Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Complaint For Wrongful Foreclosure, Fraud, Negligence, Quiet Title and Unfair Business Practices
Complaint For Wrongful Foreclosure, Fraud, Negligence, Quiet Title and Unfair Business Practices
(SBN 180765)
1 Law Offices of Cameron H. Totten
2 620 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 405
Glendale, California 91203
3 Telephone (818) 483-5795
Facsimile (818) 230-9817
4 [email protected]
5
Attorney for Plaintiffs
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
8
) PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT FOR
9 PLAINTIFFS, )
10 ) (1) NEGLIGENCE;
vs. ) (2) FRAUD;
11 ) (3) CANCELLATION OF A VOIDABLE
SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC; ) CONTRACT UNDER REV & TAX CODE
12 MTC FINANCIAL INC., DBA TRUSTEE ) §§ 23304.1, 23305A AND VIOLATION OF
CORPS; U.S. BANK NATIONAL ) CAL. CORP. CODE §§ 191(C)(7);
13 ASSOCIATION AS INDENTURE ) (4) TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEE’S SALE;
14 TRUSTEE, ON BEHALF OF THE ) (5) TO VOID OR CANCEL TRUSTEE’S
HOLDERS OF THE TERWIN MORTGAGE ) DEED UPON SALE;
15 TRUST 2007-QHL1 ASSET-BACKED ) (6) TO VOID OR CANCEL ASSIGNMENT
SECURITIES, SERIES 2007-QHL1, ) OF DEED OF TRUST;
16 WITHOUT RECOURSE; MORTGAGE ) (7) WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE;
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, ) (8) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
17 INC; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, ) (9) BREACH OF THE IMPLIED
18 CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE ) COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND
RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR ) FAIR DEALING;
19 INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY ) (10) UNJUST ENRICHMENT;
DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ) (11) VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA
20 ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE, OR ) BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE
ANY CLOUD ON PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE ) SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ.;
21
THERETO; and DOES 1-20, INCLUSIVE, ) (12) QUIET TITLE; AND
22 ) (13) SLANDER OF TITLE
DEFENDANTS. )
23 )
)
24 )
)
25
)
26 )
)
27 )
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
1
TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD
1
2 HEREIN:
4 PARTIES
5
3. Defendant Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC is, and at all times herein mentioned
6
was, a Delaware limited liability company, organized and existed under the laws of the State of
7
California, doing business in Los Angeles County, California.
8
4. Defendant U.S. Bank, National Association, as Indenture Trustee, on Behalf of
9
10 the Holders of the Terwin Mortgage Trust 2007-QHL1 Asset-Backed Securities, Series 2007-
11 QHL1, Without Recourse (“U.S. Bank”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a business
12 entity of unknown form, doing business in Los Angeles County, California.
13
5. Defendant MTC Financial Inc., dba Trustee Corps (“TC”) is a California
14
corporation with its principal place of business in Orange County, California.
15
6. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), is a
16
17 Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Virginia.
18 8. “All Persons Unknown, Claiming Any Legal Or Equitable Right, Title, Estate,
19 Lien, Or Interest In The Property Described In The Complaint Adverse To Plaintiffs’ Title, Or
20 Any Cloud On Plaintiffs’ Title Thereto” are sued herein pursuant to California Code of Civil
21
Procedure Section 762.020(a).
22
9. Plaintiffs do not know the true names and capacities of the defendants sued
23
herein as DOES 1 through 20 (“DOE Defendants”), inclusive, and therefore sues said DOE
24
25 Defendants by fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based on such
26 information and belief aver that each of the DOE Defendants is contractually, strictly,
27 negligently, intentionally, vicariously liable and or otherwise legally responsible in some manner
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
2
for the acts and omissions described herein. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to set forth the
1
2 true names and capacities of each DOE Defendant when same are ascertained.
3 10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and based on such information and belief aver
4 that Defendants U.S. Bank, SLS and DOE Defendants 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,
5
are and at all material times have been, the agents, servants or employees of each other,
6
purporting to act within the scope of said agency, service or employment in performing the acts
7
and omitting to act as averred herein. U.S. Bank, SLS, MTC, MERS and DOE Defendants 6
8
through 10, inclusive, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Foreclosing Defendants.”
9
10 11. Each of the Defendants named herein are believed to, and are alleged to have
11 been acting in concert with, as employee, agent, co-conspirator or member of a joint venture of,
12 each of the other Defendants, and are therefore alleged to be jointly and severally liable for the
13
claims set forth herein, except as otherwise alleged.
14
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
15
12. Prior to July 5, 2007, Plaintiffs purchased certain real property commonly known
16
as (the “Subject Property”).
17
18 13. On or about July 5, 2007, Plaintiffs refinanced the loan on the Subject Property
19 through Quality Home Loans (“Quality”) and executed a promissory note in favor of Quality.
20 The note was secured by a deed of trust with Quality as beneficiary.
21
14. Plaintiffs made each payment due on the new loan.
22
15. On or about November 1, 2007, SLS acquired the servicing rights to Plaintiffs’
23
loan from Quality. Plaintiffs continued to make their payments but now remitted them to SLS.
24
25 16. In August 2008, the monthly payment due under the note was $3,021.15. On or
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
3
17. On or about September 1, 2008, Plaintiffs again made their regular monthly
1
2 mortgage payment on the loan to SLS. However, on or before September 29, 2008, Plaintiffs
3 were notified by SLS that SLS allegedly had not received Plaintiffs’ monthly mortgage
4 payments for the months of August and September 2008. Plaintiffs advised Mr., a
5
representative of SLS, that the payments had indeed been made on time. In response, Mr.
6
requested written verification of the payments.
7
18. On or about September 30, 2008, Plaintiffs faxed to SLS correspondence and
8
copies of Plaintiffs’ bank confirmations showing the debits on August 3 and September 4, 2008,
9
10 going to SLS.
11 19. In response, Mr. contacted Plaintiffs and stated that the bank confirmations were
12 insufficient proof of payment and requested further verification. Plaintiffs again faxed to Mr.
13
on October 2nd and October 30th more bank transaction records showing the debits on August 3
14
and September 4, 2008, both paid to SLS.
15
20. On or about November 4, 2008, Plaintiffs were contacted by a gentleman who
16
17 identified himself as a representative of SLS named who was calling on behalf of Mr. . told
18 Plaintiffs that SLS had not been successful in locating Plaintiffs’ August and September
19 payments, but that SLS was placing a waiver on the October and November 2008 payments as a
20 show of good faith. said he expected SLS to locate the payments soon.
21
21. Plaintiffs made several telephone calls on a regular basis to check on the status of
22
the payments. After a couple of weeks of receiving no correspondence, Plaintiffs spoke with “e”
23
of SLS. advised Plaintiffs that their account was not current for August, September, October
24
25 and November, and that the next payment due was for December 2008. further advised that
26 Plaintiffs should be receiving a new accounting summary within the next few days.
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
4
22. On or about November 23, 2008, when Plaintiffs had not received the new
1
2 accounting, Plaintiffs contacted SLS inquiring about it. Plaintiffs spoke with “” another SLS
3 representative. stated that he knew nothing about the August and September payments, or a
4 new accounting or any arrangements to waive the October and November payments. He further
5
stated that if SLS did not receive payment within the next 24 hours, SLS would foreclose on the
6
Subject Property. Plaintiffs then made several calls to Mr. to confirm the waivers but none of
7
them returned Plaintiffs’ calls. Plaintiffs also called SLS’s Vice President of Customer Service,
8
, but she did not return Plaintiffs’ call either.
9
10 23. Subsequently, on or about January 24, 2009, Plaintiffs received notice that a
11 Notice of Default and Election to Sell Deed of Trust (“Notice”) had been recorded on the
12 Subject Property. The Notice was executed on January 9, 2009, and recorded on January 12,
13
2009. However, Plaintiffs were not familiar with the entities set forth therein. Specifically, the
14
Notice stated that the Deed of Trust executed by Plaintiffs “was to secure obligations in favor of
15
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. [“MERS”], as Beneficiary,” not Quality. MERS
16
17 was never a beneficiary of Plaintiffs’ loan. Additionally, MERS was never entitled to receive
18 payments from Plaintiffs pursuant to the note and MERS has never been qualified to conduct
19 business in the State of California. Thus, MERS did not have legal standing or any legal right to
20 substitute the trustee under the Deed of Trust. Moreover, the Notice listed MTC as the trustee
21
and MTC executed and recorded the Notice. The Notice did not include a declaration pursuant
22
to Civil Code Section 2923.5. A true and correct copy of the Notice is attached hereto as
23
Exhibit “A.”
24
25 24. The Notice was wrongfully recorded by MTC as Plaintiffs were not in default
26 with their payment obligations as they made (and provided proof of payment) for the August and
27 September 2008 payments at issue. Moreover, the Notice was wrongful and improper because
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
5
MTC did not have the legal right to act as trustee under the Deed of Trust. Specifically, the
1
2 Substitution of Trustee which allegedly substituted MTC in as trustee was not executed until
3 March 10, 2009, and was not recorded until April 13, 2009. A true and correct copy of said
4 Substitution of Trustee is attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” Thus, MTC was not the duly
5
appointed trustee under the Deed of Trust when it executed the Notice on January 9, 2009.
6
25. Prior to their receipt of the Notice, Plaintiffs did not receive any telephone calls
7
or written correspondence from SLS.
8
26. In or about February 2009, Plaintiffs retained what they believed to be legal
9
10 counsel, Mr., to stop the foreclosure. On or about April 10, 2009, Mr. filed a complaint against
12 27. In or about mid-late April 2009, Plaintiffs received a Notice of Trustee’s Sale in
13
the mail and promptly gave it to Mr.. Attached to the Notice of Trustee’s Sale was a declaration
14
pursuant to Section 2923.5 signed by in which he testifies that he sent a letter to Plaintiffs,
15
attempted to contact Plaintiffs by telephone at least 3 times and sent a certified letter notifying
16
17 Plaintiffs of the default. The facts set forth in the declaration were not true. Prior to receiving
26 Therefore, the Assignment was invalid and void. Moreover, the recording of the Notice of
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
6
Default was invalid and void because it occurred approximately two months prior to the alleged
1
3 29. Based upon information and belief, there was no assignment of the Note with the
4 Deed of Trust, none of the Foreclosing Defendants are the holder of the Note in due course, and
5
none of the Foreclosing Defendants were assigned the Note by Quality. Accordingly, none of
6
the Foreclosing Defendants were ever entitled to enforce the Note.
7
30. Based upon information and belief, on or about May 4, 2009, notwithstanding of
8
the fact that it was not the trustee under the Deed of Trust and it did not have any authority from
9
10 the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust, MTC went forward with the public auction which
11 resulted in US Bank being granted and conveyed the Subject Property by MTC, allegedly acting
12 as the duly appointed Trustee under the Deed of Trust. The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale which
13
was executed and recorded by MTC states that US Bank was the foreclosing beneficiary. A true
14
and correct copy of the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is attached hereto as Exhibit “C.” The
15
Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale was also invalid and void because it was based on an invalid and void
16
18 31. Based upon information and belief, the Trustee’s Sale was also invalid because it
19 took place without anyone ever presenting the original note, or original and valid assignments of
20 the note, to MTC. The failure to do so resulted in an invalid foreclosure sale.
21
32. Based upon information and belief, at no time did MTC know, in fact, who the
22
actual beneficiary of the Deed of Trust was. Further, Plaintiffs are informed and belief that the
23
actual beneficiary of the Deed of Trust NEVER provided a declaration to MTC stating that
24
25 Plaintiffs were in default under the terms of the Deed of Trust and, accordingly, the recording of
26 the Notice of Default and any subsequent documents relating to a non-judicial foreclosure were
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
7
33. On or about June 12, 2009, Plaintiffs received a courtesy copy of a Notice of
1
2 Unlawful Detainer from the Court which was Plaintiffs’ first notice that the Foreclosing
4 34. Thereafter, Plaintiffs discovered that Mr. was not in fact an attorney and had
5
defrauded Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs then had to defend against the Unlawful Detainer Action in pro
6
per. Unfortunately, a judgment was entered against them and a Writ of Possession was issued
7
on or about August 13, 2009. Plaintiffs were locked out of their home by the Sheriffs shortly
8
thereafter.
9
11 NEGLIGENCE
12 (AGAINST THE FORECLOSING DEFENDANTS)
13
35. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1
14
through 34, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
15
36. At all times relevant herein, the Foreclosing Defendants, acting as Plaintiffs’
16
17 lender and loan servicer, had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill to maintain proper and
18 accurate loan records and to discharge and fulfill the other incidents attendant to the
19 maintenance, accounting and servicing of loan records, including, but not limited, accurate
20 crediting of payments made by Plaintiffs.
21
37. In taking the actions alleged above, and in failing to take the actions as alleged
22
above, the Foreclosing Defendants breached their duty of care and skill to Plaintiffs in the
23
servicing of Plaintiffs’ loan by, among other things, failing to properly and accurately credit
24
25 payments made by Plaintiffs toward the loan, preparing and filing false documents, and
26 foreclosing on the Subject Property without having the legal authority and/or proper
27 documentation to do so.
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
8
38. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the
1
2 Foreclosing Defendants as set forth above, Plaintiffs suffered general and special damages in an
11 connection with the defense of the foreclosure process which had been commenced by the
12 Foreclosing Defendants.
13
41. Defendant represented himself as an attorney but was not an attorney. Therefore,
14
Defendant is liable under a theory of negligence per se as he was engaged in criminal conduct.
15
42. Additionally, Defendant failed to use reasonable skill and care in the
16
17 representation of Plaintiffs in that he failed to take any action other than filing a complaint in the
18 wrong judicial district. He did not advise and consult with Plaintiffs as to their options or the
26 as set forth above, Plaintiffs wasted several critical months which could have been used to stop
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
9
the foreclosure of their property through negotiation or legal action resulting in general and
1
4 FRAUD
5
(AGAINST THE FORECLOSING DEFENDANTS)
6
45. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1
7
through 44, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
8
46. The Foreclosing Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of defrauding
9
10 Plaintiffs in that, during the life of the mortgage loan, the Foreclosing Defendants failed to
11 properly credit payments made and foreclosed on the Subject Property based on Plaintiffs’
17 interest. Plaintiffs made such payments and provided proof of the payments based on the
19 Defendants also utilized amounts known to the Defendants to be inaccurate to determine the
20 amount allegedly due and owing for purposes of foreclosure.
21
48. Additionally, the Foreclosing Defendants concealed material facts known to them
22
but not to Plaintiffs regarding payments, notices, assignments, transfers, late fees and charges
23
with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs.
24
25 49. The Foreclosing Defendants made the above-referenced false representations,
27 induce Plaintiffs' reliance, which the unsuspecting Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon, resulting in
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
10
damage to their credit standing, costs and loss of their property. Plaintiffs were unaware of the
1
2 true facts. Had Plaintiffs known the true facts, Plaintiffs, among other things, would not have
3 maintained the Foreclosing Defendants as their lender, servicer and trustee (and their alleged
4 agents) and/or would have taken legal action immediately to save their house.
5
50. As a result of the Foreclosing Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, Plaintiffs have
6
suffered compensatory, general and special damages in an amount to proof. Additionally, the
7
Foreclosing Defendants acted with malice, fraud and/or oppression and, thus, Plaintiffs are
8
entitled to an award of punitive damages.
9
11 FRAUD
12 (AGAINST DEFENDANT )
13
51. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1
14
through 50, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
15
52. In or around February 2009, Plaintiffs retained Defendant to represent them in
16
17 connection with the defense of the foreclosure process which had been commenced by the
18 Foreclosing Defendants.
26 special damages as well as the loss of the Subject Property. Plaintiffs were unaware of the true
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
11
facts. Had Plaintiffs known the true facts, Plaintiffs would not have retained Defendant Jones to
1
17 59. Based upon information and belief, MERS was at all times herein operating in
18 the State of California without registering as a foreign corporation to avoid paying taxes to the
19 state.
20 60. As a result of MERS’s failure to comply with the California franchise tax laws,
21
the Deed of Trust alleged herein is voidable by Plaintiff pursuant to Rev & Tax Code §§
22
23304.1, 23304.1(b), and 23305a.
23
61. Moreover, MERS is not in the business of creating evidences, and it is not a
24
25 foreign lending institution. It does not originate loans, never had any true interest in the subject
26 loan or Deed of Trust, and thereby does not meet any legal exceptions to the registration
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
12
62. MERS conducted business in California when it was not registered with the
1
3 Assignment of Deed of Trust in April and May 2009. The substitution allowed the new Trustee,
10 voidable at the option of any party to the contract, other than the [delinquent] taxpayer. Thus,
11 MERS did not have the legal capacity to enter into a contract with Plaintiffs or anyone else, and
12 Plaintiffs have the option of voiding the contract. Therefore, any action that MERS took with
13
regard to assigning the within deed of trust and substituting the trustee would be ultra vires and
14
void.
15
64. Plaintiffs hereby expressly request an adjudication to the effect that the
16
17 assignment of the deed of trust and substitution of trustee by MERS are void.
26 Foreclosing Defendants’ interest was never acknowledged and recorded in violation of Civil
27 Code § 2932.5, resulting in the non-judicial foreclosure sale being void ab initio.
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
13
67. Moreover, the Foreclosing Defendants never had the legal authority to foreclose
1
2 because the instrument (Deed of Trust), which permitted foreclosure if the borrower was in
3 default, is void as it was improperly assigned and/or transferred to the Foreclosing Defendants
4 from the original lender. Therefore, the Deed of Trust could not provide a basis for a
5
foreclosure, and the non-judicial foreclosure is void ab initio.
6
68. Accordingly, Plaintiffs hereby request an order of this Court that the Trustee’s
7
Sale was irregular in that it was legally void and conducted without any right or privilege by the
8
Foreclosing Defendants.
9
17 of no force and effect, for the reasons set forth above including, inter alia, the fact the Deed of
18 Trust which purportedly secured the Note, which served as the basis for a claim to have the right
19 to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure was at all times void due to the wrongful and improper
20 assignment to the Foreclosing Defendants.
21
71. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an order that the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is
22
void ab initio and cancelling such Trustee’s Deed.
23
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
24
25 TO VOID OR CANCEL ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
14
72. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1
1
3 73. The assignment of the deed of trust is invalid, and of no force and effect, for the
4 reasons set forth above including, inter alia, the fact the MERS did not have standing or the legal
5
authority to assign the deed of trust which purportedly secured the Note, and which served as the
6
basis for a claim to have the right to conduct a non-judicial foreclosure. Thus, the assignment of
7
the deed of trust was at all times void.
8
74. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an order that the Assignment of the Deed of
9
17 76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that after the origination
18 and funding of their loan, it was sold to investors as a “mortgage backed security” and that none
19 of the Foreclosing Defendants in this action owned this loan, or the corresponding note.
20 Moreover, none of the Foreclosing Defendants in this action were lawfully appointed as trustee
21
or had the original note assigned to them. Accordingly, none of the Foreclosing Defendants in
22
this action had the right to declare default, cause notices of default to be issued or recorded, or
23
foreclose on Plaintiffs’ interest in the Subject Property. The Foreclosing Defendants were not
24
25 the note holder or a beneficiary at any time with regard to Plaintiffs’ loan.
26 77. Plaintiffs further allege on information and belief that none of the Foreclosing
27 Defendants in this action are beneficiaries or representatives of the beneficiary and, if the
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
15
Foreclosing Defendants allege otherwise, they do not have the original note to prove that they
1
3 78. Plaintiffs’ further allege on information and belief that the loan was sold or
4 transferred without notifying the Plaintiffs in writing. Therefore, the loan is void of legal rights
5
to enforce it.
6
79. Additionally, The Foreclosing Defendants violated California Civil Code
7
§2923.5(a), which requires a “mortgagee, beneficiary or authorized agent” to “contact the
8
borrower or person by telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore
9
10 options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. “Section 2923.5(b) requires a default notice to
11 include a declaration “from the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent” of compliance with
12 section 2923.5, including attempt “with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this
13
section.”
14
80. None of the Foreclosing Defendants contacted Plaintiffs to discuss their financial
15
situation. Moreover, none of the Foreclosing Defendants explored options with Plaintiffs to
16
17 avoid foreclosure. Additionally, none of the Foreclosing Defendants informed Plaintiffs of the
18 right to have a meeting within 14 days of said contact. Accordingly, the Foreclosing Defendants
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
16
BREACH OF CONTRACT
1
10 The terms of the note required payments made by Plaintiffs to be applied properly to the note.
11 86. The Foreclosing Defendants breached the note and deed of trust by failing to
12 apply the payments made by Plaintiffs in August and September 2008 to Plaintiffs’ loan, the
13
result of which led to the Foreclosing Defendants eventually foreclosing on the Subject
14
Property.
15
87. As a proximate result of Defendants' breaches, Plaintiffs have suffered
16
26 requires that no party will do anything that will have the effect of impairing, destroying, or
27 injuring the rights of the other party to receive the benefits of their agreement. The covenant
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
17
implies that in all contracts each party will do all things reasonably contemplated by the terms of
1
2 the contract to accomplish its purpose. This covenant protects the benefits of the contract that
3 the parties reasonably contemplated when they entered into the agreement.
4 90. Alternatively, if the note and deed of trust was validly and properly assigned to
5
the Foreclosing Defendants, the Foreclosing Defendants did not act in good faith and did not
6
deal fairly with Plaintiffs in connection with the note and deed of trust when they refused to
7
properly apply the August and September 2008 payments to their loan and thereafter foreclosed
8
on the Subject Property even though Plaintiffs provided proof of payments for the allegedly
9
10 skipped months and thereafter refused to resolve the mistake with Plaintiffs in an equitable
11 fashion.
12 91. The Foreclosing Defendants enjoyed substantial discretionary power affecting the
13
rights of Plaintiff during the events alleged in this Complaint. They were required to exercise
14
such power in good faith.
15
92. The Foreclosing Defendants engaged in such conduct to drive Plaintiffs into
16
17 foreclosure so that they could acquire the Subject Property with its large equity at a bargain
18 basement price. These actions were a bad faith breach of the contract between Plaintiffs and the
19 Foreclosing Defendants which show that they had no intention of performing the contract,
20 consisting of the original note and deed of trust, in good faith.
21
93. MERS willfully breached their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
22
with Plaintiff when MERS allowed their alleged agent to execute the Assignment of the Deed of
23
Trust in order to appoint a new Trustee to begin foreclosure on the Subject Property.
24
25 94. As a result of the Foreclosing Defendants’ breaches of this covenant, Plaintiffs
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
18
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
1
18 99. California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., prohibits acts of
19 unfair competition, which means and includes any “fraudulent business act or practice . . .” and
20 conduct which is “likely to deceive” and is “fraudulent” within the meaning of Section 17200.
21
100. As more fully described above, the Foreclosing Defendants’ acts and practices
22
are likely to deceive, constituting a fraudulent business act or practice. This conduct is ongoing
23
and continues to this date.
24
25 101. Specifically, the Foreclosing Defendants engage in deceptive business practices
26 with respect to mortgage loan servicing, assignments of notes and deeds of trust, foreclosure of
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
19
(a) Assessing improper or excessive late fees;
1
10 (f) Seeking to collect, and collecting, various improper fees, costs and charges,
11 that are either not legally due under the mortgage contract or California law, or that are in excess
17 have tendered timely and sufficient payments or have otherwise complied with mortgage
19 (i) Failing to disclose the fees, costs and charges allowable under the mortgage
20 contract;
21
(j) Ignoring grace periods;
22
(k) Executing and recording false and misleading documents; and
23
(l) Acting as beneficiaries and trustees without the legal authority to do so.
24
25 102. The Foreclosing Defendants fail to act in good faith as they take fees for services
26 but do not render them competently and in compliance with applicable law.
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
20
103. Moreover, the Foreclosing Defendants engage in a uniform pattern and practice
1
2 of unfair and overly-aggressive servicing that result in the assessment of unwarranted and unfair
3 fees against California consumers, and premature default often resulting in unfair and illegal
10 practices of the Foreclosing Defendants, Plaintiffs and California consumers have suffered and
11 will continue to suffer damages in the form of unfair and unwarranted late fees and other
17 continuing in such practices pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Sections 17203
18 and 17204. Additionally, Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief and attorney’s fees
19 as available under California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 and related sections.
20 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
21
QUIET TITLE
22
(AS TO DEFENDANTS US BANK; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY
23
LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE, LIEN, OR INTEREST IN THE
24
25 PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ TITLE,
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
21
107. Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1
1
3 108. Plaintiffs are the equitable owners of the Subject Property which has the
7
109. Plaintiffs seek to quiet title against the claims of Defendants US Bank ; ALL
8
PERSONS UNKNOWN, CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE,
9
12 THERETO; and DOES 1 through 20 (collectively referred to herein as the “Title Defendants”)
13
as the Title Defendants hold themselves out as entitled to fee simple ownership of the Subject
14
Property by and through their purchase of the property at the trustee’s sale held on or about May
15
4, 2009. In fact, the Title Defendants had no right to title or interest in the Subject Property and
16
17 no right to entertain any rights of ownership including the right to foreclosure, offering the
18 Subject Property for sale at a trustee’s sale, demanding possession or filing cases for unlawful
19 detainer. Nevertheless, the Title Defendants proceeded with a non-judicial foreclosure sale,
20 through MTC as alleged trustee, illegally and with unclean hands. Plaintiffs are willing to
21
tender the amount received subject to equitable adjustment for the damage caused to the
22
Plaintiffs by the Title Defendants’ activities.
23
110. In July 2007, Plaintiffs executed the Deed of Trust which listed the trustee as
24
25 T.D. Service Company. Later, MTC foreclosed on the Subject Property. At the time that MTC
26 signed the Notice of Default, MTC had not been substituted as the trustee in place of T.D.
27 Service Company. As the Notice of Default must be signed by the trustee, either original or
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
22
substituted, and the beneficiary or trustee, either original or substituted, must comply with
1
2 California Civil Code Section 2923.5, the trustee’s sale is void because MTC was not the trustee
3 at the time that it signed the Notice of Default and allegedly complied with Section 2923.5.
4 Thus, the trustee and beneficiary failed to follow the statutory rules for a valid foreclosure under
5
the California Civil Code and it is, therefore, void.
6
111. Additionally, the trustee’s sale is void because the requirements of Civil Code
7
Section 2923.5 were not complied with by MTC or any of the Foreclosing Defendants.
8
112. Plaintiffs seek to quiet title as of July 5, 2007. Plaintiff seeks a judicial
9
10 declaration that the title to the Subject Property is vested in Plaintiffs alone and that the Title
11 Defendants and each of them be declared to have no interest estate, right, title or interest in the
12 subject property and that the Title Defendants, their agents and assigns, be forever enjoined from
13
asserting any estate, right title or interest in the Subject Property subject to Plaintiffs’ rights.
14
FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
15
SLANDER OF TITLE
16
26 beneficiary of the Deed of Trust or the agent of US Bank, wrongfully and without privilege,
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
23
116. Later, MTC, again purportedly but falsely acting as either the trustee or the agent
1
2 of the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust or the agent of US Bank, wrongfully and without
3 privilege, caused a Notice of Trustee’s Sale to be recorded against the Subject Property.
4 117. Finally, MTC, again purportedly but falsely acting as either the trustee or the
5
agent of the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust or the agent of US Bank, wrongfully and without
6
privilege, caused a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale to be recorded against the Subject Property.
7
118. None of the Foreclosing Defendants, whether jointly or severally, were ever a
8
trustee, beneficiary or assignee of any beneficiary of any Deed of Trust recorded against the
9
10 Subject Property. Accordingly, they wrongfully caused the recording of the Notice of Default,
11 Notice of Trustee’s Sale and Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale against the Subject Property.
12 119. US Bank, wrongfully and without privilege, has published matters or caused
13
matters to be published that they are the current owners of the Subject Property which is untrue
14
and disparaging to Plaintiffs’ interest in the Subject Property.
15
120. By doing the acts described above, the Foreclosing Defendants have slandered
16
18 121. In that the conduct and acts of the Foreclosing Defendants violated, among
19 others, California Civil Code section 2924(a)(1)(C), such conduct and acts were not privileged.
20 122. The conduct of the Foreclosing Defendants caused Plaintiffs to suffer general and
21
special damages in an amount to be proven at trial.
22
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
23
Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against the Defendants and each of them, jointly
24
25 and severally, as follows:
26 1. For a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties, specifically that the
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
24
2. For issuance of an Order canceling all Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale.
1
10 permanently enjoined from committing any acts of unfair competition in violation of § 17200,
12 8. For civil penalties pursuant to statute, restitution, injunctive relief and reasonable
13
attorneys fees according to proof.
14
9. For reasonable costs of suit and such other and further relief as the Court deems
15
proper.
16
17
19
20 By: ____________________________
21 Cameron H. Totten
Attorney for Plaintiffs
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT
25