Source: http://wfhmcaught.blogspot.com/2011/07/join-class-action-for-wrongful.html
Timestamp: 2018-01-17 06:36:41
Document Index: 389276804

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2923', '§2015', '§ 115', '§ 669', '§115', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2924', '§ 2924']

ARE YOU A VICTIM OF WELLS FARGO'S PAIN?: JOIN CLASS ACTION FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURES
Join the Class Action to enjoin “wrongful Foreclosures”
Ok… I’ve seen enough ….About 70% of all foreclosures do not include a declaration under penalty of perjury as required by civil code 2923.5 newly enacted Sept 6,2008. I am forming a class action to enjoin these wrongful foreclosures. Set fourth here is the portion of the pleading and the applicable law.
181. There is in existence a certain written instrument which purports to be a Notice of
Default that is in the possession ofDefendants, and each of them. (See Exhibit “B”)
182. The written instrument alleged in Paragraph “¬181″ was procured as follows:
Defendants cannot prove that the nonjudicial foreclosure which occurred, strictly complied with the tenets ofCalifornia Civil Code Sections 2923.5 and 2924 in order to maintain an action for possession pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161. As of September 6, 2008, California Civil Code Section 2923.5 applies to loans made from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007, and loans secured by residential real property that are for owner-occupied residences. For purposes of Section 2923.5, “owner-occupied” means that the residence is the principal residence of the borrower. Prior to filing a Notice of Default, Section 2923.5 of the CaliforniaCivil Code provides in pertinent part:
(1) A trustee may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until 30 days after contact is made as required by paragraph (2) or 30 days after satisfying the due diligence requirements as described in subdivision (g).
(2) An authorized agent shall contact the borrower in person or by telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days.
(3) A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall include a declaration from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent that it has contacted the borrower, tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section, or the borrower has surrendered the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
Invalid Declaration on Notice of Default and/or Notice of Trustee’s Sale
183. The purpose of permitting a declaration under penalty of perjury, in lieu of a sworn statement, is to help ensure that declarations contain a truthful factual representation and are made in good faith. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, 73 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 339 (4th Dist. 1999).
183. In addition to California Civil Code §2923.5, California Code of Civil Procedure §2015.5 states:
Here, The Notice of Default does not have the required agent’s personal knowledge of facts and if the Plaintiff borrower was affirmatively contacted in person or by telephone to assess the Plaintiff’s financial situation and explore options for the Plaintiff to avoid foreclosure. A simple check box next to the “facts” does not suffice.
This defendant did not adhere to the mandates laid out by congress before a foreclosure can be considered duly perfected. The Notice of Default states, “That by reason thereof, the present beneficiary under such deed of trust, has executed and delivered to said agent, a written Declaration of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said agent such Deed of Trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby, and has declared and does hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and payable and has elected and does hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations secured thereby.” However, Defendants do not have the Deed of Trust, nor do they provide any documents evidencing obligations secured thereby. For the aforementioned reasons, the Notice of Default will be void as a matter of law.
184. Furthermore, according to California Penal Code § 115 in pertinent part:
In addition, California Evidence Code § 669 states in pertinent part:
¹ Bova v. Vinciguerra, 139 A.D.2d 797, 526 N.Y. S.2d 671 (3d Dep’t 1988).
Here, as stated above the Declaration of Due Diligence as required by Section 2923.5 of the California Civil Code is missing and/or improper for the Notice of Default. Therefore, Defendants are guilty of a felony for recording the Notice of Default with a false instrument according to California Penal Code §115. Since Defendants have violated a statute, the failure of them to exercise due care will be presumed.
183. The written instrument alleged in Paragraph “¬181″ was also procured as follows:
By an invalid sale conducted on the part of Defendants, and each of them, in violation of statutes including, but not limited to: Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that the NOTE was invalid and unenforceable due to the intentional and willful violations including but, not limited to: California Civil Code 2924b etc. et seq., California Civil Code §§§ 2924b(a), 2924b(d), 2924b(e) by failing and/or refusing to mail the Notice of Default within ten business days to Plaintiffs, by failing and/or refusing to post and mail the Notice of Default; by failing and/or refusing to mail Plaintiffs the
Notice of Default within one month pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924b (c (1), (2); by failing and/or refusing to properly set the sale date pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924f(b); by failing and/or refusing to publish the Notice of Sale twenty days prior to the date set for sale pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924f(b); by failing and/or refusing to record the Notice of Sale pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924g(d);
184. Since the enumerated law was effective as of September 06, 2008 the sale of the property at issue is invalid pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 2923.5 and 2924,
and thus the Defendants’ claim of title and allegation thereto is erroneous.
185. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, willfully, wrongfully and without justification, and without privilege conducted an invalid foreclosure sale against the Plaintiff’s SUBJECT PROPERTY, thereby, slandering Plaintiff’s title thereto.
186. Furthermore, The California Foreclosure Prevention Act, states the following:
The California Foreclosure Prevention Action became effective June 15, 2009. This new law delays the non-judicial foreclosure process by requiring an addition 90-day delay (beyond the current three-month period) between recording a notice of default and a notice of stay for certain residential properties. The law applies to:
4. The loan is secured by a first lien on residential property that is located in California.
187. In our case, Plantiff, Dannie S. Mahinay’s property was his principal place of residence and his deed was dated on April 9, 2007. Therefore, the California Foreclosure Prevention Action applies and they should be allowed an additional 90 days (plus the three-month period already) after Notice of Default is recorded.
188. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale obtained after the sale is false and causes a doubt to be cast on Plaintiff’s title to the property described above.
189. The aforementioned Instrument directly impairs Plaintiff’s right to possession and ownership of the Subject Property.
190. Furthermore, the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were
Check the notice of default and if there is no declaration “under penalty of Perjury”
Fax me the notice of default and or the notice of trustees sale if you qualify I will add you to the Class action now forming at no cost to you.
If we join together we can beat the lender and there Billions in predatory loans. Fax the notice to 909-382-9956 include your contact phone and my office will contact upon review of the notices. Again this is a class action now forming there is no charge for the review or to be member of the Class action Southern California (909)890-9192 in Northern California(925)957-9797.
Guardsmark Nailed with Class Action OT Suit by San Jose Employment Attorneys Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik for Alleged California Labor Code Violations (prweb.com)
Summary Box: Delays stemming foreclosure activity (seattlepi.com)
Neblett, Beard & Arsenault Files Class Action Lawsuit Against DuPont Over Imprelis Herbicide (prweb.com)
current rulings on wrongful foreclosure (timothymccandless.wordpress.com)
Foreclosures fall in most U.S. cities (money.cnn.com)
Note on Approval and Rejection of Non-Class Settlements (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
Posted by Kelly Hansen at 6:54 PM
Labels: Civil code, Class Action, Defendant, Foreclosure, Law, Legal Information, Litigation, Notice of default