PERRY V.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

LEIGHTON LEE PERRY
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL
MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, JP
MORGAN CHASE BANK NA,
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE
CORP,
Defendants and Respondents.
Supreme Court No. S220045
(Court of Appeal No. A139655
Super. Ct. No. MSC10-02914)


Appeal From a Judgment
Of The Superior Court, County of CONTRA COSTA
Hon. Laurel S. Brady, Judge
___________________________________________
APPELLANTS REPLY TO ANSWER
TO PETITION FOR REVIEW
___________________________________________
Leighton Lee Perry
6724 Waverly Rd,
Martinez, CA
(925) 949-8377
LL_Perry@att.net

Appellant / Real Party, pro se



PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al

PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT 1
I.

The Petition Demonstrates Grounds for Supreme Court Review............ 4

II.

The Petition Offers Discussion Why Summary Judgment Was
Improperly Granted and Affirmed........................................................... 4

CONCLUSION 8
CERTIFICATION OF LENGTH 1

PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Calvo v HSBC Bank (2011) 199 CA4th 118, 130 CR 3d 815...................... 1
Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, L L C (2009), 557 U.S. 519........... 2
Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013), 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079............... 3
Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149.... 6
Statutes
Civ Code 2924(a)(6)...................................................................................... 6
Civ Code 2924(e) .......................................................................................... 6
Civ Code 2932.5............................................................................................ 2
Civ Code 2943........................................................................................... 1, 5
Rules
Rule 8.500(b)(1) ............................................................................................ 4
Rule 8.500(e)(5) ............................................................................................ 4

Page 1 of 8
PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
This action is about entitlement, without which, a wrongful foreclosure on a deed of
trust contract is a nullity and violation of the Penal Code.
Respondents admit the transfer of possession of the promissory note stated in the
assignment of the deed of trust upon which they base their entitlement was a perjury
unsubstantiated by material facts. Although Respondents claim to be in possession of an
adjustable rate note, there are insufficient material facts to substantiate a chain of
custody and a question of law necessary to evidence entitlement as a holder in due course
and party entitled to enforce. The Calvo
1
decision renders it impossible to find the
answers in the county records, diminishing the marketability of California real property
in its wake. It is no wonder the Trial Court names a different beneficiary from that
found by the Appellate Court.
Without an identified basis of entitlement, the whole issue of who might be a
designated agent is as absurd as is an alleged admitted default, particularly in light of
the dearth of substantiating common business records
2
.
Respondents leveraged Appellants contractual obligation to warrant and defend the
propertys clear title into grand theft by non-judicial foreclosure by breaking either
federal and or state
3
law regarding identification of the beneficiary in order to instigate a
default. It is undisputed that Appellant would have taken a different course of action
except for the deceit of Respondents in hiding the beneficiarys identity.
This case encompasses multiple areas of conflicting law and presents a chance for the

1
Calvo v HSBC Bank (2011) 199 CA4th 118, 130 CR 3d 815
2
Such as the amount paid for the subject loan allegedly transferred by assignment between
Respondents, which was illuminated by a(n unanswered) request for a statement of decision from
the trial court. The court lacks jurisdiction to provide remedy to a party who cannot demonstrate
a loss.
3
The contract, provided in form by Respondents, specifically cited state law (Civ Code 2943).

Page 2 of 8
PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
State to own case law respecting non-judicial foreclosure without reliance on non-
binding federal decisions.
The Calvo ruling regarding Civil Code 2932.5 may be examined in light of this cases
inclusion of a recorded trustee substituted by an assignee who is not a holder in due
course (HIDC) because the assignment of the party does not conform to the statute
governing non-judicial foreclosure.
Buried in this morass is the question of conflict of interest of an agent for the
beneficiary who is later substituted as the trustee.
The absence of the required TILA notification of a change of beneficiary and its
ineffective provision for enforcement in this case point out the need for state consumer
protection laws, such as Civil Code 2943, as an important deterrence to criminal activity.
It is therefore in the states interest to consider the current legal landscape of cooperation
since the Cuomo
4
ruling of coexisting state and federal law. Given the circumstances of
the presentation of the issue of federal law preemption in a motion for summary
judgment, and the ill-considered ruling by the appellate court, this area of law is a
candidate for further briefing on the merits.
Actions taken by the trial and appellate courts provided unwarranted support to
Respondents with the result that their defense is based on the form of the law that is
devoid of spirit and represent violations of abuse of discretion and due process. Were the
discovery rights of Appellant denied by the trial court in accepting verbatim a ruling
from a discovery facilitator who merely recited a portion of a statute in lieu of
circumstances as the reason to deny the acceptance of (unopposed) discovery
admissions? Was the withholding of a ruling on discovery by the trial court, bereft of a

4
Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, L L C (2009), 557 U.S. 519

Page 3 of 8
PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
preliminary ruling, until just a couple of days before answers to multiple motions for
summary judgment were due, so prejudicial to Appellant as to give cause for judicial
review? Was the acceptance (by overruling objections) by the trial court of testimony
from Appellant taken out of context and ruled upon as undisputed fact over Appellants
objections in a summary judgment an abuse of discretion? Was the insistence of the
Appellate court to pursue its issue on agency by referring to non-existent material facts a
violation of Appellants due process? Appellant points out the denial of due process by
the Appellate Court in foisting this issue at oral arguments, thereby denying Appellant
time to address more relevant issues. Was ignoring the question of jurisdiction of the
court to provide Respondents remedy when they could produce no showing of loss a
violation of Appellants due process?
In light of the Glaski
5
case, are the Appellate courts giving excessive weight to the
quick resolution provided by non-judicial foreclosure at the expense of the third party
beneficiary interest stated by the legislature and embodied by the contract to warrant and
protect clear title by the borrower?
And finally, in light of the Kalicki decision, are the Appellate courts exceeding their
ethical bounds by legislating from the bench and displaying untoward bias by abusing the
Rules of Court regarding publication of rulings?

5
Glaski v. Bank of America, N.A. (2013), 218 Cal. App. 4th 1079

Page 4 of 8
PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
LEGAL ARGUMENT
I. The Petition Demonstrates Grounds for Supreme Court Review

Pursuant to Rule 8.500(b)(1), Appellant Leighton Lee Perry petitions this Court for
review of the Appellate Opinion filed June 10, 2014 (Opinion) and denial of rehearing
filed July 10, 2014
6
as necessary to secure uniformity of decision or to settle an
important question of law. Review is required because the Opinion relies on erroneous
hypothetical and factual premise concerning Appellants argument, thereby misstating the
nature of a case of real property entitlement with that of wrongful foreclosure. Moreover,
review is warranted to reconsider the Opinions resolution of statutory construction and
application of relevant U.S. Supreme Court precedent. This Reply is authorized under
Rule 8.500(e)(5). Review is appropriate here where the docket reflects rehearing was
denied.
II. The Petition Offers Discussion Why Summary Judgment Was Improperly
Granted and Affirmed

Appellants summary judgment oppositions properly disputed the facts of the
assignment to Respondent Fannie Mae with objections of foundation and hearsay; that
Respondents were holders in due course in the absence of a fully negotiated transfer to JP
Morgan; and the impossibility of a default declared by a party who provided only
evidence of a lack of common business records in support of their claim to beneficiary
interest. No legal basis by argument and citation for overruling the objections was
presented by either the trial or appellate court.
Appellant raised the issue that testimony taken out of context and accepted by the trial
court as an undisputed fact was an abuse of discretion. No legal basis (argument,
citation) for overruling the objections were presented by either the trial or appellate court.

6
Presented in the online docket in the afternoon of July 11, 2014.

Page 5 of 8
PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
Appellants summary judgment oppositions pointed to the contract language requiring
the borrower to warrant and defend the clear title passed to the trustee, and the
requirement of a (missing) statement in the notice of default that the borrower has the
right to question the default or any other defenses. No legal basis (argument,
citation) for denying the plain contract language accepted by both parties addressed the
right of a cause of action for violation Civil Code 2943. Instead, the issue of federal
preemption as a jurisdictional issue was allowed by the Trial Court to be pursued in
motions for summary judgment (while ignoring the jurisdictional issue of remedy for a
party who shows no loss). The issue of whether federal preemption was waived by
Respondents by providing the form contract remains undetermined. The Appellate Court
similarly ignored the contract language and cited a long winded argument that omitted
the SCOTUS Cuomo reference cited by Appellant. And even if preemption was not
waived the question remains of whether the exceptions to federal preemption for tort,
contract, and real estate (entitlement) law should apply to Civil Code 2943 when used to
confirm the chain of beneficiary entitlement affecting the finality of transfer of property,
as in this case.
Calvo / Stockwell did not consider the circumstances of this case where the
homeowner is obligated to bring a suit against a substituted trustee to maintain the clear
title to the property passed to the original trustee. Neither Calvo nor its precedent
considered the logic that it is the beneficiary who instantiates, and may perform all the
duties of a trustee, but not vice versa. A trustee is only as legitimate as the beneficiary
substituting them, regardless of registering with the county. For this reason the other

Page 6 of 8
PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
encumbrancer
7
language found in 2932.5 should include the encumbrance of a deed of
trust that reinforces the Land Title Act [adopt 1850]. Furthermore, the conflict in the
language of 2924(c) referring to the finality of the deed of sale among other
encumbrancers which seems to include subordinate deeds of trust would be resolved.
Gomes
8
is being cited by trial courts to deny discovery of the authority of agency; yet
leave unquestioned, transfers by assignment after a notice of default in contradiction of
applying the same logic to the language of Civil Code 2924 as used in Gomes.
Gomes held there is no authority to interject the courts into this
comprehensive nonjudicial scheme by allowing a party to file a suit to
determine whether the party initiating the foreclosure has been properly
authorized to do so by the owner of the note

Similarly, there is no authority to allow a transfer by assignment after a notice of default,
but there is authority to substitute a trustee. This argument was partially presented at oral
argument before the Appellate panel, but interrupted to pursue the agency agenda
instead of the beneficiary identity derived from Civ Code 2924(e) of questioning the
rebuttable presumption of beneficiary knowledge that a default exists. The Gomes case
had a designated agent, MERS, found on the original documents. This case does not have
MERS, and the ability to confirm agency authority by referencing the written
9

designation of the agent cited in Civ Code 2924(a)(6) is not found within the all
inclusive 2924. In this case there are multiple agents for the beneficiary
10
with
appropriate authority to act, and no process to determine which one was designated. This

7
This court might consider the use of encumbrancer in Civ Code 2924 to refer to subordinate
holders of deeds of trust subject to a trustee sale
8
Gomes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1149
9
Necessary to conform to the doctrine of statute of frauds
10
No common business records depict any Respondent as a purchaser or seller of the Subject
Loan, and Fannie Mae has multiple agents by recorded powers of attorney and a recorded
assignment, as in Kalicki.

Page 7 of 8
PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
legal flaw leaves a borrower defenseless against unknown accusers in contradiction of his
basic constitutional right to challenge an accuser and unwarranted seizure of property.
How is a party expected to challenge a rebuttable presumption and designated agent if
not by a court action?
In this case the presentation of a pool number on a recorded assignment 2 years after
the loans creation with matching numbers found on the (alleged) promissory note
indicate an intent to securitize the loan, with the same issues Glaski presented. Recent
Appellate decisions denying Glaski causes of action, despite review by the CA Supreme
Court
11
, show a conflict still exists. Appellant did not amend his complaint to allege the
failed securitization as a cause of action because the trial court refuses to abide by the
decision. This conflict might be resolved if the reasoning of the beneficial third party
interest of a clear title (affecting marketability) held by a borrower was promoted by this
Court as a public interest and stated consideration of the legislation defining the non-
judicial foreclosure process.
The presumption of holder in due course and denial of trial courts to allow defenses
against mere holders of the note have become serious error in light the admission found
in the (unpublished?) Kalicki case. Although multiple requests were received, with no
opposition, to publish, at least partially, the admission of forged and falsely filed
document by a Respondent in this case to the trial court, a single justice signed the order
denying the motion to publish. The question is, if a minority opinion denying publication
was issued, does that imply that the majority favored publication in light of the rule that it
takes a majority of the panel to determine publication status? If so, then the decision is

11
A 5-panel court reviewed and declined to disturb the appellate order for publication. Trial
courts are currently issuing rulings stating most other courts dont agree, even though no
restriction on any of the considerations found in the case.

Page 8 of 8
PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
uncertain, and this Court has jurisdiction to review in light of the request for judicial
notice of the Kalicki opinion pending in this case. A favorable ruling for Appellant could
cause the authenticity of an unexamined adjustable rate note to shift to a disputed fact
based on Appellants former objections.
CONCLUSION
This case comes down to two basic questions.
Is the states right of real property entitlement, which affects the finality between
parties and marketability of real property, of less importance to the public interest than
the expediency of a trustee sale by a stranger to the contract?
Did the Trial and Appellate Courts sufficiently deny Appellant due process, abuse
their discretion, and display bias, thereby causing unfair prejudice to Appellant in their
determinations of this case?
Appellant believes he had an obligation to act upon the terms of the contract to protect
a clear title, and Respondents took unfair advantage of that obligation to pursue criminal
activity for unjust financial reward, as in Kalicki. The public does not expect their courts
to reward the perpetrators of illegal activity. That this concept is incomprehensible to
opposing counsel should be cause for concern to this Court, as it appears rife among the
California judiciary.

Respectfully submitted August 14, 2014,

________________________/s/
Leighton Lee Perry,
Appellant pro se



PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al


PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
Certification of Length

I, Leighton Lee Perry, Appellant, hereby certify pursuant to the Cal. RC
that the work count for this document is 2,627 words, excluding tables, this
certificate, and any attachment permitted under RC 14(d). This document
was prepared in Microsoft Word, and this is the word count generated by
the program for this document. I declare under penalty of perjury under the
laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: August 14, 2014
________________________/s/
Leighton Lee Perry,
Appellant pro se




PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
PROOF OF SERVICE


PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
I declare that I am a citizen of the United States and over the age of 18. My address is
6724 Waverly Road, Martinez, CA, and my phone number is: (925) 949-8377.
On the date shown below, I served the following document per Local Rule Court 16:
APPELLANTS REPLY TO ANSWER TO PETITION FOR REVIEW;

With service indicated for the following parties or entities named by:
X Transmitting by internet from my computer a true copy thereof, to the email and
U.S. mail recipients addressed as follows:

John C. Cox, Esq.
Keesal, Young & Logan
Charles Bell, Esq
McCarthy & Holthus LLP
450 Pacific Avenue 1770 Fourth Ave
San Francisco, CA 94133 San Diego, CA 92101
John.Cox@kyl.com cbell@mccarthyholthus.com

X Placing first class postage and depositing in a U.S. Mail box a true
copy thereof to the recipients addressed as follows:

Clerk of Appellate Court
1DCA Div 3
Hon. Laurel Brady
350 McAllister Street 725 Court Street
San Francisco, CA 94102 Martinez, CA 94553

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed
on August 14, 2014, at Martinez, California
_______________________/s/
Leighton Lee Perry, Appellant


PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al
PROOF OF SERVICE