Post-Foreclosure Complaint Plaintiff)

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

1 _________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ. SBN 147715LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS13240 Amargosa RoadVictorville, California 92392(760) 951-3663 Telephone(909) 382-9956 FacsimileAttorney for

Plaintiff

Marciano E. Jose Jr.

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAIN AND FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

Marciano E. Jose Jr.Plaintiff,V.GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,INC.; CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCECORP.; MORTGAGE ELECTRONICREGISTRATION SYSTEMS INC.;and DOES 1 through 50 inclusiveDefendants.CASE NO:

COMPLAINT FOR:MONETARY DAMAGESSTATUTORY DAMAGES, PUNITIVEDAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF ANDDECLARATORY RELIEF

1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVILCODE §2923.6;2. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONS CODE §17200;3. BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOODAND FAIR DEALING;4. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;5. VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1572;6. FRAUD;7. DECLARATORY RELIEF;8. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;9. TO SET ASIDE FORECLOSURE10. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVILCODES §2923.5 AND §2924.

Plaintiff, Jose E. Marciano Jr., (Hereinafter referred as “Plaintiff”) alleges herein as follows:

I.GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

2 _________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

1.

Plaintiff, Jose E. Marciano Jr., at all times relevant has been a resident of the County of San Bernardino, State of California and the owner of Real Property, including but notlimited to the property at issue herein, 9379 Agave Drive, Hesperia, California 92345.The Legal descriptions are as follows:APN: 3057-022-04-0-000

2.

Defendant, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC. (hereinafter “GREENPOINT”) at all times herein mentioned was doing business in the County of San Bernardino, State of California and was the original Lender for Plaintiff’s TrustDeed and Note.

3.

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., (hereinafter “MERS”) at all timesherein mentioned was presumed to being doing business in the County of SanBernardino, State of California and alleged to be the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiffs’Real Property as described above and as Situated in San Bernardino County California

4.

Defendant CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE, CORP. (hereinafter “CAL-WESTERN”) at all times herein mentioned was doing business in the County of SanBernardino, State of California and was listed on the Notice of Default for the abovenamed Real Property.

5.

Defendant, CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE, CORP (hereinafter “CAL-WESTERN RECONVEYANCE”) at all times herein mentioned was doing business inthe County of San Bernardino, State of California and was listed on the Notice of Trustee’s Sale for the above named Real Property.

6.

Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein asDOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious

3 _________________________________________________

COMPLAINT

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

names and all 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 anycloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their truenames and capacities when ascertained.

7.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times hereinmentioned each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants. Plaintiff alleges that each and every defendant alleged hereinratified the conduct of each and every other defendant. Plaintiff further alleges that atall times said defendants were was acting within the purpose and scope of such agencyand employment.

8.

Plaintiff purchased the foregoing Real Property and on or about February 7, 2007 his purchase through GREENPOINT by virtue of a Trust Deed and Notes securing theLoans. (See Exhibit “A”)

9.

Plaintiff is informed and believe that directly after GREENPOINT caused MortgageElectronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) to go on title as the “Nominee Beneficiary”this is routinely done in order to hide the true identity of the successive Beneficiarieswhen and as the loan was sold. MERS, however, acted as if they were the actual beneficiary although a Nominee is an entity in whose name a security is registeredthrough true ownership is held by another party, in other words MERS is not theBeneficiary but is used to hide the true identity of the Beneficiary. Based on thisfailure to disclose, and the lack of consideration paid by MERS, Plaintiffs allege thatthe Deed of Trust were never perfected and are a nullity as the MERS recording

of 00

Leave a Comment