Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Grossman's Opening Brief 12.27.11

Grossman's Opening Brief 12.27.11

Ratings: (0)|Views: 35 |Likes:
Published by martinlawyer
Oral argument completed. Under submission.
Oral argument completed. Under submission.

More info:

Published by: martinlawyer on Aug 28, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/31/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 1
CASE NO. CIV B228800IN THE COURT OF APPEALOF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIASECOND APPELLATE DISTRICTDIVISION 8ANTHONY GROSSMAN,Plaintiff, Respondent, Cross-AppellantVEDWARD SCHLOSSDefendant, Appellant, Cross-Respondent
Appellee’s Opening Brief and Cross Appellant’s Opening Brief 
 Appeal from Orders of the Los Angeles Superior CourtJudge John P. Shook, Presiding, Dept. 53
______________________________________________________________________________
MARTIN S FRIEDLANDER, ESQ.
State Bar No. 3682810350 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 603Los Angeles, Ca. 90024Tel. No. 310 435-1510Fax No. 310 278 7330 Attorney for ANTHONY GROSSMAN
 
 2
TO THE HONORABLE PRESIDING JUDGE AND ASSOCIATE JUDGES OF THECOURT OF APPEALI INTRODUCTION
On November 12, 2010, the trial court entered various orders. One order granted
Schloss’ Slapp Motion to Grossman’s 6
th
 
cause of action and denied Schloss’ SlappMotion as to Grossman’s 8
th
cause of action. Schloss filed his Notice of Appeal on11/12/2010 and Grossman filed his cross appeal on 11/15/2010. Grossman alsoappealed from various other orders of the trial court listed as items 2, 3, 4, and 5 of hisNotice of Cross Appeal. (CT 1625).
II STATEMENT OF THE CASE
 Grossman, was foreclosed out of his house at a non-judicial sale by BayviewLoan Servicing, LLC, and (
“Bayview”) who contended that MERS assigned the Trust
Deed to Bayview. Bayview was not the holder or owner of the Note in favor of 
HOMEAMERICAN CREDIT INC DBA UPLAND MTG (“HOME AMERICAN”
secured bysaid TD. Said Note to HOMEAMERICAN was assigned by HOMEAMERICAN to HSBC.See Exhibit 3 (CT 1465)
attached as an Exhibit to Grossman’s sur reply Brief 
. (CT 1434
 –
1465) Bayview, Seaside, and Schloss contend throughout their papers that Grossmanwas required to make a tender to obtain relief under one of the causes of action.Grossman was not required to make a tender to Bayview who was not the holder or assignee of the Note. Grossman had no legal obligation to tender to a stranger. Bayview
 
 3
was not able to trace any chain of title to the Note from HSBC to Bayview. Since the TDwas security for a Note held by a 3
rd
party, Bayview was precluded from exercising itsright of sale under the TD. If tender was made to an entity that did not hold the note thenthe real holder of the Note could sue Grossman. Grossman would be forced to pay thesame Note twice. That is why
Bayview was required to produce the original “inked” Note
to enforce the terms of the TD security. It failed to do so, but Grossman produced the
“Allonge” that assigned the Note to HSBC and Bayview was unable to trace title to the
Note from HSBC. They manufactured an assignment of both the Note and TD by
“forging” a signature of MERS with a “false” notarial acknowledgement. Bayview never 
traced the chain of title to the Note from HSBC to MERS.Grossman filed his First Amended and Supplemental Complaint on 11/23/2010,which was verified by Grossman. (CT 778-823 with the verification appearing on CT 823)Grossman alleged on (CT 779) that he intended to seek consolidation with the UD filed
by Pro Value “after the wrongful foreclosure “allegedly” counseled by attorney Schloss.
(CT 779-
780) Grossman used the word “allegedly” since he did not have any personal
knowledge of the communications between Schloss and his clients. This was a specialmotion to strike and no deposition was taken of Schloss as he would claim the 5
th
  Amendment privilege as we accused him of a crime, and he would also assert theattorney-client privilege. Grossman alleged an illegal and fraudulent foreclosure with the
subsequent filing of “fraudulent” and “backdated documents” with the County Recorder’s
Office
after
Grossman filed his lawsuit on 12/4/2009 and recorded in December 2009.
Grossman alleged at (CT 783) “the holder of only
the TD will never experience default

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->