5

10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Levi Reuben Uku, SBN 196406
LAW OFFICES OF LEVI REUBEN UKU
3540 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 626
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Telephone:(213) 385-0193
Telefax: (213) 385-0576
Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
Kahn Rahman, Jason Parson, Abieda Rahman
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF KERN
Khan Rahman, Jason Parson, Abieda Rahman ) Case No.: S-1500-CIV-269439-DRL
)
Plaintiffs, )
) OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO
Vs. ) COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF
) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Warren Ash, an individual; Bakersfield Realty )
Group, A Corp. Mortgage Electronic Registration)
Inc.; Quality Home DATE: May 16,2011
ServIce CorporatIOn; NatIonWIde Mortgage ) TIME: 8:30 A.M.
Company; Freemont General credit Corporation; ) DEPT: 7
Nation Star Mortgage LLC and DOES 1 through )
20 inclusive·
, ,
) Judge: Honorable David R. Lampe
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
!
INTRODUCTION
The demurrer filed by Defendants should be overruled because MERS lacked standing t
foreclose in the first place. In addition, the Complaint is clear as the claims by Plaintiffs agains
this Defendant, as more fully stated herein below.
Plaintiffs allege that MERS is merely a fictitious or nominal Beneficiary that never len
any money to any Plaintiffs at all times relevant. Plaintiffs further believe that Citimortgage Inc
1
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
Quality Home Services Corporation, MERS were never at time relevant assigned the said Dee
of Trust dated February 26, 2007 and therefore lacked standing to directly or indirectly foreclos
against Plaintiffs' real property interest at any time as there were simply no contractual privit
between the Plaintiff and said defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that the purported foreclosure sale of his residence in January 2009 i
void as a matter of law; as Fremont General Credit Corporation the Trustee in the subject deed 0
trust did not authorize Quality Home Loans Corporation to conduct the foreclosure sale or assi
the said note any defendant.
Plaintiffs allege that the Trustee of the said trust deed dated March 26, 2007 did not a
any time file a notice of substitution of Trustee wherein it nominated "MERS" or Quality Hom
Services Corporation, a fictitious entity as a trustee with power of sale of Plaintiffs' property.
In Dimock v. Emerald Properties, LLV (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 868, the Court held that t
avoid confusion and litigation, there cannot be at any given time more than one person with th
power to conduct a sale under a deed of trust. The beneficiary's agent was not able to effectivel
reinstate the former trustee by simply abandoning the internal foreclosure file it had created upo
the substitution. Civil Code § 2934a, permits a substitution only by way of a recorded document,
and the terms of the deed of trust itself did not provide any alternative means of making
substitution. As a practical matter, if the validity of a recorded substitution was subject to th
undisclosed, undocumented, and subjective decisions of agents of the beneficiary, the successo
trustee's ability to provide marketable title would be severely hampered. [See 3 Witkin
Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1987) Security Transactions in Real Property, § 8.] (3a, 3b
Deeds of Trust § 35--Sale Under Power--Who May Convey-- Following Substitution of Ne
Trustee--Void Conveyance by Former Trustee
II
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Plaintiff purchased property on February 26, 2007. The property was wrongfull
foreclosed on January 30, 2009, by Defendants for alleged failure to pay mortgage.
Plaintiff fell back on payment in or around September 2008 of his mortgage and calle
his mortgage company, Nation Wide Mortgage Corporation who purported to be an assignee 0
the February 26, 2007 deed of trust between Plaintiffs and Fremont General Credit Corporatio
and requested that the loan be modified. At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff was both residen
2
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO 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
owner of the Property located at 11010 Alexander Falls Avenue, Bakersfield, California (th
Property.") Plaintiffs purchased their Property in February 26, 2007. The mortgage was financed
by Defendants who appear and purport to do business under several and different names as
alleged hereinabove. After several efforts by Plaintiffs, Defendants agreed to modify the loan.
Before the modification agreement was forwarded to Plaintiffs, Defendants foreclosed 0
the property on January 30, 2009. Defendants, and each of them, conducted the foreclosure sal
by false pretenses, fraud and other nefarious means in violation of State and Federal laws.
Plaintiffs allege that the trust deed herein was not properly transferred from the origin
lender to Nationstar Mortgage LLC by MERS. However, no one at MERS executed th
document designated as Exhibit "B" to the Request to Take Judicial Notice. Thereafter, Qualit
Home Services Corporation claims to be trustee acting on behalf of all the Defendants herein an
conducted the unlawful foreclosure sales aforementioned without any authority from the recor
to do so. Said transfer was not recorded by a notice of assignment of trust deed at any tim
relevant herein. Neither did the originating lender serve a copy of the notice of assignment to th
Plaintiffs.
Defendants and each of them failed to record with the County of Kern with any notice 0
assignment of deed of trust erronously believing that the Defendants are or were exempt fro
doing so as a result of naming a pseudo or nominal beneficiary as in this case MERS, in th
original trust deed.
MERS is a fictitious business entity that sells it name to subprime lenders desirous 0
circumventing state laws governing the purchase and transfers of mortgage trust deeds and notes.
The corporate Defendants herein are member of MERS, a company that appears to be based i
Virginia.
Citibank Inc and/or MERS appointed Quality Loan Services Corporation to commenc
any foreclosure action against the Plaintiff. Quality Home Services Corporation is stranger to th
parties mentioned in the February 26, 2007 deed of trust subject of this action and thus had n
standing to commence, let alone foreclosed on Plaintiff's real property subject of this action.
Plaintiffs allege that MERS is merely a fictitious or nominal Beneficiary that never len
any money to any Plaintiffs at all times relevant. Plaintiffs further believe that Citimortgage Inc
Quality Home Services Corporation, MERS were never at time relevant assigned the said Dee
of Trust dated February 26,2007 and therefore lacked standing to directly or indirectly foreclos
3
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
against Plaintiffs' real property interest at any time as there were simply no contractual privit
between the Plaintiff and said defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that the purported foreclosure sale of his residence in January 2009 i
void as a matter of law; as Fremont General Credit Corporation the Trustee in the subject deed 0
trust did not authorize Quality Home Loans Corporation to conduct the foreclosure sale or assi
the said note any defendant.
Plaintiffs allege that the Trustee of the said trust deed dated March 26, 2007 did not a
any time file a notice of substitution of Trustee wherein it nominated "MERS" or Quality Hom
Services Corporation, a fictitious entity as a trustee with power of sale of Plaintiffs' property.
III
A DEMURRER ADMITS THE TRUTH OF ALL
MATERIAL FACTS PROPERLY PLEADED
A demurrer must be based on the facts alleged within the four corners of the complaint.
Code of Civil Procedure section 430.30, subdivision (a), permits a general demurrer "when any
ground for objection to a complaint ... (1) appears on the face thereof ..." In interpreting this
provision, the courts have held from time immemorial that a demurrer to a complaint will be
overruled when the defect upon which the demurrer is based is not evident on the face of the
pleading. Kamm v. Bank of Cal. (1887) 15 P. 765. Other courts are in accord that a demurrer
tests the pleadings alone and not evidence or other extrinsic matters; and thus lies only where
defects appear on the face of the pleading. SKF Farms v. Superior Court (Hummingbird Inc.)
(AppA Dist. 1984) 200 CaL Rptr. 497.
For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action, a demurrer admits the
truth of all material facts properly pleaded. Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 C.3d 584,591. The sole
issue raised by a demurrer is whether the facts pleaded state a valid cause of action. Del E.
Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 C.A.3d 593. The test is whether the
complaint states any valid claim entitling Plaintiff to relief. Thus Plaintiff may be
mistaken as to the nature of the case, or the legal theory, which he or she can prevail. But
if the essential facts of some valid cause of action are alleged, the complaint is good against
11 demurrer. Gruenberg v. Aetna Ins. Co. (1973) 9 C3d 566, 572, Ouelimane Co., Inc. v.
Steward Title Guar. Co. (1998) 19 C4th 26, 28.
4
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
The sole issue raised by demurrer is whether the facts pleaded state a valid cause of
action, not whether they are true. Thus, no matter how unlikely or improbable, plaintiff's
allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. Del E.
Webb Corp. v. Structural Materials Co. (1981) 123 CaL App.3d 593, 604.
IV
IN CALIFORNIA, IT IS REQUIRED ONLY THAT THE COMPLAINT
ALLEGES SUFFICIENT FACTS TO APPRISE THE DEFENDANT OF
THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE CLAIMS BEING MADE
AGAINST THE DEFENDANT
The complaint must contain "a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in
ordinary and concise language." (Code ofCivil Procedure §425.10.)
In Ruther, California Practice Guide ("C P G"), Civil Procedure Before Trial, the
following authorities are provided:
'A complaint must allege the ultimate facts necessary to the statement of an actionable
claim. It is both improper and insufficient for a plaintiff to simply plead the evidence by which
he hopes to prove such ultimate facts.' (Careau & Co. v. Security Pac. Business Credit Inc.
(1990) 222 CA3d 1371, 1390.)
FAIR NOTICE AS TEST: The distinction between 'ultimate facts' and 'evidentiary'
matters and 'legal conclusions' is of diminishing importance. Our courts have become
increasingly liberal in their attitude toward pleading - in some cases approximating the notice­
pleading standards of federal courts. (Perkins v. Sup. Ct. (General Tel. Directory Co.)(1981)
117 CA3d 1, 6 - 'The distinction is not at all clear and involves at most a matter ofdegree . ..
What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the
defondant ofthe basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief . . ')
There is no need to require specificity in the pleadings 'because modem discovery
procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading.'
(Ludgate Ins. Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2000) 82 CA4th 592, 608)
V
THE DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE OVERRULED BECAUSE THE
ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR TO APPRISE
DEFENDANT OF THE ACTION AGAINST IT
5
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
When the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant 0
the issues to be met, a demurrer to the complaint on the ground of uncertainty should b
overruled. Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal. App.3d 135.
It is axiomatic that demurrers founded on uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedur
section 430.1O(t) should be used sparingly and that such demurrers are disfavored when the
are not dispositive of one or more causes of action [Los Angeles Co. Super. Ct. Rules, Rul
9.l8(c)].
In Lord v. Garland (1946) 27 Cal.2d 840, 853 an action against the director and registr
of the state Department of Motor Vehicles for declaratory and injunctive relief. The complain
set forth three causes of action. The defendants demurred to the whole complaint both generall
and specially on several grounds, including the ground that the second cause of action w
ambiguous, unintelligible, and uncertain. The trial court, without indicating the basis of it
ruling, sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and plaintiff appealed from th
subsequent judgment of dismissal.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment with directions to overrule the demurrer. Th
Court stated that with respect to the demurrer for uncertainty, the allegations of the complain
were sufficiently clear to apprise the defendants of the issues that they were to meet, and th
special demurrer therefore should have been overruled Lord v. Garland (1946) 27 Cal.2d 840,
853.
Williams v. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. (1986) 185 Cal. App.3d 135. involved an action fo
damages resulting from plaintiffs use of an alleged defective product. Defendant manufacture
demurred to the fourth amended complaint on various grounds, including the objection that th
complaint was uncertain due to the plaintiffs failure to label the causes of action, as required b
former Los Angeles Co. Super. Ct., Law Depts. Pol. Man., Rule I03(d) [now see Los Angele
Co. Super. Ct. Rules, Rule 9.3 (providing for motion to strike cause of action with leave t
amend)]. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend and th
plaintiff appealed.
The court of appeal reversed the judgment, and ordered the trial court to enter an orde
overruling the demurrer and allowing defendant a reasonable time to answer. The court state
that when the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising th
defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet, a demurrer for uncertainty should be overrule
6
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
or plaintiff be given leave to amend. "It is not what a paper is named," quoted the court, "bu
what it is that fixes its character." The court observed that although inconvenient, annoying, an
inconsiderate, the lack of labels for the plaintiffs causes of action did not substantially impair th
defendant's ability to understand the complaint, and the demurrer sustained on the ground 0
uncertainty without leave to amend should have been overruled.
The facts alleged in the amended complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the demurrin
party that this action is about wrongful foreclosure and that Plaintiff was not given proper notic
required by law before the foreclosure sale. Defendants lack standing to foreclose and th
purported foreclosure was procured by fraud. Accordingly, the demurrer should be overruled.
VI
DEFENDANTS LACKED STANDING TO FORECLOSE.
In Dimock v. Emerald Properties, LLV (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 868, in response to
underlying unlawful detainer proceedings against him, a homeowner filed an action against the
beneficiary of his deed of trust, the former and new trustees, and others, alleging causes of
action for declaratory and injunctive relief, quiet title, and damages. During the course of
discovery, plaintiff became aware that the new trustee had been substituted for the former
trustee, and he asserted that in light of the substitution the foreclosure sale of the property by
the former trustee to a new buyer was void. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, and the trial court granted defendants' motions and denied plaintiffs. Thereafter the
trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants.
The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgments entered in favor of defendants and
instructed the trial court to enter judgment quieting title in favor of plaintiff, subject to such
encumbrances as existed at the time of the foreclosure, and to conduct additional proceedings
as necessary. The court held that since the beneficiary of the deed of trust recorded the
document that substituted the new trustee for the former trustee, and the substitution of the new
trustee was never subject to any further recorded substitution by the beneficiary, the new trustee
had sole power to convey the property_ Under the unambiguous terms of Civil Code § 2934a,
subd. (a)(4), the recording of the substitution of trustee transferred to the new trustee the
exclusive power to conduct a trustee's sale. Upon the appointment being made under the power,
the new trustee became vested, ipso facto, with the title to the trust premises and was clothed
with the same power as if the new trustee had been originally named. The court further held
7
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
that since the new trustee had sole power to convey the property, the fonner trustee's
conveyance of the property to the new buyer after the foreclosure sale was void, and not merely
voidable.
Here, Plaintiffs allege that the purported foreclosure sale of his residence in January 200
is void as a matter of law; as Fremont General Credit Corporation the Trustee in the subject dee
of trust did not authorize Quality Home Loans Corporation to conduct the foreclosure sale 0
assign the said note any defendant.
Plaintiffs allege that the Trustee of the said trust deed dated March 26, 2007 did not a
any time file a notice of substitution of Trustee wherein it nominated "MERS" or Quality Hom
Services Corporation, a fictitious entity as a trustee with power of sale of Plaintiffs' property.
Plaintiffs allege that the trust deed herein was not properly transferred from the origin
lender to Nationstar Mortgage LLC by MERS. However, no one at MERS executed th
document designated as Exhibit "B" to the Request to Take Judicial Notice. Thereafter, Qualit
Home Services Corporation claims to be trustee acting on behalf of all the Defendants herein an
conducted the unlawful foreclosure sales aforementioned without any authority from the recor
to do so. Said transfer was not recorded by a notice of assignment of trust deed at any tim
relevant herein. Neither did the originating lender serve a copy of the notice of assignment to th
Plaintiffs.
Defendants and each of them failed to record with the County of Kern with any notice 0
assignment of deed of trust erroneously believing that the Defendants are or were exempt fro
doing so as a result of naming a pseudo or nominal beneficiary as in this case MERS, in th
original trust deed.
V
MERS HAS NO STANDING TO FORECLOSE EITHER
MERS claims to be a separate company that acts as the nominee for Lender and Lender'
successors and assigns. MERS also claims to be the beneficiary under the Security Instrument.
Plaintiffs allege that the trust deed herein was not properly transferred from the origina
. lender to Nationstar Mortgage LLC by MERS. However, no one at MERS executed th
document designated as Exhibit "B" to the Request to Take Judicial Notice. Thereafter, Quali
Home Services Corporation claims to be trustee acting on behalf of all the Defendants herein an
conducted the unlawful foreclosure sales aforementioned without any authority from the recor
8
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
to do so. Said transfer was not recorded by a notice of assignment of trust deed at any tim
relevant herein. Neither did the originating lender serve a copy ofthe notice of assignment to th
Plaintiffs.
Defendants and each of them failed to record with the County of Kern with any notice 0
assignment of deed of trust erroneously believing that the Defendants are or were exempt fro
doing so as a result of naming a pseudo or nominal beneficiary as in this case MERS, in th
original trust deed.
Further, the purported conveyance of beneficial interest by MERS to any other part
which was not duly executed constitutes fraudulent conveyance and therefore VOID on its face.
Consequentially, neither the Lender nor MERS hold a valid beneficial interest under the DOT t
convey to anyone.
B. NO TENDER IS REQUIRED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS HAVE NO LEGAL
STANDING TO FORECLOSE
Defendants argue that all of plaintiff claims are barred by plaintiffs failure to allege hi
ability to tender the loan proceeds. Abdallah v. United Savings Bank, 43 Cal. App. 4th 1101, 51
Cal. Rptr. 2d 286 (1996), requires a valid tender of payment to bring any claim that arises from
foreclosure sale. Abdallah however, merely requires an allegation to tender for "any cause 0
action for irregularity in the [foreclosure] sale procedure." Id at 1109. Here, plaintiff need no
allege tender, because the foreclosure sale is void as a matter of law because the Trustee wh
conducted the foreclosure sale lacked authority to do so. Dimock v. Emerald Properties, LL
(2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 868
VII
THE QUIET TITLE CAUSE OF ACTION IS WELL PLEAD
A quiet title cause of action is brought, as authorized by statute, for the purpose 0
determining any adverse claim that may be asserted therein by a defendant to the land i
controversy. Lechuza Villas West v. California Coastal Com'n (1997) 60 Cal. App.4
th
218, 242
"The object of the action is to finally settle and determine, as between the parties, all conflictin
claims to the property in controversy, and to decree each such interest or estate therein as he rna
be entitled to." Id.
9
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAlNT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
In order to state a cause of action for quiet title, Plaintiffs must plead that this Defendan
has an adverse claim to the property in question. Plaintiff has sufficiently done so in he
Complaint. On a demurer all factual allegations must be accepted as true. Plaintiff s allegatio
that "Defendants" claim an adverse interest in the property in question is sufficient to survive th
demurer.
Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend to file a proper verification to th
complaint.
VIII
THE WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE
NOT TIME BARRED AND CONTAIN ENOUGH FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs allege that the purported foreclosure sale of his residence in January 2009 i
void as a matter of law; as Fremont General Credit Corporation the Trustee in the subject deed 0
trust did not authorize Quality Home Loans Corporation to conduct the foreclosure sale or assi
the said note any defendant.
Plaintiffs allege that the Trustee of the said trust deed dated March 26, 2007 did not a
any time file a notice of substitution of Trustee wherein it nominated "MERS" or Quality Hom
Services Corporation, a fictitious entity as a trustee with power of sale of Plaintiffs' property.
Plaintiffs allege that the trust deed herein was not properly transferred from the origina
lender to Nationstar Mortgage LLC by MERS. However, no one at MERS executed th
document designated as Exhibit "B" to the Request to Take Judicial Notice. Thereafter, Quali
Home Services Corporation claims to be trustee acting on behalf of all the Defendants herein an
conducted the unlawful foreclosure sales aforementioned without any authority from the recor
to do so. Said transfer was not recorded by a notice of assignment of trust deed at any tim
relevant herein. Neither did the originating lender serve a copy of the notice of assignment to th
Plaintiffs.
Defendants and each of them failed to record with the County of Kern with any notice 0
assignment of deed of trust erroneously believing that the Defendants are or were exempt fro
doing so as a result of naming a pseudo or nominal beneficiary as in this case MERS, in th
original trust deed.
10
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT
5
10
15
20
25
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
21
22
23
24
26
27
28
NEGLIGENCE
Plaintiff alleges negligence against all defendants. Under California law, the elements 0
a claim for negligence are "(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; an
(c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury." Ladd v. County of Sa
Mateo, 12 Cal. 4th 913, 917, 50 Cal. Rptr. 2d 309,911 P.2d 496 (1996) (internal citations [*25]
and quotations omitted); see also Cal Civ Code § 1714(a).
The Complaint clearly spell out the allegations of negligence against Defendants
including that Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by, among other things, preparing an
filing false documents, and foreclosing on the properly without proper authority to do so.
Accordingly, the demurrer should be overruled.
IX
PLAINTIFFS REQUEST LEAVE TO AMEND
For the foregoing reason and based on applicable laws, Plaintiffs respectfully request tha
the demurrer be overruled.
Dated: May 2, 2011
BY__~ ~ ~ ___________________
Le euben Uku, Esq.
ttorney for Plaintiffs
11
OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO 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
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age
of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. My business address is 3540 Wilshire
Blvd. Suite 626, L.A, CA 90010. Via Facsimile to (714) 481 9151 AND U. S. MAIL.
On 5/2/2011 I served the foregoing document described as: oPPOSrnON TO
DEMURRER
MCARTHY & HOLTHUS llP
JAMES HESTER, ESQUIRE
1770 4
TH
AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
I am readily familiar with finn's practice of collection and processing corresponden1
for mailing. Under the practice the envelope would be deposited with U.S. Postal Service
on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the
ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is
presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter dates is more than one da
after date of deposit for mailing.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Dated: 5/2/2011
PROOF OF SERVICE

Plaintiffs allege that the purported foreclosure sale of his residence in January 2009 i void as a matter of law.App. Civil Code § 2934a. 3b Deeds of Trust § 35--Sale Under Power--Who May Convey-. 2007 deed of trust between Plaintiffs and Fremont General Credit Corporatio and requested that the loan be modified. as Fremont General Credit Corporation the Trustee in the subject deed 0 trust did not authorize Quality Home Loans Corporation to conduct the foreclosure sale or assi 2 3 4 5 6 7 the said note any defendant.1 Quality Home Services Corporation. 2007 and therefore lacked standing to directly or indirectly foreclos against Plaintiffs' real property interest at any time as there were simply no contractual privit between the Plaintiff and said defendants. undocumented. LLV (2000) 81 Cal. Nation Wide Mortgage Corporation who purported to be an assignee 0 24 25 26 27 28 the February 26.] (3a. 2009.4th 868. As a practical matter. 2007. MERS were never at time relevant assigned the said Dee of Trust dated February 26. by Defendants for alleged failure to pay mortgage. The property was wrongfull foreclosed on January 30. Emerald Properties. 2007 did not a 9 any time file a notice of substitution of Trustee wherein it nominated "MERS" or Quality Hom Services Corporation. The beneficiary's agent was not able to effectivel reinstate the former trustee by simply abandoning the internal foreclosure file it had created upo the substitution. Law (9th ed. [See 3 Witkin 19 Summary of Cal. At all times herein mentioned Plaintiff was both residen 2 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT . and subjective decisions of agents of the beneficiary. the successo 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 trustee's ability to provide marketable title would be severely hampered. 8 Plaintiffs allege that the Trustee of the said trust deed dated March 26. the Court held that t avoid confusion and litigation. if the validity of a recorded substitution was subject to th undisclosed. and the terms of the deed of trust itself did not provide any alternative means of making substitution. 1987) Security Transactions in Real Property. there cannot be at any given time more than one person with th power to conduct a sale under a deed of trust.Following Substitution of Ne Trustee--Void Conveyance by Former Trustee II 20 21 22 23 STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff purchased property on February 26. In Dimock v. a fictitious entity as a trustee with power of sale of Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiff fell back on payment in or around September 2008 of his mortgage and calle his mortgage company. permits a substitution only by way of a recorded document. § 8.

Said transfer was not recorded by a notice of assignment of trust deed at any tim relevant herein. 2007 deed of trust subject of this action and thus had n standing to commence. a company that appears to be based i Virginia. Plaintiffs allege that MERS is merely a fictitious or nominal Beneficiary that never len any money to any Plaintiffs at all times relevant. 2009. 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 MERS is a fictitious business entity that sells it name to subprime lenders desirous 19 20 0 circumventing state laws governing the purchase and transfers of mortgage trust deeds and notes. let alone foreclosed on Plaintiff's real property subject of this action.2007 and therefore lacked standing to directly or indirectly foreclos 3 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT . California (th Property. Before the modification agreement was forwarded to Plaintiffs.1 2 3 4 5 owner of the Property located at 11010 Alexander Falls Avenue. Qualit Home Services Corporation claims to be trustee acting on behalf of all the Defendants herein an conducted the unlawful foreclosure sales aforementioned without any authority from the recor to do so. However. Plaintiffs allege that the trust deed herein was not properly transferred from the origin lender to Nationstar Mortgage LLC by MERS. conducted the foreclosure sal by false pretenses. 2007. fraud and other nefarious means in violation of State and Federal laws. After several efforts by Plaintiffs. in th original trust deed. Bakersfield. The corporate Defendants herein are member of MERS. Defendants foreclosed 0 6 7 8 the property on January 30. Thereafter. Defendants and each of them failed to record with the County of Kern with any notice assignment of deed of trust erronously believing that the Defendants are or were exempt fro doing so as a result of naming a pseudo or nominal beneficiary as in this case MERS. Citibank Inc and/or MERS appointed Quality Loan Services Corporation to commenc any foreclosure action against the Plaintiff. Quality Home Services Corporation is stranger to th parties mentioned in the February 26. Defendants. Plaintiffs further believe that Citimortgage Inc Quality Home Services Corporation. Neither did the originating lender serve a copy of the notice of assignment to th Plaintiffs. Defendants agreed to modify the loan. MERS were never at time relevant assigned the said Dee 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 of Trust dated February 26. no one at MERS executed th 9 document designated as Exhibit "B" to the Request to Take Judicial Notice. and each of them.") Plaintiffs purchased their Property in February 26. The mortgage was financed by Defendants who appear and purport to do business under several and different names as alleged hereinabove.

Co. Other courts are in accord that a demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not evidence or other extrinsic matters.A. (1998) 19 C4th 26.3d 584. 28. 2007 did not a 2 3 4 5 6 7 any time file a notice of substitution of Trustee wherein it nominated "MERS" or Quality Hom 8 Services Corporation. 497. SKF Farms v. Structural Materials Co. a demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pleaded. Kamm v. Ouelimane Co. permits a general demurrer "when any ground for objection to a complaint . 9 III A DEMURRER ADMITS THE TRUTH OF ALL 10 11 MATERIAL FACTS PROPERLY PLEADED A demurrer must be based on the facts alleged within the four corners of the complaint. Del E. Priest (1971) 5 C. which he or she can prevail. 1984) 200 CaL Rptr.) 19 20 21 22 (AppA Dist.1 against Plaintiffs' real property interest at any time as there were simply no contractual privit between the Plaintiff and said defendants. (1887) 15 P. and thus lies only where defects appear on the face of the pleading. For the purpose of testing the sufficiency of the cause of action. Gruenberg v. Plaintiffs allege that the purported foreclosure sale of his residence in January 2009 i void as a matter of law. Thus Plaintiff may be mistaken as to the nature of the case. (1973) 9 C3d 566. Serrano v.3d 593. The test is whether the 23 24 25 26 27 complaint states any valid claim entitling Plaintiff to relief. (1981) 123 C. the courts have held from time immemorial that a demurrer to a complaint will be overruled when the defect upon which the demurrer is based is not evident on the face of the 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 pleading. 765... Inc.591. (1) appears on the face thereof.30. the complaint is good against 11 demurrer. v. Steward Title Guar. Co. Aetna Ins. subdivision (a). Bank of Cal. Code of Civil Procedure section 430. 572. as Fremont General Credit Corporation the Trustee in the subject deed 0 trust did not authorize Quality Home Loans Corporation to conduct the foreclosure sale or assi the said note any defendant.. or the legal theory." In interpreting this provision. Webb Corp. Superior Court (Hummingbird Inc. But if the essential facts of some valid cause of action are alleged. a fictitious entity as a trustee with power of sale of Plaintiffs' property... Plaintiffs allege that the Trustee of the said trust deed dated March 26. v. 28 4 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT . The sole issue raised by a demurrer is whether the facts pleaded state a valid cause of action.

Ct.'The distinction is not at all clear and involves at most a matter ofdegree . (1981) 123 CaL App." (Code ofCivil Procedure §425. plaintiff's allegations must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on the demurrer. IV IN CALIFORNIA. not whether they are true. What is important is that the complaint as a whole contain sufficient facts to apprise the defondant ofthe basis upon which the plaintiff is seeking relief . 18 19 Our courts have become increasingly liberal in their attitude toward pleading . (2000) 82 CA4th 592.' (Careau & Co.) In Ruther. 1390. Security Pac. no matter how unlikely or improbable. (Perkins v. Co. Civil Procedure Before Trial. (1990) 222 CA3d 1371. Del E. (General Tel. IT IS REQUIRED ONLY THAT THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES SUFFICIENT FACTS TO APPRISE THE DEFENDANT OF 7 THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE CLAIMS BEING MADE 8 AGAINST THE DEFENDANT 9 The complaint must contain "a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language.' (Ludgate Ins. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. Sup.10. ') 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 There is no need to require specificity in the pleadings 'because modem discovery procedures necessarily affect the amount of detail that should be required in a pleading. 6 . 604. v. ..1 The sole issue raised by demurrer is whether the facts pleaded state a valid cause of action.in some cases approximating the notice­ pleading standards of federal courts. 2 3 4 5 6 Webb Corp. the following authorities are provided: 'A complaint must allege the ultimate facts necessary to the statement of an actionable claim. Directory Co. v. It is both improper and insufficient for a plaintiff to simply plead the evidence by which he hopes to prove such ultimate facts. 608) V THE DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE OVERRULED BECAUSE THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE COMPLAINT ARE SUFFICIENTLY CLEAR TO APPRISE 28 DEFENDANT OF THE ACTION AGAINST IT 5 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT . . Thus.)(1981) 117 CA3d 1.) FAIR NOTICE AS TEST: The distinction between 'ultimate facts' and 'evidentiary' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 matters and 'legal conclusions' is of diminishing importance. California Practice Guide ("C P G"). Business Credit Inc. Structural Materials Co.3d 593.

Th Court stated that with respect to the demurrer for uncertainty. The court state that when the complaint contains substantive factual allegations sufficiently apprising th 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 defendant of the issues it is being asked to meet. Super. sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and plaintiff appealed from th subsequent judgment of dismissal. the allegations of the complain were sufficiently clear to apprise the defendants of the issues that they were to meet. and uncertain. Beechnut Nutrition Corp..2d 840.3d 135. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment with directions to overrule the demurrer. (1986) 185 Cal. It is axiomatic that demurrers founded on uncertainty under Code of Civil Procedur 5 6 7 section 430. Rul 9.1O(t) should be used sparingly and that such demurrers are disfavored when the are not dispositive of one or more causes of action [Los Angeles Co. (1986) 185 Cal.3d 135. App. and th special demurrer therefore should have been overruled Lord v.3 (providing for motion to strike cause of action with leave t amend)]. without indicating the basis of it ruling.l8(c)]. Garland (1946) 27 Cal. Ct. Garland (1946) 27 Cal. Rules. as required b former Los Angeles Co. and ordered the trial court to enter an orde overruling the demurrer and allowing defendant a reasonable time to answer. 853. including the ground that the second cause of action w ambiguous. a demurrer for uncertainty should be overrule 6 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT . Defendant manufacture demurred to the fourth amended complaint on various grounds.2d 840. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Williams v. The trial court. The complain set forth three causes of action. Super. Super. Rules. Rule I03(d) [now see Los Angele Co. including the objection that th complaint was uncertain due to the plaintiffs failure to label the causes of action.. Williams v. Ct. Law Depts. unintelligible. Beechnut Nutrition Corp. The court of appeal reversed the judgment. Pol.1 When the allegations of the complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the defendant 0 2 3 4 the issues to be met. The defendants demurred to the whole complaint both generall and specially on several grounds. Rule 9. App. 853 an action against the director and registr 8 9 of the state Department of Motor Vehicles for declaratory and injunctive relief. a demurrer to the complaint on the ground of uncertainty should b overruled. The trial court sustained the defendant's demurrer without leave to amend and th plaintiff appealed. Ct. Man. In Lord v. involved an action fo 19 20 damages resulting from plaintiffs use of an alleged defective product.

" quoted the court. subd. and he asserted that in light of the substitution the foreclosure sale of the property by the former trustee to a new buyer was void. alleging causes of action for declaratory and injunctive relief. and to conduct additional proceedings as necessary.4th 868. The court further held 7 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT . and the substitution of the new trustee was never subject to any further recorded substitution by the beneficiary. an inconsiderate. Emerald Properties." The court observed that although inconvenient. and others. the demurrer should be overruled. the recording of the substitution of trustee transferred to the new trustee the exclusive power to conduct a trustee's sale. ipso facto. annoying. in response to 10 11 12 underlying unlawful detainer proceedings against him. In Dimock v. a homeowner filed an action against the beneficiary of his deed of trust. and the trial court granted defendants' motions and denied plaintiffs. (a)(4). Defendants lack standing to foreclose and th 8 9 purported foreclosure was procured by fraud. Thereafter the 13 14 15 16 17 18 trial court entered judgment in favor of defendants. Accordingly. The court held that since the beneficiary of the deed of trust recorded the document that substituted the new trustee for the former trustee. "It is not what a paper is named. the former and new trustees. the lack of labels for the plaintiffs causes of action did not substantially impair th defendant's ability to understand the complaint. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. with the title to the trust premises and was clothed 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 with the same power as if the new trustee had been originally named. Upon the appointment being made under the power. "bu what it is that fixes its character.1 or plaintiff be given leave to amend. During the course of discovery. the new trustee had sole power to convey the property_ Under the unambiguous terms of Civil Code § 2934a. plaintiff became aware that the new trustee had been substituted for the former trustee. and the demurrer sustained on the ground uncertainty without leave to amend should have been overruled.App. the new trustee became vested. 19 The Court of Appeal reversed the summary judgments entered in favor of defendants and instructed the trial court to enter judgment quieting title in favor of plaintiff. quiet title. LLV (2000) 81 Cal. subject to such encumbrances as existed at the time of the foreclosure. The facts alleged in the amended complaint are sufficiently clear to apprise the demurrin party that this action is about wrongful foreclosure and that Plaintiff was not given proper notic 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 required by law before the foreclosure sale. and damages. VI DEFENDANTS LACKED STANDING TO FORECLOSE.

2007 did not a 8 9 any time file a notice of substitution of Trustee wherein it nominated "MERS" or Quality Hom Services Corporation. Thereafter. However. Plaintiffs allege that the trust deed herein was not properly transferred from the origin lender to Nationstar Mortgage LLC by MERS. However. Thereafter. as Fremont General Credit Corporation the Trustee in the subject dee of trust did not authorize Quality Home Loans Corporation to conduct the foreclosure sale assign the said note any defendant. Plaintiffs allege that the purported foreclosure sale of his residence in January 200 is void as a matter of law. Plaintiffs allege that the trust deed herein was not properly transferred from the origina lender to Nationstar Mortgage LLC by MERS. and not merely voidable. Here. a fictitious entity as a trustee with power of sale of Plaintiffs' property. 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 Plaintiffs allege that the Trustee of the said trust deed dated March 26. Neither did the originating lender serve a copy of the notice of assignment to th Plaintiffs. 27 28 document designated as Exhibit "B" to the Request to Take Judicial Notice. Quali Home Services Corporation claims to be trustee acting on behalf of all the Defendants herein an conducted the unlawful foreclosure sales aforementioned without any authority from the recor 8 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT . Said transfer was not recorded by a notice of assignment of trust deed at any tim relevant herein. in th original trust deed. V 21 22 23 24 25 MERS HAS NO STANDING TO FORECLOSE EITHER MERS claims to be a separate company that acts as the nominee for Lender and Lender' successors and assigns. no one at MERS executed th 10 11 12 13 14 document designated as Exhibit "B" to the Request to Take Judicial Notice. MERS also claims to be the beneficiary under the Security Instrument. the fonner trustee's conveyance of the property to the new buyer after the foreclosure sale was void. Qualit Home Services Corporation claims to be trustee acting on behalf of all the Defendants herein an conducted the unlawful foreclosure sales aforementioned without any authority from the recor to do so. 15 16 17 Defendants and each of them failed to record with the County of Kern with any notice 18 0 assignment of deed of trust erroneously believing that the Defendants are or were exempt fro 19 20 doing so as a result of naming a pseudo or nominal beneficiary as in this case MERS. no one at MERS executed th 26 .1 that since the new trustee had sole power to convey the property.

because the foreclosure sale is void as a matter of law because the Trustee wh conducted the foreclosure sale lacked authority to do so. Rptr." Id. neither the Lender nor MERS hold a valid beneficial interest under the DOT t convey to anyone. 10 11 NO TENDER IS REQUIRED BECAUSE DEFENDANTS HAVE NO LEGAL 12 13 14 15 16 17 STANDING TO FORECLOSE Defendants argue that all of plaintiff claims are barred by plaintiffs failure to allege hi ability to tender the loan proceeds. Lechuza Villas West v. plaintiff need no allege tender. Defendants and each of them failed to record with the County of Kern with any notice 0 assignment of deed of trust erroneously believing that the Defendants are or were exempt fro doing so as a result of naming a pseudo or nominal beneficiary as in this case MERS. and to decree each such interest or estate therein as he rna be entitled to. all conflictin claims to the property in controversy. Emerald Properties. Here. as authorized by statute.1 to do so.4th 868 18 19 20 21 22 VII THE QUIET TITLE CAUSE OF ACTION IS WELL PLEAD 23 A quiet title cause of action is brought. Dimock v. 2d 286 (1996). for the purpose 24 25 26 27 0 determining any adverse claim that may be asserted therein by a defendant to the land i controversy. 51 Cal.4th 218. in th original trust deed. 2 3 4 5 6 7 Further. LL (2000) 81 Cal. as between the parties. requires a valid tender of payment to bring any claim that arises from foreclosure sale.App. App. Consequentially. United Savings Bank. Said transfer was not recorded by a notice of assignment of trust deed at any tim relevant herein. 4th 1101. 28 9 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAlNT . 242 "The object of the action is to finally settle and determine. Abdallah however. merely requires an allegation to tender for "any cause 0 action for irregularity in the [foreclosure] sale procedure." Id at 1109. California Coastal Com'n (1997) 60 Cal. 43 Cal. Neither did the originating lender serve a copy of the notice of assignment to th Plaintiffs. the purported conveyance of beneficial interest by MERS to any other part 8 9 which was not duly executed constitutes fraudulent conveyance and therefore VOID on its face. App. Abdallah v. B.

Plaintiffs allege that the trust deed herein was not properly transferred from the origina 13 14 15 16 17 18 lender to Nationstar Mortgage LLC by MERS. 19 20 21 22 However. Neither did the originating lender serve a copy of the notice of assignment to th Plaintiffs. 2007 did not a any time file a notice of substitution of Trustee wherein it nominated "MERS" or Quality Hom Services Corporation. On a demurer all factual allegations must be accepted as true. Said transfer was not recorded by a notice of assignment of trust deed at any tim relevant herein. in th original trust deed. Defendants and each of them failed to record with the County of Kern with any notice 0 23 24 25 26 27 28 assignment of deed of trust erroneously believing that the Defendants are or were exempt fro doing so as a result of naming a pseudo or nominal beneficiary as in this case MERS. as Fremont General Credit Corporation the Trustee in the subject deed 0 trust did not authorize Quality Home Loans Corporation to conduct the foreclosure sale or assi the said note any defendant. Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend to file a proper verification to th complaint. Plaintiffs allege that the Trustee of the said trust deed dated March 26. Plaintiff s allegatio that "Defendants" claim an adverse interest in the property in question is sufficient to survive th demurer. a fictitious entity as a trustee with power of sale of Plaintiffs' property.1 In order to state a cause of action for quiet title. Thereafter. Plaintiff has sufficiently done so in he 2 3 4 Complaint. Quali Home Services Corporation claims to be trustee acting on behalf of all the Defendants herein an conducted the unlawful foreclosure sales aforementioned without any authority from the recor to do so. Plaintiffs must plead that this Defendan has an adverse claim to the property in question. no one at MERS executed th document designated as Exhibit "B" to the Request to Take Judicial Notice. 5 6 7 8 VIII 9 THE WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE NOT TIME BARRED AND CONTAIN ENOUGH FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 10 11 12 Plaintiffs allege that the purported foreclosure sale of his residence in January 2009 i void as a matter of law. 10 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT .

Esq. 10 11 12 13 IX PLAINTIFFS REQUEST LEAVE TO AMEND 14 15 16 For the foregoing reason and based on applicable laws. 50 Cal. Rptr. 917. and foreclosing on the properly without proper authority to do so. 2d 309." Ladd v.1 2 NEGLIGENCE 3 Plaintiff alleges negligence against all defendants. The Complaint clearly spell out the allegations of negligence against Defendants 8 9 including that Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by. Plaintiffs respectfully request tha the demurrer be overruled. 2011 19 20 21 22 23 BY__~~~___________________ Le euben Uku. the elements 4 0 a claim for negligence are "(a) a legal duty to use due care. 12 Cal. the demurrer should be overruled. preparing an filing false documents. Under California law. County of Sa Mateo.2d 496 (1996) (internal citations [*25] and quotations omitted). an 5 6 7 (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury. among other things.911 P. 4th 913. 17 18 Dated: May 2. Accordingly. see also Cal Civ Code § 1714(a). ttorney for Plaintiffs 24 25 26 27 28 11 OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT . (b) a breach of such legal duty.

S. My business address is 3540 Wilshire Blvd. that the foregoing is true and correct. California in the ordinary course of business. Suite 626.A. L. I am aware that on motion of the party served. Via Facsimile to (714) 481 9151 AND U.S. I declare under penalty of perjury. CA 90010. Dated: 5/2/2011 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PROOF OF SERVICE . service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter dates is more than one da after date of deposit for mailing.1 PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) 2 3 4 5 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles. MAIL. State of California. ESQUIRE TH 1770 4 AVENUE SAN DIEGO. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to the within action. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles. On 5/2/2011 I served the foregoing document described as: oPPOSrnON TO 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 DEMURRER MCARTHY & HOLTHUS llP JAMES HESTER. CA 92101 I am readily familiar with finn's practice of collection and processing corresponden1 for mailing. under the laws of the State of California. Under the practice the envelope would be deposited with U.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful