three claims that the trial court held that the first amended complaint did not state is sufficient claim on any of the three i'd like to start just with the first one i think the court  mistaken as to all three of them the first claim for challenging the foreclosure sale the district court said under california law you cannot quote challenge a foreclosure sale unless you tender the amount of the underlying want which mr one did not do well the problem is that's not what california law says california law does say that when the only thing you're challenging is the technical aspects foreclosure sale for good reason i mean if you set aside a foreclosure sale course that wasn't proper notice or something like that that reinstates the original loan and if you can't pay it  just wasted your time right but california cases say when that's not what you're doing when you're not challenge the technical aspects of the sale you're challenging the loan itself you don't have to make a tender because you can meet a tender and they accepted it then that would moot out your challenge to the sale and that's exactly the situation here mr one if i'm not quite understanding what the basis of your challenge to the sale  that the challenge to the sale is that the mr one took out his loan to buy his house back in two thousand and one two hundred  mae got the property was forged the imposter who forged it actually paid off the loan that mr wanted taken out he didn't know fannie mae any money at all that loan was paid off and on top of that he was willing to reinstate his original loan give him an equitable mortgage he's not looking for a free house he was willing to pay but he didn't know anything that loan had been paid off with fannie mae was a poor closing on was a subsequent phony refinancing that mr one had nothing to do with why did mr y bring an action in equity to set aside the foreclosure in order to quiet title you right he had title he had title to the house he always had title the house that was never taken away from him he bought the house he had title was in prison some impostor forged a deed of trust to the banks that purportedly gave them title but didn't if they forged mr one signature he always had title he never gave up title so an action to quiet title is the right thing to do you know if you own your house and i come along and purport to sell it to somebody else i haven't taken away your title you still have title and that's what happened here he never lost title he never signed anything they gave up title so an action of quiet title is the right thing to do m he never did anything to give up title this impostor comes along refinances pays off his loan he owns for very unclear nevertheless in his first emitted complaint he says i'm not looking for a free house i will give fannie mae and equitable mortgage where i continue the payments that i was able to make that i signed up for and fannie mae said no no we don't want that because we got a title insurance  give us not the two forty four the you agreed to pay but the whole amount the whole five hundred thousand dollars that's accumulated that we paid for this phony did a trust so we offered it they said no we don't want it and they offer still on the table they want if they want to take an equitable mortgage they can have it they said in their brief we demanded it we don't demand it if they don't want it fine mr poole want to take his free house but he doesn't owe any money on that house a bank he goes in he borrows the money he gets sent to prison for a few years he comes out and he gets a statement the loan is increased by seventy percent it's up over four hundred thousand dollars he goes to the bank he says what's going on they said don't worry about it we we transfer these loans and so he goes home he keeps making his payments he didn't start making his payments and then  a few years later he goes back in and for the first time they tell him there's been refinancing what i didn't refinance what's going on he immediately goes to a lawyer the lawyer stipulation that he would make the monthly payments and during this appeal to him he still make an on and you know this whole time why are they taking his money if they think he's paying on the wrong amount that my my question for you goes back to two thousand and eight when mr one was aware that there was a high balance on his more right why didn't he do anything that he did that's when he went to the bank and said what's going on here and they told him well it's it's a bank thing you know there were some transfers or tranches something like that something he was way over his head and and they tell him we have a fraud department all right well he doesn't have a fraud department i don't have a fraud department you don't have a fraud department these people are experts supposedly in picking up forgeries they don't even tell him there's a refinancing and now they're saying and the district court judge said as soon as you saw that higher balance he should have known there was a forgery well how can you know it is a forgery if they don't even tell him there's been refinancing and they don't show him the papers they had that in their file all the time yeah it's not that he should have known that there was a forgery it was a to put him on notice to do additional investigation to figure out what was going on because if he didn't do anything right and you're making your payments every month the way that you're supposed to be making your payments in the balance should be going down and if the balance isn't going down but instead going up then it isn't comment on the bar were to figure out what is going on and you need to figure you need to do some investigation right like what i mean that this is an ordinary person a lay person so what would you do what would you do if you get your statement and you look at the statement and you see that the balance is going up well know that the balance went up after the three phony d's a trust and then i assume it would go down when he made his payments each time but it's going down from a much higher amount exactly right and they're not changing but look they're taking my payments every month they're there they're not to well they did send a in two thousand and ten notice a sale but that passed they never did anything about it he finally goes back in there in two thousand and thirteen and for the first time they tell him oh there's been these refinances and he immediately goes to a lawyer and says i didn't refinance what's this all about i mean who's got the expertise here you go to a bank you go to a doctor you go to an airline i mean who do you expect to solve these problems you i mean what do you know about that the internal workings of an airline or a bank or insurance company i mean these are ordinary consumers and they're supposed to be taking care of fannie mae's guidelines for their servicing asian says you take care your customers you investigate freud that's your job the banks job it's not the clients that's not the customers job he doesn't know as soon as he found out something he knew was false refinancing he went to media to a lawyer the lawyer immediately hired a forensic expert to find out that that wasn't his earlier i mean who hasn't gotten a statement from the p g and e or a bank that that's off even a lot and what do you do either go in there and say we've got a problem here i think you got me mixed up with another account or something and the the banking official told him yeah i think that's what happened we'll check it out and he didn't do anything wrong here and the upshot is now that he owns his house he never gave up title the loan happened that he took out happened to have been paid but he's willing to reinstate the payments but this is his home that he lives in and he never did anything to give up title and now fannie ma claims they have title they don't have title i mean it's really that simple and i mean how can you take away somebody's property when you've got some crook out there  who forging these deeds of trust and now the bank has a i mean what happened when this guy first took out the phony loans do they check his signature against mr one signature on file did they check his fingerprint you know it's totally responsible what these banks did and what fannie mae did they knew about these forgeries when they brought the second  pledge just collateral for a loan he admits he never paid back plaintiff knew in two thousand and eight that his loan balance are gone up by sixty eight percent and was owed to a new under the district or correctly held in this case that massive increase would put a reasonably diligent person on notice that something was a iss in two thousand and ten february when he got a notice of trustee sale significance of that is that triggered his undisturbed possession of the property and the limitations period for quite title place claims of those barred because they expired at the latest in prison and was in a halfway house and got a halfway house in june of two thousand and seven the next month he's getting statements from washington mutual he pays those statements it's a new a new loan and our new loan amount and a new lender and the goes on saying this should they should have known that's why these things are notarized they had no reason to believe there was something amiss with a properly notarized deed of trust nothing would put them on notice to somehow do his investigation for him so what is he doing makes payments for seventeen months on a lo at least and then he contacts washing mutual in two thousand and eight says what's going on with my loan and they say not oh you know they had all this time was refinance because they had no reason to believe he didn't know it was a refinance and what they tell me is look at your it says mr wong and so he claims now that maybe that wasn't his signature but he could have obviously authorized someone else to sign his behalf of the power of attorney but ultimately it doesn't really matter because he knew in two thousand and eighty of this new owner was you can't authorize somebody to sign of what happened here you know i mean on this on this record i can't really speculate you know as to as to what happened but ultimately a loan was taken out it was properly notarized it was recorded it was a lien on the property it paid off the prior l mutual friend may collect on the title insurance i don't know the answer to that question of the title insurance claim has been offered because fannie mae has title female is the property they got a trustee this is you own this property that let's say this in fact forge i mean you know that some pain doesn't match right and it's forged they would have counsel wasn't him was he in prison when this happened she was in a halfway house when this happened so he was so when the refinancing occurred yes and the documents were and the refinancing documents with the signature on the original i mean i have but you know i mean i'm not sure i get to testify in the court of appeals i mean by that but i guess my question was during discovery did anybody kno didn't get that far because it was dismissed on a motion to dismiss one point i know i'm over time but with the court's indulgence i want to address a point that mr moskowitz raised he argues he shouldn't have to tell of that because he disputes the validity of the debt he doesn't dispute the validity of the debt he disputes the identity of the creditor the page of your thirty eight plaintiffs said in response to this motion to dismiss that for the court plaintiff is not without awareness of the underlying debt and does not want to use the situation to obtain a windfall that's exactly what he is asking for because this complaint says will be unfair and unjust to quiet title in this property removing all lien if you had to pay any amount even the original loan balance and that is not fair he's seeking to profit from his from the identity theft at the back there's no loan there's nothing i have to pay back what he says but i'll accept and i'll mortgage from and do that doesn't have the ability to give me one i think that is unfair i think that he says in this complaint that that can be arranged i mean you obligation to investigate and he didn't this is just like the salazar case with a larger fortune note and a forged you trust went to the court of appeals and said the defense said wait a minute we should notice of default and that put them on notice and start the clock in the court of appeal said you know what doesn't start the clock because that's just saying you have to pay this to go to default but knows trustee sale that's putting someone on notice that sales going to occur that does start a limitation period it's picked up it strongly suggests that does start the limitations period and the one case in the johnson case from this attorney told them you have to check out this forgery and they said they you know we supplied them with the the experts forensics examination and what do they do they mae's title is stripped or challenged in a civil suit the title insurance company will not come in all right so they can't collect unless they lose this case that's what they're saying that's why they pursued it and if they do lose this case they're going to get the whole five hundred grand mr one is offering to reinstate the original long which is only two forty four they don't want that no they want all the money from the title insurance company so i guess they got to put up as good a defense here as they can but keep in mind this comes up on a twelve b six motion what are they doing they're trying to try the case here in their brief they say that forensic