First Amended Complaint Plaintiff)

TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ.
SBN 147715
1
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS
2 13240 Amargosa Road
Victorville, California 92392
3
(760) 951-3663 Telephone
4
(909) 382-9956 Facsimile
5
6 Attorney for Plaintiff

7
LYNDON BAKER
9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
10 IN AND FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
11
LYNDON BAKER,
12 CASE NO: CIVRS901013
Plaintiff,
13 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
V. MONETARY DAMAGES
14 STATUTORY DAMAGES, PUNITIVE
DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
15
DECLARATORY RELIEF
16
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 1. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL
17 REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; JP CODE §2923.6;
MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; CHASE 2. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND
18 BANK USA, N.A.; LANDAMERICA NEW PROFESSIONS CODE §17200;
3. BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD
CENTURY TITLE; RECONTRUST INC.; AND FAIR DEALING;
19
RECONTRUST INC; and DOES 1 through 4. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
20 50 inclusive 5. VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1572;
6. FRAUD;
21 Defendants. 7. DECLARATORY RELIEF;
8. INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION;
22 9. TO SET ASIDE FORECLOSURE
10. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL
23 CODES §2923.5 AND §2924.
24
25
26 Plaintiff, LYNDON BAKER, (Hereinafter referred as “Plaintiff”) alleges herein as follows:
27
28
1
_________________________________________________
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
1
2 I.
3
4 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
5 1. Plaintiff, LYNDON BAKER at all times relevant has been a resident of the County of
6
San Bernardino, State of California and the owner of Real Property, including but not
7
limited to the property at issue herein, 6084 Linda Vista Court, Rancho Cucamonga,
8
9
CA 91739. The Legal descriptions are as follows:
10 APN: : 1043522080000
11 Lot (26) in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California,
12
as recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Said County, California (hereinafter “Subject
13
Property”)
14
15
2. Defendant, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK N.A.; (hereinafter “JP MORGAN”) at all
16
times herein mentioned was doing business in the County of San Bernardino, State of
17
18 California and was the original Lender for Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust Deed and Note.
19 3. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., (hereinafter “MERS”) at all times

20
herein mentioned was presumed to being doing business in the County of San
21
Bernardino, State of California and alleged to be the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiffs’
22
Real Property as described above and as Situated in San Bernardino County California
23
24 4. Defendant, CHASE BANK USA N.A. (hereinafter “CHASE BANK”) at all times
25 herein mentioned was doing business in the County of San Bernardino, State of
26
California.
27
28
2
_________________________________________________
5. Defendant, CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC.; (hereinafter “CHASE HOME”) at all
1
2 times herein mentioned was doing business in the County of San Bernardino, State of
3 California.
4
6. Defendant, LANDAMERICA NEW CENTURY TITLE (hereinafter
5
“LANDAMERICA”) at all times herein mentioned was doing business in the County
6
7
of San Bernardino, State of California.
8 7. Defendant RECONTRUST INC., at all times herein mentioned was doing business in
9 the County of San Bernardino, State of California. In 2008, an unknown employee of
10
RECONTRUST executed on behalf of the alleged Beneficiary a “Notice of Default:
11
stated that the payments were due to MERS and JP MORGAN as beneficiary.
12
13 8. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
14 DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious
15
names and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien,
16
or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to plaintiff’s title, or any
17
cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to allege their true
18
19 names and capacities when ascertained.
20 9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein
21
mentioned each of the defendants sued herein was the agent and employee of each of
22
the remaining defendants. Plaintiff alleges that each and every defendant alleged herein
23
24
ratified the conduct of each and every other defendant. Plaintiff further alleges that at
25 all times said defendants were was acting within the purpose and scope of such agency
26 and employment.
27
28
3
_________________________________________________
10. Plaintiff purchased the foregoing Real Property and on or about April 11, 2007
1
2 financed his purchase through JP MORGAN by virtue of a Deed of Trust. The loan
3 was in the sum of $760,000.00 by monthly payment commencing thereof. Plaintiff

4
executed an “Adjustable Rage Note” promising to pay JP MORGAN. This adjustable
5
rage note was based upon a six-month adjustable rate.
6
7
11. Plaintiff is informed and believe that directly after JP MORGAN caused Mortgage
8 Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) to go on title as the “Nominee Beneficiary”

9 this is routinely done in order to hide the true identity of the successive Beneficiaries
10
when and as the loan was sold. MERS, however, acted as if they were the actual
11
beneficiary although a Nominee is an entity in whose name a security is registered
12
13 through true ownership is held by another party, in other words MERS is not the
14 Beneficiary but is used to hide the true identity of the Beneficiary. Based on this
15
failure to disclose, and the lack of consideration paid by MERS, Plaintiffs allege that
16
the Deed of Trust were never perfected and are a nullity as the MERS recording
17
separates the Debt from the Lien, and this is more so especially upon a sale of the Note
18
19 and Trust Deed.
20 12. Plaintiff further alleges that MERS acts as a Nominee for more than one principal,
21
and conceals their identity therefore if a Nominee is the same as an agent MERS
22
cannot act as an agent for multiple Banks, insurance and title companies and Mortgage
23
24
Companies because of a serious Conflict of interest. In addition Plaintiff allege that a
25 Deed of Trust cannot lawfully be held by a Nominee who has no financial interest in
26 the instrument without disclosing the identity of the actual Beneficiary, and that if a
27
party with no interest in the Note records it in their name the recorded deed is Nullity.
28
4
_________________________________________________
13. Plaintiff further alleges that MERS failure to transfer beneficial interests as the Note
1
2 and deed are sold further renders the Deed recording a nullity.
3 14. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants RECONTRUST alleges that Plaintiff became
4
in default of his loan and that payments were due to MERS and JP MORGAN as
5
Beneficiary. However this default of the loan was occasioned by the high payments,
6
7
the structure of the loan and interest rate. Furthermore, Plaintiff was not in default
8 because of the prior breach of the terms of the notes by Defendants, and each of them,
9 and therefore, the performance of Plaintiff is excused. In addition, the Declaration of
10
Due Diligence attached to the Notice of Default is void because the required “penalty
11
of perjury” and signature of a person with actual knowledge is missing which will be
12
13 discussed later in the complaint.
14 15. Plaintiff alleges that the loan contract was procedurally and substantively
15
unconscionable because while the Plaintiff’s stated income at the time of making the
16
loan was unknown to plaintiff, whereas, the payment on the loan exceeded the
17
Plaintiffs’ entire spendable income, the employees and/or agents of JP MORGAN did
18
19 not disclose to Plaintiff the terms and conditions of the repayment, and Plaintiff
20 executed documents without any explanation whatsoever.

21
16. Plaintiff alleges that the employees and/or agents of JP MORGAN represented that
22
said employees and/or agents could work-around the fact that Plaintiff’s credit was not
23
24
in good standing and could get Plaintiff approved for the loan. Defendants did not
25 disclose at any time to Plaintiff that the initial loan payment would exceed his entire
26 income. Plaintiff alleges that the loan contract, deed of trust and accompanying
27
documents were offered to Plaintiff on a take it or leave it basis.
28
5
_________________________________________________
17. Further, on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants charged and
1
2 obtained improper fees for the placement of their loan as “sub-prime” when they
3 qualified for a prime rate mortgage which would have generated less in fees and
4
interest.
5
18. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the service of the purported note was,
6
7
without their knowledge, by some means transferred from or by Defendant JP
8 MORGAN either completely or by association or other means to MERS who unknown

9 to Plaintiff provided services in various forms to be determined to others which were of
10
such a nature to render them a “Servicer.”
11
19. Also on April 11, 2007 Plaintiff executed a “Deed of Trust” which cited the lenders as
12
13 JP MORGAN and stating in the definition section that:
14 (E) “MERS” is a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERS is a separate

15
corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and
16
assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.
17
20. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant JP MORGAN and a superior bargaining strength over
18
19 Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff is relegated only the opportunity to adhere to the contract or
20 reject it, that JP MORGAN drafted all of the documents related to the loan, that no
21
negotiations were possible between Plaintiff and JP MORGAN, and MERS, and that
22
the contract was a contract of adhesion.
23
24
21. Plaintiff alleges that the loan was unconscionable in that the repayment terms were
25 unfair and unduly oppressive, because the payments exceeded Plaintiffs entire
26 combined income and as such, Defendants, and each of them, cannot enforce the terms
27
28
6
_________________________________________________
and conditions of the loan against Plaintiffs, and any non-judicial foreclosure arising
1
2 there from is void.
3 22. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants, and each of
4
them, entered into a fraudulent scheme, the purpose of which was to make a loan to
5
Plaintiff, which Defendants, and each of them, were keenly aware that Plaintiff could
6
7
not afford, at a cost way above the then prevailing market rate, made loans to Plaintiff
8 and falsely represented to Plaintiff that they could not qualify for any other financing,
9 that Plaintiff could not qualify under any reasonably underwriting guidelines, that such
10
scheme was devised to extract illegal and undisclosed compensation from Plaintiff by
11
virtue of an undisclosed yield spread premium and which Defendants, and each of
12
13 them, shared in some presently unknown percentage.
14 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that their loans after they were
15
originated and funded were sold on multiple occasions, bundled into a group of Trust
16
Deeds and subsequently sold to investors as a Derivative, “Mortgage Backed Security”,
17
and that therefore none of these defendants, and each of them, owned this loan, or Note
18
19 and cannot be and are not the Beneficiary, or lawfully appointed trustee, and have no
20 right to declare a default, to cause notices of default to issue or to be recorded, or to

21
foreclose on Plaintiffs interest in the subject property, Defendants, and each of them,
22
were not the note Holder or the Note holder in due course or any Beneficiary at any
23
24
time in regards to this loan.
25 24. That none of these Defendants, and each of them, were ever disclosed as the
26 beneficiary in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2924 et seq.
27
28
7
_________________________________________________
Moreover The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1137, impacting residential
1
2 mortgage lenders, foreclosure procedures and eviction procedures. The Governor has
3 signed this law into effect and it has taken effect as Urgency Legislation. The law has
4
three pertinent parts. It amends California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161(b)
5
regarding notice of an eviction. It adds a provision strengthening the right of local
6
7
governments to adopt “blight” ordinances and moreover, it modifies the non-judicial
8 foreclosure procedures set forth in California Civil Code Section 2924. The legislature
9 recognized that the need for such legislation by stating as follows:
10
11
“…It is essential to the economic health of California for the state to ameliorate
12 the deleterious effects on the state economy and local economies and the
California housing market that will result from the continued foreclosures of
13
residential properties in unprecedented numbers by modifying the foreclosures
14 process to require mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents to contact
borrowers and explore options that could avoid foreclosure…”
15
16
This law is effective immediately and extends on to January 1, 2013. This law
17
impacts owner-occupied primary residences only and only loans made on January 1, 2003
18
and December 3, 2007. California Civil Code Section 2924 states in part:
19
20 Foreclosure:
21 The primary purpose for the Statute is foreclosure procedures and imposes an
22
unprecedented duty upon lenders relating to contact with borrowers. The Statute amends
23
provisions of the non-judicial foreclosure procedures found in California Code of Civil
24
25
Procedure §2924, by adding requirements for meetings, due diligence, and notification of
26 counseling. Some of the more important provisions include all of the following:
27
28
8
_________________________________________________
• The lender, beneficiary or authorized agent must wait thirty (30) days after contact is
1
2 made with the borrower, or thirty days (30) after satisfying the due diligence requirements
3 set forth in the Statute, in order to commence the filing of a Notice of Default.
4
• The contact requires that the borrower’s financial situation be assessed and requires that
5
the borrower and lender explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure.
6
7
This was not done by plaintiff or the lender.
8 • The Statute requires the lender or their authorized agent to advise the borrower that the
9 borrower has the right to a subsequent meeting within fourteen (14) days of the initial
10
contact.
11
• The borrower is to be provided a toll free telephone number available at HUD for
12
13 certified housing counseling agencies.
14 • The borrower may designate an authorized agent, such as a counseling service,

15
REALTOR® or attorney, to act as their authorized agent but must expressly approve any
16
workout agreement reached by that agent.
17
• The Notice of Default must include a declaration indicating that the lender has made the
18
19 contact or made a diligent effort to make the contact and will not apply in the event of
20 surrender of the property.

21
• If the Notice of Default was already recorded prior to the date of the Statute, this
22
declaration must be included in Notices of Sale.
23
24
• In the event that the lender is initially unable to contact the borrower, they must attempt
25 telephone contact on three separate occasions at three different times.

26
27
28
9
_________________________________________________
• The lender must provide the borrower with an (800) number that will be answered by a
1
2 live person during normal business hours and provide certain links to web pages. The web
3 page must be a prominent link and must link to the following information:
4
- Options for borrowers who cannot afford their payments.
5
- A list of financial documents to gather when discussing their options.
6
7
- A toll-free telephone number available by HUD for certified counseling services.
8 - A toll-free telephone number for borrower’s to discuss options to avoid foreclosure with
9 the lender or lender’s representative.
10
Defendants did not fully comply with this code therefore the title is not duly
11
perfected.
12
13
25. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that none of these alleged
14
beneficiaries or representatives of the Beneficiary have the original note to prove that
15
16 they are in fact the party authorized to conduct the foreclosure.
17 26. Plaintiff further alleges that the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property was not
18
executed in accordance with the requirements of California Civil Code Sections
19
2923.5, 2932.5 and Commercial Code section 3302 et seq.
20
21
27. That the notices and foreclosure failed to conform with the provisions of California
22 Civil Code Sections 2923.5, 2932.5 et seq., and Commercial Code section 3302
23
et seq. Furthermore, the Notice of Default did not have a penalty of perjury disclosure,
24
nor is the agent of personal knowledge. Therefore, it is not a valid declaration.
25
28. Plaintiff further alleges that California Civil Code section 2924 et seq. and its subparts
26
27 are being applied to Plaintiff in a manner that is unlawful, because at least in part the
28 party acting as the Trustee proceeded with the foreclosure of Plaintiff Subject Property
10
_________________________________________________
notwithstanding the fact that the Trustee was not in possession of the original Note,
1
2 that the Note when it was assigned, the assignment by JP MORGAN and its assigns,
3 did not covey the power of sale because it violated the terms of California Civil Code
4
section 2932.5, that the assignment when it was made, that the Note executed by
5
Plaintiff was no longer a negotiable instrument because the assignment was not
6
7
physically applied to the Note pursuant to the holding of Pribus v. Bush, (1981) 118
8 Cal.App.3d 1003, 173 Cal.Rptr. 747, although there was sufficient room on the back of
9 the Note to complete the assignment, and as such the foreclosure of Plaintiff’s subject
10
property did not conform to the strict mandates of Civil Code section 2924.76.
11
29. Plaintiff alleges that the employees and/or agents of JP MORGAN represented that
12
13 said employees and/or agents could work-around the fact that Plaintiff’s credit was not
14 in good standing and could get Plaintiff approved for the loan. Defendants did not
15
disclose at any time to Plaintiff that the initial loan payment would exceed their entire
16
income.
17
30. Plaintiff alleges that the loan contract, deed of trust and accompanying documents
18
19 were offered to Plaintiff on a take it or leave it basis.
20 31. That by virtue of the method and manner of Defendants carrying out Civil Code
21
section 2924 et seq., the foreclosure of the Subject Property is void ab initio as a matter
22
of law.
23
24
32. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are engaged in and continue to
25 engage in violations of California law including but, not limited to: Civil Code section
26 2924 et seq. and 2932.5 et seq., and unless restrained will continue to engage in such
27
28
11
_________________________________________________
misconduct, and that a public benefit necessitates that Defendants be restrained from
1
2 such conduct in the future.
3 II.
4
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE FINDINGS
5
6 33. Recently, the California Legislature found and declared the following in enacting
7 California Civil Code 2923.6 on July 8, 2008:

8
9
(a) California is facing an unprecedented threat to its state economy because
10
of skyrocketing residential property foreclosure rates in California. Residential
11
property foreclosures increased sevenfold from 2008 to 2007, in 2007, more than
12
84,375 properties were lost to foreclosure in California, and 254,824 loans went
13
into default, the first step in the foreclosure process.
14
15
(b) High foreclosure rates have adversely affected property values in
16
California, and will have even greater adverse consequences as foreclosure rates
17
continue to rise. According to statistics released by the HOPE NOW Alliance the
18
number of completed California foreclosure sales in 2007’ increased almost
19
threefold from 2002 in the first quarter to 5574 in the fourth quarter of that year.
20
Those same statistics report that 10,556 foreclosure sales, almost double the
21
number for the prior quarter, were completed just in the month of January 2008.
22
More foreclosures means less money for schools, public safety, and other key
23
services.
24
25
(c) Under specified circumstances, mortgage lenders and servicers are
26
authorized under their pooling and servicing agreements to modify mortgage loans
27
when the modification is in the best interest of investors. Generally, that
28
12
_________________________________________________
1 modification may be deemed to be in the best interest of investors when the net
2 present value of the income stream of the modified loan is greater than the amount
3 that would be recovered through the disposition of the real property security
4 through a foreclosure sale.
5
6 (d) It is essential to the economic health of California for the state to

7 ameliorate the deleterious effects on the state economy and local economies and
8 the California housing market that will result from the continued foreclosures of
9 residential properties in unprecedented numbers by modifying the foreclosure
10 process to require mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents to contact
11 borrowers and explore options that could avoid foreclosure. These Changes in
12 accessing the state's foreclosure process are essential to ensure that the process
13 does not exacerbate the current crisis by adding more foreclosures to the glut of
14 foreclosed properties already on the market when a foreclosure could have been
15 avoided. Those additional foreclosures will further destabilize the housing market
16 with significant, corresponding deleterious effects on the local and state economy.
17
(e) According to a survey released by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
18
Corporation (Freddie Mac) on January 31, 2008, 57 percent of the nation’s late-
19
paying borrowers do not know their lenders may offer alternative to help them
20
avoid foreclosure.
21
22
(f) As reflected in recent government and industry-led efforts to help troubled
23
borrowers, the mortgage foreclosure crisis impacts borrowers not only in
24
nontraditional loans, but also many borrowers in conventional loans.
25
26
(g) This act is necessary to avoid unnecessary foreclosures of residential
27
properties and thereby provide stability to California's statewide and regional
28
13
_________________________________________________
1 economies and housing market by requiring early contact and communications
2 between mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents and specified borrowers
3 to explore options that could avoid foreclosure and by facilitating the modification
4 or restructuring of loans in appropriate circumstances.
5
34. “Operation Malicious Mortgage’ is a nationwide operation coordinated by the U.S.
6
7 Department of Justice and the FBI to identify, arrest, and prosecute mortgage fraud
8 violators.” San Diego Union Tribune, June 19, 2008. As shown below, Plaintiffs were
9
victims of such mortgage fraud.
10
35. "Home ownership is the foundation of the American Dream. Dangerous mortgages
11
12
have put millions of families in jeopardy of losing their homes.” CNN Money,
13 December 24, 2007. The Loan which is the subject of this action to Plaintiff is of such
14 character.
15
36. "Finding ways to avoid preventable foreclosures is a legitimate and important concern
16
of public policy. High rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have substantial
17
18 spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets and the broader
19 economy. Therefore, doing what we, can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just
20
in the interest of the lenders and borrowers. It's in everybody's best interest." Ben
21
Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, May 9, 2008.
22
37. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had the duty to prevent such foreclosure, but failed to
23
24 so act.
25 38. "Most of these homeowners could avoid foreclosure if present loan holders would
26
modify the existing loans by lowering the interest rate and making it fixed, capitalizing
27
28
14
_________________________________________________
the arrearages, and forgiving a portion of the loan. The result would benefit lenders,
1
2 homeowners, and their communities.” CNN Money, id.
3 39. On behalf of President Bush, Secretary Paulson has encouraged lenders to voluntarily
4
freeze interest rates on adjustable-rate mortgages. Mark Zandl, chief economist for
5
Mood’s commented, “There is no stick in the plan. There are a significant number of
6
7
investors who would rather see homeowners default and go into foreclosure.” San
8 Diego Union Tribune, id.

9 40. “Fewer than l%· of homeowners have experienced any help "from the Bush-Paulson
10
plan.” San Diego Union Tribune, id. Plaintiffs' are not of that sliver that have
11
obtained help.
12
13 41. The Gravamen of Plaintiff's complaint is that Defendants violated State laws which
14 were specifically enacted to protect such abusive, deceptive, and unfair conduct by
15
Defendants, and that Defendants cannot legally enforce a non-judicial foreclosure.
16
42. Plaintiff is a "debtor" as defined by the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code
17
1788.2(h).
18
19 43. Defendants are engaged in the collection of debts from consumers using the mail and
20 telephone.
21
44. Defendants regularly attempt to collect consumer debts alleged to be due to another.
22
45. Defendants are "debt collectors" as defined by the Rosenthal Act, California Civil
23
24
Code §1788.2(c).
25 46. The purported debt which Defendants attempted to collect from Plaintiff was a
26 "consumer debt" as defined by the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code §1788.2(f).
27
28
15
_________________________________________________
1 Defendants Are Not Holders In Due Course Since Plaintiff Was Duped Into An
2 Improper Loan And There Is No Effective Endorsement:
3
47. Plaintiff incurred a "debt" as that term is defined by California Civil 17 Code
4
5 §1788(d), when he obtained a Loan on their Personal Residence.
6 48. The loan is memorialized via a Deed of Trust and Promissory Note, each of which
7
contain an attorney fees provision for the lender should they prevail in the enforcement
8
of their contractual rights.
9
10
49. Plaintiff has no experience beyond basic financial matters.
11 50. Plaintiff was never explained the full terms of their loan, including but not limited to
12 the rate of interest how the interest rate would be calculated, what the payment
13
schedule should be, the risks and disadvantages of the loan, the prepay penalties, the
14
maximum amount the loan payment could arise to.
15
16 51. Certain fees in obtaining the loan, were also not explained to the Plaintiff, including
17 but not limited to "underwriting fees," "MERS registration fee," "appraisal fees,"
18
"broker fees”, “loan tie in fees," etc.
19
52. A determination of whether Plaintiff would be able to make the payments as specified
20
in the loan was never truly made.
21
22 53. Plaintiff's income was never truly verified.
23 54. Plaintiff was rushed when signing the documents; the closing process provided no
24
time for review and took minutes to accomplish.
25
55. Plaintiff could not understand any of the documents and signed them based on
26
27
representations and the trust and confidence the Plaintiff placed in Defendants’
28 predecessors.
16
_________________________________________________
56. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants and/or Defendants' predecessors
1
2 established and implemented the policy of failing to disclose material facts about the
3 Loan, failing to verify Plaintiff's income, falsifying Plaintiff's income, agreeing to

4
accept a Yield Spread Premium, and causing Plaintiff's Loan to include a penalty for
5
early payment.
6
7
57. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors
8 established such policy so as to profit, knowing that Plaintiff would be unable to

9 perform future terms of the Loan.
10
58. Plaintiff was a victim of Fraud in the Factum since the forgoing misrepresentations
11
caused them to obtain the home loan without accurately realizing, the risks, duties, or
12
13 obligations incurred.
14 59. The Promissory Note contains sufficient space on the note itself for endorsement
15
whereby any assignment by allonge is ineffective pursuant to Pribus v. Bush, 118 Cal.
16
App. 3d 1003 (May 12, 1981).
17
60. Defendants are not holders in due course due to Fraud in Factum and ineffective
18
19 endorsement.
20
Defendants’ Lack Standing To Conduct A Non-Judicial Foreclosure
21
Pursuant To California Civil Code 2932.5
22
23
61. Defendants have no standing to enforce a non-judicial foreclosure.
24
62. Defendants are strangers to this transaction, and have no authority to go forward with
25
26
the foreclosure and Trustee's Sale.
27 63. Plaintiff executed a ADJUSTABLE RATE NOTE (hereinafter the “Note”) and a
28 Deed of Trust to JP MORGAN.
17
_________________________________________________
64. JP MORGAN is the Lender and only party entitled to enforce the Note and any
1
2 security interest with it.
3 65. LANDAMERICA, CHASE BANK, CHASE HOME, RECONTRUST are not listed
4
anywhere in the Deed of Trust or Promissory Note.
5
66. In California, California Civil Code § 2932.5 governs the Power of sale under an
6
7
assigned mortgage, and provides that the power of sale can only vest in a person
8 entitled to money payments: "Where a power to sell real property is given to a

9 mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of
10
money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment
11
becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of
12
13 sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and
14 recorded.”
15
67. The San Bernardino County Recorder's Office does not contain any evidence of a
16
recorded assignment from JP MORGAN.
17
68. JP MORGAN has never assigned their rights under the Note.
18
19 69. The power of sale may not be exercised by any of the Defendants since there was
20 never an' acknowledged and recorded assignment pursuant to California Civil Code §
21
2932.5.
22
70. Since the Defendants did not comply with California Civil Code§2932.5, the Notice
23
24
of Default provisions of California Civil Code § 2924 were likewise never complied
25 with.
26 71. LANDAMERICA, CHASE HOME, CHASE and RECONTRUST never complied
27
with the Notice of Default provisions of California Civil Code §2924. CHASE
28
18
_________________________________________________
HOME never complied with the Notice of Default provisions of California Civil Code
1
2 §2924.
3
Defendants’ Lack of Standing to Enforce A Non-Judicial Foreclosure Pursuant To
4
California Commercial Code § 3301
5
6 72. A promissory note is person property and the deed of trust securing a note is a mere
7
incident of the debt it secures, with no separable ascertainable market value.
8
California Civil Code §§ 657, 663. Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co., 183 Cal. App.
9
10
3d 57, 62.
11 73. Any transfers of the notice and mortgage fundamentally flow back to the note:
12 "The assignment of a mortgage without a transfer of the Indebtedness confers no right,
13
since debt and security are inseparable and the mortgage alone is not a subject of
14
transfer, " Hyde v. Mangan (1891) 88 Cal. 319, 26 P 180, 1891 Cal LEXIS 693;
15
16 Johnson v, Razy (1919)181 Cal 342, 184 P 657; 1919 Cal LEXIS 358;
17 Bowman v. Sears (1923, Cal App) 63 Cal App 235, 218 P 489, 1923 Cal App LEXIS
18
199; Treat v. Burns (1932) 216 Cal 216, 13 P2d,724, 1932 Cal LEXIS 554.
19
80. ''A mortgagee's purported assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the
20
debt which is secured is a legal nullity.” Kelley V. Upshaw (1952) 39 Cal 2d 179,
21
22 246 P2d 23, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 248.
23 74. ''A trust deed has no assignable quality independent of the debt; it may not be
24
assigned or transferred apart from the debt; and an attempt to assign the trust deed
25
without a transfer of the debt is without effect.” Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc.
26
27
(1969 Cal. App. 1st Dist) 270 Cal. App. 2d 543, 76 Cal. Rptr. 529, 1969 Cal. App.
28 LEXIS 1556.
19
_________________________________________________
75. The Promissory Note is a negotiable instrument.
1
2 76. Transferring a Deed of Trust by itself does not allow enforcement of the instrument
3 unless the Promissory Note is properly negotiated.

4
77. Where an instrument has been transferred, enforceability is determined based upon
5
possession.
6
7
78. California Commercial Code § 3301 limits a negotiable instrument's enforcement to
8 the following:
9 "Person entitled. to enforce" an Instrument means (a) the holder of the instrument,
10
(b) a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or
11
(c) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the
12
13 instrument pursuant to
14 Section 3309 or subdivision (d) of Section 3418. A person may be a person entitled
15
to enforce the instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument
16
or is in wrongful possession of the instrument.
17
79. None of the Defendants are present holders of the instrument.
18
19 80. None of the Defendants are nonholders in possession of the instrument who has rights
20 of the holder.
21
81. None of the Defendants are entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section
22
3309 or subdivision (d) of Section 3418.
23
24
82. Defendants have no enforceable rights under California Commercial Code 3301(a) to
25 enforce the negotiable instrument.

26 83. Since there is no right to enforce the negotiable instrument, the Notice of Default
27
provisions of California Civil Code § 2924 and Notice of Sale provisions of California
28
20
_________________________________________________
Civil Code § 2924(f) were likewise never complied with, and there is no subsequent
1
2 incidental right to enforce any deed of trust and conduct a non-judicial foreclosure.
3 84. That the Trustee and the loan servicer are acting as agents of the Beneficiary and
4
signing documents as the agent of the agent of the agent of the Beneficiary for
5
Plaintiffs Notes and the notices therein, notwithstanding the fact that the Notes were
6
7
not negotiable prior to the sale of the Subject Property.
8 85. That by virtue of the method and manner of Defendants carrying out Civil Code
9 section 2924 et seq., the foreclosure of the Subject Property is void ab initio as a matter
10
of law.
11
86. MERS was NOT and never has been a Beneficiary of this loan or any other. MERS
12
13 is solely a registration service for tracking these Trust Deeds and mortgages and also
14 the Notes. MERS records these Trust Deeds in their name as a “nominee”, with NO
15
actual ownership interest in these Loans, the purpose is allegedly to allow the sale and
16
transfer of these instruments without the need for further recordation, however what
17
actually occurs is that the real Beneficiary remains obscured, and unknown. In
18
19 addition MERS is NOT a TRUSTEE and has no right to collect any TD payments on
20 the Note, neither does MERS have any right to enforce the notes or to be a party in
21
any Foreclosure proceedings. Yet MERS has represented itself under oath in this case
22
to be the BENEFICIARY and in that “stated” but “false” capacity has unlawfully
23
24
nominated a successive trustee.
25 87. While MERS remain on title as a “nominee” for the TD and Note both are sold on
26 several occasions afterward and ultimately bundled as a security and sold to a final
27
investor. MERS actually helps to conceal the real beneficiary which is in violation of
28
21
_________________________________________________
California statutory law, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 2924 et. Seq. The Beneficiary is
1
2 completely shielded and not disclosed as required. Also the forms that they used to
3 give Notices are defective.

4
88. Evidence in prior cases has demonstrated that MERS is nothing more than a
5
Registration Service, and does not even service the loan. MERS cannot prove or show
6
7
ownership in the form of an “original Note” (i) with proper indorsements, to them, or
8 that they are actually in the chain of ownership and (ii) to establish the actual
9 relationship of the holder of the Note, as a Holder in Due course, and (iii) with the right
10
to enforce the Note. April Charney, a lawyer at Jacksonville Are Legal Aid in Florida,
11
in 2007 had over 300 foreclosure cases dismissed or postponed due to “MERS”
12
13 attempting to foreclose on those Mortgages.
14
15
III.
16
17
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
18
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2923.6
19
(As Against All Defendants)
20
89. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the above paragraphs 1 through 89 as
21
though set forth fully herein.
22
23 90. Defendants’ Pooling and Servicing Agreement (hereinafter “PSA”) contains a duty to
24 maximize net present value to its investors and related parties.

25
91. California Civil Code 2923.6 broadens and extends this PSA duty by requiring
26
servicers to accept loan modifications with borrowers.
27
28
22
_________________________________________________
92. Pursuant to California Civil Code 2923.6(a), a servicer acts in the best interest of all
1
2 parties if it agrees to or implements a loan modification where the (1) loan is in
3 payment default, and (2) anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout
4
plan exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value basis.
5
93. California Civil Code 2923.6(b) now provides that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or
6
7
authorized agent offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a
8 modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other authority.

9 94. Plaintiff’s loan is presently in an uncertain state.
10
95. Plaintiff is willing, able, and ready to execute a modification of their loan on a
11
reasonable basis
12
13 (a) New Loan Amount: $570,265.00

14 (b) New Interest Rate: 4%
15 (c) New Loan Length: 30 years
16 (d) New Payment: $ 2722.53
17
18 96. The present fair market value of the property is $600,000.00.
19 97. The Joint Economic Committee of Congress estimated in June, 2007, that the average
20
foreclosure results in $77, 935.00 in costs to the homeowner, lender, local government,
21
and neighbors.
22
98. Of the $77,935.00 in foreclosure costs, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress
23
24 estimates that the lender will suffer $50,000.00 in costs in conducting a non-judicial
25 foreclosure on the property, maintaining, rehabilitating, insuring, and reselling the

26
property to a third party. Freddie Mac places this loss higher at $58,759.00.
27
28
23
_________________________________________________
99. Pursuant to California Civil Code §2823.6, Defendants are now contractually bound
1
2 to accept the loan modification as provided above and tender is deemed made pursuant
3 to Defendants’ Pooling and Service Agreement, California Civil Code 2923.6(a), and
4
California Civil Code 2923.6(b), taken individually or entirely. Plaintiffs invoke the
5
remedies embodied in the aforementioned agreement and/or codes with a willingness
6
7
to execute a modification of their loan.
8 100. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that tender, if any, is excused by obstruction or

9 prevention or imposition of unwarranted conditions by the person or corporate entity to
10
whom it was to be made.
11
101. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that obstruction or imposition of unwarranted
12
13 conditions by defendants occurred when defendants evaded the plaintiffs’ attempts to
14 provide tender as specified and encouraged by defendants’ pooling agreement,

15
California Civil Code 2923.6(a), and California Civil Code 2923.6(b). [Hudson v.
16
Morton, 231 Ala. 392, 165 So. 227 (1936); Loftis v. Alexander, 139 Ga. 346, 77 S.E.
17
169 (1913); Kennedy v. Neil, 333 Ill. 629, 165 N.E. 148 (1929); Borden v. Borden, 5
18
19 Mass. 67, 1809 WL 989 (1809); Loughney v. Quigley, 279 Pa. 396, 123 A. 84 (1924);
20 Montague Corp. v. E.P. Burton Lumber Co., 136 S.C. 40, 134 S.E. 147 (1926);
21
Stansbury V. Embrey, 128 Tenn. 103, 158 S.W. 991 (1913); Loehr v. Dickson, 141
22
Wis. 332, 124 N.W. 293 (1910)]
23
24
102. Alternatively, Plaintiff further alleges that obstruction or imposition of unwarranted
25 conditions by defendants occurred when defendants manifested to the Plaintiffs that

26 tender, if made, will not be accepted, the Plaintiffs are excused from making tender as
27
it would be a futile gesture, and the law will not require the doing of a useless act.
28
24
_________________________________________________
[Simmons v. Swan, 275 U.S. 113, 48 S. Ct. 52, 72 L. Ed. 190 (1927); Lee v. Joseph E.
1
2 Seagram & Sons, Inc., 552 F.2d 447 (2d Cir. 1977); Buckner v. Tweed, 157 F.2d 211
3 (App. D.C. 1946); Peterson v. Hudson Ins. Co., 41 Ariz. 31, 15 P.2d 249 (1932);
4
Woods-Drury, Inc. v. Superior Court in and for City and County of San Francisco, 18
5
Cal. App. 2d 340, 63 P.2d 1184 (1st District 1936); Chesapeake Bay Distributing Co. v.
6
7
Buck Distributing Co., Inc. 60 Md. App. 210, 481 A.2d 1156 (1984); Issacs v.
8 Caterpillar, Inc., 765 F. Supp. 1359 (C.D. Ill. 1991); Platsis v. Diafokeris, 68 Md. App.
9 257, 511 A.2d 535 (1986)]
10
103. Alternatively, Plaintiff further alleges that obstruction or imposition of unwarranted
11
conditions by defendants occurred when defendants’ objection for want of actual
12
13 tender of money is waived by defendants’ refusal to receive the money if produced.
14 [Shaner v West Coast Life Ins. Co, 73F.2d 681 (C.C.A. 10th Cir. 1934); Buell v. White,
15
908 P.2d 1175 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995) (when party, who is willing and able to pay,
16
offers to pay another a sum of money and is advised that it will not be accepted, offer
17
amounts to tender even though money is not produced); Hall v. Norwalk Fire Ins. Co.,
18
19 57 Conn. 105, 17 A. 356 (1888); Lamar v. Sheppard, 84 Ga. 561, 10 S.E. 10984
20 (1890); Ventres v. Cobb, 105 Ill. 33, 1882 WL 10475 (1882); Metropolitan Credit
21
Union v. Matthes, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 326, 706 N.E.2d 296 (1999)].
22
23
24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

25 (VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE §17200
26 (As Against All Defendants)
27
28
25
_________________________________________________
1 104. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1
2 through 104, inclusive, as though set forth at length herein again.
3 105. Beginning in April 11, 2007 and continuing to the present time, Defendants
4
committed acts of unfair competition as defined by Business and Professions Code §
5
17200, by engaging in the following practices:
6
106. These acts and practices, as described in the previous paragraphs, violate Business
7
and Professions Code § 17200 because their policies and practices described above
8
violate all the statutes as previously listed and California Civil Code § 1709, and
9
consequently, constitute and unlawful business act of practice within the meaning of
10
Business and Professions Code § 17200.
11
12
107. The harm to Plaintiff and to members of the general public outweighs the utility of
13
Defendants’ policy and practices, consequently, constitute an unlawful business act of
14
practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code §17200.
15
16 108. Further, the foregoing conduct threatens an incipient violation of a consumer law,
17 including, or violates the policy or spirit of such law or otherwise significantly

18
threatens or harms competition. Defendants’ practices described above are likely to
19
mislead the general public, and therefore, constitute a fraudulent business act of
20
21
practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code §17200. The
22 Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices and false and
23
misleading advertising present a continuing threat to members of public in that other
24
consumers will be defrauded into closing on similar fraudulent loans. Plaintiffs and
25
other members of the general public have no other adequate remedy of law.
26
27
28
26
_________________________________________________
109. As a result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiff has lost money or property and
1
2 suffered injury in fact. Defendants received and continue to hold Plaintiff’s money and
3 other members of the public who fell victim to Defendants’ scheme.

4
5
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
6
BREACH OF COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING
7
(Only Against JP MORGAN)
8
9
110. Plaintiff repeat and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 110 as though fully set forth
10
herein.
11
12
111. Plaintiff alleges that at all times there existed an implied covenant of good faith and
13 fair dealing requiring Defendants, and each of them, to safeguard, protect, or otherwise
14 care for the assets and rights of Plaintiffs. Said covenant prohibited Defendants from
15
activities interfering with or contrary to the rights of Plaintiffs.
16
112. Plaintiff alleges that the commencement of foreclosure proceedings upon the
17
18 property lawfully belonging to Plaintiffs without the production of documents
19 demonstrating the lawful rights for the foreclosure constitutes a breach of the covenant.
20
113. Defendants breach the provisions as contained within the “Deed of “Trust” which
21
cited the lender as JP MORGAN.
22
114. Defendants breached the provisions as contained within the “Adjustable Rate Note”
23
24 promising to pay JP MORGAN a monthly payment.
25 115. Plaintiff paid timely monthly payments in accordance with the “Adjustable Rate
26
Note” to JP MORGAN or its agents.
27
28
27
_________________________________________________
116. As a consequence and proximate result, Plaintiff has been damaged in a sum to be
1
2 proven at trial.
3
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
4
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
5
(Against all Defendants)
6
7 117. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 117 as though fully set forth
8
herein.
9
118. Plaintiff seeks a determination as to the legal status of the parties as to the
10
11
Adjustable Rate Note and the Deed of Trust.
12 119. The Adjustable Rate Note states that the Lender is JP MORGAN.
13 120. It also states, “Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled
14
to receive payment under this Note is called the “Note Holder.”
15
121. JP MORGAN sent to Plaintiff a statement with a coupon asking for payment.
16
17 122. The Deed of Trust which cited the lender as JP MORGAN and stating in the
18 definition section that:

19
“MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a separate
20
corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s successors and
21
assigns; MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.
22
23 123. Additionally, based upon information and belief, Mortgage Electronic Registration
24 Systems is not qualified to do business in the state of California and therefore, would not
25
have standing to seek non-judicial remedies as well as judicial remedies.
26
124. Defendants should be required to provide the original note with the appropriate
27
28
endorsements thereon to Plaintiffs or this Honorable Court so that it may determine
28
_________________________________________________
under California law, who owns the right to receive payments and exercises the rights
1
2 relating to said ownership.
3 125. Only the Note Holder is authorized to collect payments and, in the event of a
4
default, commence foreclosure proceedings, including authorizing the substitution of a
5
Trustee.
6
7
126. Until Defendants are able to provide Plaintiffs and this Honorable Court the
8 aforementioned documents, this Honorable Court should order that Plaintiffs are not
9 required to make any further payments on the Adjustable Rate Note and enjoin any
10
further collection activity on the Note, including staying the count down towards the
11
date a Notice of Trustee’s sale may be filed and served.
12
13 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

14 VIOLATION OF CIVIL CODE §1572
15 (As to All Defendants)
16
17 127. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs 1 through
127 as though set forth fully herein.
18
128. The misrepresentations by Defendants’ and/or Defendants’ predecessors, failures to
19
disclose, and failure to investigate as described above were made with the intent to
20
induce Plaintiff to obligate himself on the Loan in reliance on the integrity of
21
Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors.
22
129. Plaintiff is an unsophisticated customer whose reliance upon Defendants
23 and/or Defendants’ predecessors was reasonable and consistent with the
24 Congressional intent and purpose of California Civil Code § 1572 enacted in 1872 and
25 designed to assist and protect consumers similarly situated as Plaintiff in this action.
26 130. As an unsophisticated customer, Plaintiff could not have discovered the true nature
27 of the material facts on their own.
28
29
_________________________________________________
131. The accuracy by Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors of representation is
1
important in enabling consumers such as Plaintiff to compare market lenders in order
2
to make informed decisions regarding lending transactions such as a loan.
3
132. Plaintiff was ignorant of the facts which Defendants and/or Defendants’
4
predecessors misrepresented and failed to disclose.
5
133. Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors was a
6 substantial factor in causing their harm.
7 134. Had the terms of the Loan been accurately represented and disclosed by Defendants
8 and/or Defendants’ predecessors, Plaintiff would not have accepted the Loan nor been
9 harmed.
10
135. Had Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors investigated Plaintiff’s financial
capabilities, they would have been forced to deny Plaintiff on this particular loan.
11
136. Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors conspired and agreed to commit the
12
above mentioned fraud.
13
137. As a proximate result of Defendants and or Defendants’ predecessors fraud,
14
Plaintiff has suffered damage in an amount to be determined at trial.
15
138. The conduct of Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors as mentioned above
16
was fraudulent within the meaning of California Civil Code § 3294(c)(3), and by virtue
17
thereof Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to
18
19 punish and make an example of the Defendants.
20
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21
FOR FRAUD
22 (Against All Defendants)
23
139. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 139 as though fully set forth
24
herein.
25
26
140. An unknown employee of RECONTRUST executed on behalf the alleged
27 Beneficiary a “Notice of Default” which stated that the payments were due to MERS
28
30
_________________________________________________
and JP MORGAN as Beneficiary. “Notice of Breach and Default and of Election to
1
2 Cause Sale of Real Property Under Deed of Trust” (See Exhibit “B”)
3 141. On the Notice of Breach, it stated, in part, that Plaintiffs as Trustor, to secure
4
certain obligations in favor of Defendants, as beneficiary.
5
142. It further states that:
6
7 That by reason thereof of the present Beneficiary under such deed of

8 Trust has executed and delivered to said duly appointed Trustee a
9 written Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale and has
10 deposited with said duly appointed Trustee such Deed of Trust and
11 all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby and has
12 declared and does hereby declared all sums secured thereby
13 immediately due and payable and has elected and does hereby elect
14 to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations served
15 thereby.
16
17
143. This representation was made by these defendants in order to induce reliance by
18 Plaintiffs.
19 144. Plaintiff did rely on these representations and because of their reliance their
20
property will be foreclosed and Plaintiffs reliance was justified.
21
22
23 145. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the representation as stated on the Notice of
24 Default were a false representation in the following particular(s)

25
A. Documents were not provided to the trustee that showed that JP MORGAN or MERS was
26
the Beneficiary and entitled to the payments.
27
B. At the time JP MORGAN made the representations they knew they were false and were
28
31
_________________________________________________
made for the sole purpose of inducing reliance.
1
2 145. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, were engaged in an illegal
3 scheme the purpose of which was to execute loans secured by real property in order to
4
make commissions, kick-backs, illegal undisclosed yield spread premiums, and
5
undisclosed profits by the sale of any instruments arising out of the transaction and to
6
7
make loans to borrowers that they could not afford to repay given their stated financial
8 situation. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, have represented to
9 plaintiffs and to third parties that they were the owner of the Trust Deed and Note as
10
either the Trustee or the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiffs real property. Based on this
11
representation they caused a Notice of Default to be issued and recorded without
12
13 disclosing their true role, and thereafter a notice of intent to foreclose and finally they
14 executed a foreclosure, which was completed, permanently affecting Plaintiffs right,

15
title and interest in the Subject Property. In fact, Plaintiffs allege that the promissory
16
notes which was executed by Plaintiffs and which initially formed a basis of a security
17
interest in the subject property, was assigned in violation of Civil Code section 2932.5
18
19 et seq. because the assignment was not recorded, and as such the promissory note was
20 rendered as non-negotiable and no power of sale was conveyed with the note at the
21
time of the assignment, and therefore, Defendants, and each of them, had no lawful
22
security interest in the subject property.
23
24
146. On or about April 11, 2007 representatives, agents and/or employees of Defendants,
25 and each of them, made false representations to Plaintiff in order to fund a loan, in
26 which the Plaintiffs’ personal residence was to be security therefore. Plaintiffs allege
27
that Defendants, and each of them, made certain representations regarding their
28
32
_________________________________________________
honesty, that they were experts in obtaining loans which borrower’s could afford and
1
2 that they would only offer Plaintiffs a loan which was in their best interests given their
3 credit history and financial needs and limitations and that Plaintiff could trust the
4
representations of Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff allege that based upon the
5
representations made by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff reasonably reposed his
6
7
trust in Defendants’ representations and disclosed their private financial information to
8 Defendants, in order that Defendants could in keeping with their representations, find a
9 loan which was in the best interests of Plaintiff given his financial needs and
10
limitations. More particularly, Defendants, and each of them, represented that they
11
would not make a loan to Plaintiff unless he could afford the loan, and that they would
12
13 not make the loan unless and until he had passed the underwriting guidelines of the
14 lender, which further assured that the loan being offered to Plaintiff was in fact in the
15
Plaintiff’s best interests, and that the loan was within Plaintiff’s financial needs and
16
limitations.
17
147. Plaintiff alleges that the loans provided by Defendants, and each of them, contained
18
19 a repayment schedule, whereas, exceeded Plaintiffs’ total spendable income, and that
20 the loan contained excessive financing was approved to allow closing costs to be
21
financed, that Defendants failed to utilize adequate due diligence regarding Plaintiff’s
22
ability to repay the loan, Defendants’ as part of their continuing scheme intentionally
23
24
placed Plaintiff’s in a sub-prime loan to the benefit of the Defendants with excessively
25 high interest rates, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff mandated disclosures, and
26 Defendants repeatedly employed coercive tactics in order to force Plaintiff to sign the
27
loan documents.
28
33
_________________________________________________
148. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereupon allege that defendants JP
1
2 MORGAN, and MERS, engaged in some degree in making the loan to Plaintiffs
3 including, but not limited to: made the loan to Plaintiff by "marketing and extending
4
adjustable-rate mortgage ("ARM") products to Plaintiff in an unsafe and unsound
5
manner that greatly increases the risk that Plaintiff would default on the loan, because
6
7
the initial payments on the loan exceeded Plaintiff’s established retirement income, and
8 the loan terms offered to Plaintiff included ARM products with one or more of the
9 following characteristics: without to utilize an adequate analysis of the Plaintiff ability
10
to repay the debt at the fully-indexed rate; approving Plaintiff without considering
11
appropriate documentation and/or verification of their income; including substantial
12
13 prepayment penalties and/or prepayment penalties that extend beyond the initial
14 interest rate adjustment period; providing Plaintiff with inadequate and/or confusing
15
information relative to product choices, material loan terms and product risks,
16
prepayment penalties, and the Plaintiff’s obligations for property taxes and insurance;
17
approving Plaintiffs for a loan with inadequate debt-to-income analyses
18
19 that did not properly consider the Plaintiff’s ability to meet his overall level
20 indebtedness and common housing expenses; and/or approving Plaintiff for loan
21
arrangements with loan-to-value ratios approaching or exceeding 100 percent of the
22
value of the collateral;" and making Plaintiff a mortgage loan without adequately
23
24
considering the Plaintiff’s ability to repay the mortgage according to its terms.
25 149. Plaintiff alleges that based upon the foregoing representations of Defendants, and
26 each of them, plaintiffs did in fact repose their trust in the representations of
27
Defendants, and each of them, and that such trust was reasonable.
28
34
_________________________________________________
150. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, presented a loan to Plaintiff
1
2 whereby Defendants represented that they did qualify for ordinary underwriting, and
3 that the loan was within Plaintiffs’ personal financial needs and limitations given the
4
confidential financial information that Plaintiffs shared with Defendants, however, the
5
true is that the loan payments exceeded Plaintiffs’ established retirement income.
6
7
151. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to disclose the true
8 cost of the loan which was made to Plaintiffs, and the fact that Plaintiff could not
9 afford the loan in the first instance. Defendants, and each of them, provided Plaintiff a
10
loan through Defendant JP MORGAN, and Defendants, and each of them, were
11
secretly compensated, however, they did not disclose for this loan that they were by
12
13 being paid for its services, and in a spread of the yield of an amount which has not yet
14 been fully ascertained as a Yield Spread Premium paid-outside and after the close of
15
escrow.
16
152. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon allege that after the close of escrow
17
Defendant JP MORGAN paid the other Defendants herein fees above and beyond the
18
19 value of the services actually performed and an illegal kickback and added that
20 additional amount to the total amount being financed, however such amount was never
21
disclosed to Plaintiff.
22
153. Plaintiff acquired the foregoing property by virtue of the said funding through JP
23
24
MORGAN based on the representations of Defendants, and each of them, that the loan
25 was the best they could obtain for him, and that the loan was well within Plaintiff’s
26 financial needs and limitations.
27
154. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereupon alleges that Defendants, and each of
28
35
_________________________________________________
them, represented to Plaintiff that Defendants, and each of them, were working for the
1
2 benefit of Plaintiff and in their particular best interest to obtain for him the best loan
3 and at the best rates available.

4
155. That at the time Defendants, and each of them, made the foregoing false
5
representations to Plaintiff they knew that they were untrue and that these
6
7
representations were material representations, and that no basis in fact existed to
8 support such fraudulent representations.

9 156. That the foregoing representations were made in order to induce Plaintiff to act on
10
and take the said loan(s) in order for both defendants to make a substantial amount of
11
money thereby and there from.
12
13 157. Plaintiff is in fact induced to and did take these loans based on the said fraudulent
14 representations.
15
158. That Plaintiff was induced to rely and did rely on the representations of these
16
defendants through deception and their reliance was justified as they believed that
17
Defendants, and each of them, were working for their and in his best interests.
18
19 159. That by virtue of Plaintiff’s reasonable reliance and the increased interest they were
20 made to pay, they have been damaged in the loss of their good credit and a higher
21
payment and are now being involved in litigation that they did not bargain for, all to
22
their damage and injury.
23
24
160. Plaintiff has relied on the representations of Defendant, and each of them, and
25 because of this reliance have made various moves to avoid foreclosure all to no avail,
26 while defendants knew all the time that they were deceiving Plaintiff.
27
161. Plaintiff’s reliance was justified based upon the false representations of Defendants,
28
36
_________________________________________________
and each of them, and had no reason to believe that a party representing a bank would
1
2 go to such lengths to deceive and to convert Plaintiff’s property by utilizing such a
3 fraud and artifice.

4
162. Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendants, and each of them, at the time of
5
execution of the Deed of Trust and Note maintained an interest in the Subject Property,
6
7
however at the time the Note and Deed of Trust were assigned to Defendant JP
8 MORGAN, the Note was no longer negotiable and the power of sale was not conveyed
9 during the assignment, notwithstanding the foregoing, Defendants, and each of them,
10
foreclosed on Plaintiff’s Trust Deed, in concert with their scheme to defraud Plaintiff
11
out of their property.
12
13 163. Plaintiff has recently learned that Defendants, and each of them, are not the legal
14 owners of the Note and TRUST DEED and will not be at the time they will issue the
15
notices and commenced the foreclosure process, notwithstanding the fact that the note
16
was not negotiable and did not contain a valid power of sale.
17
164. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, knew at the time they made
18
19 these representations to Plaintiffs that they were untrue, and defendants know at the
20 time that they were attempting to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ Trust Deeds and notes that
21
they had no right to do so.
22
165. Plaintiff alleges Defendants, and each of them, intentionally and fraudulently
23
24
converted Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest to his property, and any equity therein.
25 166. Plaintiff alleges that due to their reliance on Defendants representations he has been
26 damaged in an amount that currently exceeds $25,000.00 and additionally costs of
27
moving out of Plaintiff’s property and the costs to relocate back to the subject
28
37
_________________________________________________
Property.
1
2 167. Defendants’ conduct as set forth above was intentional, oppressive fraudulent and
3 malicious so as to justify an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient that

4
such conduct will not be repeated.
5
168. Plaintiff will be damaged in having their home wrongfully foreclosed and a slander
6
7
of their title, and being required to become involved in this litigation all to their
8 damages and injuries the amount of which is subject to proof at the time of trial.
9 169. The actions of Defendants and each of them were fraudulent oppressive and
10
malicious so as to warrant the imposition of exemplary damages, and that by virtue of
11
Defendants conduct as set forth herein Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages.
12
13
14 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

15 FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
16 (Against all Defendants)
17 170. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 169 as though fully set forth
18
herein.
19
171. A dispute has arisen between and among Plaintiff and Defendants and each of them
20
as to the duties and obligations of the respective parties with regard to the loan or the
21
22 foreclosure.
23 172. These disputes concern but are not limited to the ownership rights and the validity of
24
the commencement of the foreclosure process.
25
173. As to these issues, Plaintiff is required to seek this relief.
26
27
174. Plaintiff further alleges that a declaration of rights and duties of the parties herein are
28 essential to determine the actual status and validity of the loan, deed of trust,
38
_________________________________________________
nominated beneficiaries, actual beneficiaries, loan servicers, trustees instituting
1
2 foreclosure proceedings and related matter.
4
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5
FOR INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
6 (Against all Defendants)
7
8
175. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 175 as though fully set forth
9
10
herein.
11 176. Plaintiff is informed and believe that the representation as stated on the Notice of
12 Default and each of them were a false representation in the following particulars(s):
13
[A] Documents were not provided to the trustee that showed that any of the
14
Defendants was the Beneficiary and entitled to the payments.
15
16 [B] At the time Defendants made the representations they knew they were false and
17 were made for the sole purpose of inducing reliance and confusing Plaintiff.
18
19
20
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
21
TO SET ASIDE A DEFECTIVE AND WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE
(Against all Defendants)
22
23
24 177. Plaintiff repeats and reallege Paragraphs 1 through 176 as though fully set forth
25 herein.
26
27
28
39
_________________________________________________
Recording of an Assignment Prior to Foreclosure
1
2 178. Cal. Civ. Code section 2932.5 provides a condition precedent for an assignee of a
3 Deed of Trust prior to commencing a foreclosure:

4
Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other
5
encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the
6
7
power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes
8 entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale
9 may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and
10
recorded. (Emphasis added)
11
179. Defendants drafted the Deed of Trust, Plaintiff had no opportunity to negotiate
12
13 the terms of the instrument.
14 180. Defendants JP MORGAN, CHASE BANK, LANDAMERICA,

15
RECONTRUST, CHASE HOME and MERS, failed to record the assignment prior to
16
commencing the foreclosure as such the Foreclosure was not conducted in accordance with
17
Cal Civ. Code Sec 2924 and 2932.5.
18
19 Invalid Notice of Default
20 181. There is in existence a certain written instrument which purports to be a Notice of

21
Default that is in the possession of Defendants, and each of them. (See Exhibit “B”)
22
182. The written instrument alleged in Paragraph "180" was procured as follows:
23
24
Defendants cannot prove that the nonjudicial foreclosure which occurred, strictly complied
25 with the tenets of California Civil Code Sections 2923.5 and 2924 in order to maintain an
26 action for possession pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161. As of
27
September 6, 2008, California Civil Code Section 2923.5 applies to loans made from
28
40
_________________________________________________
January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2007, and loans secured by residential real property that
1
2 are for owner-occupied residences. For purposes of Section 2923.5, “owner-occupied”
3 means that the residence is the principal residence of the borrower. Prior to filing a Notice
4
of Default, Section 2923.5 of the California Civil Code provides in pertinent part:
5
(1) A trustee may not file a notice of default pursuant to Section 2924 until 30 days after
6
7
contact is made as required by paragraph (2) or 30 days after satisfying the due
8 diligence requirements as described in subdivision (g).

9 (2) An authorized agent shall contact the borrower in person or by telephone in order to
10
assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to
11
avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized
12
13 agent shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to request a subsequent
14 meeting and, if requested, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall

15
schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days.
16
(3) A notice of default filed pursuant to Section 2924 shall include a declaration from
17
the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent that it has contacted the borrower,
18
19 tried with due diligence to contact the borrower as required by this section, or the
20 borrower has surrendered the property to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or

21
authorized agent.
22
Invalid Declaration on Notice of Default and/or Notice of Trustee’s Sale
23
24
183. The purpose of permitting a declaration under penalty of perjury, in lieu of a sworn
25 statement, is to help ensure that declarations contain a truthful factual representation

26 and are made in good faith. (In re Marriage of Reese & Guy, 73 Cal. App. 4th 1214, 87
27
Cal. Rptr. 2d 339 (4th Dist. 1999).
28
41
_________________________________________________
183. In addition to California Civil Code §2923.5, California Code of Civil Procedure
1
2 §2015.5 states:
3 Whenever, under any law of this state or under any rule, regulation, order or
4
requirement made pursuant to the law of this state, any matter is required or permitted
5
to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn statement,
6
7
declaration, verification, certificate, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making
8 the same, such matter may with like force and effect be supported, evidenced,
9 established or proved by the unsworn statement, declaration, verification, or
10
certificate, in writing of such person which recites that is certified or declared by him
11
or her to be true under penalty of perjury, is subscribed by him or her, and (1), if
12
13 executed within this state, states the date and place of execution; (2) if executed at any
14 place, within or without this state, states the date of execution and that is so certified or
15
declared under the laws of the State of California. The certification or declaration must
16
be in substantially the following form:
17
(a) If executed within this state:
18
19 “I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct”:
20 _____________________ _______________________
(Date and Place) (Signature)
21
22
For our purposes we need not look any farther than the Notice of Default to find the
23
24
declaration is not signed under penalty of perjury; as mandated by new Civil Code
25 §2923.5(c). (Blum v. Superior Court (Copley Press Inc.) (2006) 141 Cal App 4th 418, 45
26 Cal. Reptr. 3d 902 ). The Declaration is merely a form declaration with a check box.
27
28
42
_________________________________________________
No Personal Knowledge of Declarant
1
2 According to Giles v. Friendly Finance Co. of Biloxi, Inc., 199 So. 2nd 265 (Miss.
3 1967), “an affidavit on behalf of a corporation must show that it was made by an
4
authorized officer or agent, and the officer him or herself must swear to the facts.”
5
Furthermore, in Giles v. County Dep’t of Public Welfare of Marion County (Ind.App. 1
6
7
Dist.1991) 579 N.E.2d 653, 654-655 states in pertinent part, “a person who verified a
8 pleading to have personal knowledge or reasonable cause to believe the existence of the
9 facts stated therein.” Here, the Declaration for the Notice of Default by the agent does not
10
state if the agent has personal knowledge and how he obtained this knowledge.
11
The proper function of an affidavit is to state facts, not conclusions, ¹ and affidavits that
12
13 merely state conclusions rather than facts are insufficient. ² An affidavit must set forth facts
14 and show affirmatively how the affiant obtained personal knowledge of those facts. ³
15
Here, The Notice of Default does not have the required agent’s personal knowledge
16
of facts and if the Plaintiff borrower was affirmatively contacted in person or by telephone
17
to assess the Plaintiff’s financial situation and explore options for the Plaintiff to avoid
18
19 foreclosure. A simple check box next to the “facts” does not suffice.
20 Furthermore, “it has been said that personal knowledge of facts asserted in an
21
affidavit is not presumed from the mere positive averment of facts, but rather, a court
22
should be shown how the affiant knew or could have known such facts, and, if there is no
23
24
evidence from which the inference of personal knowledge can be drawn, then it is
25 ____________________________________________________________________________
26 ¹ Lindley v. Midwest Pulmonary Consultants, P.C., 55 S.W.3d 906 (Mo. Ct. App. W.D. 2001).
27
² Jaime v. St. Joseph Hosp. Foundation, 853 S.W.2d 604 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 1993).
³ M.G.M. Grand Hotel, Inc. v. Castro, 8 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App. Corpus Chrisit 1999).
28
43
_________________________________________________
presumed that from which the inference of personal knowledge can be drawn, then it is
1
2 presumed that such does not exist.” ¹ The declaration signed by agent does not state
3 anywhere how he knew or could have known if Plaintiff was contacted in person or by
4
telephone to explore different financial options. It is vague and ambiguous if he himself
5
called plaintiff.
6
7
This defendant did not adhere to the mandates laid out by congress before a foreclosure
8 can be considered duly perfected. The Notice of Default states, “That by reason thereof,
9 the present beneficiary under such deed of trust, has executed and delivered to said agent,
10
a written Declaration of Default and Demand for same, and has deposited with said
11
agent such Deed of Trust and all documents evidencing obligations secured thereby, and
12
13 has declared and does hereby declare all sums secured thereby immediately due and
14 payable and has elected and does hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to
15
satisfy the obligations secured thereby.” However, Defendants do not have the Deed of
16
Trust, nor do they provide any documents evidencing obligations secured thereby. For the
17
aforementioned reasons, the Notice of Default will be void as a matter of law.
18
19
20 Recording a False Document

21
184. Furthermore, according to California Penal Code § 115 in pertinent part:
22
(a) Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument
23
24
to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state, which
25 instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this
26 state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony.
27
28
44
_________________________________________________
(b) Each instrument which is procured or offered to be filed, registered, or recorded
1
2 in violation of subdivision (a) shall constitute a separate violation of this section.
3 In addition, California Evidence Code § 669 states in pertinent part:

4
(a) The failure of a person to exercise due care is presumed if:
5
(1) He violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation of a public entity;
6
8 _______________________________________________________________________________
9 ¹ Bova v. Vinciguerra, 139 A.D.2d 797, 526 N.Y. S.2d 671 (3d Dep’t 1988).
10
11
Here, as stated above the Declaration of Due Diligence as required by Section 2923.5 of
12
13 the California Civil Code is missing and/or improper for the Notice of Default. Therefore,
14 Defendants are guilty of a felony for recording the Notice of Default with a false
15
instrument according to California Penal Code §115. Since Defendants have violated a
16
statute, the failure of them to exercise due care will be presumed.
17
183. The written instrument alleged in Paragraph "181" was also procured as follows:
18
19 By an invalid sale conducted on the part of Defendants, and each of them, in violation of
20 statutes including, but not limited to: Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon
21
alleges that the NOTE was invalid and unenforceable due to the intentional and willful
22
violations including but, not limited to: California Civil Code 2924b etc. et seq.,
23
24
California Civil Code §§§ 2924b(a), 2924b(d), 2924b(e) by failing and/or refusing to mail
25 the Notice of Default within ten business days to Plaintiffs, by failing and/or refusing to
26 post and mail the Notice of Default; by failing and/or refusing to mail Plaintiffs the
27
28
45
_________________________________________________
Notice of Default within one month pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924b (c (1), (2);
1
2 by failing and/or refusing to properly set the sale date pursuant to California Civil Code §
3 2924f(b); by failing and/or refusing to publish the Notice of Sale twenty days prior to the
4
date set for sale pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924f(b); by failing and/or refusing to
5
record the Notice of Sale pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924g(d);
6
7
184. Since the enumerated law was effective as of September 06, 2008 the sale of the
8 property at issue is invalid pursuant to California Civil Code Sections 2923.5 and 2924,
9 and thus the Defendants’ claim of title and allegation thereto is erroneous.
10
185. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, willfully, wrongfully and
11
without justification, and without privilege conducted an invalid foreclosure sale against
12
13 the Plaintiff’s SUBJECT PROPERTY, thereby, slandering Plaintiff’s title thereto.
14 186. Furthermore, The California Foreclosure Prevention Act, states the following:
15
The California Foreclosure Prevention Action became effective June 15, 2009. This
16
new law delays the non-judicial foreclosure process by requiring an addition 90-day delay
17
(beyond the current three-month period) between recording a notice of default and a
18
19 notice of stay for certain residential properties. The law applies to:
20 1. Loans recorded between January 1, 2003 and January 1, 2008, inclusive,

21
2. The borrower occupies the property as his/her principal residence and occupied it
22
at the time the loan became delinquent;
23
24
3. A notice of default has been recorded on the property; and
25 4. The loan is secured by a first lien on residential property that is located in

26 California.
27
28
46
_________________________________________________
187. In our case, Plantiff, LYNDON BAKER’s property was his principal place of
1
2 residence and his deed was dated on April 11, 2007. Therefore, the California Foreclosure
3 Prevention Action applies and they should be allowed an additional 90 days (plus the
4
three-month period already) after Notice of Default is recorded.
5
188. The Trustee's Deed Upon Sale obtained after the sale is false and causes a doubt
6
7
to be cast on Plaintiff’s title to the property described above.
8 189. The aforementioned Instrument directly impairs Plaintiff’s right to possession

9 and ownership of the Subject Property.
10
190. Furthermore, the aforementioned acts of Defendants, and each of them, were
11
motivated by oppression, fraud, malice in that Defendants, and each of them, by their
12
13 respective acts, omissions, nonfeasance, misfeasance and/or malfeasance executed an
14 invalid foreclosure sale of the Plaintiff’s SUBJECT PROPERTY, in order to deny Plaintiff
15
of his rights of possession and ownership, whereupon, the Foreclosure was defective as
16
such the Property must be restored to Plaintiff or Plaintiff is entitled to the value of thereof.
17
18
19 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs having set forth the claims for relief against Defendants,
20 respectfully pray that this Court grant the following relief against the Defendants:
21
1. For exemplary and punitive damages;
22
2. Actual Economic and Non-Economic Damages;
23
24
3. Costs and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to California Civil Code §1717,
25 §1788.30(b), §1788.30(c);
26 4. For a declaration of the rights of the parties relative to Plaintiff’s Home, including
27
a declaration that Defendants have no enforceable lien against Plaintiff’s Home;
28
47
_________________________________________________
5. For a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining all Defendants,
1
2 their agents, assigns, and all person acting under, for, or in concert with them, from
3 foreclosing on Plaintiff’s Home or from conducting at trustee’s sale or causing a trustee’s

4
sale to be conducted relative to Plaintiff’s Home.
5
6. Cancellation of the sale and restitution of the home to the Plaintiffs; and
6
7
7. For damages as provided by statute;
8 8. For an Order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate the statutes alleged
9 herein;
10
9. For an Order, requiring Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff on title to his Property, and
11
or a restraining order preventing Defendants and his, hers, or its agents, employees,
12
13 officers, attorneys, and representatives from engaging in or performing any of the
14 following acts: (i) offering, or advertising this property for sale and (ii) attempting to
15
transfer title to this property and or (iii) holding any auction therefore;
16
10. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
17
18
Dated: JULY 6, 2009
19
LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY MCCANDLESS ESQ.
20
21
______________________________________________
22 Timothy L. McCandless, Esq.,
Attorney for Plaintiff,
23 LYNDON BAKER
24
25
26
27
28
48
_________________________________________________
1 VERIFICATION
2
I, TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS declare:
3
I am the attorney for plaintiff who is located in this county, I have read the within
4
5
pleading, and on information and belief, believe that the matters therein to be true and on that
6 ground allege that the matters stated therein are true. Executed in Victorville, California
7
9 DATED: JULY 3, 2009

10
___________________________________
11 TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
49
_________________________________________________

First Amended Complaint Plaintiff)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

First Amended Complaint Plaintiff)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS, ESQ.

6 Attorney for Plaintiff

9 SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 IN AND FOR COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

26 Plaintiff, LYNDON BAKER, (Hereinafter referred as “Plaintiff”) alleges herein as follows:

19 3. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., (hereinafter “MERS”) at all times

19 names and capacities when ascertained.

3 was in the sum of $760,000.00 by monthly payment commencing thereof. Plaintiff

8 Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) to go on title as the “Nominee Beneficiary”

19 and Trust Deed.

13 discussed later in the complaint.

20 executed documents without any explanation whatsoever.

8 MORGAN either completely or by association or other means to MERS who unknown

13 JP MORGAN and stating in the definition section that:

14 (E) “MERS” is a Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., MERS is a separate

2 there from is void.

13 them, shared in some presently unknown percentage.

20 right to declare a default, to cause notices of default to issue or to be recorded, or to

13 certified housing counseling agencies.

14 • The borrower may designate an authorized agent, such as a counseling service,

20 surrender of the property.

25 telephone contact on three separate occasions at three different times.

16 they are in fact the party authorized to conduct the foreclosure.

19 were offered to Plaintiff on a take it or leave it basis.

2 such conduct in the future.

7 California Civil Code 2923.6 on July 8, 2008:

6 (d) It is essential to the economic health of California for the state to

2 homeowners, and their communities.” CNN Money, id.

8 Diego Union Tribune, id.

5 §1788(d), when he obtained a Loan on their Personal Residence.

22 53. Plaintiff's income was never truly verified.

3 Loan, failing to verify Plaintiff's income, falsifying Plaintiff's income, agreeing to

8 established such policy so as to profit, knowing that Plaintiff would be unable to

2 security interest with it.

8 entitled to money payments: "Where a power to sell real property is given to a

22 246 P2d 23, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 248.

3 unless the Promissory Note is properly negotiated.

25 enforce the negotiable instrument.

3 give Notices are defective.

13 attempting to foreclose on those Mortgages.

24 maximize net present value to its investors and related parties.

2 parties if it agrees to or implements a loan modification where the (1) loan is in

8 modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other authority.

13 (a) New Loan Amount: $570,265.00

18 96. The present fair market value of the property is $600,000.00.

25 foreclosure on the property, maintaining, rehabilitating, insuring, and reselling the

8 100. Alternatively, Plaintiff alleges that tender, if any, is excused by obstruction or

13 conditions by defendants occurred when defendants evaded the plaintiffs’ attempts to

14 provide tender as specified and encouraged by defendants’ pooling agreement,

25 conditions by defendants occurred when defendants manifested to the Plaintiffs that

13 tender of money is waived by defendants’ refusal to receive the money if produced.

24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

17 including, or violates the policy or spirit of such law or otherwise significantly

3 other members of the public who fell victim to Defendants’ scheme.

18 property lawfully belonging to Plaintiffs without the production of documents

24 promising to pay JP MORGAN a monthly payment.

18 definition section that:

2 relating to said ownership.

13 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

27 of the material facts on their own.

19 punish and make an example of the Defendants.

7 That by reason thereof of the present Beneficiary under such deed of

24 Default were a false representation in the following particular(s)