Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/46371131/DRAFT-Opening-Brief
Timestamp: 2016-12-10 07:45:50
Document Index: 71327128

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1161', '§ 2924', '§ 2424', '§ 2924', '§ 904', '§ 1161', '§ 2924', '§ 1161', '§ 500', '§ 1161', '§ 1161', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 106', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2936', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2932', '§ 2932', '§ 2924', '§ 1091', '§ 1091', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 1161', '§ 2924', '§ 1161', '§ 1161', '§ 2924']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinINTRODUCTION Defendant/Appellant EARL A.DANCY appeals from the judgment entered against him in the underlying unlawful detainer action. In the Complaint Plaintiff/Respondent, AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC alleged that: “[p]laintiff is the owner of and entitled to immediate possession of the Property” [Complaint, paragraph 5] and, “[t]he property was sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code, under power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by the Defendant(s) herein, and title under the sale has been duly perfected in Plaintiff by the recording of a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale in the Official Records, County of MARIN.” [Complaint, paragraph 6] Mr. DANCY denied those allegations in his Answer. [Answer, at paragraph 2b(1)] At issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff produced at trial sufficient evidence to carry its burden of proof under two elements of C.C.P § 1161a, whether the sale was “held in accordance with C.C. 2924" and whether plaintiff’s title to the premises was “duly perfected.” STATEMENT OF CASE A. Nature of Action and Relief Sought
Unlawful detainer action in which plaintiff, the purchaser at a purported trustee sale, seeks possession of the subject property. Defendant does not seek affirmative relief in this action. Defendant merely prays that plaintiff take nothing by way of its Complaint, on the grounds that plaintiff has failed to present evidence essential to a C.C. 1161a unlawful detainer.
C.E. not American Sterling Bank or M.
.B. The beneficiary under the 2005 Deed of Trust was M. there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate the sale was held “in accordance with Civil Code § 2924" or that plaintiff’s title was “duly perfected” because there are no facts to prove AUORA ever had any authority to conduct the sale in the first place. AURORA ever became a party to the loan such that it had any legal authority to enforce the loan terms or to elect the power of sale.
In 2005 Defendant took out a loan against his home of __ years. Plaintiff bases this contention on a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale. The lender was American Sterling bank. Nor did plaintiff submit any evidence to show how.R. [ ] The Trustee’s Deed indicates the sale was based on the 2005 loan but identifies plaintiff as the foreclosing beneficiary.” Accordingly. [Trial Exhibit __] Plaintiff submitted no evidence to show that it was a party to the 2005 loan. Limited Jurisdiction. [ ]
Plaintiff AUORA LOAN SERVICES LLC alleges that as the purchaser at a 2008 trustee sale.E. it is entitled to possession of the subject property.S. Judgment and Statement of Appealability
The Superior Court of California.S. The Trustee’s Deed is nothing more than a “wild deed. From the evidence before the Court.R. or even if. there is an obvious gap in title to the loan. Plaintiff was no more than a stranger to the loan when it supposedly elected to invoke the power of sale.
judge. 2b(1)] Defendant contended throughout the unlawful detainer proceedings and on both days of trial that plaintiff was never more than a stranger to the 2005 loan. the power of reviewing courts begins and ends with a determination of whether there is any substantial evidence. § 2424(a)(1)(C) to forego other remedies and invoke the power of
. An appeal of a ruling by a superior court judge or other judicial officer in a limited civil case is to the appellate division of the superior court. Sutro.County of Marin. [C. 370-371. contradicted or uncontradicted.App.2nd 348. (2) whether the sale was held in accordance with § 2924 of the Civil Code under power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust. and (3) whether plaintiff had “duly perfected” its title to the property. entered judgement against defendant on August 25. Answer at para.. that plaintiff had no legal authority to make the critical election under C. 2009. Gregg (1993) 90 Cal. § 904. Jr.C.P. 5 & 6. that will sustain the findings made or the judgment rendered.C.2] D. Standard of Review
Where an attack is made on the findings or judgment on ground that they are not supported by the evidence. by the Honorable John A. 2009. Notice of Appeal from the ruling was timely filed on August 26. [Complaint at paras. FACTS Defendant specifically denied in his Answer the allegations made by plaintiff in its Complaint concerning: (1) whether plaintiff owns the premises. Wheeler v.
instrument number 2005-0063047 . Mr. all right title and interest conveyed to and now held by it as Trustee under the Deed of Trust” in the subject property.. The Trustee’s Deed which plaintiff submitted and the Court admitted into evidence purports to grant “to AURORA LOAN SERVICES.. in defendant’s amended trial brief filed (date) and orally on the second day of trial. and. [RT ____. in his trial brief filed (date). dated 7/28/2005 .” The Trustee’s Deed also identifies AURORA as the foreclosing beneficiary: “The grantee herein IS the foreclosing beneficiary.sale. Recorder of MARIN.C..” These contentions were no surprise to plaintiff at trial. p. orally on the first day of trial. Dancy testified he never borrowed money from AURORA LOAN SERVICES.. expressed or implied. 1] For his part. Defendant raised these specific contentions in his (date) motion for summary judgment.P § 1161 to prove the sale was held “in accordance with C. plaintiff could not meet its burden under C.” [Trial Exhibit __. [RT __] He took out a loan from American Sterling Bank. LLC (herein called Grantee) but without covenant or warranty. which the Court later admitted into evidence. as a result.. [Trial Exhibit __] The Deed
states: “this conveyance is made in compliance with the terms of the Deed of Trust . LLC.. § 2924" or that plaintiff’s title had been “duly perfected. [RT ____] He authenticated the 2005 Deed of Trust... California.C. Trial Exhibit __] The Deed of Trust identifies the Lender as “AMERICAN
STERLING BANK. [Trial Exhibit No. INC. nor did it produce any written evidence to explain how AURORA supposedly became a successor beneficiary or was anything more than a complete stranger to the 2005 loan with no legal authority to elect to conduct sale. Plaintiff provided no testimony at trial concerning any assignment of the deed of trust to AURORA.” It identifies the Trustee as “FIRST TRUSTEE SERVICES.. TRIAL COURT RULINGS The Court appeared to rule on the first day of trial that defendant could not defend on the merits because he had not tendered the full amount due on the loan to plaintiff. [ ] For this reason it appears the trial
Court did not consider the issues defendant was attempting to raise.” and states that MERS is the “beneficiary” acting “solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and assigns. Deed of Trust. that there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that (AURORA) had authority to elect to conduct the Trustee Sale and
On the second and final day of trial the Court entered Judgment for plaintiff. not mentioning the tender issue. pages 1 & 2] Plaintiff submitted absolutely no evidence to overcome the obvious gap in title between itself (AURORA. A MISSOURI CORPORATION. [ ] The Court consistently ruled that defendant’s contentions regarding the gap in title between the Deed of Trust and the Trustee’s Deed may be appropriate elsewhere but had no place in an unlawful detainer. A MISSOURI CORPORATION. the foreclosing beneficiary) and the original lender and beneficiary (AMERICAN STERLING BANK and MERS). ___.
2d 158. but must. the property had been deeded to her before the sale.2d 69.App. DEFENDANT “CAN AND MUST” CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE SALE IN THE UNLAWFUL DETAINER ACTION Plaintiff must "prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust. [Cheney v.” Title. There.P.”) ARGUMENT I. Coyne (1946) 75 Cal.App. "not only may.C. 620] Perhaps the most factually analogous controlling authority is the case of Higgins v. The trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal. The First District Court of Appeals reversed. 2924" and title “duly perfected. inter alia. section 1161a requires proof that the property was "duly sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code. In other words. the UD defendant alleged the trustee sale was a legal nullity because. to the extent required by section 1161a. Superior Court (1959) 174 Cal.C. the question of title not only may." [Kartheiser v. be
. the UD defendant contended the sale was invalid because the purported beneficiary had no legal authority to conduct the sale in the first place. § 1161a (to prove sale “in accordance with C. holding: To the limited extent of proving deraignment of title in the manner expressly provided for in the unlawful detainer statutes.therefore plaintiff did not meet its burden under C. 159-160] In an action for unlawful detainer. but must. followed by purchase at such sale and the defendant may raise objections" on that phase of the issue of title. be tried in such actions.2d 617.
App. but must. a party has the burden of proof as to each fact the existence or nonexistence of which is essential to the claim for relief or defense that he is asserting.2d 158. The defendant challenged the underlying legal right and power to conduct the sale. [Id. 442-443] Plaintiff must "prove a sale in compliance with the statute and deed of trust. despite the fact she had also attempted to raise other issues the outside the scope of the UD. under the law laid down in the Hewitt and Cheny cases..tried in such actions. did not have the legal power or authority to do so. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO MEET ITS BURDEN OF PRODUCING EVIDENCE Except as otherwise provided by law. (1933) 131 Cal. that questions of title cannot generally be litigated in an unlawful detainer action. @ p. Dancy here contends the sale was void because the party that purportedly elected to invoke the power of sale. @ p. followed by purchase at such sale and the defendant may raise objections" on that phase of the issue of title. But to the limited extent of proving deraignment of title in the manner expressly provided for in the unlawful detainer statutes themselves the question of title not only may. [Evidence Code § 500]
“Hewitt and Cheny” say:
It is clear. be tried in such actions if the provisions of the statutes extending the remedy beyond the cases where the conventional relation of landlord and tenant exists are not to be judicially nullified. Mr. Justice's Court of Brooklyn Tp. 159-160]
. Just like the defendant in Higgins. 439. [Cheney v.. of course. the defendant. Trauzettel (1937) 9 Cal. 74]1 Higgins is very similar to the present matter. The appeals court held the defendant was entitled to try the issue in the unlawful detainer. [Hewitt v. 72] Since plaintiff alleged that his title to the property was deraigned and performed through proceedings had under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust. was entitled to challenge the legality of those particular proceedings and to have that limited issue tried and determined in the justice’s court. II. [Id.
2d 701.The obligation of a party to sustain the burden of proof requires the production of evidence for that purpose. 708-709. § 1161a(b)(3): Where the property has been sold in accordance with Section 2924 of the Civil Code.C. [Parker v. Plaintiff Is Required To Demonstrate Strict Compliance With These Statutes
The statutory situations in which the remedy of unlawful detainer is available are exclusive and the statutory procedure must be strictly followed.P. Pius X (1999) 69 Cal.C. and the title under the sale has been duly perfected. 113] Where no evidence is introduced upon an issue. [Berry v. The Elements of Plaintiff’s Case In Chief Derive From Two Statutes: C.4th 354.App. § 1161a and C.3d 99. [Emphasis added] B.App. or a person under whom such person claims. § 2924
C.3d 848. under a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by such person. Superior Court (1989) 211 Cal. [Heesy v.C. [Coppola v.C.P. Vaughn (1948) 31 Cal. a finding thereon should be against the party having the burden of proof. 868]
. [Emphasis added] C. § 2924(a)(1)(C): The Notice of Default “shall” include: A statement setting forth the nature of each breach actually known to the beneficiary and of his or her election to sell or cause to be sold the property to satisfy that obligation and any other obligation secured by the deed of trust or mortgage that is in default. City of Fountain Valley (1981) 127 Cal.App. Evidence Code § 106] A. 363] A non-judicial foreclosure sale under the power-of-sale in a deed of trust or mortgage must be conducted in strict compliance with its provisions and applicable statutory law. Society of St.
In other words.C.
Plaintiff Failed To Present Evidence The Sale Was Held “In Accordance With” Civil Code § 2924
One critical element on which plaintiff failed to present indispensable evidence whether the party electing to conduct the sale had any authority to do so. § 2924(a)(1)(C)] The language of this part of the statute stands in marked contrast to the other parts of the statute which provide for the ministerial aspects of § 2924 to be carried out by delegates of the beneficiary: “the trustee. was the electing party (AURORA) a bona fide “beneficiary” under Civil Code § 2924(a)(1)(C)? The Notice of Default “shall” include: A statement setting forth the nature of each breach actually known to the beneficiary and of his or her election to sell or cause to be sold the property to satisfy that obligation and any other obligation secured by the deed of trust or mortgage that is in default. Otherwise. a stranger to the loan cannot elect to invoke the power of sale in the Deed of Trust. The “electing beneficiary” must have legal power deriving from the original Note or Deed of Trust. This power is reserved exclusively for the “beneficiary. mortgagee. § 2924(a)(1)] But the statute empowers only the “beneficiary” to make the critical election of remedies and invoke the power of sale. [Emphasis added] Under the statute.” [C. the statute
. or beneficiary.C.C. The statute does not empower a stranger to elect the sale remedy or conduct the sale. It is axiomatic that for the sale to have been held “in accordance with Section 2924" the party electing to conduct the sale must have had legal authority to do so.” [C. or any of their authorized agents.
[Kelley v. “The assignment of a debt secured by mortgage carries with it the security.” [C. Strictly speaking. Statutory provisions regarding the exercise of the power of sale provide substantive rights to the trustor and limit the power of sale for the protection of the trustor. 712] Here. The original lender was American Sterling Bank and the beneficiary was MERS.C. N.” [Trial Exhibit __] But plaintiff failed to produce any evidence to bridge this obvious gap in title.2d 179. plaintiff had no more right to sell this property than did the Man On The Moon. There is absolutely no evidence plaintiff had any right to cause the sale to take place.App.does not permit a sale to take place. the Note and Deed of Trust cannot be separated.A. Trial Exhibit # 1] But according to the Trustee’s Deed. The purported assignment of a mortgage without an assignment of the debt secured is a legal nullity. Upshaw (1952) 39 Cal. § 2936] Assignment of the Note carries the mortgage (Deed of Trust) with it. v. La Jolla Group II (2005) 129 Cal. [Bank of America. But unless plaintiff proves who owned the Note at the time of election it is impossible to discern whether the sale was held in accordance with § 2924. 192]
. [Deed of Trust.4th 706. As a matter of law. Plaintiff/AURORA “WAS the foreclosing beneficiary. plaintiff was not the original beneficiary. it may not have been necessary for plaintiff to prove it actually owned the Note at the time of election of sale. According to the evidence at trial.
to convey to the purchaser that which he has purchased. 384. plaintiff has failed to prove its title is “valid and good beyond all reasonable doubt. from the evidence at trial it would appear there is a gap in title the size of the grand canyon between the parties to the 2005 loan (Sterling/MERS) and the 2008 Trustee’s Deed (AURORA). Kessler v.App.2d 644. title thus becomes an issue. 837. Bridge (1958) 161 Cal. Plaintiff Failed To Present Evidence That Its Title Has Been “duly Perfected”
Plaintiff must prove affirmatively that the property was duly sold and that "the title under the sale has been duly perfected. Plaintiff provide no evidence the Note or Deed of Trust were ever assigned. i. Title Ins. 649] This includes good record title [Gwin v. All such assignments are required by law to be written.e. (1951) 37 Cal.2d Supp. notarized and recorded." Contrary to the rule applying to unlawful detainer where the landlord-tenant relationship is involved. [Kelliher v..In order to carry it’s burden to demonstrate the sale was held in accordance with the law. 841] Here.App. Kelliher (1950) 101 Cal. plaintiff needed to present evidence at trial showing the party that elected to conduct the sale under § 2924(a)(1)(C) had the requisite legal authority to do so. & Trust Co.2d 226. The power of sale may only
. valid and good beyond all reasonable doubt. [Hocking v. Calegaris (1903) 139 Cal. 232] Title is duly perfected when all steps have been taken to make it perfect. D.” On the contrary.
. must prove their chain of title to the note in question.” which is probably uninsurable. Trial Exhibit #4] Plaintiff was supposed to have executed. Plaintiff’s Failure to Present “Clear And Positive” Evidence of Assignment or Overcoming the Gap In Title Is Fatal To Plaintiff’s Cause of Action
If plaintiff really had possessed legal authority to elect the power of sale.. We know plaintiff was the “foreclosing beneficiary. it would not have been undue burden for plaintiff to present such evidence at trial.5] Not only did plaintiff fail to produce such documents from the Recorder’s Office.5] The burden of proving an assignment falls upon the party asserting rights thereunder.2d 284.](Emphasis added. Title Insurance & Trust Co. E. Rather than “perfect title” what plaintiff has now is nothing more than a “wild deed.” (Cockerell v. § 2932. 292 [plaintiffs failed to prove valid assignment of note and deed of trust to them.“be exercised by the assignee of the assignment” after it is “duly acknowledged and recorded.C. . All assignments of the Note and Substitutions of the Trustee must be in writing and recorded. Such evidence must not only be sufficient to establish the fact of the assignment..” [C. [Civil Code § 2932. but the measure of sufficiency requires that the evidence of assignment be “clear and positive.. (1954) 42 Cal. it also failed to produce any evidence whatsoever about any assignment or other legal event which might have bridged this obvious gap in title. notarized & recorded the chain of title documents before conducting the sale.” [Trustee’s Deed.
Maron v. under the statute of frauds. § 2924.App. 485 [assignment of five-year lease]) F.The assignment of a contract required to be in writing under the statute of frauds must also be made by written instrument. ______] This is not the case. Howard (1968) 258 Cal. Howard (1968) 258 Cal. (Civil Code §§ 1091 & 1624. C. not whether plaintiff had the power to conduct the sale in the first place. subscribed by the party disposing of the same.
. 485 [assignment of five-year lease]) Moreover. [Transcript. First. (Civil Code §§ 1091 & 1624.C. The recitation is silent about the one issue before the court.2d 473. the recitation in the instant Trustee’s Deed [Trial Exhibit # 4] says absolutely nothing about whether the party electing to invoke the power of sale had a legal right to do so.C.2d 473.App. [C. The Recitation Language In the Trustee’s Deed Is Insufficient
Plaintiff argued at trial the recitation language in the trustee’s deed is sufficient to carry its burden of proof as to whether the sale was held in compliance with C. § 2924(c)] Furthermore. Maron v. § 2924 permits such recitations concerning the notice requirements of the trustee sale process. a purported assignment of the Note or Deed of Trust would be void if not in writing or by operation of law.C. unless the assignment be by operation of law. whether the § 2924(a)(1)(C) election was made by a true “beneficiary” with power of election deriving from the 2005 Note or Deed of Trust.
268] There was an unlawful detainer action at issue. § 2924.C. For example. The restraining order was set aside and the sale went forward. in Crummer v.” [Id. The case was tried in the Superior
. The tender issue arises in those cases only as a result of the equitable cross-actions. unless defendant tenders the full loan amount. Whitehead (1964) 230 Cal.App. the issue was whether the trial Court had abused it’s discretion in “refusing to set aside the trustee’s sale. unlawful detainer actions joined or consolidated with equitable causes of action in which the defaulting homeowner sought affirmative equitable relief in the form of setting aside the trustee sale. On the first day of trial the court appeared to suggest defendant could not challenge whether plaintiff had met it’s burden of proof because defendant had not tendered the full amount of the loan to plaintiff.C. [ tender issue again.2d 264. DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO DISPUTE ELEMENTS OF PLAINTIFF’S CAUSE OF ACTION NOTWITHSTANDING THE “TENDER” ISSUE It is unclear from the record what the trial court ultimately decided with regard to the issue of tender. [ ] But defendant addressed the issue in ] The court did not mention the
his Amended Trial Brief. All the “tender” cases plaintiff cited at trial and in it’s trial brief are hybrids.
In any event.III. the unlawful detainer statute does not exempt plaintiff from having to prove the essential elements of its own case under C.P. @ p. but the appellant had also made affirmative equitable claims on which she obtained a temporary restraining order ex parte restraining the sale. § 1161a and C.
“Tender” Arises From A Request For Equitable Relief
The tender issue arises only in the context of an
.” The MCA case on which plaintiff relied is also a hybrid. Unlike Crummer and MCA.] The tender issue is mentioned only in the last five lines of the decision.3d 742. 174] Citing Crummer. presumably as a result of the equitable action. Nor did he pray for a judgement setting aside the 2008 trustee sale. The defendant there claimed the sale was improperly held and sought monetary damages and “that the trustee’s sale be declared null and void. Dancy did not seek equitable relief. (Vasey v. (1977) 70 Cal. the MCA decision states.Court. Universal Diversified Enterprises Corp.3d 170. the present case between plaintiff and Mr. 177] Again. and only as a prerequisite to “her demand for a judgment cancelling the trustee sale. UD plus equitable action for affirmative relief.App. (1972) 27 Cal. Mr.App. v. He is not seeking to invalidate the 2005 Note or Deed of Trust. Dancy is purely statutory. “Some disposition on the part of (defendant) to do equity by tendering the amount of the debt due is a prerequisite to a demand for a judgement cancelling the trustee’s sale.” [MCA @ p. such relief is beyond the scope of this unlawful detainer.” [Id. the tender requirement is applied only to the claim in equity. Inc. appellant’s “demand for a judgment cancelling the trustee’s sale. Indeed. California Dance Co.” [MCA. 747 [Unlawful detainer action may not be tried in conjunction with other causes or claims except perhaps by mutual consent of parties.]) A.
Fralick (1934) 2 Cal. v.App. and Vasey v. 599.App. Plaintiff’s cause of action is purely statutory.App. The “mode and measure of plaintiff's recovery” are limited by these statutes. Bergren (1982) 130 Cal. Leonard v.3d 1148..2d 221.App. “It is well established in California that unlawful detainer actions are purely statutory. Kwok v.3d 596.P. the present action contains no equitable request.2d 341. Universal Diversified Enterprises Corp.C. C. 1151] It is well established that unlawful detainer actions are wholly created and strictly controlled by statute in California. Superior Court (1986) 181 Cal. (emphasis added). Bank of America (1936) 16 Cal. 225-227. § 2924) contains a
.3d 742.” [Balassy v. [MCA. (1977) 70 Cal. Calif. Inc. The requirement that a trustor seeking equitable relief to set aside a foreclosure sale must make a proper tender is based upon the principle that one seeking equity must do equity. citing Markham v. [Ibid.App. The Present Unlawful Detainer Is Purely Statutory
Here. 748] Neither statute (C. § 1161a. supra. He merely denied elements of plaintiff’s statutory cause of action. Defendant did not seek affirmative relief. The statutes prevail over inconsistent general principles of law and procedure because of the special function of unlawful detainer actions to restore immediate possession of real property.equitable claim. B.3d @ 177. Dance Co.C. 344] There is no tender requirement contained in the unlawful detainer statute(s). 27 Cal.
The statute requires plaintiff demonstrate the sale was held in accordance with C.C. Plaintiff brought itself within the requirements of Civil Code § 1161a. Dancy
. Plaintiff failed to present evidence on these two issues. 2009 __________________________ Richard Hurlburt Attorney for Defendant. evidence which was indispensable to its chosen cause of action. which in most cases would be a recorded assignment. Dated: October ___. plaintiff chose to accept the benefit of the summary proceeding in exchange for the obligation to strictly comply with the statute. In so doing. § 2924 and that title was duly perfected. CONCLUSION What plaintiff seeks here is proof the entity that purports to have sold his home of __ years more than a complete stranger to the 2005 loan. Such proof is routinely required in other contract actions where the plaintiff was not a party to the original transaction.requirement that defendant tender the loan amount before plaintiff is required to prove the elements of its cause of action for unlawful detainer. If AURORA really did have legal authority to elect the power of sale then it would not have been an undue burden for plaintiff to present such evidence.P. Earl A.
DRAFT+Opening+Brief by tmccand257 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedCalifornia Appeal Information Limited Civil Cases- Unlawful Detainer or Evictionby 83jjmackMotion to Appellate Division of Superior Court to Enjoin Judge Ewell 5.18by msf31538Florida Default Law Group Commits Fraud on the Courtby Larry BradshawDefendant's Eviction Trial Briefby saldanna2010_STPL(Web)_704_DELby Vatan BhatnagarFebruary 18, 2009 Issueby The Brown Daily HeraldCampus Mediation Ready Set Go Packetby Conflict EducationProfResp_Barnett_Fall10by jbrit14EthicSolo-35by Meredith Woods MorrisKEYES v OBAMA - Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsiderationby Jack RyanMason v. Sargent, CUMcv-08-228 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2008)by Chris BuckMotion Set Aside/Recuse 1:08-cv-1971-WSDby Janet and James51 43 the Limitation Actby tonyvinayakdebt advice - how_to_set_aside_a_judgment_in_the_county_courtby Debt Adviceautomatic_stay_4by davidchey4617Code of Civil Procedure-Evictionby ChicagoMTOMOTION ASKING KADDO TO TRY CASE ON ITS MERITSby AJ WebermanStrunk Reply Motion Extention Timeby 5EQV232Order Re Default State Appeal Kok v Peopleby vanderkok2Bank of Ravens Wood v. Kingby 3201kfgLegPhilo Report - Case Analysis (functional-policy science)by Leiya LansangLathrop v. George, CUMcv-08-274 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2009)by Chris BuckLimitation Actby antcbeMotion - Main Documentby ergodocMotion for Reconsideration scheduling 20110204160129by Laurel OkeefeProperty Casesby Charles FosterSmall Claimc Court Ppt[1]by TradUABCLandlord Tenant Actby Jeffrey Beck Sr.Similar to DRAFT+Opening+BriefCalifornia Appeal Information Limited Civil Cases- Unlawful Detainer or EvictionMotion to Appellate Division of Superior Court to Enjoin Judge Ewell 5.18Florida Default Law Group Commits Fraud on the CourtDefendant's Eviction Trial Brief2010_STPL(Web)_704_DELFebruary 18, 2009 IssueCampus Mediation Ready Set Go PacketProfResp_Barnett_Fall10EthicSolo-35KEYES v OBAMA - Notice of Motion and Motion for ReconsiderationMason v. Sargent, CUMcv-08-228 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2008)Motion Set Aside/Recuse 1:08-cv-1971-WSD51 43 the Limitation Actdebt advice - how_to_set_aside_a_judgment_in_the_county_courtautomatic_stay_4Code of Civil Procedure-EvictionMOTION ASKING KADDO TO TRY CASE ON ITS MERITSStrunk Reply Motion Extention TimeOrder Re Default State Appeal Kok v PeopleBank of Ravens Wood v. KingLegPhilo Report - Case Analysis (functional-policy science)Lathrop v. George, CUMcv-08-274 (Cumberland Super. Ct., 2009)Limitation ActMotion - Main DocumentMotion for Reconsideration scheduling 20110204160129Property CasesSmall Claimc Court Ppt[1]Landlord Tenant ActADR - Landlord-Tenant - Dallas - 11-3-2010Defendant's Motion for ReconsiderationDRAFT+Opening+Brief