lawson v bank of america

- 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

29

30

31

.

36 Holly S. Burgess (SBN 104757) LAW OFFICES OF HOLLY S. BURGESS 680 Auburn Folsom Road, Suite 109 Auburn, CA 95603 Tel: (530) 889-8900 Fax: (530) 820-1526 [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff, KEVIN LAWSON

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

KEVIN LAWSON,

Plaintiff,

vs. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; PRLAP, INC.; U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION; BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE 2008-A TRUST; BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FOR: 1. VIOLATION OF HOMEOWNERS EQUITY PROTECTION ACT; 2. VIOLATIONS OF REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT; 3. VIOLATIONS OF TRUTH IN LENDING ACT; 4. VIOLATIONS OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT; 5. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTA- TION; 6. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES; 7. UNJUST ENRICHMENT; 8. CIVIL CONSPIRACY; 9. CIVIL RICO VIOLATIONS; 10. USURY AND FRAUD; 11. BREACH OF SECURITY INSTRUMENT 12. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; 13. QUIET TITLE PLAINTIFFS DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff KEVIN LAWSON (―Plaintiff‖ or ―LAWSON‖) is an individual who is the

owner of the real property located at 8677 Mountain Drive, Tahoma, California 96142 (the ―Subject

Case 2:11-cv-01428-GEB -DAD Document 1 Filed 05/25/11 of 36

mailto:[email protected]

- 2- 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

29

30

31

.

Property‖). The legal description of the Subject Property is fully described in Exhibit “A”, attached

hereto and incorporated herein by reference, APN #016-171-05-100. .

2. Defendant BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP (―BAC HOME LOANS‖), a

mortgage servicer, at all times mentioned herein, was engaged in business as a servicer of mortgage

loans in the county of Placer, California. These Defendants claim to be the proper creditor who is

entitled to foreclose on the mortgage note.

3. Defendant BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. (―BofA‖) is a Delaware Corporation, whose

corporate headquarters is in Charlotte, North Carolina, and was, at all relevant times mentioned

herein, was the original lender on the mortgage note and making loans in El Dorado County, CA.

4. Defendant PRLAP, INC. (―PRLAP‖) is a Texas corporation and, based on information

and belief, was at all relevant times mentioned herein, engaged in the business of title insurance,

banking services, including foreclosure, and acting as trustee for banks, mortgage holders and lien

holders. At the times hereupon complained of, Defendants were acting as though it was the current

trustee of the deed of trust.

5. Defendant U.S. BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (―U.S. BANK‖), whose

corporate headquarters is in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is a subsidiary of US Bancorp, and was at all

times mentioned herein, engaged in business as a bank and/or servicer of mortgage loans in the

county of Placer, California, and is named as the trustee, for Defendant BANC OF AMERICA

FUNDING 2007-6 TRUST, to which the note and deed of trust were allegedly conveyed.

6. Defendant BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE 2008-A TRUST (―BANC

AMERICA TRUST‖) is an unregistered entity in California, based on information and belief, was at

all relevant times mentioned herein, was a pooling and servicing trust of mortgages, in which the

subject mortgage and property were allegedly placed. Based on information and belief, BANC

AMERICA TRUST claims to be the holder of the beneficial interest in the subject mortgage note

and/or deed of trust.

7. Defendant RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A. (―RECONTRUST‖), is a wholly-

owned subsidiary of Bank of America, N.A. and, based on information and belief, was at all relevant


- 3- 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

29

30

31

.

times mentioned herein, engaged in the business of title insurance, banking services, including

foreclosure, and acting as trustee for banks, mortgage holders and lien holders. At the times hereupon

complained of, Defendants were acting as though it was the current trustee of the deed of trust.

8. Defendants DOES 1-100 are believed to be the current beneficiaries of the Deed of

Trust, if the lien has not been extinguished by operation of law.

9. Plaintiff does not know the true names, capacities, or basis of liability of Defendants

sued as Doe 1 through Doe 100. Each fictitiously named Defendant is in some manner liable to

Plaintiff, claims some right, title, or interest in the Subject Property, or both.

10. At all times relevant to this Complaint, each of the Defendants was the agent or

employee of each of the remaining Defendants, and was acting within the course and scope of such

agency or employment.

JURISDICTION

11. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. §1331, this court has original based on the laws of the United

States, as alleged herein.

12. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a), this court has supplemental jurisdiction over the

related state court claims.

FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

13. On or about November 2, 2007, Plaintiff applied for a mortgage loan to be taken

against the Subject Property. The mortgage loan on the Subject Property was obtained from

Defendant BofA.

14. On November 19, 2007, the Deed of Trust was recorded against the Subject Property

in DOC-2007-0071344 of the Official Records of El Dorado County, California. BofA was the

―lender‖ as stated in the note signed by Plaintiff. The amount secured by the Deed of Trust

$1,000,000 as stated in the recorded deed of trust. A copy of the Deed of Trust is attached as Exhibit

“B” and incorporated herein by reference.


- 4- 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

29

30

31

.

15. On or about November 19, 2007, Plaintiff executed a written Promissory Note

(―Note‖) in the amount of $1,000,000 in favor of Defendant, BofA. A copy of the Promissory Note

is attached as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference.

16. The Promissory Note either has never been transferred from BofA, or has been

transferred to one of two other possible parties, including, but not limited to, RECONTRUST or U.S.

BANK, as trustee for BANC AMERICA TRUST and/or, as fully explored below, in the TWELFTH

CAUSE OF ACTION for WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE.

Trustee Sale

17. On or about July 28, 2010, Defendant RECONTRUST filed a NOTICE of DEFAULT

whereon U.S. BANK, as trustee for BANC AMERICA TRUST claims it was ―the foreclosing

beneficiary.‖ Plaintiff still remains in possession. See Exhibit “D”, attached hereto and incorporated

herein by reference.

18. In this case, foreclosure has been filed and the trustee’s sale of LAWSON’s home is

currently scheduled for May 26, 2011. See Exhibit “F”, attached hereto and incorporated herein by

reference.

Chain of Title Problems

19. At the time of the alleged Notice of Default described in paragraph 20, the recorded

interests contradict the assertion that U.S. BANK, as trustee for BANC AMERICA TRUST was the

foreclosing beneficiary, and reveal a slew of other illegal actions. Starting from the beginning, the

chain of recordation is as follows:

DATE DOCUMENT PARTIES Filed: 11/19/2007

DEED OF TRUST

[Attached as Exhibit “B”]

Lender/Beneficiary:

Borrower/Trustor:

Trustee:

BofA Lawson Prlap

Filed:

NOTICE OF DEFAULT and

Trustor:

Beneficiary:

Lawson BAC Home Loans


- 5- 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

29

30

31

.

7/28/2010 ELECTION TO SELL UNDER DEED OF TRUST

[Attached as Exhibit “D”]

beneficiary’sTrustee

beneficiary’s Agent:

Contact to stop

foreclosure:

Notice Signers:

Signature:

Date Notice signed:

Declaration signer: Declaration Signature:

Date Declaration Signed:

unnamed Recontrust U.S. Bank, as Trustee for Banc America Trust Recontrust, ―as agent for beneficiary‖ C. Smith 7/27/ 2010 BAC Home Loans Angela Mejia 7/20/2010

Filed: 8/06/2010

SUBSTITUTION OF TRUSTEE and ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST

[Attached as Exhibit “E”]

Trustor:

Beneficiary:

Orig Trustee:

New Trustee:

Assignor/beneficiary:

New beneficiary:

Signer:

Date Signed: Date Notarized:

Lawson BofA Prlap Recontrust BofA U.S. Bank, as trustee for Banc America Trust BofA by: T. Sevillano Assistant Secretary 7/27/2010 8/03/2010

Filed: 11/08/2010

NOTICE OF TRUSTEE’S SALE

[Attached as Exhibit “F”]

Trustor:

Trustee:

Signer:

Signature:

Date:

Lawson Recontrust Recontrust By: Nallely Ochoa, Team Member undated

20. The Notice of Default (―NOD‖) in this case is defective. California Civil Code 2924c

requires that the NOD provide the name and contact information of the beneficiary or mortgagee for


- 6- 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

29

30

31

.

borrowers to find out the amount they must pay, or to arrange for payment to stop the foreclosure.

Here, the NOD states that Plaintiff should contact U.S. BANK, as Trustee for BANC AMERICA

TRUST c/o BAC HOME LOANS to stop foreclosure. Notably, at this time, BofA, was still the

beneficiary of record under the Deed of Trust– not U.S. BANK or BANC AMERICA TRUST,

which acted in that capacity without authority.

21. California Corporations Code 313 requires that the NOD state the corporate signatory

capacity of the signer. Here, ―C. Smith‖ signed the NOD on behalf of RECONTRUST ―as agent for

the beneficiary‖. This designation ―as agent for the beneficiary‖ does not satisfy the Code’s

requirement to state the corporate capacity and is another flaw that renders the NOD void.

22. The NOD also does not comply with California Civil Code section 2923.5. Attached

to the NOD is a ―CALIFORNIA DECLARATION‖ signed by ―Angela Mejia, MLO-Loan SVCS

Specialist‖ on behalf of BAC HOME LOANS declaring that they attempted with due diligence to

contact Plaintiff in accordance with this Code. Plaintiff hereby challenges the veracity of the

declaration because he was not contacted as alleged in the declaration. The NOD is attached hereto

as Exhibit “D”.

23. The Substitution of Trustee and Assignment of Deed of Trust from BofA to U.S.

BANK, as trustee for BANC AMERICA TRUST purports to assign the loan from BofA to U.S.

BANK, as trustee, for BANC AMERICA TRUST, allegedly under its PSA, but entirely against every

single one of its relevant express terms. This is discussed below, under WRONGFUL

FORECLOSURE. Second, to prevent fraud, a notarized document must be notarized in front of the

notary on the same date it is signed. Here, the Substitution of Trustee and Assignment of Deed of

Trust was signed on July 27, 2010, but not notarized until August 3, 2010. Therefore the document

should be stricken from the Official Records and the document expunged. The Assignment of Deed

of Trust is attached as Exhibit “E”. Any trustee’s subsequent actions cannot be later granted


- 7- 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

29

30

31

.

validity by the court, because they were VOID not voidable in the first place. Further, the notary

signature of ―Ahmad Afzal‖, attesting to the signature of the attempted substitution of trustee and

Assignment of deed of trust, does not match his Oath and Certificate of Filing, filed in Ventura

County, CA. This is evidence of a false document filed with the El Dorado County Recorder’s Office

on Plaintiff’s property in violation of California law. See, Exhibit H.

24. The undated Notice of Trustee’s Sale, filed November 8, 2010, by trustee

RECONTRUST is utterly void, ultra vires, powerless and without legal validity, for the reasons stated

already, namely that it relies on a void NOD, which designates the beneficiary as U.S. Bank, as

trustee, for BANC AMERICA TRUST — when BofA was the beneficiary of record. The Notice of

Trustee’s Sale is attached as Exhibit “F”. The Notice of Trustee Sale is also invalid because the

―trustee‖ was empowered by a robo-signed document. This wrongful trustee was appointed by the

previous beneficiary and does not survive the alleged assignment to new beneficiary, especially since

the trustee substitution must be recorded according to paragraph 24 of the Deed of Trust, since they

were no longer the beneficiary..

25. Plaintiff has named each Defendant known, and unknown because Defendants, and

each of them, claim some right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the Subject Property adverse to

Plaintiff’s title; and their claims, and each of them, constitute a cloud on Plaintiff’s title to that

property.

Predatory Lending and Securitization of Plaintiff’s note and Deed of Trust

26. U.S. BANK, as trustee, for BANC AMERICA TRUST, asserts that it holds the

beneficial interest and the right to foreclose on the note securing the Deed of Trust. Plaintiff is

informed and believes that BofA assigned its interest in the DOT to an unknown entity, that it no

longer has an interest in the DOT or the promissory note secured thereby, and the subsequent parties

in the chain of title have no beneficial interest in the Plaintiff’s note and deed of trust and therefore no


- 8- 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

29

30

31

.

legal basis on which to claim the right to foreclose on Plaintiff’s property.

27. BofA, the "Lender", on the original Promissory Note was not the true lender.

Plaintiff’s note and deed of trust were used in an investment scheme known as a ―mortgage-backed‖

security investment trust. These trusts, based on New York law by their express terms, were created

by private institutional investment houses and large banks to use the homeowner’s credit and an

inflated appraisal, along with the borrower’s promise to pay on a predatory loan created by these

same parties, as the basis to create billion dollar Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit (REMIC)

trusts. Through a monthly fee, as a percentage of the borrower homeowner’s mortgage payment was

included in this REMIC, to which Plaintiff’s note and deed of trust were to be conveyed, these fees

were not disclosed to homeowner at the time loan was offered, nor included in the Plaintiff’s loan and

escrow closing statements, thereby violating federal law.

28. The originators of the loan immediately and simultaneously securitized (allegedly) the

note through the means of conversion of an Article III negotiable Instrument (U.C.C.) into Article

VIX (U.C.C.), non-negotiable paper. The beneficial interest in the note was never in the lender.

Rather, the notes were used as the ―collateral‖ for the basis of the investment. The mortgages, the

secured interest in the property, were never vested in the BofA. The mortgage was unsecured, the

minute it was allegedly conveyed to the REMIC trust.

29. The obligations reflected by the note, have been satisfied in whole or in part because

the investors who furnish the funding for these loans have been paid to the degree that

extinguishments of the debts has occurred with the result that there exist no obligations on which to

base any foreclosure on the property owned by Plaintiffs. Loan loss guarantees and other insurance

(paid in part as a percentage of Plaintiff’s monthly mortgage amount, without his knowledge), were

used to pay and keep the Plaintiff’s loan current as reflected in the loan level file for this trust.

30. Incredibly, this REMIC trust also provides for fees to the servicers, in this case, BofA,


- 9- 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

29

30

31

.

of the trust investment, including fees for foreclosure, BUT NOT MODIFICATION, should the

homeowner request it. Thus, when the homeowner requested alternatives to foreclosure, in violation

of California foreclosure laws, Plaintiff was denied any real opportunity to cure the alleged default, as

the servicer, acting in the name of the ―beneficiary under the note and deed of trust‖ had absolutely

no intention of doing so, so it could collect the foreclosure fees under the REMIC and its ruling

Pooling and Servicing Agreement.(―PSA‖)

31. According to the terms of the PSA, the only parties entitled to collect on the mortgage

obligation of Plaintiff’s debt would be the holder-in-due-course and beneficial owner(s) of the

original Promissory Note, the original ―Lender of Record‖, if the asset is still booked as an asset and

has not been sold and de-recognized as an asset under FASB 140.

32. Defendant U.S. Bank, as trustee, for BANC AMERICA TRUST represents itself as a

"Trustee", but is not a common law trustee, rather, they are special Corporate Trustees with limited

ministerial duties. These rights, duties and obligations do not include any remedial actions, such as

foreclosure, as they relate to the assets of the REMIC Trust (See: Pooling and Servicing Agreement,

Trustees’ Rights and Duties). The Servicers, like BofA, are merely administrative entities, under

limited power of attorney, which collect the mortgage payments and escrow funds.

33. Importantly, U.S. Bank, as trustee, for BANC AMERICA TRUST, as "Trustee" or

custodian, must have the mortgages recorded in the investors name as the beneficiaries of the

mortgage-backed security (―MBS‖) within 90 days of the ―closing date‖. Every mortgage in the

MBS should have been publicly recorded in El Dorado County where the property is located with a

mortgage in the name of the securitized trust through which this mortgage was passed. Such

mortgage should have been publicly recorded in the year 2008, a maximum of within 90 days of

Plaintiff’s loan.

34. Subsequent to the "cut-off date" listed in the prospectus, whereby the mortgage notes


- 10- 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

29

30

31

.

and security for these notes had to be identified, and the Note and Mortgages transferred, within 90

days, and thereafter, the pool is permanently closed to future transfers of mortgage assets.

35. In this case, Defendants fraudulently conveyed Plaintiff’s mortgage loan, which was

fraudulently recorded on or about August 6, 2010, in an attempt to transfer a Mortgage Assignment

into a REMIC after that REMIC's "cut-off" and "closing dates".

36. Since the closing date of the REMIC, the only party who could authorize the mortgage

assignment would be the Trustee and/or Investors of the REMIC Trust. The chain of title

―assignments‖ in this case, were by some agreement between the defendants. These Defendants used

false information and false pretenses regarding the Plaintiff, his ability to pay, the inflated real estate

appraisal and other false documents, in executing such Plaintiff’s mortgage and its subsequent

―assignments‖. Defendants filed and/or caused to be filed false assignments of mortgage in the public

record and provided these false documents to prove chain of title that does not exist.

37. Additionally, based on information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that all acts by all

Defendants after January 28, 2009, are null and void as the BANC AMERICA TRUST was

terminated as of that date, thereby making any assignments of Plaintiff’s note and deed of trust void.

See, Exhibit “G”, Certification and Notice of Termination of Trust, attached to this Complaint.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of the Home Ownership, Equity Protection Act

(As to Defendants, BofA, PRLAP, INC and U.S. BANK N.A, as trustee for BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING 2007-6 TRUST and DOES)

38. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the above paragraphs 1 through 39 herein above as if

set forth more fully herein below.

39. Plaintiff signed a Promissory Note and Mortgage. He unknowingly converting his

property into an alleged asset of a Mortgage-backed security investment, (―MBS‖), while his credit

and signatures were used to sell securities without his consent or knowledge of the terms and

conditions of the loan contract. Plaintiff was never informed of the nature of the scheme. He was


- 11- 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

29

30

31

.

deliberately induced into signing a Negotiable Instrument which was never intended as such, but

intended as collateral for a mortgage-backed security investment. The fact that this loan was meant to

fund a mortgage-backed security investment was a "Material disclosure" which was deliberately and

intentionally undisclosed.

40. In 1994, Congress enacted the Home Ownership Equity Protection Act, (HOEPA)

which is codified at 15 USC §1639 et. seq. With the intention of protecting homeowners from

predatory lending practices targeted at vulnerable consumers. HOEPA requires lenders to make

certain disclosures and prohibits certain terms from being included in home loans. In the event of

noncompliance, HOEPA imposes civil liability for precision and statutory and actual damages.

41. Plaintiff is a "consumer" and each Defendant is a "creditor" as defined by HOEPA. In

the mortgage loan transaction at issue here, Plaintiff was required to pay excessive fees, expenses,

and costs which exceeded more than 10% of the amount financed.

42. Pursuant to HOEPA and specifically 15 USC §1639 (A.) (1), each Defendant is

required to make certain disclosures to Plaintiff which are to be made conspicuously and in writing

no later than three (3) days prior to the closing.

43. In the transaction at issue, Defendants are required to make the following disclosures

to Plaintiff by no later than three (3) days prior to said closing:

―You are not required to complete this agreement merely because you

have received these disclosures or have signed a loan application. If

you obtain this loan, the lender will have a mortgage on your home.

You could lose your home and any money you have put into it, and if

you do not meet your obligation under the loan.‖

44. Defendants violated HOEPA to help up by numerous acts and material omissions,

including but not limited to:

A. Failing to make the foregoing disclosures in the conspicuous fashion;

B. Engaging in a pattern and practice of extending credit to Plaintiff without regard

to her ability to pay and violation of 15 USC§ 1639.


- 12- 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

29

30

31

.

45. By virtue of the Defendants’ multiple violations of HOEPA, Plaintiff has a legal right

to rescind the consumer credit transaction the subject of this action pursuant to 15 USC§1635. This

complaint is to be construed, for these purposes, as formal and public notice of Plaintiff’s notice and

precision of the mortgage and note.

46. Defendants further violated HOEPA by failing to make an additional disclosure,

including but not limited to, Plaintiff not receiving the required disclosure of the right to rescind the

transactions. Defendants failed to provide accurate TILA disclosures and understated the amount

being financed.

47. As a direct consequence of, and in connection with, Plaintiff’s legal and lawful

exercise of his right of rescission, the true ―owner" is required, within twenty (20) days of the notice

of rescission, to:

A. Desist from making any claims for finance charges in the transaction;

B. Return all monies paid by Plaintiff in connection with the transaction to

Plaintiff;

C. Satisfy all security interests, including mortgages, which were required in the

transaction.

48. Upon the true "lender’s" full performance of its obligations under HOEPA, Plaintiff

shall tender all sums to which the true lender is entitled.

49. Based on Defendants HOEPA violations, each of the Defendants is liable to the

Plaintiff for the following, which Plaintiff demands as a relief:

A. Rescission of the mortgage loan transaction;

B. Termination of the mortgage and security interest in the property the subject

of the mortgage loan documents created in the transactions;

C. Return of any money or property paid by Plaintiff including all payment made

in connection with the transaction;

D. The amount of money equal to twice the finance charge in connection with


- 13- 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

29

30

31

.

the transactions;

E. Relinquishment of the right to retain any proceeds; and

F. Actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including, attorney's

fees.

50. Because it is not clear who was actually in interest at the time of the actions described

below, Plaintiff allege this Cause of Action in the alternative against each of the possible parties at

fault. Unless otherwise indicated, allegations will be lodged against ―Defendant Actually in Interest,

If any‖ for the purposes of this pleading, which will be amended upon discovery of which

Defendant, on information and belief, if it was one of the defendants named.

51. This Cause of Action is pled in the alternative to the more likely allegation that the

Note has become an ownerless ―phantom note‖ and litigation is necessary to determine who, if

anyone has any right, under what transfer agreement, if any.

52. Plaintiff first learned of the actions of Defendants, including their failure to disclose

and the fraud committed upon him in December 2010. Any applicable statute of limitations should

run from this date. Plaintiff could not have learned of these violations at the time the loan was

obtained by looking at her loan documents and escrow closing statements as the true facts of the

lender and the securitization of her note and deed of trust and the fees attached thereto, which were

undisclosed to him, were not apparent from the face of the loan documents, nor deed of trust.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act


53. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges paragraphs 1 through 52 herein as if specifically set

forth herein below.

54. Plaintiff signed a Promissory Note and Mortgage. He was unknowingly converting

his property into an alleged asset of a MBS, while his credit and signatures were used to sell

securities without his consent or knowledge of the terms and conditions of the contract. Plaintiff

was never informed of the nature of the scheme. He was deliberately induced into signing a


- 14- 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

29

30

31

.

Negotiable Instrument which was never intended as such, but intended as collateral for a mortgage-

backed security investment. The fact that this loan was meant to fund a mortgage-backed security

investment was a "Material disclosure" which was deliberately and intentionally undisclosed.

55. As mortgage lenders, Defendants are subject to the provisions of the Real Estate

Settlement Procedures Act (―RESPA‖), 12 USC §2601 et. seq.

56. In violation of 12 USC §2607 and in connection with the mortgage loan to Plaintiff,

Defendants accepted charges for the rendering of real estate services which were in fact charges for

other than services actually performed.

57. As a result of the Defendants violations of RESPA, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff

in an amount equal to three (3) times the amount of charges paid by Plaintiff for "settlement

services" pursuant to 12 USC §2607 (d) (2).



run from this date. Plaintiff first learned of the actions of Defendants, including their failure to

disclose and the fraud committed upon him in December 2010. Any applicable statute of limitations

should run from this date. Plaintiff could not have learned of these violations at the time the loan

was obtained by looking at his loan documents and escrow closing statements as the true facts of the

lender and the securitization of his note and deed of trust and the fees attached thereto, which were


THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations of Truth In Lending Act


59. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges paragraphs 1 through 60 above herein as if set forth

fully below.

60. Plaintiff signed a Promissory Note and Mortgage. He unknowingly converting his

property into an alleged asset of a MBS, while his credit and signatures were used to sell securities


- 15- 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

29

30

31

.

without his consent or knowledge of the terms and conditions of the contract. Plaintiff was never

informed of the nature of the scheme. He was deliberately induced into signing a Negotiable

Instrument which was never intended as such, but intended as collateral for a mortgage-backed

security investment. The fact that this loan was meant to fund a mortgage-backed security

investment was a "Material disclosure" which was deliberately and intentionally undisclosed.

61. Defendants failed to include and disclose certain charges in the finance charge shown

on the TILA statement, which charges were imposed on Plaintiff incident to the extension of credit

to Plaintiff (fees charged on the MBS scheme) and were required to be disclosed pursuant to 15 USC

§1605 and Regulation Z §226.4, thus resulting in an improper disclosure of financial charges in

violation of 15 USC §1601 et seq., Regulation Z §226.18(d). Such undisclosed charges included

some identified on the settlement statement listing the amount financed which is different from the

sum listed in the original Note.

62. By calculating the annual percentage rate ("APR") based upon improperly calculated

and disclosed amounts, Defendants are in violation of 15 USC §1601 et seq., Regulation Z §226.18

(c), 18(d), and 22.D

63. Defendants’ failure to provide the required disclosures provides Plaintiff with the

right to rescind the transaction, and Plaintiff, through this public complaint which is intended to be

construed for purposes of this claim as a formal notice of rescission, hereby elect to rescind the

transaction.




obtained by looking at his loan documents and escrow closing statements as the true facts of the



/ / /

/ / /


- 16- 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

29

30

31

.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Violations Of Fair Credit Reporting Act

(As to Defendants, BofA, PRLAP, INC and U.S. BANK N.A, as trustee for BANC OF AMERICA FUNDING 2007-6 TRUST and DOES.)

65. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges paragraphs 1 through 66 above as if set forth fully

herein below.

66. Plaintiff signed a Promissory Note and Mortgage. He was unknowingly converting

his property into an alleged asset of a MBS, while his credit and signatures were used to sell

securities without his consent or knowledge of the terms and conditions of the contract. Plaintiff

was never informed of the nature of the scheme. He was deliberately induced into signing a

Negotiable Instrument which was never intended as such, but intended as collateral for a mortgage-

backed security investment. The fact that this loan was meant to fund a mortgage-backed security

investment was a "Material disclosure" which was deliberately and intentionally undisclosed. When

Defendants falsely determined a ―default‖ under Plaintiff’s mortgage, it provided false and

detrimental information that negatively affected Plaintiff’s credit.

67. At all times material, Defendants qualified as a provider of information to the Credit

Reporting Agencies, including but not limited to Experian, Equifax and Trans Union, under the fair

credit reporting act. Defendants wrongfully, improperly, and illegally reported negative information

as to Plaintiff, incorrectly reporting that Plaintiff was in default, to one or more credit reporting

agencies, resulting in Plaintiff having negative information on his credit reports and the lowering of

his FICO scores.

A. The negative information included, but was not limited to, an excessive

amount of debt into which Plaintiff was tricked into signing;

B. Notwithstanding the above, Plaintiff has paid each and every payment on

time from the time of the closing of the loan and until Plaintiff’s default.

68. Pursuant to 15 USC §1681 (s) (2) (b), Plaintiff is entitled to maintain a private cause

of action against Defendants for an award of damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial

for all violations of The Fair Credit Reporting Act which caused actual damages to Plaintiff,

including emotional distress and humiliation.


- 17- 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

29

30

31

.

69. Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendants for negligent non-

compliance with The Fair Credit Reporting Act pursuant to 15 USC§1681(n)(a)(2) in an amount to

be proven at the time of trial.









FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

(As to All Defendants and DOES)


herein below.

72. Defendants knowingly and intentionally concealed material information from

Plaintiff which is required by federal and state statutes and regulations to be disclosed to the Plaintiff

both before and after closing.

73. Defendants also materially misrepresented material information to the Plaintiff with

full knowledge of Defendants at their affirmative representations were false, fraudulent, and

misrepresented the truth at the time said representations were made. Specifically, Defendants

disguised the mortgage transaction to create the appearance of the lender’s being a properly

chartered and registered financial institution, authorized to do business and to enter into the subject

transaction, when in fact the real party in interest was not disclosed to Plaintiff, and neither were the


- 18- 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

29

30

31

.

various fees, rebates, refunds, kickbacks, profits and gains of the various parties who participated in

this unlawful MBS scheme.

74. Said real party in interest, i.e. the source of funding for the loan and the person to

whom the note was transmitted or eventually ―assigned" was neither a financial institution nor an

entity or person authorized, chartered or register to do business in the state, nor to act as banking,

lending or other financial institution anywhere else.

75. As such, this fraudulent scheme (which was in actuality a plan to trick the Plaintiff

into signing what would become a negotiable security used to sell unregulated securities under

fraudulent and changed terms from the original notes) was in fact a sham to use Plaintiff’s interest in

the real property to collect interest and other fees, in excess of the legal rate. Defendants also failed

to disclose that those in the chain of title did not hold the beneficial interest in Plaintiff’s note and

deed of trust and that the foreclosing entities and the alleged assigned beneficiary of the note and

deed of trust never had the rights to receive Plaintiff’s payments on his mortgage. Defendants also

failed to disclose at the time of the Notice of Default and Trustee Sale, the true beneficiary of the

note and deed of trust so that Plaintiff could negotiate with the true beneficiary to save his property.

76. Under the circumstances, the material omissions of material misrepresentations of the

Defendants were malicious.

77. Plaintiff not being an investment banker, securities dealer, mortgage lender, or

mortgage broker, reasonably relied upon the representations of the Defendants in agreeing to

execute the mortgage loan documents.

78. Had Plaintiff known of the falsity of Defendants’ representations, Plaintiff would not

have entered into the transaction that is the subject of this action.

79. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ material omissions and material

misrepresentations, Plaintiff has suffered damages, all according to proof at trial.


- 19- 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

29

30

31

.








undisclosed to him, and were not apparent from the face of the loan documents, nor deed of trust.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Fiduciary Duty



herein below.

82. Defendants, by their actions and contracting to provide mortgage loan services and a

loan program to Plaintiff which was not only to be best suited to the Plaintiff given his income and

expenses, but by which Plaintiff would also be able to satisfy his obligations without risk of losing

his home, were "fiduciaries" in which Plaintiff reposed trust and confidence, especially given that

Plaintiff was not and is not an investment banker, securities dealer, mortgage lender or mortgage

broker.

83. Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff by fraudulently inducing

Plaintiff to enter into a mortgage transaction which was contrary to Plaintiff’ stated intentions;

contrary to Plaintiff’s interest; and contrary to Plaintiff’s preservation of his property. Further,

Defendants, who were not the real party in interest, lacking standing to foreclose, stated to Plaintiff

that they were entitled to receive the mortgage payments from Plaintiff and filed a false notice of


- 20- 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

29

30

31

.

default and wrongfully has set Plaintiff’s property for a trustee sale.

84. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breaches of their fiduciary duties,

Plaintiff has suffered damages.

85. Under the totality of the circumstances, the Defendants’ actions were willful, wanton,

intentional, and with a callous and reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff, justifying an

award of not only actual compensatory damages, but also exemplary punitive damages to serve as a

deterrent not only as to future conduct of the named Defendants herein, but also to other persons or

entities with similar inclination.









SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Unjust Enrichment



herein below.

88. Defendants had an implied contract with Plaintiff to ensure that Plaintiff understood

all fees which would be paid to the Defendants to obtain credit on Plaintiff’ behalf and not to charge

any fees which were not related to the settlement of the loan and without full disclosure to Plaintiff.


- 21- 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

29

30

31

.

89. Defendants cannot, in good conscience and equity, retain the benefits from their

actions of charging a higher interest rate, fees, rebates, kickbacks, profits, and payments of insurance

of Plaintiff specific mortgage (including but not limited to from the resale of mortgages and notes

using Plaintiff’s identity, credit score and reputation without consent, right, justification or excuse as

part of an illegal enterprise scheme) and gains and other fees unrelated to the settlement services

provided at closing.

90. Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff, and maintenance

of the enrichment would be contrary to the rules and principles of equity.

91. Defendants have also been additionally enriched to the receipt of payment from third

parties, including but not limited to, investors, insurers, the United States Department of the

Treasury, the United States Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and other banks.

92. Plaintiff demands restitution from the Defendants in the form of actual damages,

exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.







EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Civil Conspiracy



herein below.


- 22- 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

29

30

31

.

95. In connection with the application for and the consummation of the mortgage loan the

subject of this action, Defendants agreed, between and among themselves, to engage in actions in a

course of conduct designed to further an illegal act or accomplish a legal act by an unlawful means,

and to commit one or more overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud the Plaintiff,

including but not limited to, the commencement of foreclosure. Specifically, the Defendants

disguised the mortgage transaction to create the appearance of the lender’s being a properly

chartered and registered financial institution, authorized to do business and to enter into the subject

transaction, when in fact the real party in interest was not disclosed to Plaintiff, and neither were the

various fees, rebates, refunds, kickbacks, profits and gains of the various parties who participated in

this unlawful scheme.







fraudulent and changed terms from the original notes) was in fact a sham to use Plaintiff’s interest in

the real property to collect interest in excess of the legal rate.

98. Defendants agreed between and among themselves to engage in the conspiracy to

defraud Plaintiff for the common purpose of accruing economic gains for themselves at the expense

of and detriment to Plaintiff.

99. The acts of the Defendants were committed intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and

with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.

100. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants in combination


- 23- 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

29

30

31

.

resulting in fraud and breaches of fiduciary duties, Plaintiff has suffered damages, all according to

proof at trial.



run from this date. Date. Any applicable statute of limitations should run from this date. Plaintiff

could not have learned of these violations at the time the loan was obtained by looking at his loan

documents and escrow closing statements as the true facts of the lender and the securitization of his

note and deed of trust and the fees attached thereto, which were undisclosed to him, were not

apparent from the face of the loan documents, nor deed of trust.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Civil RICO Violations



herein below.

103. Defendants and each of them participated in the conspiracy the subject of this action,

which has existed from date of application to the present, with the injuries and damages resulting

therefrom being continuous.

104. Defendants’ actions and use of multiple corporate entities, multiple parties, and

concerted and predetermined acts and conduct specifically designed to defraud Plaintiff constitutes

an "enterprise", with the aim and objective of the enterprise being to perpetuate a fraud upon the

Plaintiff through the use of intentional nondisclosure, material misrepresentation, and creation of the

fraudulent loan documents.

105. Each of the Defendants is an "enterprise Defendant.‖

106. The primary cause of this action is a widespread civil and criminal enterprise engaged


- 24- 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

29

30

31

.

in a pattern of racketeering activity across State lines, and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering

activity involving numerous RICO predicate acts during at least the past five years.

107. The predicate acts alleged here cluster around violations of federal law involving

mortgage lending, bank regulations and consumer credits laws as alleged in this complaint along

with violations of various California state laws concerning conveyance of notes and deeds of trust.

See 15 U.S.C.§§1601 et seq., 1639 et.seq., 1681; 12 U.S.C. 2601 and California Civil Code §2923.5,

California Commercial Code § 3602 and California Corporations Code §313, respectively.

108. Other RICO predicate acts were part of the overall conspiracy and pattern of

racketeering activity alleged herein, e.g. mail fraud and bank fraud. See 18 U.S.C. §§1341 and

1344, respectively.

109. Plaintiff alleges that the list of exhibits attached to this Complaint, show the false and

fraudulent documents filed with the El Dorado County Recorder Office constitutes probable cause

for granting all relief requested in this Complaint. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did, each, act

wrongfully to take and deprive him of his property, knowing that they, without his knowledge

converted his note and deed of trust to a Mortgage Backed Security, to charge him for insurance and

other forms of credit enhancements, which have paid Plaintiff’s note, thereby falsely claiming a

―default‖ on the obligation.

110. At various times and places enumerated in Plaintiff’s Exhibits A-H, all Defendants

did acquire and/or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or control of a RICO enterprise of

individuals who were associated in fact and who did engage in, and whose activities did affect,

interstate and foreign commerce, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4), (5), (9), and 1962(b).

Specifically, the notarizations on the notice of default and the notice of trustee sale (See, Exhibits D

and F) were not as attested due under notarization or penalty of perjury. On information and belief,

Plaintiff alleges these persons were what have commonly become known as ―robo-signers‖, without


- 25- 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

29

30

31

.

the proper identification or personal knowledge claimed on the documents.

111. During the pertinent time in question, all Defendants did cooperate jointly and

severally in the commission of two or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the RICO

laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1)(A) and (B), and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C.

1962(b). These acts include falsifying signatures. The notary signature of ―Ahmad Afzal‖, attesting

to the signature of the attempted substitution of trustee and Assignment of deed of trust, does not

match his Oath and Certificate of Filing, filed in Ventura County, CA. This is evidence of a false

document filed with the El Dorado County Recorder’s Office on Plaintiff’s property in violation of

California law. See, Exhibit E and Exhibit H.

112. Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two or more of the offenses

itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to threaten

continuity, i.e. a continuing threat of their respective racketeering activities, also in violation of the

RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) supra.

113. Under the principles of Respondent superior, the principal is liable for agents’

misconduct, including knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a RICO enterprise.

114. As a direct result of the actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff has and continues to

suffer damages.

115. Whenever references are made in this complaint to any act of any Defendant, that

allegation shall mean that each Defendant acted individually and jointly with the other Defendants.

116. Any allegation about acts of any corporate or other business Defendant means that

the corporation or other business did the acts alleged to by its officers, directors, employees, agents

and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority.

117. At all times each Defendant committed the acts, Defendant directed others to commit

the acts, or permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this complaint.


- 26- 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

29

30

31

.

118. Additionally some or all of the Defendants acted as the agent of the other Defendants,

and all of the Defendants acted within the scope of their agency or is acting as an agent of another.

119. At all relevant times, each Defendant knew or realized that the other Defendants were

engaging in or plan to engage in the violations of law alleged in the complaint. Knowing or

realizing that the Defendants were engaging in and are planning to engage in unlawful conduct, each

Defendant nevertheless facilitated the commission of those unlawful acts. Each Defendant intended

to and did encourage, facilitate, or assist in the commission of the unlawful acts, and thereby aided

and abetted the other Defendants in the unlawful conduct.

120. At all relevant times, Defendants have engaged in a conspiracy, common enterprise,

and common course of conduct, the purpose of which is to engage in the violations of law alleged in

the complaint. This conspiracy, common enterprise, and common course of conduct continue to the

present.





lender and the securitization of his note and deed of trust and the fees attached thereto, which was


TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Usury and Fraud


122. Plaintiff reaffirms and realleges the above paragraphs 1 through 124 above as if set

forth fully herein below.

123. Plaintiff is informed and believes and herein alleges that the subject loan, notes, and


- 27- 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

29

30

31

.

mortgage were structured so as to create the appearance of a higher value of real property than the

actual fair market value.

124. Defendants disguised the transaction to create the appearance of the lender’s being a

properly chartered and registered financial institution, authorized to do business and to enter into the

subject transaction, when in fact the real party in interest was not disclosed to Plaintiff, and neither

were the various fees, rebates, refunds, kickbacks, profits and gains of the various parties who

participated in this unlawful scheme.







fraudulent and changed terms from the original notes) was in fact a sham to use Plaintiff’ interest in

the real property to collect interest in excess of the legal rate.

127. The transaction of all the loan of money was pursuant to a written agreement, and as

such, subject to the rate limitation set forth under state and federal law. The "formula break" a

reference to end these laws was exceeded by a factor in excess of 10 contrary to the applicable law.

128. Under applicable law Plaintiff is also entitled and demands a permanent injunction be

entered against the Defendants:

A. Preventing him from taking any action or making any report in furtherance of

collection on this alleged debt which was usurious;

B. Requiring the records custodian of the county in which the alleged mortgage

and other instruments are recorded to remove same from the record; and


- 28- 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

29

30

31

.

C. Allowing the filing of said order in the office of the clerk of the property

records where the Subject Property, "loan transaction" and any other documents relating to this

transaction are located; and.







ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Breach of Security Instrument

As to All Defendants and DOES)



131. The Deed of Trust is the document which allows a non-judicial foreclosure to

proceed and gives Power of Sale to the duly appointed Trustee. Per the Deed of Trust, only the

Lender can invoke the foreclosure (See, Deed of Trust, Exhibit “A”, paragraph 22). Per Deed of

Trust paragraph 24, the Lender may appoint a trustee. The Substitution of Trustee in this case is

void, due to fraud, and was not executed in compliance with California Civil Code§2934(a). The

Substitution of Trustee was invalid also because it was not executed by the Lender, per requirement

of the Deed of Trust. The duly appointed Trustee under the Deed of Trust as of the recording of the

Notice of Default on July 28, 2010 was PRLAP, Inc. Neither Recontrust or BANC OF AMERICA

MORTGAGE 2008-A TRUST was ever effectively substituted as trustee. (See, attempted

Substitution of Trustee and change in beneficiary , Exhibit E, filed on August 6, 2010). The Notice


- 29- 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

29

30

31

.

of Default was recorded on July 28, 2010, which was PRIOR to the recordation of the assignment of

trustee on August 6, 2010. Recontrust or BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE 2008-A TRUST, if

they were the true holder-in-due-course, it would be mandatory to obtain beneficial interest in the

Deed of Trust, prior to invoking foreclosure. In the case of a Mortgage with a power of sale, an

assignee can only enforce the power of sale if the assignment is recorded, since the assignee’s

authority to conduct the sale must appear in the public records.

132. The fraudulent assignment was recorded AFTER the Notice of Default, which proves

the Notice of Default was void when it was signed on July 27, 2010 and void when it was recorded

on July 28, 2010. A non-judicial foreclosure sale under the power-of-sale in a deed of trust or

mortgage, on the other hand, must be conducted in strict compliance with its provisions and

applicable statutory law. A trustee’s powers and rights are limited to those set forth in the deed of

trust and laws applicable thereto.

133. The notice of acceleration and notice to cure given to borrower pursuant to

Section 22 of the deed of trust and the notice of acceleration given to borrower pursuant to Section

18 shall be deemed to satisfy the notice and opportunity to take corrective action provisions of this

Section 20.

134. When there is an agreement between the Beneficiary and Trustor, such as the

Condition Precedent expressed in Paragraph 20 of the Deed of Trust, a Foreclosure cannot take

place before the condition is satisfied. If the Beneficiary fails to carry out its obligation, a

subsequent foreclosure is invalid. Defendants have not complied with any expressed provisions of

the Deed of Trust, have speciously trespassed upon the Deed of Trust and Plaintiff’ property, and the

foreclosure and impending sale must be rendered void and rescinded under California Civil Code

§ 3513. Any one may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for his benefit. But a law

established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement. California Civil Code


- 30- 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

29

30

31

.

§ 3514. One must so use his own rights as not to infringe upon the rights of another. All the acts of

Defendants as described in this Complaint are a breach of the security instrument, the Deed of Trust.







TWELTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Wrongful Foreclosure




137. Plaintiff brings this cause of action against all parties who had an apparent hand in

the wrongful acts as set forth and described as to each of them below. Furthermore, their

participation seems to be a joint effort to hold each accountable for the actions of the rest.

138. California Civil Code Section 2924 mandates that a non-judicial trustee’s sale

―SHALL NOT TAKE PLACE‖ unless it is done on behalf of the beneficiary of a deed of trust

securing a note and certain technical procedures are met.

139. California Civil Code Section 2924(g) allows the obligee on the note required by

Section 2924 to make a ―credit bid‖ at a foreclosure sale, thereby taking title without actually paying

any money whatsoever for the Trustee to convey title to the property.

140. Defendants in this case had a duty to Plaintiff to follow the laws, including the


- 31- 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

29

30

31

.

foreclosure laws. Defendants were not the beneficiaries of the mortgage at the time of the scheduled

sale.

141. Defendants Recontrust or BANC OF AMERICA MORTGAGE 2008-A TRUST

and/or its agents were acting as a Trustee of a REMIC Loan Pool Trust pursuant to a Pooling and

Servicing Agreement (PSA). The PSA under which Defendants purport to be acting is a public

record kept by the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose website EDGAR.com contains the

provisions of the PSA.

142. If the truth is that the note was separated from the deed of trust and transferred to the

loan pool, then Under Civil Code Section 2936, the Right Title and Interest to the Deed of Trust

followed the note on that date, and any subsequent purported assignment is false, and its true legal

effect null notwithstanding recordation. Any beneficiary was divested of interest upon the transfer

of the Note under California Law and lacked power to assign any interest. Thus any attempt to

foreclose on the subject property was null and void under California Law and should be prevented

from occurring.

143. Plaintiff called the purported lender/servicer of the subject mortgage to advise about

his financial situation and to request assistance in the form of a repayment plan or other modification

relief designed to avoid foreclosure and the loss of his home.

144. Despite the Plaintiff’s efforts, the purported lender/servicer failed, refused and/or

neglected to work with Plaintiff in any reasonable way to avoid foreclosure during the time of his

financial difficulties.

145. Instead, the purported lender/servicer, was secretly transferring the Deed of Trust and

then has attempted to foreclose, without notice to Plaintiff.

146. The purported lender/servicer failed, refused and/or neglected to disclose to Plaintiff

what options were available to the Plaintiff, to avoid foreclosure and the loss of his home.


- 32- 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

29

30

31

.

147. As a result, Plaintiff was not provided with the specialized assistance and default loan

servicing that the lender/servicer was obligated to provide that comported with the Plaintiff’s ability

to pay and that served to assist Plaintiff in his efforts to avoid the default and the acceleration of the

subject mortgage debt and foreclosure.

148. Defendants failed, refused and/or neglected to evaluate the particular circumstances

surrounding Plaintiff’s claimed default; failed to evaluate Plaintiff or the subject property; failed to

determine the Plaintiff’s capacity to pay the monthly payment or a modified payment amount; failed

to ascertain the reason for the Plaintiff’s claimed default, or the extent of the Plaintiff’s interest in

keeping the subject property.

149. The Defendants failed, refused and/or neglected to give Plaintiff the opportunity to

cooperate in resolving the debt.

150. Due to Defendants actions, Plaintiff has been damaged, both financially and is being

deprived of his residence, which is a unique asset to him. Plaintiff demands damages for these

harms and a permanent injunction against Defendants, to prevent him from being evicted from his

home.







/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


- 33- 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

29

30

31

.

THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

Quiet Title



herein below.

153. Plaintiff has sent or has caused to be sent notice of his intent to rescind the subject

loan transaction, but only sent those notices to the entities that have been disclosed. Hence, without

this action, neither the rescission nor the reconveyance which Plaintiff is entitled to file (as attorney-

in-fact for the originating lender), gives Plaintiff full and clear title to the property.

154. The real party in interest on the lender's side may be the owner of the asset-backed

security issued by the servicing and pooling vendor, the insurer through some claim equitable

interests, or the Federal Government through the United States Department of the Treasury or the

Federal Reserve. The security is a ―securitized‖ bond deriving its value from the underlying

mortgages, of which the subject mortgage is one. Thus Plaintiff is entitled to quiet title against

Defendants, clearing title of the purported subject mortgage encumbrance.

155. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants’

claim an interest in the Subject Property.

156. However, Defendants’ claims are without any right whatsoever, and said Defendants

have no legal or equitable rights, claim, or interest in the Subject Property.

157. Plaintiff therefore seeks a declaration and judgment that the title to the Subject

Property is vested in Plaintiff alone and that the Defendants herein, and each of him, be declared to

have no estate, right, title or interest in the subject property and that said Defendants, and each of

them, be forever enjoined from asserting any estate, right, title or interest in the subject property

adverse to the Plaintiff herein.


- 34- 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

29

30

31

.







WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to enter judgment against Defendants and each of

them, as follows:

1. For an order compelling said Defendants, and each of them, to transfer or release

legal title and any alleged encumbrances thereon, and possession of the subject property to Plaintiff

herein;

2. For a determination that Plaintiff is the rightful holder of title to the Subject Property

and that Defendants herein, and each of them, be declared to have no estate, right, title or interest in

said property;

3. For a judgment forever enjoining said Defendants, and each of them, from claiming

any estate, right, title or interest in the subject property;

4. For a judgment that the foreclosure which was instituted be deemed and declared

illegal and void.

5. For attorneys fees according to statutes;

6. For actual, compensatory and punitive damages;

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /


- 35- 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

29

30

31

.

7. For costs of the suit herein incurred;

8. For such other further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

DATED: May 25, 2011 LAW OFFICES OF HOLLY S. BURGESS

By: /s/ Holly S. Burgess . HOLLY S. BURGESS, Attorney for Plaintiff


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

29

30

31

.

VERIFICATION

I, KEVIN LAWSON, declare as follows:

I have read the foregoing Verified Complaint for:

1. VIOLATION OF HOMEOWNERS EQUITY PROTECTION ACT; 2. VIOLATIONS OF REAL ESTATE SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES ACT; 3. VIOLATIONS OF TRUTH IN LENDING ACT; 4. VIOLATIONS OF FAIR CREDIT REPORTING ACT; 5. FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION; 6. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES; 7. UNJUST ENRICHMENT; 8. CIVIL CONSPIRACY; 9. CIVIL RICO VIOLATIONS; 10. USURY AND FRAUD; 11. BREACH OF SECURITY INSTRUMENT 12. WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE; and 13. QUIET TITLE;

and except for matters stated on information and belief, the facts stated therein are

true on my own knowledge, and as to those matters stated on information and belief, I

believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the

foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed this 24th day of May,

2011, at Auburn, Placer County, California.

/

KEVIN LAWSON


lawson v bank of america

Documents