigns; MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.
27

28

27
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 124. Additionally, based upon information and belief, Mortgage Electronic Registration
1

2 Systems is not qualified to do business in the state of California and therefore, would not

3 have standing to seek non-judicial remedies as well as judicial remedies.

4
125. Defendants should be required to provide the original note with the appropriate
5
endorsements thereon to Plaintiffs or this Honorable Court so that it may determine
6

7
under California law, who owns the right to receive payments and exercises the rights

8 relating to said ownership.

9 126. Only the Note Holder is authorized to collect payments and, in the event of a
10
default, commence foreclosure proceedings, including authorizing the substitution of a
11
Trustee.
12

13 127. Until Defendants are able to provide Plaintiffs and this Honorable Court the

14 aforementioned documents, this Honorable Court should order that Plaintiffs are not
15
required to make any further payments on the Adjustable Rate Note and enjoin any
16
further collection activity on the Note, including staying the count down towards the
17
date a Notice of Trustee’s sale may be filed and served.
18

19
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1572
21
(As to All Defendants)
22

23 128. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs 1 through

24 127 as though set forth fully herein.

129. The misrepresentations by Defendants’ and/or Defendants’ predecessors, failures to
25
disclose, and failure to investigate as described above were made with the intent to
26
induce Plaintiff to obligate himself on the Loan in reliance on the integrity of
27
Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors.
28

28
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 130. Plaintiff is an unsophisticated customer whose reliance upon Defendants
1
and/or Defendants’ predecessors was reasonable and consistent with the
2
Congressional intent and purpose of California Civil Code § 1572 enacted in 1872 and
3
designed to assist and protect consumers similarly situated as Plaintiff in this action.
4
131. As an unsophisticated customer, Plaintiff could not have discovered the true nature
5
of the material facts on their own.
6 132. The accuracy by Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors of representation is
7 important in enabling consumers such as Plaintiff to compare market lenders in order
8 to make informed decisions regarding lending transactions such as a loan.
9 133. Plaintiff was ignorant of the facts which Defendants and/or Defendants’

10
predecessors misrepresented and failed to disclose.
134. Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors was a
11
substantial factor in causing their harm.
12
135. Had the terms of the Loan been accurately represented and disclosed by Defendants
13
and/or Defendants’ predecessors, Plaintiff would not have accepted the Loan nor been
14
harmed.
15
136. Had Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors investigated Plaintiff’s financial
16 capabilities, they would have been forced to deny Plaintiff on this particular loan.
17 137. Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors conspired and agreed to commit the
18 above mentioned fraud.
19 138. As a proximate result of Defendants and or Defendants’ predecessors fraud,

20 Plaintiff has suffered damage in an amount to be determined at trial.

139. The conduct of Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors as mentioned above
21

22 was fraudulent within the meaning of California Civil Code § 3294(c)(3), and by virtue

23 thereof Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to

24
punish and make an example of the Defendants.
25

26

27

28

29
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 FOR FRAUD
(Against All Defendants)
3

4 140. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 139 as though fully set forth

5 herein.
6
141. An unknown employee of MERS executed on behalf the alleged Beneficiary a
7
“Notice of Default” which stated that the payments were due to MERS as Beneficiary.
8

9
“Notice of Breach and Default and of Election to Cause Sale of Real Property Under

10 Deed of Trust” (See Exhibit “B”)

11 142. On the Notice of Breach, it stated, in part, that Plaintiffs as Trustor, to secure
12
certain obligations in favor of Defendants, as beneficiary.
13
143. It further states that:
14

15 That by reason thereof of the present Beneficiary under such deed of

16 Trust has executed and delivered to said duly appointed Trustee a
17 written Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale and has
18 deposited with said duly appointed Trustee such Deed of Trust and
19 all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby and has
20 declared and does hereby declared all sums secured thereby
21 immediately due and payable and has elected and does hereby elect
22 to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations served
23 thereby.
24

25 144. This representation was made by these defendants in order to induce reliance by

26 Plaintiffs.
27
145. Plaintiff did rely on these representations and because of their reliance their
28

30
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 property has been foreclosed and Plaintiffs reliance was justified.
1

3 146. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the representation as stated on the Notice of
4
Default were a false representation in the following particular(s)
5
A. Documents were not provided to the trustee that showed that GREENPOINT or MERS
6

7
was the Beneficiary and entitled to the payments.

8 B. At the time GREENPOINT made the representations they knew they were false and were
9 made for the sole purpose of inducing reliance.
10
145. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, were engaged in an illegal
11
scheme the purpose of which was to execute loans secured by real property in order to
12

13 make commissions, kick-backs, illegal undisclosed yield spread premiums, and

14 undisclosed profits by the sale of any instruments arising out of the transaction and to
15
make loans to borrowers that they could not afford to repay given their stated financial
16
situation. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, have represented to
17
plaintiffs and to third parties that they were the owner of the Trust Deed and Note as
18

19 either the Trustee or the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiffs real property. Based on this

20 representation they caused a Notice of Default to be issued and recorded without

21
disclosing their true role, and thereafter a notice of intent to foreclose and finally they
22
executed a foreclosure, which was completed, permanently affecting Plaintiffs right,
23

24
title and interest in the Subject Property. In fact, Plaintiffs allege that the promissory

25 notes which was executed by Plaintiffs and which initially formed a basis of a security
26 interest in the subject property, was assigned in violation of Civil Code section 2932.5
27

28

31
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 et seq. because the assignment was not recorded, and as such the promissory note was
1

2 rendered as non-negotiable and no power of sale was conveyed with the note at the

3 time of the assignment, and therefore, Defendants, and each of them, had no lawful
4
security interest in the subject property.
5
146. On or about February 7, 2007 (date of deed), representatives, agents and/or
6

7
employees of Defendants, and each of them, made false representations to Plaintiff in

8 order to fund a loan, in which the Plaintiffs’ personal residence was to be security
9 therefore. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, made certain
10
representations regarding their honesty, that they were experts in obtaining loans which
11
borrower’s could afford and that they would only offer Plaintiffs a loan which was in
12

13 their best interests given their credit history and financial needs and limitations and that

14 Plaintiff could trust the representations of Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff
15
allege that based upon the representations made by Defendants, and each of them,
16
Plaintiff reasonably reposed his trust in Defendants’ representations and disclosed their
17
private financial information to Defendants, in order that Defendants could in keeping
18

19 with their representations, find a loan which was in the best interests of Plaintiff given

20 his financial needs and limitations. More particularly, Defendants, and each of them,
21
represented that they would not make a loan to Plaintiff unless he could afford the
22
loan, and that they would not make the loan unless and until he had passed the
23

24
underwriting guidelines of the lender, which further assured that the loan being offered

25 to Plaintiff was in fact in the Plaintiff’s best interests, and that the loan was within
26 Plaintiff’s financial needs and limitations.
27
147. Plaintiff alleges that the loans provided by Defendants, and each of them, contained
28

32
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 a repayment schedule, whereas, exceeded Plaintiffs’ total spendable income, and that
1

2 the loan contained excessive financing was approved to allow closing costs to be

3 financed, that Defendants failed to utilize adequate due diligence regarding Plaintiff’s
4
ability to repay the loan, Defendants’ as part of their continuing scheme intentionally
5
placed Plaintiff’s in a sub-prime loan to the benefit of the Defendants with excessively
6

7
high interest rates, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff mandated disclosures, and

8 Defendants repeatedly employed coercive tactics in order to force Plaintiff to sign the
9 loan documents.
10
148. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereupon allege that defendants
11
GREENPOINT, and MERS, engaged in some degree in making the loan to Plaintiffs
12

13 including, but not limited to: made the loan to Plaintiff by "marketing and extending

14 adjustable-rate mortgage ("ARM") products to Plaintiff in an unsafe and unsound

15
manner that greatly increases the risk that Plaintiff would default on the loan, because
16
the initial payments on the loan exceeded Plaintiff’s established retirement income, and
17
the loan terms offered to Plaintiff included ARM products with one or more of the
18

19 following characteristics: without to utilize an adequate analysis of the Plaintiff ability

20 to repay the debt at the fully-indexed rate; approving Plaintiff without considering
21
appropriate documentation and/or verification of their income; including substantial
22
prepayment penalties and/or prepayment penalties that extend beyond the initial
23

24
interest rate adjustment period; providing Plaintiff with inadequate and/or confusing

25 information relative to product choices, material loan terms and product risks,
26 prepayment penalties, and the Plaintiff’s obligations for property taxes and insurance;
27
approving Plaintiffs for a loan with inadequate debt-to-income analyses
28

33
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 that did not properly consider the Plaintiff’s ability to meet his overall level
1

2 indebtedness and common housing expenses; and/or approving Plaintiff for loan

3 arrangements with loan-to-value ratios approaching or exceeding 100 percent of the

4
value of the collateral;" and making Plaintiff a mortgage loan without adequately
5
considering the Plaintiff’s ability to repay the mortgage according to its terms.
6

7
149. Plaintiff alleges that based upon the foregoing representations of Defendants, and

8 each of them, plaintiffs did in fact repose their trust in the representations of
9 Defendants, and each of them, and that such trust was reasonable.
10
150. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, presented a loan to Plaintiff
11
whereby Defendants represented that they did qualify for ordinary underwriting, and
12

13 that the loan was within Plaintiffs’ personal financial needs and limitations given the

14 confidential financial information that Plaintiffs shared with Defendants, however, the
15
true is that the loan payments exceeded Plaintiffs’ established retirement income.
16
151. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to disclose the true
17
cost of the loan which was made to Plaintiffs, and the fact that Plaintiff could not
18

19 afford the loan in the first instance. Defendants, and each of them, provided Plaintiff a

20 loan through Defendant GREENPOINT, and Defendants, and each of them, were
21
secretly compensated, however, they did not disclose for this loan that they were by
22
being paid for its services, and in a spread of the yield of an amount which has not yet
23

24
been fully ascertained as a Yield Spread Premium paid-outside and after the close of

25 escrow.
26 152. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon allege that after the close of escrow
27
Defendant GREENPOINT paid the other Defendants herein fees above and beyond the
28

34
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 value of the services actually performed and an illegal kickback and added that
1

2 additional amount to the total amount being financed, however such amount was never

3 disclosed to Plaintiff.
4
153. Plaintiff acquired the foregoing property by virtue of the said funding through
5
GREENPOINT based on the representations of Defendants, and each of them, that the
6

7
loan was the best they could obtain for him, and that the loan was well within

8 Plaintiff’s financial needs and limitations.

9 154. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereupon alleges that Defendants, and each of
10
them, represented to Plaintiff that Defendants, and each of them, were working for the
11
benefit of Plaintiff and in their particular best interest to obtain for him the best loan
12

13 and at the best rates available.

14 155. That at the time Defendants, and each of them, made the foregoing false
15
representations to Plaintiff they knew that they were untrue and that these
16
representations were material representations, and that no basis in fact existed to
17
support such fraudulent representations.
18

19 156. That the foregoing representations were made in order to induce Plaintiff to act on

20 and take the said loan(s) in order for both defendants to make a substantial amount of
21
money thereby and there from.
22
157. Plaintiff is in fact induced to and did take these loans based on the said fraudulent
23

24
representations.

25 158. That Plaintiff was induced to rely and did rely on the representations of these
26 defendants through deception and their reliance was justified as they believed that
27
Defendants, and each of them, were working for their and in his best interests.
28

35
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 159. That by virtue of Plaintiff’s reasonable reliance and the increased interest they were
1

2 made to pay, they have been damaged in the loss of their good credit and a higher

3 payment and are now being involved in litigation that they did not bargain for, all to
4
their damage and injury.
5
160. Plaintiff has relied on the representations of Defendant, and each of them, and
6

7
because of this reliance have made various moves to avoid foreclosure all to no avail,

8 while defendants knew all the time that they were deceiving Plaintiff.
9 161. Plaintiff’s reliance was justified based upon the false representations of Defendants,
10
and each of them, and had no reason to believe that a party representing a bank would
11
go to such lengths to deceive and to convert Plaintiff’s property by utilizing such a
12

13 fraud and artifice.

14 162. Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendants, and each of them, at the time of
15
execution of the Deed of Trust and Note maintained an interest in the Subject Property,
16
however at the time the Note and Deed of Trust were assigned to Defendant
17
GREENPOINT, the Note was no longer negotiable and the power of sale was not
18

19 conveyed during the assignment, notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants, and each

20 of them, foreclosed on Plaintiff’s Trust Deed, in concert with their scheme to defraud
21
Plaintiff out of their property.
22
163. Plaintiff has recently learned that Defendants, and each of them, are not the legal
23

24
owners of the Note and TRUST DEED and will not be at the time they issued the

25 notices and commenced the foreclosure process, notwithstanding the fact that the note
26 was not negotiable and did not contain a valid power of sale.
27
164. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, knew at the time they made
28

36
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 these representations to Plaintiffs that they were untrue, and defendants know at the
1

2 time that they were attempting to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ Trust Deeds and notes that

3 they had no right to do so.

4
165. Plaintiff alleges Defendants, and each of them, intentionally and fraudulently
5
converted Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest to his property, and any equity therein.
6

7
166. Plaintiff alleges that due to their reliance on Defendants representations he has been

8 damaged in an amount that currently exceeds $25,000.00 and additionally costs of

9 moving out of Plaintiff’s property and the costs to relocate back to the subject
10
Property.
11
167. Defendants’ conduct as set forth above was intentional, oppressive fraudulent and
12

13 malicious so as to justify an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient that

14 such conduct will not be repeated.

15
168. Plaintiff have been damaged in having their home wrongfully foreclosed and a
16
slander of their title, and being required to become involved in this litigation all to their
17
damages and injuries the amount of which is subject to proof at the time of trial.
18

19 169. The actions of Defendants and each of them were fraudulent oppressive and

20 malicious so as to warrant the imposition of exemplary damages, and that by virtue of

21
Defendants conduct as set forth herein Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages.
22

23
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24
FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
25 (Against all Defendants)
26

27
170. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 169 as though fully set forth
28

37
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 herein.
1

2 171. A dispute has arisen between and among Plaintiff and Defendants and each of them

3 as to the duties and obligations of the respective parties with regard to the loan or the
4
foreclosure.
5
172. These disputes concern but are not limited to the ownership rights and the validity of
6

7
the commencement of the foreclosure process.

8 173. As to these issues, Plaintiff is required to seek this relief.

9 174. Plaintiff further alleges that a declaration of rights and duties of the parties herein are
10
essential to determine the actual status and validity of the loan, deed of trust,
11
nominated beneficiaries, actual beneficiaries, loan servicers, trustees instituting
12

13 foreclosure proceedings and related matter.

14

15 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16 FOR INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
(Against all Defendants)
17

18
175. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 174 as though fully set forth
19
herein.
20

21 176. Plaintiff is informed and believe that the representation as stated on the Notice of

22 Default and each of them were a false representation in the following particulars(s):
23
[A] Documents were not provided to the trustee that showed that any of the
24
Defendants was the Beneficiary and entitled to the payments.
25

26
[B] At the time Defendants made the representations they knew they were false and

27 were made for the sole purpose of inducing reliance and confusing Plaintiff.
28

38
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
1

3 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4 TO SET ASIDE A DEFECTIVE AND WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
(Against all Defendants)
5

7 177. Plaintiff repeats and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 176 as though fully set forth
8
herein.
9
Recording of an Assignment Prior to Foreclosure
10

11
178. Cal. Civ. Code section 2932.5 provides a condition precedent for an assignee of a

12 Deed of Trust prior to commencing a foreclosure:

13 Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other
14
encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the
15
power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes
16

17 entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale

18 may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and

19
recorded. (Emphasis added)
20
179. Defendants drafted the Deed of Trust, Plaintiff had no opportunity to negotiate
21
the terms of the instrument.
22

23 180. Defendants GREENPOINT, CAL-WESTERN, CAL-WESTERN

24 RECONVEYANCE, and MERS, failed to record the assignment prior to commencing the
25
foreclosure as such the Foreclosure was not conducted in accordance with Cal Civ. Code
26
Sec 2924 and 2932.5.
27

28
Invalid Notice of Default

39
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 181. There is in existence a certain written instrument which purports to be a Notice of
1

2 Default that is in the possession of Defendants, and each of them. (See Exhibit “B”)

3 182. The written instrument alleged in Paragraph "180" was procured as follows:
4
Defendants cannot prove that the nonjudicial foreclosure which occurred, strictly complied
5
with the tenets of California Civil Code Sections 2923.5 and 2924 in order to maintain an
6

7
action for possession pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161. As of

8 September 6, 2008, California Civil Code Section 2923.5 applies to loans made from
9 January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007, and loans secured by residential real property that
10
are for owner-occupied residences. For purposes of Section 2923.5, “owner-occupied”
11
means that the residence is the principal residence of the borrower. Prior to filing a Notice
12

13 of Default, Section 2923.5 of the California Civil Code provides in pertinent part:

14 (1) A trustee may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until 30 days after
15
contact is made as required by paragraph (2) or 30 days after satisfying the due
16
diligence requirements as described in subdivision (g).
17
(2) An authorized agent shall contact the borrower in person or by telephone in order to
18

19 assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to

20 avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized
21
agent shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to request a subsequent
22
meeting and, if requested, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall
23

24
schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days.

25 (3) A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall include a declaration from
26 the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent that it has contacted the borrower,
27
tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section, or the
28

40
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 borrower has surrendered the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or
1

2 authorized agent.

3 Invalid Declaration on Notice of Default and/or Notice of Trustee’s Sale

4
183. The purpose of permitting a declaration under penalty of perjury, in lieu of a sworn
5
statement, is to help ensure that declarations contain a truthful factual representation
6

7
and are made in good faith. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, 73 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 87

8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 339 (4th Dist. 1999).

9 183. In addition to California Civil Code §2923.5, California Code of Civil Procedure
10
§2015.5 states:
11
Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, regulation, order or
12

13 requirement made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required or permitted

14 to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement,

15
declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making
16
the same, such matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced,
17
established or proved by the unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or
18

19 certificate, in writing of such person which recites that is certified or declared by him

20 or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if
21
executed within this state, states the date and place of execution; (2) if executed at any
22
place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that is so certified or
23

24
declared under the laws of the State of California. The certification or declaration must

25 be in substantially the following form:

26 (a) If executed within this state:
27
“I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct”:
28

41
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 _____________________ _______________________
1
(Date and Place) (Signature)
2

3 For our purposes we need not look any farther than the Notice of Default to find the
4
declaration is not signed under penalty of perjury; as mandated by new Civil Code
5
§2923.5(c). (Blum v. Superior Court (Copley Press Inc.) (2006) 141 Cal App 4th 418, 45
6

7
Cal. Reptr. 3d 902 ).

8 No Personal Knowledge of Declarant

9 According to Giles v. Friendly Finance Co. of Biloxi, Inc., 199 So. 2nd 265 (Miss.
10
1967), “an affidavit on behalf of a corporation must show that it was made by an
11
authorized officer or agent, and the officer him or herself must swear to the facts.”
12

13 Furthermore, in Giles v. County Dep’t of Public Welfare of Marion County (Ind.App. 1

14 Dist.1991) 579 N.E.2d 653, 654-655 states in pertinent part, “a person who verified a
15
pleading to have personal knowledge or reasonable cause to believe the existence of the
16
facts stated therein.” Here, the Declaration for the Notice of Default by the agent does not
17
state if the agent has personal knowledge and how he obtained this knowledge.
18

19 The proper function of an affidavit is to state facts, not conclusions, ¹ and affidavits that

20 merely state conclusions rather than facts are insufficient. ² An affidavit must set forth facts
21
and show affirmatively how the affiant obtained personal knowledge of those facts. ³
22
Here, The Notice of Default does not have the required agent’s personal knowledge
23

24
of facts and if the Plaintiff borrower was affirmatively contacted in person or by telephone

25 ____________________________________________________________________________
¹ Lindley v. Midwest Pulmonary Consultants, P.C., 55 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2001).
26 ² Jaime v. St. Joseph Hosp. Foundation, 853 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1993).
27
³ M.G.M. Grand Hotel, Inc. v. Castro, 8 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App. Corpus Chrisit 1999).

28

42
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 to assess the Plaintiff’s financial situation and explore options for the Plaintiff to avoid
1

2 foreclosure. A simple check box next to the “facts” does not suffice.

3 Furthermore, “it has been said that personal knowledge of facts asserted in an affidavit
4
is not presumed from the mere positive averment of facts, but rather, a court should be
5
shown how the affiant knew or could have known such facts, and, if there is no evidence
6

7
from which the inference of personal knowledge can be drawn, then it is presumed that

8 such does not exist.” ¹ The declaration signed by agent does not state anywhere how he
9 knew or could have known if Plaintiff was contacted in person or by telephone to explore
10
different financial options. It is vague and ambiguous if he himself called plaintiff.
11
This defendant did not adhere to the mandates laid out by congress before a foreclosure
12

13 can be considered duly perfected. The Notice of Default states, “That by reason thereof,

14 the present beneficiary under such deed of trust, has executed and delivered to said agent,
15
a written Declaration of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said
16
agent such Deed of Trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby, and
17
has declared and does hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and
18

19 payable and has elected and does hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to

20 satisfy the obligations secured thereby.” However, Defendants do not have the Deed of
21
Trust, nor do they provide any documents evidencing obligations secured thereby. For the
22
aforementioned reasons, the Notice of Default will be void as a matter of law.
23

24

25 Recording a False Document

26 184. Furthermore, according to California Penal Code § 115 in pertinent part:
27

28

43
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 (a) Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument
1

2 to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state, which

3 instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this
4
state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony.
5
(b) Each instrument which is procured or offered to be filed, registered, or recorded
6

7
in violation of subdivision (a) shall constitute a separate violation of this section.

8 _______________________________________________________________________________
9 ¹ Bova v. Vinciguerra, 139 A.D.2d 797, 526 N.Y. S.2d 671 (3d Dep’t 1988).
10
In addition, California Evidence Code § 669 states in pertinent part:
11
(a) The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if:
12

13 (1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity;

14 Here, as stated above the Declaration of Due Diligence as required by Section 2923.5 of
15
the California Civil Code is missing and/or improper for the Notice of Default. Therefore,
16
Defendants are guilty of a felony for recording the Notice of Default with a false
17
instrument according to California Penal Code §115. Since Defendants have violated a
18

19 statute, the failure of them to exercise due care will be presumed.

20 183. The written instrument alleged in Paragraph "180" was also procured as follows:
21
By an invalid sale conducted on the part of Defendants, and each of them, in violation of
22
statutes including, but not limited to: Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon
23

24
alleges that the NOTE was invalid and unenforceable due to the intentional and willful

25 violations including but, not limited to: California Civil Code 2924b etc. et seq.,
26 California Civil Code §§§ 2924b(a), 2924b(d), 2924b(e) by failing and/or refusing to mail
27

28

44
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 the Notice of Default within ten business days to Plaintiffs, by failing and/or refusing to
1

2 post and mail the Notice of Default; by failing and/or refusing to mail Plaintiffs the

3 Notice of Default within one month pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924b (c (1), (2);
4
by failing and/or refusing to properly set the sale date pursuant to California Civil Code §
5
2924f(b); by failing and/or refusing to publish the Notice of Sale twenty days prior to the
6

7
date set for sale pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924f(b); by failing and/or refusing to

8 record the Notice of Sale pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924g(d);

9 184. Since the enumerated law was effective as of September 06, 2008 the sale of the
10
property at issue is invalid pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 2923.5 and 2924,
11
and thus the Defendants’ claim of title and allegation thereto is erroneous.
12

13 185. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, willfully, wrongfully and

14 without justification, and without privilege conducted an invalid foreclosure sale against
15
the Plaintiff’s SUBJECT PROPERTY, thereby, slandering Plaintiff’s title thereto.
16
186. Furthermore, The California Foreclosure Prevention Act, states the following:
17
The California Foreclosure Prevention Action became effective June 15, 2009. This
18

19 new law delays the non-judicial foreclosure process by requiring an addition 90-day delay

20 (beyond the current three-month period) between recording a notice of default and a
21
notice of stay for certain residential properties. The law applies to:
22
1. Loans recorded between January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2008, inclusive,
23

24
2. The borrower occupies the property as his/her principal residence and occupied it

25 at the time the loan became delinquent;

26 3. A notice of default has been recorded on the property; and
27

28

45
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 4. The loan is secured by a first lien on residential property that is located in
1

2 California.

3 187. In our case, Plantiff, Marciano E. Jose Jr.’s property was his principal place of
4
residence and his deed was dated on February 7, 2007. Therefore, the California
5
Foreclosure Prevention Action applies and they should be allowed an additional 90 days
6

7
(plus the three-month period already) after Notice of Default is recorded.

8 188. The Trustee's Deed Upon Sale obtained after the sale is false and causes a doubt
9 to be cast on Plaintiff’s title to the property described above.
10
189. The aforementioned Instrument directly impairs Plaintiff’s right to possession
11
and ownership of the Subject Property.
12

13 190. Furthermore, the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were

14 motivated by oppression, fraud, malice in that Defendants, and each of them, by their
15
respective acts, omissions, nonfeasance, misfeasance and/or malfeasance executed an
16
invalid foreclosure sale of the Plaintiff’s SUBJECT PROPERTY, in order to deny Plaintiff
17
of his rights of possession and ownership, whereupon, the Foreclosure was defective as
18

19 such the Property must be restored to Plaintiff or Plaintiff is entitled to the value of thereof.

20

21
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs having set forth the claims for relief against Defendants,
22
respectfully pray that this Court grant the following relief against the Defendants:
23

24
1. For exemplary and punitive damages;

25 2. Actual Economic and Non-Economic Damages;

26 3. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to California Civil Code §1717,
27
§1788.30(b), §1788.30(c);
28

46
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
 4. For a declaration of the rights of the parties relative to Plaintiff’s Home, including
1

2 a declaration that Defendants have no enforceable lien against Plaintiff’s Home;

3 5. For a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining all Defendants,

4
their agents, assigns, and all person acting under, for, or in concert with them, from
5
foreclosing on Plaintiff’s Home or from conducting at trustee’s sale or causing a trustee’s
6

7
sale to be conducted relative to Plaintiff’s Home.

8 6. Cancellation of the sale and restitution of the home to the Plaintiffs; and
9 7. For damages as provided by statute;
10
8. For an Order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate the statutes alleged
11
herein;
12

13 9. For an Order, requiring Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff on title to his Property, and

14 or a restraining order preventing Defendants and his, hers, or its agents, employees,
15
officers, attorneys, and representatives from engaging in or performing any of the
16
following acts: (i) offering, or advertising this property for sale and (ii) attempting to
17
transfer title to this property and or (iii) holding any auction therefore;
18

19 10. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

20

21 Dated: July 15, 2009

22 LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY MCCANDLESS ESQ.
23
______________________________________________
24
Timothy L. McCandless, Esq.,
25 Attorney for Plaintiff,
Marciano E. Jose Jr
26

27

28

47
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT
1 VERIFICATION
2
I, TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, am an attorney at law admitted to practice before all courts of
3
the State of California and have my office in San Bernardino County, California, and am the
4

5
attorney for the Plaintiff in this action, that all of the officers of the Plaintiff are unable to make the

6 verification because they are absent from said County and for that reason affiant makes this
7
verification on the Plaintiff’s behalf; that I have read the foregoing document and know its
8
contents. I am informed and believe and on that ground allege that matters stated herein are true.
9
Executed July 15, 2009, at Victorville, Californa.
10

11 I declare under penalty of perjury that under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing

12 is true and correct.

13

14 DATED: July 15, 2009

15 ___________________________________
16

17 TIMOTHY L.
MCCANDLESS, ESQ
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

48
_________________________________________________
COMPLAINT