Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/76527259/PLAINTIFFS-COMPLAINT-FOR-1-NEGLIGENCE-2-FRAUD-3-CANCELLATION-OF-A-VOIDABLE-CONTRACT-UNDER-REV-TAX-CODE-23304-1-23305A-AND-VIOLATION
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 09:19:47
Document Index: 518364171

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 23304', '§ 191', '§ 23304', '§ 23304', '§ 191', '§ 23304', '§ 191']

BrowseBrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Cameron H. Totten, Esq. (SBN 180765) Law Offices of Cameron H. Totten 620 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 405 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone (818) 483-5795 Facsimile (818) 230-9817 ctotten@ctottenlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) PLAINTIFFS, ) ) vs. ) ) 1SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; ) MTC FINANCIAL INC., DBA TRUSTEE ) CORPS; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ) ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE ) TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE ) HOLDERS OF THE TERWIN MORTGAGE ) TRUST 2007-QHL1 ASSET-BACKED ) SECURITIES, SERIES 2007-QHL1, ) WITHOUT RECOURSE; MORTGAGE ) ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, ) INC; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, ) CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE ) RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR ) INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY ) DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ) ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE, OR ) ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE ) THERETO; and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR (1) NEGLIGENCE; (2) FRAUD; (3) CANCELLATION OF A VOIDABLE CONTRACT UNDER REV & TAX CODE §§ 23304.1, 23305A AND VIOLATION OF CAL. CORP. CODE §§ 191(C)(7); (4) TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEE’S SALE; (5) TO VOID OR CANCEL TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE; (6) TO VOID OR CANCEL ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST; (7) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; (8) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (9) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; (10) UNJUST ENRICHMENT; (11) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ.; (12) QUIET TITLE; AND (13) SLANDER OF TITLE
been acting in concert with, as employee, agent, co-conspirator or member of a joint venture of, each of the other Defendants, and are therefore alleged to be jointly and severally liable for the claims set forth herein, except as otherwise alleged. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 12. Prior to July 5, 2007, Plaintiffs purchased certain real property commonly known
through Quality Home Loans (“Quality”) and executed a promissory note in favor of Quality. The note was secured by a deed of trust with Quality as beneficiary. 14. 15. Plaintiffs made each payment due on the new loan. On or about November 1, 2007, SLS acquired the servicing rights to Plaintiffs’
the payments. After a couple of weeks of receiving no correspondence, Plaintiffs spoke with “e” of SLS. advised Plaintiffs that their account was not current for August, September, October and November, and that the next payment due was for December 2008. further advised that Plaintiffs should be receiving a new accounting summary within the next few days.
Notice of Default and Election to Sell Deed of Trust (“Notice”) had been recorded on the Subject Property. The Notice was executed on January 9, 2009, and recorded on January 12, 2009. However, Plaintiffs were not familiar with the entities set forth therein. Specifically, the Notice stated that the Deed of Trust executed by Plaintiffs “was to secure obligations in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. [“MERS”], as Beneficiary,” not Quality. MERS was never a beneficiary of Plaintiffs’ loan. Additionally, MERS was never entitled to receive payments from Plaintiffs pursuant to the note and MERS has never been qualified to conduct business in the State of California. Thus, MERS did not have legal standing or any legal right to substitute the trustee under the Deed of Trust. Moreover, the Notice listed MTC as the trustee and MTC executed and recorded the Notice. The Notice did not include a declaration pursuant to Civil Code Section 2923.5. A true and correct copy of the Notice is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” 24. The Notice was wrongfully recorded by MTC as Plaintiffs were not in default
foreclosure of the Subject Property but after the recording of the Notice of Default, MERS (acting as beneficiary) assigned the Deed of Trust to US Bank. The Assignment was recorded by MTC. The Assignment by MERS was improper because MERS never had a beneficial interest in the Subject Property and was merely a “nominee” under the Deed of Trust. Therefore, the Assignment was invalid and void. Moreover, the recording of the Notice of
actual beneficiary of the Deed of Trust was. Further, Plaintiffs are informed and belief that the actual beneficiary of the Deed of Trust NEVER provided a declaration to MTC stating that Plaintiffs were in default under the terms of the Deed of Trust and, accordingly, the recording of the Notice of Default and any subsequent documents relating to a non-judicial foreclosure were recorded in violation of California Civil Code section 2924(a)(1)(C).
above, the Foreclosing Defendants breached their duty of care and skill to Plaintiffs in the servicing of Plaintiffs’ loan by, among other things, failing to properly and accurately credit payments made by Plaintiffs toward the loan, preparing and filing false documents, and foreclosing on the Subject Property without having the legal authority and/or proper documentation to do so.
belief allege, that had Defendant used proper skill and care in the handling of Plaintiffs’ matter, Plaintiffs would have been able to save their home. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant
but not to Plaintiffs regarding payments, notices, assignments, transfers, late fees and charges with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs. 49. The Foreclosing Defendants made the above-referenced false representations,
the Deed of Trust alleged herein is voidable by Plaintiff pursuant to Rev & Tax Code §§ 23304.1, 23304.1(b), and 23305a. 61. Moreover, MERS is not in the business of creating evidences, and it is not a
through 64, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 66. The Foreclosing Defendants never had the legal authority to foreclose, i.e., the
void ab initio and cancelling such Trustee’s Deed. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION TO VOID OR CANCEL ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST (AGAINST THE FORECLOSING DEFENDANTS)
and funding of their loan, it was sold to investors as a “mortgage backed security” and that none of the Foreclosing Defendants in this action owned this loan, or the corresponding note. Moreover, none of the Foreclosing Defendants in this action were lawfully appointed as trustee or had the original note assigned to them. Accordingly, none of the Foreclosing Defendants in this action had the right to declare default, cause notices of default to be issued or recorded, or foreclose on Plaintiffs’ interest in the Subject Property. The Foreclosing Defendants were not the note holder or a beneficiary at any time with regard to Plaintiffs’ loan. 77. Plaintiffs further allege on information and belief that none of the Foreclosing
Subject Property in that the Foreclosing Defendants did not have the legal authority to foreclose on the Subject Property and, alternatively, if they had the legal authority, they failed to comply with Civil Code Section 2923.5 and 2923.6. 82. As a result of the above alleged wrongs, Plaintiffs have suffered general and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 88. 85. 83.
apply the payments made by Plaintiffs in August and September 2008 to Plaintiffs’ loan, the result of which led to the Foreclosing Defendants eventually foreclosing on the Subject Property. 87. As a proximate result of Defendants' breaches, Plaintiffs have suffered
through 87, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 89. Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in
with Plaintiff when MERS allowed their alleged agent to execute the Assignment of the Deed of Trust in order to appoint a new Trustee to begin foreclosure on the Subject Property. 94. As a result of the Foreclosing Defendants’ breaches of this covenant, Plaintiffs
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 98. 97. 95.
Defendants, and an order of this Court disgorging all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the Foreclosing Defendants from their wrongful conduct. THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ. (AGAINST THE FORECLOSING DEFENDANTS) Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1
are likely to deceive, constituting a fraudulent business act or practice. This conduct is ongoing and continues to this date. 101. Specifically, the Foreclosing Defendants engage in deceptive business practices
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 102. contract;
(j) Ignoring grace periods; (k) Executing and recording false and misleading documents; and (l) Acting as beneficiaries and trustees without the legal authority to do so. The Foreclosing Defendants fail to act in good faith as they take fees for services
enriched and should be required to disgorge their illicit profits and/or make restitution to Plaintiffs and other California consumers who have been harmed, and/or be enjoined from continuing in such practices pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204. Additionally, Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief and attorney’s fees as available under California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 and related sections. FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUIET TITLE (AS TO DEFENDANTS US BANK; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE THERETO; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 20)
PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFF’S TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO; and DOES 1 through 20 (collectively referred to herein as the “Title Defendants”) as the Title Defendants hold themselves out as entitled to fee simple ownership of the Subject Property by and through their purchase of the property at the trustee’s sale held on or about May 4, 2009. In fact, the Title Defendants had no right to title or interest in the Subject Property and no right to entertain any rights of ownership including the right to foreclosure, offering the Subject Property for sale at a trustee’s sale, demanding possession or filing cases for unlawful detainer. Nevertheless, the Title Defendants proceeded with a non-judicial foreclosure sale, through MTC as alleged trustee, illegally and with unclean hands. Plaintiffs are willing to tender the amount received subject to equitable adjustment for the damage caused to the Plaintiffs by the Title Defendants’ activities. 110. In July 2007, Plaintiffs executed the Deed of Trust which listed the trustee as
declaration that the title to the Subject Property is vested in Plaintiffs alone and that the Title Defendants and each of them be declared to have no interest estate, right, title or interest in the subject property and that the Title Defendants, their agents and assigns, be forever enjoined from asserting any estate, right title or interest in the Subject Property subject to Plaintiffs’ rights. FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SLANDER OF TITLE (AGAINST THE FORECLOSING DEFENDANTS) 113. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1
beneficiary of a Deed of Trust or a beneficiary’s assignee or the agent of a beneficiary or its assignee may cause to be recorded against real property either a Notice of Default or a Notice of Trustee’s Sale. 115. MTC, purportedly but falsely acting as either the trustee or the agent of the
special damages in an amount to be proven at trial. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows: 1. For a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties, specifically that the
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR (1) NEGLIGENCE; (2) FRAUD; (3) CANCELLATION OF A VOIDABLE CONTRACT UNDER REV & TAX CODE §§ 23304.1, 23305A AND VIOLATION OF CAL. CORP. CODE §§ 191(C)(7); (4) TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEE’S SALE; (5) TO VOID OR CANCEL TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE; (6) TO VOID OR CANCEL ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST; (7) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; (8) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (9) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; (10) UNJUST ENRICHMENT; (11) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ.; (12) QUIET TITLE; AND (13) SLANDER OF TITLE by Carrieonic270 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionPlaintiffs vs. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; MTC FINANCIAL INC., DBA TRUSTEE CORPS; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE TERWIN MORTGAGE TRUST 200...Plaintiffs vs. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; MTC FINANCIAL INC., DBA TRUSTEE CORPS; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS OF THE TERWIN MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-QHL1 ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES, SERIES 2007-QHL1, WITHOUT RECOURSE; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE, OR ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE THERETO; and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.Interests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedCalifornia Wrongful Foreclosure Complaintby winstons2311Post-Foreclosure Complaint Plaintiff)by tmccandPre-Foreclosure Complaint Plaintiff)by tmccandWrongful Foreclosure Xyz ABCby Janet and JamesQuiet Title Complaint Arizona Superior Court -showmetheloan.net 070512by nakan103APPEAL FROM EVICTION CASE=DUE PROCESS DENIEDby msf31538California Complaint for Wrongful Foreclosure, Fraud, 17200 Violations, Violation of California Civil Code Section 2924j and 2924k, Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Act, Negligence and Conversiont Formby Cameron Totten32079262-WRONGFUL-FORECLOSURE-COMPLAINT-SECOND-AMENDED-FRAUD-CC-2923-5-2924-2943-2934-2932-5-LENNAR-UNIVERSAL-AMERICAN-NDEX-ONEWEST-MERS-ET-ALby grahnegHOW TO REMOVE CLOUDED TITLE--ADVERSARY PROCEEDING- VOID DEED OF TRUST 2011by 83jjmackComplaint for Violation of the One Action Rule, Violation of Rosenthal Act, Wrongful Foreclosure, Conversion, Fraud, Misrepresentation, Unfair Business Practicesby Cameron TottenKELLIE ROHLING, Foreclosure Fraud, Forgery,and Everhome Mortgage, the Predatory Mortgage Servicerby KingGeorgeIXCompl. GA Fraud, Wrong. Frclsure., Unjust Enrich., Rescission, Declar. Reliefby Ronald HouchinsIn Re Ferrel l. Agard - Mers is Toastby Foreclosure FraudComplaint for Fraudby Jeff NewtonFlow Chart Adversary Proceeding - ABSOLUTELY FREEby 83jjmackTila Disclosure Req Viol Remediesby CarrieonicCalifornia Wrongful Foreclosure, Promissory Estoppel, Violation of Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA") Complaintby Cameron Tottensample motion to vacateby Loretta SmithEx Parte Application for Stay of Judgment or Unlawful Detainer3by Raoul ClymerCase.ga Fulton County Wrongful Foreclosure 1by Tonia SimmonsiaWill Courts Fraudulent Documents to Prevail? Declaration in Support of Opposition - Actual Fraudulent Documents upon which foreclsure is based are attached.by BlaqRubiKirtley-CalifNotaryComplaintby pfeeshSpecial Interogatories in California Litigationby Stan BurmanCase File California FDCPA RESPA UCL QUASI CONTRACT Decl Relief M-T-D DENIED Naranjo v. SBMC Mortgage by DeontosSecond Amended Complaint_Formby Cameron Totten18-RIC482762 Notice of Lis Pendens 2008-02-15by apharkletoshagioEx Parte Application 05-11-11by Timothy McCandlessMcDonnell Supp Brief, As Filed, 1.30.2012 wby DinSFLASimilar to PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR (1) NEGLIGENCE; (2) FRAUD; (3) CANCELLATION OF A VOIDABLE CONTRACT UNDER REV & TAX CODE §§ 23304.1, 23305A AND VIOLATION OF CAL. CORP. CODE §§ 191(C)(7); (4) TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEE’S SALE; (5) TO VOID OR CANCEL TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE; (6) TO VOID OR CANCEL ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST; (7) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; (8) BREACH OF CONTRACT; (9) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING; (10) UNJUST ENRICHMENT; (11) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ.; (12) QUIET TITLE; AND (13) SLANDER OF TITLECalifornia Wrongful Foreclosure ComplaintPost-Foreclosure Complaint Plaintiff)Pre-Foreclosure Complaint Plaintiff)Wrongful Foreclosure Xyz ABCQuiet Title Complaint Arizona Superior Court -showmetheloan.net 070512APPEAL FROM EVICTION CASE=DUE PROCESS DENIEDCalifornia Complaint for Wrongful Foreclosure, Fraud, 17200 Violations, Violation of California Civil Code Section 2924j and 2924k, Violation of Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Act, Negligence and Conversiont Form32079262-WRONGFUL-FORECLOSURE-COMPLAINT-SECOND-AMENDED-FRAUD-CC-2923-5-2924-2943-2934-2932-5-LENNAR-UNIVERSAL-AMERICAN-NDEX-ONEWEST-MERS-ET-ALHOW TO REMOVE CLOUDED TITLE--ADVERSARY PROCEEDING- VOID DEED OF TRUST 2011Complaint for Violation of the One Action Rule, Violation of Rosenthal Act, Wrongful Foreclosure, Conversion, Fraud, Misrepresentation, Unfair Business PracticesKELLIE ROHLING, Foreclosure Fraud, Forgery,and Everhome Mortgage, the Predatory Mortgage ServicerCompl. GA Fraud, Wrong. Frclsure., Unjust Enrich., Rescission, Declar. ReliefIn Re Ferrel l. Agard - Mers is ToastComplaint for FraudFlow Chart Adversary Proceeding - ABSOLUTELY FREETila Disclosure Req Viol RemediesCalifornia Wrongful Foreclosure, Promissory Estoppel, Violation of Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA") Complaintsample motion to vacateEx Parte Application for Stay of Judgment or Unlawful Detainer3Case.ga Fulton County Wrongful Foreclosure 1Will Courts Fraudulent Documents to Prevail? Declaration in Support of Opposition - Actual Fraudulent Documents upon which foreclsure is based are attached.Kirtley-CalifNotaryComplaintSpecial Interogatories in California LitigationCase File California FDCPA RESPA UCL QUASI CONTRACT Decl Relief M-T-D DENIED Naranjo v. SBMC Mortgage Second Amended Complaint_Form18-RIC482762 Notice of Lis Pendens 2008-02-15Ex Parte Application 05-11-11McDonnell Supp Brief, As Filed, 1.30.2012 wGREGORY JOHNSON V HSBC, BOA--HIS COMPLAINT AND HOW HE RESPONDED TO BANKS MOTION TO DISMISS PLUS EXHIBITS-MARCH 2012 CALIFORNIA FEDERAL COURT-SOUTHERN DIST.special interrogatories