P. 1
Complaint

Complaint

|Views: 230|Likes:
Published by jiggeboo

More info:

Published by: jiggeboo on May 26, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

07/12/2015

pdf

text

original

Cynthia White Ebenstein 427 Peach Grove Lane Santa Barbara, CA 93103 A Plaintiff, In Pro Per

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA “ANACAPA” DIVISION

1 COMPLAINT

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

) Case No. ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR: Plaintiff, ) vs. ) 1. LACK OF STANDING TO ) FORECLOSE; WRONGFUL CHASE BANK, N.A. a Successor in Interest ) FORECLOSURE to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, N.A.; ) Successor in Interest to MORTGAGEIT; ) 2. FRAUD IN THE CONCEALMENT WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; THE BANK ) 3. FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT OF NEW YORK as trustee for securitized trust ) ) 4. STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF ) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS INVESTMENTS II TRUST 2006-AR8; ) CALIFORNIA RECONVEYENCE ) 5. QUIET TITLE COMPANY; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC ) REGISTRATION SYSTEM, aka “MERS” and ) 6. SLANDER OF TITLE DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE ) ) 7. DECLARATORY RELIEF Defendants. ) ) 8. VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA ) CIVIL CODE SECTION 2932.5 ) ) 9. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND ) PROFESSIONS CODE SECTION ) 17200 ET SEQ ) ) 10. RESCISSION ) )
Cynthia White Ebenstein, an individual, and signatory for CINDY M. WHITE

TABLE OF CONTENTS Attached Exhibits: (all documents sent certified Post, or registered mail, have cert. #’s on the documents) Notice Of Mistake, sent to CHASE
2 COMPLAINT

A.

Legally Recorded Notice Of Intent To Preserve An Interest including: Grantor’s Affidavit Of Cancellation For Cause: Fraud Verified Bonded Durable Notice Of Interest 1 2 3 F. Cease and Desist. general. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Verified Claim/Complaint with Affidavit of facts. sent to TITLE CO. and punitive damages.B. Cynthia White Ebenstein. and each of them. Final Opportunity To Cure. complaining of the Defendants. 4 5 G. WHITE (“Plaintiff’). Notice Of Default to CHASE / Invoice.. sent to CHASE E. sent to CHASE D. and for compensatory. sent to Attorney for CHASE CHASE’S UD Action / Results Level 3 Bloomberg Securitization Audit Forensic Audit Declaration in Support of Complaint COMES NOW the Plaintiff. 10 11 J. affiant and signatory for CINDY M. 8 9 I. sent to CHASE. 3 COMPLAINT . as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. all as one doc. C. Notice of Claim. 6 7 H. Notice Of Intent To Preserve An Interest. This is an action brought by Plaintiff for declaratory judgment. special. injunctive and equitable relief.

and did with malice and forewarning. Santa Barbara. two party signature contract. and/or transferred their ownership and security interest in a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust related to the Property. Defendant (then Plaintiff CHASE) dismissed CHASE’s entire UD action. (the “Property”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants. and others. Plaintiff 5. but loaned credit. sued for Unlawful Detainer. transfer. attached as exhibits herein. and recorded a legal Cancellation for Cause: Fraud. including demanding a QWR. and each of them. never signed any origination documents to create a binding.2. CHASE). Plaintiff’s research found at least fourteen possible acts of fraud. thus. without prejudice. Plaintiff alleges that the originating mortgage lender. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. produced many certified letters. or any security interest in Plaintiff’s Property. Plaintiff alleges that there is a Breach of Contract because Defendants. assigned. (titled Notice Of Mistake). have unlawfully sold. and other parties alleged to have ownership. a homeowner. (then Plaintiff. and did not produce documents demanded by law. nor the measures of legal acquisition. with some or all of the herein attached letters and recorded cancellation. and each of them. Cindy M. on April 18th. and each of them ignored all administrative process. 2011. and requested jury trial. Defendants. with the Santa Barbara County Recorder’s Office. Plaintiff (then Defendant. With many opportunities to cure. cannot show proof of possession. and recorded a Notice of Intent To Preserve An Interest. Plaintiff. and cancellation. 3. Defendants. disputes the Title and Ownership of the real property in question located at: 427 Peach Grove Lane. do not have lawful ownership. and. 6. validating a loan. never loaned funds from their own actual accounts. which has resulted in imperfect security interests and claims. whereas National Association Banks cannot loan credit. and true ownership of the borrower’s original Promissory Note and joined Deed of Trust. which is the subject of this action. assignment. CA 93103. and each of them. prior to attending a 4 COMPLAINT . Defendant. alleging the discovered fraud. negotiations. the Plaintiff’s credit. 8. receipt. 7. unlawfully foreclose upon Plaintiff’s property. White) answered with eleven affirmative defenses of fraud for Defendant (then Plaintiff CHASE) to address.

A. Plaintiff also seeks redress from Defendants identified herein for damages. a Successor in Interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK. if left outstanding. Defendant. 2011. doing business in the County of SANTA BARBARA. for which there is a reasonable apprehension that. THE PARTIES b. (herein collectively as “CHASE”) is a National Banking Association. An incomplete and ineffectual perfection of a security interest in Plaintiff’s Home. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant’s invalid and unperfected security interest in Plaintiff’s Home hereinafter described. d. and each of them. 7.. with affidavit). Void “True Sale(s)” violating New York law and express terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement (“PSA”) governing the securitization of Plaintiff’s mortgage. 10. a resident of the County of SANTA BARBARA. is the operative securitization document created by the finance and securitization industry to memorialize securitization transactions (see attached exhibit: Bloomberg Securitization Audit. Unfair Business Practices (see attached exhibit: Forensic Audit Report). along with another document.A. N. which is a Trust Agreement required to be filed under penalty of perjury with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and which. based upon: a. and at all times relevant to this action. CHASE has not contacted Plaintiff ever again. and thereon alleges. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration of her rights with regard to the Property. 9. State of California. is the purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note (incorporated by 5 COMPLAINT 8. Plaintiff is further informed and believes.mandatory readiness and settlement mediation meeting. and seeks rescission/reconveyance of Title. A void or voidable Deed of Trust due to improper securitization. Plaintiff is now. the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement (“MLPA”). State of California. Quiet Title. Plaintiff alleges that an actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the Plaintiff and Defendants. for injunctive relief. e. Violations of California Business and Professions Code §17200. that CHASE. . CHASE BANK N. and filed dismissal on June 29th. c. may cause a serious injury.

Defendant. State of California. (incorporated by reference herein). State of California. Defendant. WELLS FARGO BANK. doing business in the County of SANTA BARBARA. doing business in the County of SANTA BARBARA. is Trustee for the securitized trust. as more particularly described in this Complaint. CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE CORPORATION (“CAL RECON”) is a Corporation doing business in the County of SANTA BARBARA. MORTGAGEIT. and thereon alleges. as more particularly described in this Complaint. Plaintiff is further informed and believes.A. (“WELLS FARGO”) is a National Banking Association. as more particularly described in this Complaint. Defendant. as more particularly described in this Complaint.reference herein) and/or Deed of Trust. STRUCTURED ASSET MORTGAGE INVESTMENTS II TRUST 2006-AR8 (hereinafter referred to as “SERIES 2006-AR8”). that CAL RECON was the foreclosing Trustee of the loan and/or purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note (incorporated by reference herein) and/or Deed of Trust. fraud in the concealment. (incorporated by reference herein). done in conspiracy. with malice and forethought on the Plaintiff. Defendant. THE BANK OF NEW YORK.A.. N. and wrongful foreclosure. 9. constructive fraud. (“BANK OF NEW YORK”). done in conspiracy with malice and forethought on the Plaintiff. 10. and thereon alleges. (incorporated by reference herein). N. constructive fraud. and thereon alleges. 6 COMPLAINT . Plaintiff is 11. (herein collectively as “CHASE”) is a National Banking Association. that WELLS FARGO is the present purported Master Servicer of the mortgage herein and/or is a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note (incorporated by reference herein) and/or the Deed of Trust. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that CAL RECON is a participant in fraud in the inducement. Plaintiff is further informed and believes. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that CHASE is a participant in fraud in the inducement. Plaintiff is further informed and believes. that 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MORTGAGEIT is the Originator of the loan and/or the is the purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note (incorporated by reference herein) and/or Deed of Trust. State of California. (incorporated by reference herein). fraud in the concealment. 12.

website: http://www. and thereon alleges. whose last known address is: 1818 Library Street. and that such injuries and damages were proximately caused by such Defendants. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Virginia 20190. INC. Plaintiff has owned the Property located at 427 Peach Grove. as each fictitiously named Defendant is in some manner liable to Plaintiff. title. that Defendant MERS is the purported Beneficiary under the Deed of Trust and/or is a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or the Deed of Trust. 15. or basis for liability of Defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100. 7 COMPLAINT . 14. State of California. were acting within the course and scope of such agency. Plaintiff is informed and believes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant. and thereon alleges. employees. and each of them. each of the fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the injuries and damages to Plaintiff so alleged. as more particularly described in this Complaint. and therefore alleges.informed and believes. Reston.. servants and/or the jointventurers of the remaining Defendants. State of California. BANK OF NEW YORK is a National banking Association. each of the Defendants were the agents. 16. or claims some right. CA 93103 (the “Property”). doing business in the County of SANTA BARBARA. 13. that at all times herein mentioned. Suite 300. that at all relevant times mentioned in this Complaint. Plaintiff is informed and believes. At all times relevant to this action. employment and/or joint venture. and each of them. inclusive. Plaintiff is informed and believes. is also known as MERS (“MERS”). MERS is doing business in the County of SANTA BARBARA. Plaintiff is further informed and believes.org. Plaintiff does not know the true names.mersinc. capacities. Santa Barbara. and thereon alleges that. MERS is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. or interest in the Property. and in doing the things alleged herein below. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS. and is the purported Trustee for the Trust and/or a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or the Deed of Trust as more particularly described in this Complaint. and thereon alleges.

Plaintiff is informed and believes. for clarification. Any inequities. or each of them. including but not limited to a Note and Deed of Trust. 20. Plaintiff is informed and believes. the Securitized Trust was formed by execution of the PSA. 18. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 19. all references to a/the “Loan(s) or loan(s)” herein shall mean “alleged loan(s)”. The Property is located within the County of SANTA BARBARA. the debt or obligation evidenced by the Note and the Deed of Trust executed by Plaintiff in favor of the original lender and other Defendants. verifying a loan. BANK OF NEW YORK. As set forth herein above. 22. was not properly assigned and transferred to Defendants operating the pooled mortgage funds or trusts in accordance with the Pooling and Servicing Agreement. from each and every violation of the law. to be determined in a court of law. The transactions and events which are the subject matter of this Complaint all occurred within the County of SANTA BARBARA. securing the Property in the amount of the Note under the guise of a contract where no fraud occurred. Plaintiff executed a series of documents. regarding the Property. and where all material facts were disclosed to Plaintiff. and thereon alleges. that no Loan exists due to no proof of a two party signature contract. or discrepancies in language shall NOT excuse Defendents.JURISDICTION 17. State of California. as defined in detail. and thereon alleges. State of California. herein. that the Loan was then securitized. 8 COMPLAINT . Plaintiff is informed and believes. 21. acting as the Trustee for the Securitized Trust. and thereon alleges. (herein referred to as “PSA”) of the entities making and receiving the purported assignments to this trust. with the Note not being properly transferred to Defendant. The original beneficiary and nominee under the Deed of Trust was MERS. Thus. that the purchase mortgage on the Property.

alleges that it is the “holder and owner” of the Note. the Deed of Trust had not been legally assigned to any other party or entity.000 into the SERIES 2006-AR8. 27. under the PSA. the transaction is still void as the Note would not have been transferred according to the requirements of the PSA. A detailed description of the mortgage loans which form the SERIES 2006-AR8 is included in Form 424B5 (“the Prospectus”). respectively. that the SERIES 2006AR8 had no officers or directors. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25. Documents filed with the Securities Exchange Commission (herein referred to as “SEC”).718. and thereon alleges. by the securitization participants allegedly claim that the Note and Deed of Trust at issue in this case were sold. Plaintiff further alleges that even if the Deed of Trust had been transferred into the Trust by the closing date. and executed by multiple intervening parties before it reached the Trust. A copy of the Prospectus Supplement can be found at the site indicated below.595. to the Trust. which has been duly filed with the SEC. Therefore. any assignments of the Deed of Trust beyond the specified closing date for the Trust are void. and no continuing duties other than to hold assets and to issue the series of certificates of investment as described in the Prospectus identified herein below. BANK OF NEW YORK. and securitized by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the PSA requires that each Note or Deed of Trust had to be endorsed and assigned. However. with other loans and mortgages with an aggregate principal balance of approximately $1. Plaintiff is informed and believes.1 Plaintiff also alleges that the Note was secured by the Deed of Trust. the Note and Deed of Trust identify the mortgagee and Note holder as 24. and which can be accessed through the below mentioned footnote.sec. and the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant. which is a Common Law Trust formed pursuant to New York law.htm 9 COMPLAINT . neither the Note nor the Deed of Trust was assigned to the Securitized Trust by the closing date. 1 http://www. Here. Plaintiff alleges that as of the date of the filing of this Complaint. 26. since the PSA requires a complete and unbroken chain of transfers and assignments to and from each intervening party.gov/Archives/edgar/data/815018/000116231807000567/m0565424b5.23. transferred.

Plaintiff is further informed and believes. and which. that the purported assignments and transfers of Plaintiff’s alleged debt or obligation. 31.” Any security interest in the Property was. and thereon alleges. 30. The alleged beneficiary of Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust does not have the requisite title. never perfected. thus. that at all times herein mentioned. did not comply with New York law and/or other laws and statutes. and is a public document on file with the SEC.the original lending institution or Mortgage Originator. Defendants. the Mortgage Loan Purchase Agreement. and each of them. and/or is not the real party in interest with regard to any action taken. transferred and delivered to SERIES 2006-AR8. including all intervening transfers. and thereon alleges. do not constitute valid and enforceable “True Sales.gov. The alleged holder of the Note is not the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. or to be taken against the Property.sec. 29. Documents state that the original lender allegedly sold the mortgage loan to SERIES 2006-AR8. Plaintiff is also informed and believes. Plaintiff further alleges that no documents or records can be produced that demonstrate that prior to the closing date for SERIES 2006-AR8. along with another document. 32. is the operative securitization document created by the finance and securitization industry to memorialize a particular securitization transaction. The link to the SEC and the various documents filed with the SEC regarding the Note are here: SEC Website: http://www. Plaintiff further alleges that any documents that purport to transfer any interest in the Note to SERIES 2006-AR8 the Trust closing date are void as a matter of law. 10 COMPLAINT . perfected security interest. transferred and delivered to SERIES 2006-AR8. the Deed of Trust was duly assigned. As set forth herein above. violated the express terms of the PSA which is a Trust Agreement. 33. or standing to proceed. nor can any documents or records be produced that demonstrate that prior to the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 closing date. 28. and thus. pursuant to New York trust law and relevant portions of the PSA. the Note was duly endorsed. any assignment of a Deed of Trust without proper transfer of the obligation that it secures is a legal nullity. including all intervening assignments. The PSA specifies the rights and obligations of each party to the securitization transaction to each other.

In order to achieve the desired “bankruptcy remoteness. and The Trustee of the Securitized Trust had actual physical possession of the Note at that point in time. when all endorsements and assignments had been completed. There was a complete and unbroken chain of endorsements and transfers of the Note from and to each party to the securitization transaction (which should be from the (A) Mortgage Originator. Furthermore. Plaintiff alleges that the Trust cannot demonstrate that it had perfected its security interest in Plaintiff’s Home. whereby the Issuing Entities and the Lenders would be protected from either entity going into bankruptcy. the Trustee must prove and certify to all parties that. 36. The reason procedure for selling 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the Loans was to create a situation whereby certain tax laws known as the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit Act (hereinafter “REMIC”) were observed. The purpose is to provide a large supply of money to lenders for originating Loans. to the (D) Trust. 11 COMPLAINT . and The Notes would be compensation given to the “seller” in return for the Note. to the (B) Sponsor. A “True Sale” of the Loan would be a circumstance whereby one party owned the Note and then sold it to another party. and that all of these endorsements and transfers were completed prior to the Trust closing dates (see discussion below). In order for the Trustee of the Securitized Trust to have a valid and enforceable secured claim against Plaintiff’s Home. 34.” two “True Sales” of the Loans had to occur. with an Assignment made every step of the way. and the Deeds of Trust assigned to the buyers of the Note. which is the subject of this b. the PSA requires strict compliance with its procedures and timelines in order for the parties to achieve their specific objectives. to the (C) Depositor. and sold to investors by Wall Street and other firms. and to provide investments to bond holders which were expected to be relatively safe. 35. among other things required under the PSA: a.More specifically. accepted. transferred. An offer would be made. each Note would be endorsed to the next party by the previous assignee of record. or bonds. in which loans were sold and transferred to the different parties in the securitization. Securitization is the process whereby mortgage Loans are turned into securities. Absent such proof.

the original lender herein) agreed to transfer and endorse to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust. Based upon the foregoing. and then “sells” them to the Depositor. without recourse. the Issuing Entity would be the “legal owner” of the Notes. and thereon alleges. that the Note in this case and the other mortgage loans identified in the PSA were never actually transferred and delivered by the Mortgage Originator to the Sponsor. the Mortgage Originator (i. title. which Mortgage Files include the original Deeds of Trust. that the PSA provides that the transfers and assignments are absolute. Plaintiff is informed and believes. including all 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 intervening transfers and assignments. and each of them. they are estopped and precluded from asserting any secured or unsecured claim in this case. and were intended by the parties to be a bona fide or “True Sale. Plaintiff is informed and believes. did not hold and possess the Note on or before the closing date of the Trust herein. as alleged herein below. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant Trustees are estopped and precluded from asserting any secured or unsecured claim in this case. the Depositor “deposits” the loans into the Issuing Entity Trusts.. in the “True Sale” and securitization process 39. and thereon alleges. and all other mortgage loans identified in the PSA. Plaintiff is further informed and believes. combines them. Plaintiff is further informed and believes. or to the Depositor. that as a result of the PSA and other documents signed under oath in relation thereto. that the following deficiencies exist. Plaintiff further alleges. 38. various bonds and certificates are sold. that the PSA herein provides that the Mortgage Files of the Mortgages were to be delivered to SERIES 2006. True Sales did not actually occur. herein. Plaintiff is further informed and believes. sponsor and Depositor2 are estopped from claiming any interest in the Note that is allegedly secured by the Deed of Trust on Plaintiff’s Home herein. on information and belief. all of its right. and thereon alleges. 12 COMPLAINT .action. and then.AR8. nor from the Depositor to the Trustee for the Securitized Trust. in exchange for the certificates described in the PSA. to wit. and interest in and to the mortgage loan (Note) of Plaintiff’s herein. 41. the Sponsor “collects” or “buys” the loans from different lenders. 37. and thereon alleges. were made for valuable consideration. if the Defendants. 2 The Originator is the lender who originally funded the loan. Therefore. that pursuant to the terms of the PSA.e. and thereon alleges. the Mortgage Originator. though the actual documents would be held by Custodians. 40.” Since.

No Assignments of Beneficiary or Endorsements of the Note to each of the intervening entities in the transaction ever occurred. The failure to endorse. The failure to assign and transfer the beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust to BANK OF NEW YORK. upon information and belief. that none of the parties b. nor any of the Defendants in this case. in accordance with the PSA of the Defendants. ownership and interest in Plaintiff’s Note.as to this Deed of Trust which renders invalid any security interest in the Plaintiff’s mortgage. d. alleges. Plaintiff. When the loan was sold to each intervening entity. and Deed of Trust of which the original lender is the holder. assign. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION LACK OF STANDING (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 43. owner and beneficiary of Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust. Therefore. hold a perfected and secured claim in the Property. and each of them. in accordance with the PSA. in that Plaintiff 44. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants specified herein above. violated the pertinent terms of the PSA. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 c. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. but not limited to: a. 13 COMPLAINT . f. The splitting or separation of title. 42. there were no Assignments of the Deed of Trust to or from any intervening entity at the time of the sale. as Securitization Participants. and that all Defendants are estopped and precluded from asserting an unsecured claim against Plaintiff’s estate. including. therefore. e. “True Sales” could not and did not occur. as Trustee for SERIES 2006-AR8. regarding their respective rights and duties. to neither the securitization transaction. which is conclusive proof that no true sales occurred as required under the PSA filed with the SEC. and transfer Plaintiff’s Note and/or mortgage to Defendant BANK OF NEW YORK. and Defendants.

Plaintiff is informed and believes. This has directly caused Plaintiff to be at an equitable disadvantage to Defendants. and falsely or fraudulently prepared documents required for Defendants. to foreclose as a calculated and fraudulent business practice. 47. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants. and each of them. with Deed of Trust remaining in beneficiaries’ name during the pendency of this litigation. and each of them. involved numerous fraudulent. and deem that any further attempted sale of the Property to be stayed. violations of State Laws designed to protect borrowers. because they have a beneficial interest. handling. did not have the right to foreclose on the Property. and each of them. false. 46. Plaintiff further contends that the above specified Defendants. because Defendants’ actions in the processing. did not have the right to foreclose on the Property because said Defendants. Thus. and each of them. Only fixed rate loans are negotiable instruments qualifying for foreclosure under district 3. including but not limited to. Furthermore. Plaintiff further requests that Title to the Property be rescinded and/or reconveyed back into Plaintiff’s name. deemed “unlawful and void”. and each of them. and each of them. or “ARM”. did not properly comply with the terms of Defendants’ own securitization requirements. the purported power of sale by the above specified Defendants. and attempted foreclosure of this loan. 14 COMPLAINT . and each of them. § 45. Plaintiff requests that this Court find that the purported power of sale contained in the Note and Deed of Trust has no force and effect at this time. and misleading practices including but not limited to.contends that Defendants. unlawfully foreclosed on an unsecured instrument because the alleged loan was an adjustible rate mortgage. The only individuals who are the holder of the Note are the certificate holders of the securitized trust because they are the end users and pay taxes on their interest gains. Defendants. and there upon alleges. and each of them have failed to perfect any security interest in the Property. that the only individuals who may have standing to foreclose are the collective holders of the Note. Cynthia White Ebenstein. no longer applies. all of the banks in the middle were PAID IN FULL. which includes proof of perfection of chain of title. ARM’s must foreclose under district 9. deceptive. in violation of.

to perfect the transfer of mortgage paper as collateral. or as unperfected. the sale of the Note is invalid as a fraudulent conveyance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 50. the original lender. that pursuant to California law. or to own or transfer an interest in a securitized mortgage because MERS’ charter limits MERS’ powers and duties to functioning as an electronic registration system of certain types of securities. 51. and thereon alleges. by the original lender. Plaintiff is informed and believes. to perfect the transfer of mortgage papers as collateral for a debt. the sale of the Note is invalid as a fraudulent conveyance. 54. and thereon alleges. Therefore. the Trustee of the Securitized Mortgage herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes. Furthermore. 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes. it is well established State Law that the assignment of a Deed of Trust does not automatically assign the underlying promissory Note and right to be paid. insofar as the parties to the securitization of Plaintiff’s Note and Deed of Trust base their claim that the Note was transferred or assigned to Defendant WELLS FARGO. and the security interest is incident of the debt. 52. Without physical transfer. a person or entity must have standing. or as unperfected. that in order to conduct a foreclosure action. Defendant MERS was named the “beneficiary” of the Deed of Trust. Since the creation of Plaintiff’s Note herein and Deed of Trust. the Note herein cannot be transferred unless it is endorsed. Pursuant to State Law. the attachments to the notice of default do not establish that endorsements were made.DEFENDANT MERS CANNOT BE A REAL PARTY OF INTEREST IN A SECURITIZED MORTGAGE 48. that Defendant MERS lacks the authority under its corporate charter to foreclose a mortgage. The Note in this action identifies the entity to whom it was payable. nor are there any other notices which establish that the original lender endorsed and sold the Note to another party. 15 COMPLAINT . the owner should physically deliver the Note to the transferee. the owner should physically deliver the Note to the transferee. Without physical transfer. and thereon alleges. 53.

cannot produce any evidence that the Promissory Note has been transferred. but cannot demonstrate the Trustee’s knowledge or assent to the assignment by MERS. Plaintiff will not have the beneficial use and enjoyment of her Home. and each of them. and each of them. For this reason. is void under Law. Defendants. 55. 16 COMPLAINT . Hence. and each of them. through the actions alleged above. MERS cannot transfer an interest in real property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 while an assignment of the Deed of Trust alone is a nullity. Deed of Trust) with it. and cannot recover anything from Plaintiff. 58. Defendant MERS could only transfer whatever interest it had in the Deed of Trust herein. In the instant action. unless restrained and enjoined by an Order of the Court. therefore. 60. cannot be transferred unless it is endorsed. Defendant. the holder of the Note prevails regardless of the order in which the interests were transferred. as well as the other reasons set forth herein below. MERS lacked authority as mere nominee to assign Plaintiff’s mortgage.The Note herein specifically identifies the party to whom it was payable to. if one party receives the Note and another party receives the Deed of Trust (as in this case). 56. Defendants MERS has failed to submit documents authorizing MERS. Said unlawful foreclosure action has caused and continues to cause Plaintiff’s great and irreparable injury in that real property is unique. The wrongful conduct of the above specified Defendants. 57. and will lose the Property unlawfully. as the nominee not only lacks authority to assign the mortgage. Therefore. The Promissory Note and Deed of Trust are inseparable: an assignment of the Note carries the mortgage (ie. Defendants. making the assignment defective. have illegally commenced foreclosure under the Note on the Property via a foreclosure action supported by false or fraudulent documents. will continue to cause great and irreparable harm to Plaintiff. as nominee for the original lender. Therefore. The Note. MERS. cannot establish that it is entitled to assert a claim in this case. to assign the subject mortgage. therefore. MERS. Any attempt to transfer the beneficial interest of a Trust Deed without actual ownership of the underlying Note. 59.

but rather the Notes would be included in a pool with other Notes. 63. Plaintiff has no other plain. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer in the future unless Defendants’ wrongful conduct is restrained and enjoined because real property is inherently unique. speedy. Defendants never disclosed that in the Deeds of Trust. By concealing the securitization. Defendants knew or should have known that had the truth been disclosed. as well as the terms of the Securitization Agreements. Defendants intended to induce Plaintiff based on these misrepresentations and improper disclosures. (2) existence of Credit Enhancement Agreements. and the injunctive relief prayed for below is necessary and appropriate at this time to prevent irreparable loss to Plaintiff.61. Changing the character of the loan in this way had a materially negative effect on Plaintiff that was known by Defendants. But 65. inter alia: (1) Financial Incentives paid. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. and multiple investors would effectively buy shares of the income stream from the loans. Plaintiff was surrendering her position as “Owner” to be a “Renter”. including. Plaintiff’s reasonable reliance upon the misrepresentations was detrimental. to the Defendants. 64. Plaintiff could 17 COMPLAINT . Defendants concealed the fact that Borrower's loan changed in character inasmuch as no single party would hold the Note. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD IN THE CONCEALMENT (Against All Defendants and Does 1-15) 62. thus giving these rights of Ownership away unknowingly. and it will be impossible for Plaintiff to determine the precise amount of damage she will suffer. or adequate remedy. Defendants concealed the fact that the Loans were securitized. split into tranches. Plaintiff would not have entered into the alleged Loan agreements. and (3) existence of Acquisition Provisions. but was not disclosed and thus unknown to Plaintiff. 63. were it not for failure to disclose the true and material terms of the transaction.

Plaintiff to enter into the loans and accept the Services as alleged herein. Defendants' actions were malicious and done willfully in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff in that the actions were calculated to injure Plaintiff and to exclusively benefit Defendants. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 66. and have no legal. intentionally misrepresented to Plaintiff those Defendants 68. Defendants. Plaintiff would have known of Defendants true intentions and profits from the proposed risky loan. in addition to actual damages. 69. punitive measures are reasonable and warranted for the safety of millions who stand to suffer. Defendants misrepresented that they are the “holder and owner” of the Note and the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust. fraud. In fact. Defendants are guilty of malice. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporated by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. Defendants’ failure to disclose the material terms of the transaction induced Defendants were aware of the misrepresentations and profited from them. or actual beneficial interest whatsoever in the Property. As such. Documents state that the original lender allegedly sold the mortgage loan to SERIES 2006-AR8. Defendants are 18 COMPLAINT . and each of them. if not affected. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT (Against All Defendants and unknown Does) 67. Defendants were not entitled to do so. Plaintiff would have known that the actions of Defendant would have an adverse effect on the value of Plaintiff’s property.have been alerted to issues of concern. were entitled to exercise the power of sale provision contained in the Deed of Trust. Plaintiff is entitled to recover. this was not true and was a misrepresentation of material fact. 65. However. equitable. Defendants were attempting to collect on a debt to which they have no legal. punitive damages to punish Defendants and to deter them from engaging in the outrageous disregard to laws govern their actions. equitable. Due to wide open and apparent knowledge within the news. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations and concealment. 64. or pecuniary interest in. and/or oppression.

Defendants were aware of the misrepresentations and profited from them. and harming millions of innocent and trusting Americans. and Plaintiff’s incurred costs and legal fees. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS (Against All Defendants and unknown Does) 74. Defendants are guilty of malice. have resulted in the Plaintiff being threatened with the loss of the Property. Defendant's failure to disclose the material terms of the transaction The material misrepresentations were made by Defendants with the intent induced Plaintiff to enter into the loans and accept the Services as alleged herein. 72. As such Plaintiff is entitled to recover. and/or oppression. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. As a direct and proximate result of the misrepresentations and concealment Plaintiff was damaged in an amount to be proven at trial. in addition to actual damages. and in order foreclosure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 on the Property. punitive damages. This material misrepresentation was made with the purpose of initiating the securitization process as illustrated above. 19 COMPLAINT . This type of conduct is outrageous. 1. Defendants' actions were malicious and done willfully in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of Plaintiff in that the actions were calculated to injure Plaintiff. The actions of Defendants. 70. to punish Defendants and to deter them from engaging in future misconduct. fraud. 73.fraudulently foreclosing on the Property in which they have no monetary or pecuniary interest. to cause Plaintiff to reasonably rely on these misrepresentations. emotional distress. 71. as set forth herein. in order to profit from the sale of the Property by selling the Note to sponsors who then pool the Note and sell it to investors on Wall Street. damage to Plaintiff’s financial security. including but not limited to costs of Loan.

and loss of health. As an actual and proximate cause of Defendants’ attempt to fraudulently foreclose on Plaintiff’s home. including but not limited to: loss of hundreds of thousands of actual monies invested into the property. paranoia. or actual beneficial interest whatsoever in the Property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 legal. and have no 3. and. their actions constitute outrageous or reckless conduct on the part of Defendants. depression. or interest–is so outrageous and extreme that it exceeds all bounds which is usually tolerated in a civilized community. 20 COMPLAINT .2. and each of them. including but not limited to: lack of sleep. and right to clear Title to the Property such that said Title will regain its marketability and value. properties in which they have no right. anxiety. 7. knowingly. the Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress. the right to verify the alleged debt that Defendants are attempting to collect. such that Plaintiff would be so emotionally distressed and debilitated that she would be unable to exercise legal rights to her Property. loss of credit. Defendants. Defendants were not entitled to do so. 4. equitable. the right to Title of her Property. Defendants intentionally. committed the acts set forth above with complete. 5. title. and recklessly misrepresented to the Plaintiff that Defendants were entitled to exercise the power of sale provision contained in the Deed of Trust. utter and reckless disregard of the probability of causing Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. This outcome has been created without any right or privilege on the part of the Defendants. In fact. Such conduct was undertaken with the specific intent of inflicting emotional distress on the Plaintiff. 6. taking properties and rendering families homeless. as such. Defendants were not acting in good faith while attempting to collect on the subject debt. country-wide fraudulently foreclosing enterprise. Defendants’ conduct–Doing business as a massive. loss of good standing within the community. loss of the financial and actual efforts from upgrading the property. the right to cure the alleged default. At the time Defendants began their fraudulent foreclosure proceedings. hypertension. loss of safety.

and she must be in a relaxed. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10. Said Defendants knew or should have known that such documents were improper in that at the time of the execution and delivery of said documents. Defendants had no right.fatigue. balanced state to benefit her clients. through the preparing. disparaging. and Trustee's Deed Upon Sale. though fully set forth herein. and casting doubt upon Plaintiff's legal title to the Property. or interest in the Property. severe depression. The conduct of Defendants. and loathsome that it would be looked down upon and despised by virtually all ordinary people. Therefore Defendants’ outrageous conduct has severely interfered with Plaintiff ‘s ability to work effectively. disparaged Plaintiff's exclusive valid title by and 9. base. As a proximate cause of Defendants’ conduct. Plaintiff is a medical massage therapist. but not limited to. 87. title. Notice of Trustee's Sale. and each of them. 88. miserable. the Notice of Default. These documents were naturally and commonly to be interpreted as denying. and recording of the documents previously described herein. and to deter their predatory so-called lending enterprise from engaging in similar conduct. appetite swings. as herein described. wretched. 86. 8. Yet because of Defendants’ outrageous conduct. contemptible. publishing. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION SLANDER OF TITLE (Against All Defendants and unknown Does) Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as Defendants. and loss of productivity at her place of employment. Plaintiff did not default in the manner stated in the Notice of Default. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants. Plaintiff has been living under the constant emotional nightmare of losing her Property. was so vile. By posting. Plaintiff cannot answer her telephone without stress. posting. and each of them. and repeated panic attacks. including. Plaintiff has experienced many sleepless nights. 21 COMPLAINT .

22 COMPLAINT . Moreover. Defendants' disparagement of Plaintiff's legal title was made to the world at large. and malicious. these expenses are continuing. and thus. and unknown Does) 94. loss of work. and there is a cloud on Plaintiff's Title. resulting in the loss of sleep. and to obtain the Property for their own use and profit unlawfully. anxiety. 92. Plaintiff has incurred expenses in order to clear Title to the Property. 93. and continues to suffer such injuries on an ongoing basis. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants for their malicious conduct and to deter such misconduct in the future. and interest in the Property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 90. The conduct of the Defendants in publishing the documents described above was fraudulent. As a further proximate result of Defendants' conduct. and created and published them with the malicious intent to injure Plaintiff and deprive her of her exclusive right. Therefore. 89. and recording said documents. Plaintiff’s title to the Property has been disparaged and slandered. 91. depression. Plaintiff has suffered. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. and other injuries to her health and well-being. Defendants knew the documents were false. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct in publishing these documents. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendants' conduct. mental anguish. The amounts of future expenses and damages are not ascertainable at this time. At the time the false and disparaging documents were created and published by the Defendants. Plaintiff has suffered humiliation. title. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: QUIET TITLE (Against All Defendants. The amount of such damages shall be proven at trial. and continues to suffer damages in an amount to be proven at trial. and Plaintiff will incur additional charges for such purpose until the cloud on Plaintiff's Title to the property has been removed.publishing. oppressive. and emotional and physical distress.

and/or sell the Property. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 96.95. 101. Plaintiff therefore requests a Temporary Restraining Order against 98. 102. Defendants did not have authority to foreclose upon. and upon that basis alleges that Defendants dispute Plaintiff's contention. 100. until all parties may ascertain and know their rights. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION DECLARATORY RELIEF (Against All Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes. Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of the Trust Deeds as of the date the Notes were assigned. Therefore. or by any of them. Plaintiff desires and is entitled to a judicial declaration quieting Title on Plaintiff as of the date on which Plaintiff was granted the Original Grant Deed. 2005. and avoiding any liens or encumbrances upon the Property created by Defendants. declaring Plaintiff to be the Title owner of record of the Property. against another Unlawful Detainer Action and/or Judgment. 23 COMPLAINT . ex parte measure is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances. obligations and interests with regard to the Property. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief by a judicial decree and order. Plaintiff contends that pursuant to any alleged Loans. and instead contend that they may properly move forward with a second Unlawful Detainer upon the Property. and requests this Honorable Court to quiet Plaintiff’s Title therein and thereto. or by their putative predecessors. without a concurrent assignation of the underlying Trust Deeds. and as such. October 21st. subject only to such legitimate liens and encumbrances as the Court may deem. 99. and unknown Does) 97. Therefore. Defendants. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties regarding the Note and Trust Deed. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

5 (Against all Defendants.5 requires the recordation of an assignment of the beneficial interest in a Deed of Trust prior to foreclosure. and unknown Does) 106. The power of sale may be exercised by the assigned if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded. and each of them. the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. to be proven at trial. 109. Plaintiff is informed and believes. As a proximate result of Defendants’ action. WHEREFORE. agency. future interest in said property. Plaintiff has been damaged in an though fully set forth herein. and unknown Does) 24 COMPLAINT . in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money. 104. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES IN VIOLATION OF CA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE §17200 ET SEQ (Against All Defendants. 107. Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of the Notice Of Default.103. 108.5 provides: Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee. Defendants. and being paid in full on a fraudulent Loan. with prejudice due to no contract. Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE SECTION 2932. securitization. cannot show valid and recorded assignments. amount not yet ascertained. or other encumbrancer. Plaintiff requests a determination of the validity of the Trust Deed Upon Plaintiff requests a determination of Title and an extinguishment of all interest and Sale. and thereon alleges that § 2932. 105. Plaintiff re-allege and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as California Civil Code § 2932.

. are also fabricating other documents to comply with California’s foreclosure guidelines. During the securitization era. 114. to stop foreclosures in California until it proves it is complying with State law.110. On October 1. foreclosure States. This practice was admitted by deposed bank executives such as GMAC’s Jeffrey Stephen who admitted in sworn deposition testimony to signing more than 500 documents a day. banks are “creating” the missing documents. Banks and the resulting Trusts in the rush to securitize mortgages and sell them to investors. Edmund G. Mortgage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LLC. 2010. BAC announced that it is temporarily halting The impetus of these necessary but drastic measures stems from allegations 113. years later. As a result. or outsourcing the documents to companies like Lender Processing Services to “produce” the needed assignments. Due to the strict timelines and guidelines to complete a foreclosure. banks 118. the AG similarly requested that a JPMorgan Chase Bank NA stop foreclosures in California until it proves it is complying with State law. 117. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND DOCUMENT FRAUD 111. Bank of America has halted foreclosures in 23 judicial On or about October 11. Inc. Jr.000 documents a month related to foreclosures. Since then. 2010. (aka Jerry Brown “AG”). but is an industry-wide problem. foreclosures nationwide. On September 24. Now. because none were originally created. 116. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. without reviewing them. 25 COMPLAINT . California Attorney General. routinely ignored the critical steps of obtaining mortgage assignments from the original lenders to the securities companies to the trusts. and up to 10. when the companies “servicing” the Trusts want to foreclose. 112. which owns GMAC. This epidemic is not limited to the banks listed above. 115. Brown. directed ALLY Financial. they have no legal and lawful documents available to document a proper chain of Title. of document fraud on the part of the banks and their Servicers. 2010.

This case will have far reaching ramifications in the quiet title arena as well as in the wrongful foreclosure area of law. 123. The impact of these allegations is so cogent that Old Republic National Title Company will no longer insure the Title on homes foreclosed by JPMorgan Chase. other state legislatures have taken steps to make the process more transparent (see Arizona State Senate Bill 1259.g. Ibanez Most recently. from foreclosing on the plaintiff's house because LaSalle failed under New York law and its own Pooling and Servicing Agreement to properly transfer the plaintiff's mortgage Note on the plaintiff's home. the court issued an order permanently enjoining the defendant trust. LaSalle Bank National Association. See.. Ass’n v.asp? Bill_Number=SB1259&Session_ID=102. Other states have taken the lead to void foreclosure sales by parties who lack standing to foreclose. In Phyllis Horace v. requiring non-originating foreclosure lenders to produce full chain of title to verify 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ownership). the Court is surprised to the point of astonishment that the defendant (LaSalle Bank National Association) did not comply with the terms of its 3http://www.00. The old law of England still applies: AN ASSIGNEE’S RIGHTS RISE NO HIGHER THAN HIS ASSIGNOR. the Alabama Circuit Court not only sided with the homeowner on this exact issue. the court did not mince words: "First.2d 40. e.gov/DocumentsForBill. 26 COMPLAINT .119. could not then turn around and transfer “good title” to anybody. As further proof of the unlawful business practices. In permanently forestalling any foreclosure on the home by defendant.E.azleg. In this case. THE BANK OF NEW YORK Nat. Et Al. 122. BEVILACQUA v. or GMAC Mortgage LLC. e. See. 120. La Salle Bank National Association. RODRIGUEZ.3 121. the Massachusetts Supreme Court held (among other things) that the recipient of “clouded” title by a bogus foreclosure sale. ramifications regarding the failure of banks and their trustees to properly transfer Notes and Deeds of Trusts.g. 57-cv-2008-00362.941 N. an Alabama Circuit recognized the legal (2011) .

and thereon alleges that certain misrepresentations. oppressive and fraudulent business practices. 125. registered. State Law. 126. Indeed without such Pooling and Servicing Agreements. yet MERS still caused to be recorded the false documents with the county recorder. and allowed these documents to be filed. including sworn statements. 127. The above specified Defendants. that Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes. and thereon alleges that Defendant MERS at all relevant times had knowledge that no such authority was ever bestowed upon it by the original lender. or recorded within this jurisdiction. untrue or misleading advertising in violation. Plaintiff believes and thereupon alleges that this individual did not have the authority or capacity to sign on behalf of MERS to cause such substitutions or assignments. engaged in unlawful.own Pooling and Servicing Agreement and further did not comply with New York Law in attempting to obtain assignment of plaintiff Horace's note and mortgage. rising to unfair and deceptive business practices. 27 COMPLAINT . The members of the public are likely to be deceived by these unlawful. plaintiff Horace is a third party beneficiary of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement created by the defendant trust (LaSalle Bank National Association). and Regulations related to non-judicial foreclosure. and each of them. as part of their business practices. and therefore alleges that Defendant MERS lacked authority to execute an assignment of the Deed of Trust from the original beneficiary to Defendant. Plaintiff is informed and believes. fraudulently and knowingly procured or offered false or fraudulently prepared documents to fabricate the missing gaps in the chain of title or to falsely demonstrate compliance with the PSA. deceptive. Plaintiiff Horace and other mortgagors similarly situated would never have been able to obtain financing. unfair. or fraudulent business acts or practices and unfair. Plaintiff is informed and believes. Plaintiff is informed and believes. in violation of California Business and Professions Code §17200 and the Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes. Further. and therefore alleges. As such. the assignment recorded is signed by an individual purporting to be the “Assistant Secretary” of MERS. and each of them. Second." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 124.

The fraudulent and unlawful conduct of the above specified Defendants. 128. and each of them. the above specified Defendants. and additional amounts. Plaintiff will ask for the following for each Cause of Action to be awarded: FIRST. As a direct and proximate result of the unfair business practices of the above specified Defendants. misleading and fraudulent at the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 time they were so engaged. Pursuant to Sections 17200 et seq. deceptive. as alleged herein. plus interest. all by reason of which Plaintiff has been damaged in at least the sum of the jurisdictional amount of this Court. were unlawful. any interest whatsoever in the Property to a third party. As a further direct and proximate result of the unfair business practices of the above specified Defendants. according to proof at the time of trial. 28 COMPLAINT . attorney’s fees and costs. and each of them. knew that their business practices were unlawful. and each of them. and each of them. FIFTH . unfair. 130. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE. and each of them. and each of them. unfair and/or fraudulent business practices within the provisions of §§17200 et seq of the California Business and Professions Code. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial. or causing to be sold. 131. Further. misleading. constituted unlawful.were made to the Notary Public to cause the Notary Public to perform an improper notary act on a document. 129. Plaintiff has incurred damages in that Plaintiff’s Home is now foreclosed at the hands of the above specified Defendants. or fraudulent business practice. The business practices of the above specified Defendants. Plaintiff is entitled to an order or preliminary injunction prohibiting said Defendants. unfair business practices include any unlawful. SIXTH AND SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION 1. from selling or attempting to sell. deceptive. misleading and fraudulent and violate California law as alleged herein above. of the California Business and Professions Code. and each of them. as herein alleged.

5. A Plaintiff In Pro Per 29 COMPLAINT . 4. SECOND. EIGHTH AND NINTH CAUSES OF ACTION 1. For Restitution as allowed by law. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law. THIRD. including but not limited to the following Decrees of this Court that: a. Plaintiff is the prevailing party. For Legal Fees and Costs of this action.2. For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial. b. 7. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial. For Punitive Damages as allowed by law. 2. FOURTH. For Declaratory Relief. 3. 3. For Restitution as allowed by law. 6. For Compensatory Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial. Depositor. The Trustees of the Trusts. Sponsor. 4. 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 For Special Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial. Dated: _________________ Cynthia White Ebenstein. For General Damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial. and The Mortgage Originator all have no enforceable secured or unsecured claim against the Property.

You're Reading a Free Preview

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