miner vs keystone pacific, c treff, james harkins
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
1/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joseph C. Rosenblit (Bar No. 131663)
LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. ROSENBLIT
1370 N. Brea Blvd. Suite 235
Fullerton, CA 92835
877-475-7065
Attorney for Plaintiff;
Joseph
A
Miner, Trustee
of
JM Trust
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL TOWN
HOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC, a California
non-profit mutual benefit corporation,
RUSTAN LAINE, in his capacity as President
of Huntington Continental, MYRA KUCK, in
her capacity as Treasurer of Huntington
Continental, KEYSTONE PACIFIC
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., a
California corporation.; CAREY TREFF, in his
capacity as President and CEO of
Keystone,
ARTURO
CR
YRA, an individual; DIANN
ROBERTSON, an individual; RICHARD
BARR, an individual; and DOES 10 to 50,
Inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 30-2014-00748493-CU-CO-CJC
Hon. Judge: Frederick P. Aguirre
Department: C23
DECL R TION OF JOSEPH C
ROSENBLIT IN
SUPPORT
OF
MOTION
TO MEND
COMPL INT
[filed separately]
Date:
:
2015
i m e ~ ~
__
Dept: C23
Reservation
#: _
1.
I Joseph C. Rosenblit, am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts
of
the
State of California. I represent plaintiff, Joseph A Miner in this matter, am familiar with the facts
this case and
if
called upon to testify I would competently do so.
2.
Attached as Exhibit A is the proposed Second Amended Complaint.
3.
When the original complaint was drafted and filed I was under certain constraints due to wh
Declaration of Joseph C. Rosenblit
1
Second Amended Complaint Reservation 72197017
72197017
September 8
8:30 am
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
2/71
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
6
27
28
I believed were certain imminent statutes of limitations. I did what I could to include all causes of
action and all facts and all parties. I was nothing if not over inclusive.
4. When defendants initially demurred and brought motions to strike I held the belief that I ha
adequate time to correctly amend the complaint but did not anticipate the curve ball thrown at me i
the ruling at the ANTI-SLAPP MOTION wherein my interpretation
of
the law was at odds with th
court s ruling. As I had already filed the first amended complaint I knew it would simply be subje
to attacks on the pleading and I knew that a second amended complaint would have to be filed.
5. As I undertook to better understand all
of
the underlying facts
of
this case it led me
on
one
more thoroughly unanticipated road involving the complex interplay of corporate law, the Davis
Sterling Act, case law, the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act and its California counterpart the
Rosenthal Act.
6.
The research I did in applying those laws to the facts
of
this case and making sure that all
viable defendants were named within the context of all proper causes of action and properly
articulated remedies was an incredibly time consuming effort that took me the better part of 73 hou
to put together into the drafted {proposed} Second Amended Complaint. And as a solo practitione
with a heavy caseload it was time that had to be spread over 3 months.
7. Although in terms
of
the causes
of
action contained in the {proposed} Second Amended
Complaint are almost identical to those contained in the first amended complaint they are much
different in laying out both the necessary elements and the basis of defendant liability. What I
sought to do and hopefully achieved to a greater degree was clarity such that an attack on the
pleading could
be
successfully deflected. I have labored to do so. The court will be the judge of
that.
8 I believe that, consistent with judicial economy, the {Proposed} Second Amended Complai
achieves the avoidance
of
the round
of
demurrers that a served first amended complaint would hav
1 Notwithstanding defendants motion to dismiss, there was no court order ever issued as to when a second amend
complaint was to
be
filed.
Declaration of Joseph C Rosenblit
2
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
3/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
12
3
14
5
16
7
18
19
20
2
22
23
4
25
26
27
28
invited and, as such, acts to eliminate any prejudice to defendants.
As
these defendants are apprised
of
the exact nature of the basis of the claims against them and given that all such cla ims are within
the applicable statutes of limitations there is no prejudice to the defendants.
9. the extensive research I have performed has convinced me of nothing else, I believe that
this action as reflected in the {Proposed} Second Amended Complaint is meritorious and should
be
allowed to
be
heard on those merits.
I swear under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of
the
State
of
California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: July 9, 2015
By:
Joseph . Rosenblit, Attorney for Plaintiff,
Joseph A. Miner
Declaration
of
Joseph C. Rosenblit
3
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
4/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Joseph C. Rosenblit (Bar No. 131663)LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. ROSENBLIT1370 N. Brea Blvd. Suite 235Fullerton, CA 92835877-475-7065
Attorney for Plaintiff;
Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ORANGE COUNTY - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER
Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JMTrust,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HUNTINGTON CONTINENTALTOWN HOUSE ASSOCIATION,INC, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation, RUSTANLAINE, in his capacity as Presidentof Huntington Continental, MYRAKUCK, in her capacity as Treasurer of Huntington Continental,KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTYMANAGEMENT, INC., a Californiacorporation.; CAREY TREFF, in hiscapacity as President and CEO of
Keystone, ARTURO CHAYRA, anindividual; DIANN ROBERTSON,an individual; RICHARD BARR, anindividual; and DOES 10 to 50,Inclusive,
Defendants.
Case No.: 30-2014-00748493-CU-CO-CJC
Hon. Judge: Frederick P. AguirreDepartment: C23
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
01. BREACH OF GOVERNING DOCUMENTS;02. VIOLATIONS OF DAVIS STIRLING ACT;03. VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL FDCPA04. VIOLATIONS OF ROSENTHAL ACT;05. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES;06. NEGLIGENCE;07. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE;08. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;09. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
10. AIDING AND ABETTING.
Plaintiff Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust, an intervivos trust, (hereinafter
referred to as Plaintiff or MINER as context requires) through his counsel, based on
information and belief, and investigation of counsel, except for those allegations which
pertain to the named plaintiff or his attorneys (which are alleged on personal knowledge),
brings this action to challenge the illegal, grossly negligent, unfair business, and abusive
debt collection practices of Defendants which have caused Plaintiff damage. Plaintiff
Complaint for DamagesPage 1
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
5/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
brings this action against the following defendants: HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL
TOWN HOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC., (hereinafter “HUNTINGTON or
ASSOCIATION”); RUSTAN P. LAINE (hereinafter “LAINE”); MYRA J. KUCK
(hereinafter “KUCK ”); (DOE 1) FELDSOTT AND LEE, a law office (hereinafter
“FELDSOTT-LEE”); (DOE 2) STANLEY S. FELDSOTT (hereinafter “FELDSOTT”);
(DOE 3) JACQUELINE P. PAGANO, (hereinafter “PAGANO”); (DOE 4) TYLER J.
JONES (hereinafter “JONES”); KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, INC., (hereinafter “KEYSTONE”); CARY S. TREFF (hereinafter
“TREFF”); (DOE 5) ERICA L. GRIFFITH (hereinafter “GRIFFITH”); (DOE 6)
BRITTANY BENNETT (hereinafter “BENNETT”); (DOE 7) RENEE M. BARGER
(hereinafter “BARGER ”); (DOE 8) CANE WALKER HARKINS LLP, a law office
(hereinafter “CANE-WALKER ”); (DOE 9) JAMES C. HARKINS (hereinafter
“HARKINS”); and DOES 10 to 50, Inclusive, (individually and collectively,
“Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This action, filed by the Plaintiff Joseph Miner, an owner of a separate
interest located within the Huntington Continental Town House Association, arises from
alleged violations of law and contract committed by a homeowner Association, members of the Board of Directors, various paid agents of the Association including debt collectors, law
firms and attorneys, and certain Directors and Officers who control these entities.
2. Plaintiff, under two separate legal standings, brings this action in part on his
own behalf, and in part as a member on behalf of the 445 homeowner-members (lot
owners) of the Association. A portion of the complaint challenges the multiple violations of
law and abusive debt collection practices by Defendants. A portion of the complaint
challenges the unjust enrichment of the Association’s service providers: Feldsott-Lee,
Cane-Walker and Keystone - two debt collection law firms and a debt collection /
management company.
3. While the Association is ultimately responsible for the acts of it’s Directors
Complaint for DamagesPage 2
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
6/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and it’s agents, Plaintiff on information and belief, identifies these entities as the
perpetrator of the alleged bad acts and violations of law to bring clarity to this action - who,
what, where, when. All allegations and causes of action within this complaint began
with, arose from, are proximate to, are connected to, are predicated on, and are a
direct result of the assessment “debt collection” activities against plaintiff .
4. Service providers: Feldsott-Lee [exhibit #1 ], Cane-Walker [exhibit #2],
Keystone [exhibit #3 ] have signed written contracts with the Association. Feldsott and
Keystone contracts contain indemnification clauses. The providers are indemnified by the
Association under certain situations. Plaintiff alleges these service providers are not
indemnified and should not be indemnified for illegal acts or violations of statute. Plaintiff
alleges illegal acts include violations of the State and Federal debt collection acts,
violations of the Davis Stirling Act, and any other illegal acts that are direct or proximate to
collection of Miner’s debt set forth herein.
5. Plaintiff contends there are three significant separate but related issues
addressed in this action: 1) the failed and illegal collection and attempted foreclosure
scheme implemented by Feldsott-Lee, 2) the pre-foreclosure and collection scheme carried
out by Keystone and Cane-Walker, and 3) the unjust enrichment of these service providers
and associates during these extortion-like illegal debt collection endeavors. Miner contendsthese acts have damaged Miner, his family, and separately damaged the 445 good and
honest members of the Association. At the start of this battle1 Miner had notified the
Huntington Board of Directors including President Rustan Laine and Treasurer Myra Kuck
of these unjust issues, such as the rejection of his assessment payments and inability to get
accounting, in writing by letter and email. His complaints and warnings fell on deaf ears.
6. While Association member-owners like Miner have many rights by law,
Miner contends the Association and it’s service providers simply ignore those rights - and
the law, and then run roughshod over the defenseless homeowners. The lawyers use
1Orange County Superior Court civil case : 30-2011-00466754
Complaint for DamagesPage 3
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
7/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
litigation privilege as a shield from lawsuits after recklessly and carelessly harming their
victims. Once a lawsuit is filed audacious lawyers and process servers claim protection.
Knowingly they can then have their way with the debtor - all in the name of collection.
7. Plaintiff contends, because of the seemingly unlimited and perpetual financial
resources of the Association, the service providers often offer the Association self-serving
advice, and make self-serving decisions which line their own pockets financially. They
initiate fruitless, often illegal, collection and enforcement pursuits such as the relentless
collection attacks on Plaintiff Miner. Plaintiff claims his Association, it’s managers /
collection company, collection agents and collection attorneys, have routinely violated the
law and should not be rewarded financially for such acts when in the end result - the
Association’s own members have been damaged.
8. What seems to be a common thread these days in all HOAs from coast to
coast is that HOA attorneys routinely suggest and initiate litigation. The reason: win, lose
or draw they get paid, and they get paid very well. Stanley Feldsott on his website indicates
he was paid $60,000 on a $3,000 debt collection. [exhibit #4]
9. In the illegal collection case against Miner, with the Association losing the
appeals, and eventually the entire lawsuit, Miner believes the Association has lost about
$250,000 between payments to the service providers, and payment for Miner’s attorney feesand costs. The service providers lost nothing - they were paid in total for their bad advice
and illegal practices. Miner alleges they were unjustly enriched.
10. On one hand Miner was damaged as a victim of an unnecessary and illegal
collection scheme, on the other hand Miner was damaged as member of the Association
who paid for the “illegal” collection scheme as a member of the Association. He, and the
other 444 members of the Association were then damaged when the Court found the
scheme to be illegal. Damages were the monetary payments paid to service providers who
failed to follow the law. In the Feldsott-Lee case - say $150,000 went to Feldsott-Lee, and
the $60,000 in attorney fees awarded by the Court to Miner. On information and belief -
$210,000 in the first foreclosure action. Additional amounts went to Cane-Walker, and
Complaint for DamagesPage 4
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
8/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Keystone. Exact damage figures to be obtained through discovery.
11. These collection practices and schemes by the service providers essentially
skirt and or violate statutory protections and collection laws. Damages are generally minor
but can be significant financial losses and result in foreclosure. During these collection
attacks homeowners typically have financial dilemmas, are underfunded and can not afford
counsel. They fold to the threat of these abusive collection practices and threatened
outrageous demands in attorney fees. Fees are then forced on the homeowner by offering a
payment plan or foreclosure is filed on the financially strapped defenseless owner who
refuses.
12. Management companies are not always considered debt collectors under the
law. Because of this they are able, and routinely and recklessly do abuse the system as they
have in Plaintiff’s experience. Because management companies have sometimes found a
legal loophole; and now deliberately incorporate collections companies ‘within’ the
management company itself as a ‘department’ or ‘division’ they skirt the laws enacted to
protect consumers. They harm and competitively disadvantage collectors who do follow the
law.
13. In this situation however Miner alleges the management company Keystone is
a debt collector, and acquired Plaintiff’s debt years in default. Plaintiff alleges acquiringPlaintiff’s debt in default classifies Keystone and it’s associates, and it’s associated
collection attorney, as debt collectors under the federal FDCPA. Plaintiff alleges Feldsott-
Lee, it’s associates and collection assistants are also debt collectors under the law.
The Congress created the FDCPA for the following purpose
“It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debtcollectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debtcollection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistentState action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.”
14. In Miner’s case, during the Feldsott-Lee collection, after being defaulted on a
lawsuit that he was never served with, and unaware of; and... even when the Association,
it’s directors and it’s counsel Jacqueline Pagano knew the service of process was factually
Complaint for DamagesPage 5
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
9/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
impossible, Feldsott-Lee and Pagano failed to vacate the default and re-serve the complaint.
Then, when Plaintiff attempted to pay his assessment debt in full the Association and it’s
debt collection counsel Feldsott-Lee, Stanley Feldsott, and Jacqueline Pagano rejected full
payment of the assessment debt claiming law and restrictions that did not exist. Feldsott-
Lee had used this collection ‘racket’ for years before Miner was successful in appellate
court to thwart Feldsott-Lee’s decades long illegal collection scheme. [exhibit #5]
15. Feldsott-Lee rejecting Miner’s full assessment payments by certified funds,
which was an illegal act by Feldsott-Lee, and then taking the action through two appellate
hearings (which both successively ruled in Miner’s favor), while charging the Association
for these services “win, lose or draw” was not in the best interest of the Association - Miner
alleges it was never important to the Association to “change the law”; however, it was very
important to Feldsott-Lee and it’s ‘fellow’ Association debt collectors. It was important to
Feldsott-Lee because it has been the illegal cornerstone of it’s own HOA collections
practice for decades. Plaintiff alleges Feldsott-Lee gambled with Association’s money, used
Association’s standing, to attempt to change a law that Feldsott-Lee would benefit from:
the goose that laid the golden egg - foreclosing on an owner’s residence for just $1800,
adding $1,000s in unearned attorney fees, and rejecting any partial payment made by an
owner to prevent foreclosure - a financial guillotine. This was Feldsott’s illegal racket for close to 20 years. It has made HOA collection attorneys rich including Stanley Feldsott.
16. These acts eventually cost this Association. In the end, because of Feldsott-
Lee’s illegal acts, the Association lost, it took nothing during the four year dispute [exhibit
#6], and was found to have violated the Davis Stirling Act. [exhibit #7] Plaintiff alleges the
Association’s contracted debt collector, Feldsott-Lee, and it’s associates and collection
agents, violated the law, in their pursuit of Miner’s debt. At the center of this illegal
collection effort was Jacqueline Pagano, a debt collection attorney and her debt collection
assistant Tyler Jones employed by Feldsott-Lee.
17. The Keystone collection against Miner began after the Feldsott-Lee collection
trial. It ran in parallel with the Feldsott-Lee appeals. Prior to the Keystone collection,
Complaint for DamagesPage 6
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
10/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Feldsott-Lee acting on behalf of the Association continued to refuse Miner’s assessment
payments, and while refusing payment, then added late fees and interest! Miner and his
counsel both wrote letters to make payment and requested clarification but the requests
went unanswered. When Keystone took over it began it’s attempt to collect Miner’s
defaulted debt Miner refused to pay the unearned late fees and interest. Keystone demanded
this unearned fees. This forced Miner to follow the legal requirements for mediation. On
information and belief Keystone then engaged collection attorney Harkins to represent the
Association not in ‘collection’, but in ‘mediation’. No mediation took place, Harkins and
Keystone then changed the ‘label’ of Harkins’ service from ‘mediation fee’, and cleverly
converted by re-labeling it to a ‘collection fee’ and then pursued Miner in Small Claims
court.
18. When Miner did not succumb to Keystone’s attacks, Keystone then began
billing Miner on his ledger for ‘attorney consultation fees’ re-labeling them as collection
fees. No collection took place - James Harkins was never the direct ‘collector’, Keystone
was the ‘collector’ - it was more labeling jiggery-pokery. On information and belief
Keystone, it’s agents and it’s collectors Erica Griffith, Brittany Bennett and Rene Barger
conspired with, aided and abetted attorney Harkins to harm Miner financially by charging
Miner and applying more than $25,000 in legal fees to his ledger generated by their ownLaurel and Hardy collection efforts. Harkins’ and Keystone’s ‘racket’ creates two classes of
pro se litigants in Small Claims court - plaintiff’s that can get attorney fees, and defendants
that can not.
19. On information and belief attorney Harkins and Keystone use this same
collection ‘racket’ throughout southern California in various homeowner Associations.
Miner contends the scheme is illegal and financially malicious towards homeowners and he
owes none of the attorney and collection fees charged to him.
20. Miner contends Harkins’ legal theory of billing enormous sums of attorney
collection fees in Small Claims court to homeowners was never intended by the legislature,
illegal under the Davis Stirling or Small Claims Acts and not in the best interest of the
Complaint for DamagesPage 7
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
11/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Association. Harkins, with his devious collection scheme, financially raping defenseless
homeowners with attorney fees in Small Claims court, is just plain wrong.
21. On information and belief, under Harkins’ legal guidance, Keystone then
attempted to ‘pass on’ and charge Miner for these illegal attorney ‘consulting’ fees
providing false and confusing monthly ledgers. When Miner filed this instant suit to
challenge the Association’s Small Claims action and other collection abuses, mysteriously
the Association dismissed it’s Small Claims lawsuit. It refused to consolidate the cases.
Miner alleges Harkins’ Small Claims attorney fees ‘racket’ is illegal.
22. Feldsott-Lee, Cane-Walker, and Keystone collect their fees from Huntington,
from which said fees are collected from title holders (‘members’) pursuant to declaration
and statute (civil code §4000- §6150). Funds are deposited into Huntington’s Operating and
Reserve accounts. Plaintiff, on information and belief, alleges it did not matter to the
service providers Feldsott-Lee, Cane-Walker, and Keystone if they actually collected from
Miner because when providers invoice the Association they are paid for their service
regardless - even if services are foolish, illegal, or unjust. Miner sues to prove the debt
collection efforts were illegal, unjust, and that he and his family, and as a ‘member’ of the
445 person Association, has been damaged. Plaintiff Miner has defended himself, and has
been victorious in three appellate proceedings, and now sues for damages.23. Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, as a victim of unlawful collection,
and from the standing of a member of the Association, the service providers and collections
agents have continuously over the course of the last several years breached their duties to
Miner, been unjustly enriched, have been negligent, and have practiced ‘self dealing’
during the course of this dispute and have violated collection and other law alleged herein.
Plaintiff sues for 1) personal damages and 2) to recover all monies paid to these service
providers and have these monies returned to the Association to make the Association
whole; amounts to be proven at trial.
//
Complaint for DamagesPage 8
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
12/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
24. The location of all real property, that is the subject of this action, and the acts
complained of herein, occurred in Orange County, California and in the above captioned
Judicial Branch. The Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants because they are residents
of and / or doing business in the State of California. Venue is proper in this county in
accordance with Section 395(a) of the California code of Civil Procedure because the
Defendants, or some of them, reside in this county, the real property lies in this county, and
the injuries and / or incidents alleged herein occurred in this county.
III. PARTIES
A. PLAINTIFF
25. Plaintiff, JOSEPH A. MINER, is now, and at all times relevant to this
action, a natural person, adult, individual residing in the County of Orange. Plaintiff
is a ‘consumer’ under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3)
in that plaintiff was obligated or allegedly obligated to pay a ‘consumer’ debt and
the services he acquires are an acquisition of services “on credit.”
26. Plaintiff’s trust, The JM Trust is an intervivos, revocable, living family
trust. As an intervivos trust, effectively Mr. Miner and the Trust are one in the same.
The Trust is not a legal entity; it can not sue or be sued. Plaintiff is the Trustee of theTrust.
STANDING
Plaintiff Joseph Miner sues, and alleges causes of action, under two
distinctly separate legal standings:
A) As a victim of the Association, and it’s agents’ unlawful debt collection
practices and harassment, and other violations of law, and; as a result of the
unlawful federal and state debt collections practices, violations of theCommon Interest Development Act previously known as the Davis Stirling
Act and other alleged violations of law, and;
B) As a title holder and a mandated member of the Association adversely
Complaint for DamagesPage 9
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
13/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
affected by the significant monetary losses, reckless and negligent decisions,
and actions by the HOA Board of Directors and unlawful business practices of
it’s collection agents. As a mandated member of the Association, he has been
damaged by the many $100,000s of dollars paid from the Association’s own
HOA assessment coffers, to fund grossly negligent, unlawful, egregious,
frivolous, failed acts enriching the service providers who failed to follow the
law and were reckless and wasteful with Association funds.
27. Plaintiff sues as a victim of the alleged violations herein and separately
as a mandated HOA Association member to recover, and force these service
providers to repay the monies they have charged and been paid by the Association
for their foolish, futile, wasteful, illegal acts, and breach of duty to the Association.
B. DEFENDANTS
28. Defendant Group #1, (hereinafter “HUNTINGTON
DEFENDANTS”) consists of Huntington Continental Town Home Association,
Inc, Rustan P. Laine, it’s president, and Myra J. Kuck, it’s treasurer.
29. Defendant 1: HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL TOWN HOUSE
ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereinafter “HUNTINGTON” or the “Association”) is, and at all
times relevant to this action was a non-profit mutual benefit corporation; CaliforniaCorporate Entity number - C0452014, believed to be organized under the laws of
California, with its principal place of business in Huntington Beach, California. At all times
mentioned herein, defendant Huntington was a party to debt collection activities of it’s
agents within County of Orange.
30. Defendant 2: RUSTAN P. LAINE (hereinafter “LAINE”) is, and at all
relevant times mentioned was a Board member and the President of HUNTINGTON.
Plaintiff contends that Laine is a senior, long term member of the Board, and therefore
contributes to the controlling decision-making actions of the Board, and resides at the
Huntington Continental community, in Huntington Beach, CA.
31. Defendant 3: MYRA J. KUCK (hereinafter “KUCK ”) is, and at all relevant
Complaint for DamagesPage 10
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
14/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
times mentioned was the Treasurer, and a Board member of HUNTINGTON. Plaintiff
contends that Kuck is a senior, long term member of the Board, and therefore contributes to
the controlling decision-making actions of the Board and it’s financial decisions, and
resides at the Huntington Continental community, in Huntington Beach, CA.
32. Defendant Group #2, (hereinafter “FELDSOTT DEFENDANTS”) consists
of Feldsott and Lee, a law firm, Stanley S. Feldsott is the principle collection attorney,
Jacqueline P. Pagano a collection attorney, and Tyler J. Jones a collections assistant.
Feldsott advertises a variety of collection services on it’s website.
33. Defendant 4: FELDSOTT & LEE, A LAW CORPORATION, (hereinafter
“FELDSOTT-LEE”) California Corporate Entity number - C0745288 is a professional
corporation that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business
the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a law
firm doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 23161 Mill
Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
34. Defendant 5: STANLEY S. FELDSOTT (hereinafter “FELDSOTT”) is alicensed attorney employed by FELDSOTT-LEE in the debt collection business that uses
and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business
of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a
“debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed,
believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a licensed attorney SBN 45128 and
debt collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 23161
Mill Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
35. Defendant 6: JACQUELINE P. PAGANO (hereinafter “PAGANO”) is a
licensed attorney employed by FELDSOTT-LEE in the debt collection business that uses
Complaint for DamagesPage 11
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
15/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business
of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly
or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a
“debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed,
believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a licensed attorney SBN 266283 and
debt collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 23161
Mill Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653
36. Defendant 7: TYLER J. JONES (hereinafter “JONES”) is a collections
assistant, employed by FELDSOTT-LEE in the debt collection business, that uses and
instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business of
which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or
indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a “debt
collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes,
and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt collector doing business in the State of
California, County of Orange, located at 23161 Mill Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA
92653
37. Defendant Group #3, (hereinafter “KEYSTONE DEFENDANTS”)
consists of Keystone Pacific Property Management, Inc, Cary S. Treff it’s CEO, Erica L.Griffith a collection assistant / manager, Brittany Bennett a collection assistant, Rene M.
Barger a collection assistant / manager, Cane Walker Harkins LLP a collection attorney
firm, and James C. Harkins a collection attorney.
38. Defendant 8: KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
INC., (hereinafter “KEYSTONE”) California Corporate Entity number - C1322177 is a
corporation that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business
the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt
Complaint for DamagesPage 12
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
16/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 16775 Von
Karman Ste. 100, Irvine CA 92606. Keystone advertises a variety of debt collection
services on it’s website.
39. Defendant 9: CARY S. TREFF (hereinafter “TREFF”) is President and
Chief Operating Officer of KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with debt
collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business
the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt
collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 16775 Von
Karman Ste. 100, Irvine CA 92606.
40. Defendant 10: ERICA L. GRIFFITH (hereinafter “GRIFFITH”) is a
manager, employed by KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with debt
collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business
the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or
attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due
another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt
collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 16775 Von
Karman Ste. 100, Irvine CA 92606.
41. Defendant 11: BRITTANY BENNETT (hereinafter “BENNETT”) is a
collections assistant, , employed by KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with
debt collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a
business the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects
or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or
due another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt
Complaint for DamagesPage 13
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
17/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 16775 Von
Karman Ste. 100, Irvine CA 92606.
42. Defendant 12: RENEE M. BARGER (hereinafter “BARGER ”) is a
collections assistant, employed by KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with
debt collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a
business the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects
or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or
due another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §
1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt
collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 16775 Von
Karman Ste. 100, Irvine CA 92606.
43. Defendant 13: CANE, WALKER & HARKINS LLP (hereinafter “CANE-
WALKER ”) California LLP is a professional limited liability company that uses and
instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business of
which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or
indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a “debt
collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes,
and based thereon alleges that Defendant is a law firm doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 17821 E 17th Ste. 140. Tustin, CA.
44. Defendant 14: JAMES C. HARKINS (hereinafter “HARKINS”) is a
licensed attorney, a partner, and employed by CANE-WALKER in the debt collection
business that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the
principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts
to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another
and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).
Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a licensed
attorney SBN 152564 and debt collector doing business in the State of California, County
of Orange, County of Orange, located at 17821 E 17th Ste. 140. Tustin, CA.
Complaint for DamagesPage 14
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
18/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
45. Defendant Group #4, (hereinafter “SERVER DEFENDANTS”) consists of
Arturo P. Chayra, a registered process server, Diann G. Robertson, a registered process
server, and Richard S. Barr, a licensed private investigator who served process or runs a
process serving and private investigation company.
46. Defendant 15: ARTURO P. CHAYRA (dismissed).
47. Defendant 16: DIANN G. ROBERTSON (dismissed).
48. Defendant 17: RICHARD S. BARR (dismissed).
49. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise, of Defendants DOES 10 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown
to Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious
names. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times alleged
in this Complaint, Defendants DOES 10 through 50, inclusive, are natural persons, limited
liability companies, corporations or business entities of unknown form that have or are
doing business in the state of California. Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to replace the
fictitious names of these Doe Defendants with their true names when they are discovered
by Plaintiff.
50. At all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them,
were regularly engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts throughout the state of California, including Orange County, by assisting the other debt collectors file and maintain
civil debt collection lawsuits by utilizing the U.S. Mail, telephone and Internet.
51. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges, that each and all of the
aforementioned Defendants are responsible in some manner, either by act or omission,
strict liability, fraud, deceit, fraudulent concealment, negligence, respondeat superior,
breach of contract or otherwise, for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s
injuries, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by the conduct of Defendants.
52. Plaintiff is informed, believes and therefore alleges, that at all relevant times
alleged in this Complaint, each of the Defendants sued herein was the agent, servant,
employer, joint venturer, partner, division, owner, subsidiary, alias, assignee and/or
Complaint for DamagesPage 15
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
19/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
alter-ego of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the
purpose and scope of such agency, servitude, joint venture, division, ownership, subsidiary,
alias, alter-ego, partnership or employment and with the authority, consent, approval and
ratification of each remaining Defendant.
53. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any corporate or
other business Defendant, that reference shall mean that the corporation or other business
did the acts alleged in this Complaint through its officers, directors, employees, agents
and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their
authority.
54. At all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, each Defendant has
committed the acts, caused others to commit the acts, ratified the commission of the acts, or
permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this Complaint and has made, caused,
ratified, or permitted others to make, the untrue or misleading statements alleged in this
Complaint. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of Defendants, such
allegation shall mean that each Defendant acted individually and jointly with the other
Defendants.
55. At all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them,
were regularly engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts throughout the state of California, including Orange County, by assisting the other debt collectors file and maintain
civil debt collection lawsuits and to obtain default judgments in those cases by utilizing the
U.S. Mail, telephone and Internet.
56. Defendants regularly collects, directly or indirectly, consumer debts alleged to
be due to another via U.S. Mail, telephone, internet, and civil debt collection lawsuits.
Defendants are “debt collectors” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and Cal. Civil
Code § 1788.2C. Defendant group four, the process servers, are not subject to the exception
of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(D).
57. Defendants, and each of them, were all party to a common enterprise giving
rise to this action within which they conducted themselves as the employees, employers,
Complaint for DamagesPage 16
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
20/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
agents, sub-agents, servants or sub-servants of one another.
IV. SUBJECT MATTER
58. All events which are the subject matter of the action concern real property
located at the physical address of 19771 Inverness Lane, Huntington Beach, CA. The
property lies within the Huntington Continental Town House Association, a common
interest development, is subject to it’s governing documents, as well as California common
interest development law known as the Davis Stirling Act. In the instant action both State
and Federal collection law apply.
V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
59. Allegations in this Complaint are based upon information and belief except
for those allegations which pertain to Plaintiff Joseph Miner. Miner’s information and
belief is based upon the investigation conducted to date by Miner. Each allegation in this
Complaint either has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary support or is likely
to have support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery.
60. Joseph Miner through his intervivos trust, the JM Trust, owns an attached
single family home located in the Huntington Continental Town Home Association, Inc.,Huntington Beach, CA (Huntington). The property, Miner’s retirement home, a
condominium-like, single story attached structure. The ‘condo’ was acquired by Miner and
his family in the late 1990s as consumers. Miner lived at the property for a few years until
2003 when he purchased a different residence. Since about 2003 the property has been
rented to mostly the same tenant. Miner inherited the property in total when his parents
passed on. Miner pays the HOA dues. Miner plans to return and live there one day.
61. On information and belief Huntington was self managed prior to a
“professional” property manager being hired. At some point in the early 2000s Action
Property Management, Inc. (Action) took over the management of Huntington. Things
started to change at Huntington about the time Miner's tenants moved in. Violation letters
Complaint for DamagesPage 17
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
21/71
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
22/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
66. The letter addressed to Miner stated that if he did not pay his account
Feldsott-Lee would start foreclosure proceedings. Miner sent Jones an email stating that he
was contacting them about 19771 Inverness Lane, Huntington Beach, and that they did not
need to foreclose or start proceedings - that he could pay his bill. Jones responded,
mentioned nothing about Miner being served with a law suit, and asked Miner how much
he could pay. Miner being polite answering his question via email stated he could make
significant payments. Miner indicated perhaps $2000 for the initial payment and then to get
the assessments paid off quickly. Miner requested line item accounting from Jones.
67. Miner had several short emails with Tyler Jones. Never did Jones state one
single time that Miner had been sued, one thing that he did state was - ‘Feldsott-Lee’ was
the company Miner would pay the attorney fees to.
68. Miner sent Huntington and it’s management company (Action at that time) a
simple letter stating that the Association did not need to foreclose, that he was willing to
make payments and pay off debt quickly. Miner enclosed a $2,000 good faith personal
payment check directly payable to the Association. Enclosed with payment, Miner in his
letter, stated he would make successive payments. Miner then made additional payments of
$1,000 and $500 by personal check. Miner, when he believed he was near to the paying
debt off started asking for his accounting again so he could pay his Association debt in fullin one check. All checks sent were cashed. None of Miner’s payments were applied to his
Assessments as required by law.
69. Monthly invoices, as required by the Declaration (CC&Rs) were not being
sent to either of Miner’s addresses; the office or the property at 19771 Inverness Lane
owned by Miner that is located in the Association. Miner had problems with Action
Management sending invoices to any address, let alone both addresses. Miner was
prevented from paying off his assessment debt in full because he was not receiving invoices
from the Association and therefore did not know what he owed.
70. While Miner had received some requested amounts during the payment
process, they were no longer up to date and Miner questioned the veracity of the invoices
Complaint for DamagesPage 19
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
23/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sent to him. Miner repeatedly requested regular line-item accounting. As a real estate
professional he wanted to see where his payments were going and what exactly was being
charged. He contacted ‘Action Management’ and the Association by mail and requested
accounting. He heard nothing in return.
71. Finally Miner called ‘Action Management’ via the telephone and asked to get
a copy of his accounting - they literally hung up the phone on him. Miner thought this to be
very bizarre behavior so he wrote the HOA Board of Directors asking for an up-to-date
accounting so he could pay his bill in full. He heard nothing back from the HOA Board of
Directors, or ‘Action Management Company.’ He wrote the Board several times. Some of
Miner letters to the HOA Board Directors were returned to Miner in the mail as
“REFUSED” written on the envelopes. There was no response from the HOA Board.
72. For a while Miner stopped making payments because no one would send him
any ‘detailed’ accounting, or send invoices. He thought this would get their attention.
Finally, with plenty of money in the bank to pay his bill in full, wanting to pay off
assessment debt in full, Miner wrote checks for his monthly $188 dues and sent them to the
Association. Miner enclosed a letter stating paraphrased “if you won't send me my
accounting I must not owe anything other than my monthly assessment dues.”
73. Miner, at his office, received a brief letter from Jones at Feldsott-Lee tellinghim that they would not accept partial payments. His most recent checks were returned.
What a ‘partial’ payment was - was never explained. Miner had full intention of paying all
his regular assessments due and just wanted a number for that assessment amount that was
owed. No one would send him an ‘itemized’ statement of charges: not the Association, not
the management company, not the attorney. The letters Miner did receive from Feldsott-
Lee, Pagano, and Jones were confusing, and the amounts indicated due were inaccurate.
Miner, at some point, noted his payments were not being applied to his assessments.
74. Because Miner could get no substantive response he pushed the Huntington
issue aside waiting for the line-item accounting to pay off his assessment bill in full.
75. In early December 2011 Miner, at his office, received notice from the
Complaint for DamagesPage 20
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
24/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Superior Court that he had been defaulted in a foreclosure lawsuit regarding the property at
Huntington. Miner was in shock. He was confused because he was never served with a
Complaint, nor did he ever know that a lawsuit regarding the property had been filed.
76. Miner called Feldsott-Lee attorney Pagano who was listed in the paperwork.
He had never been contacted by her, had never spoken with her, and he had never received
a single document from her or anyone stating he had been served with a lawsuit.
77. Miner spoke with Pagano directly and asked her what the default was about.
She informed him that he had been served with a lawsuit at his property back in April 2011,
eight months prior. Miner informed her he had not been served with a lawsuit. He also
informed her he had not lived at the property for eight years. He also stated that he had not
been to or seen the property for several years. He informed Ms. Pagano he did not know of
any legal action.
78. Miner asked that Pagano vacate the default, she refused. Rather than be
reasonable Pagano then added Miner to the complaint on a personal basis a few days later.
Her act eventually forced Miner to pay a double filing fee to respond to the complaint.
79. Miner researched the process server who claimed to have served Miner at the
Condo. His name was Arturo Chayra (Chayra). According to a well known process serving
company Chayra was well known for such bad acts - sewer service. Miner had found thatothers had lost their homes and their rentals because Mr. Chayra failed to notice them. He
signed and filed false documents. Miner discovered that Chayra had been sued previously
for the exact same issue, false proof of service, commonly called in the process server
industry as “sewer service.”
80. The Association, and ‘Action Management’ knew or should have known and
were also well aware that Miner had not resided at the property for almost a decade and had
tenants in the property. Miner alleges the party who gave ‘Chayra’ the process server, the
19771 Inverness address (Condo) for service of process was negligent. Unbeknownst to
Miner the false service at that address started the wheels of foreclosure in motion.
81. Later, in December, in an email from Rustan Laine (Laine), the President of
Complaint for DamagesPage 21
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
25/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Huntington, Laine confessed the Association knew Miner was not properly served. Nothing
was done by Defendants about the false service of process. The Association knew the proof
of service on Miner was fraudulent. Neither Feldsott-Lee, Pagano, Jones or the Association,
attempted to correct the false proof of service, or dismiss the default.
82. In the meantime Miner had done everything possible to get his accounting so
he could make full payment. He had the money, he made the effort, he specifically wrote
the Board of Directors many letters, he wrote and telephoned Action Property Management.
Until he received his checks back from Feldsott-Lee’s collection assistant Jones, he had not
heard from them after his initial letter back in April 2011.
83. In an effort to figure this out Miner researched the laws that governed these
issues, the Davis Stirling Act, and read the Civil Code about making payments as well as
the CC&Rs. The law was clear the Association had to apply his assessment payments to his
account. That was the law. Invoices were required to be sent monthly pursuant to the
governing documents, but invoices never came. Feldsott-Lee never sent a single monthly
invoice while the account was in their possession.
84. Miner, now desperate to resolve the issue, having made every reasonable
attempt possible to rectify the situation. Miner located some very old accounting and
attempted to calculate what he believed he owed in full. In late December 2011 Miner senta certified check directly to the President of the Association Laine in the amount of $3,500
to pay off what he calculated as his unpaid assessment dues in full plus an overage. Laine,
the President of the Association, sent Miner a confirmation email stating he received and
accepted the check. Laine, in the email, stated he would tell Feldsott-Lee to update Miner's
account, and send accounting.
85. Miner wanted to make certain the Board of Directors and the President knew
what was going on with the agents they had hired for the Association, and how he was
being treated while making every attempt to bring his account current. Miner sent them
many letters to update them on how the Association’s agents were handling the matter.
Miner noted a certain board member, Myra Kuck, would constantly refuse his letters and
Complaint for DamagesPage 22
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
26/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
send them back to him unopened.
86. About a week later after sending full payment to Rustan Laine, Miner
received a letter in the mail from Feldsott at his office. In the letter was his $3,500 certified
check uncashed and a letter stating the Association could not accept partial payments - no
explanation. Miner, confused, sent the check back to Feldsott explaining the President of
the Association had accepted his check with a conformation email, and they had a duty to
apply it against his assessments. Again, a second time the check was returned to Miner in
the mail. Miner still had not received his line item accounting.
87. Fed up, in 2012 Miner sued the Association in Small Claims court for his
accounting and other records as the law allows. In or about March of 2012 Action, as
manager for Huntington, attended the Small Claims hearing. At the hearing Liza Salinas,
the then community manager, finally supplied Miner with his itemized accounting charges
including the Feldsott-Lee collection contract with the Association. Jones, Pagano's
assistant, also attended the Small Claims court hearing. While in the hallway of the
courthouse Jones personally served Miner with the complaint for foreclosure. Miner was
served with the foreclosure complaint about 11 months after it was filed, and after he
attempted to pay his assessment debt in full! Miner was served with the complaint for
foreclosure three months after writing and delivering a check for full payment of all regular assessments past due, that by law, should have been applied to his regular assessment debt.
88. Miner, who was in pro per at the time, was at a disadvantage. Pagano, the
collection attorney, had never vacated the Association’s fraudulent default judgment
against Miner (served by Chayra). Miner, in pro per, filed an answer to complaint the best
he could. He was served with and answered the Association's discovery.
89. Even though he was having severe heart problems he attempted to mitigate
his losses by attending a board meeting and personally handing a settlement letter to Laine,
and all other members of the Board. He spoke at the meeting telling them how ridiculous
the refusal of his full assessment payments were and that he had made payment in full.
There was no reply to his settlement / mitigation letter by the Association. Miner, at that
Complaint for DamagesPage 23
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
27/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
time, did not realize the refusal of his assessment payments was against the law. He has
paid close to $4,000 dollars that had been rejected by Feldsott-lee, Pagano and Jones.
90. Exhausted from the significant and cumulative efforts made to pay his
assessments in full, angry at the treatment he received, Miner answered the original
complaint, then just before trial hired attorney Sam Walker for his defense.
91. At that point it was too late to compose and file a cross complaint. Preventing
the foreclosure was most important. Miner had just wanted to do the right thing for months
and was literally stonewalled from paying his assessment payments by the Association and
it’s agents. Miner knew the assessment payments were important to the Association. He
believed the Board of Director’s, negligence, poor judgment, and Huntington’s agents'
negligent or intentional acts hurt the homeowners as well as Miner.
92. Because of Miner’s document request, Miner was able to read Feldsott's
collection contract with the Association; it did not appear to be within the law. At that point
Miner realized what was going on and he noted a significant problem. While the law states
that any payment made shall be applied to assessments first, Feldsott was putting Miner’s
money in a trust fund and some in the firm’s pocket. Feldsott's contract clearly allowed it to
pay itself first, rather than last as the law requires. Further research was uncovered that this
may had been their practice for more than fifteen years. Hundreds of homeowners may havelost their homes due to these unlawful foreclosure practices of this collector.
93. Miner knew that it would be the homeowners who may end up paying for the
actions of the Board and he did everything possible to avoid that. Miner believed the Board,
or at least those who voted to approve Feldsott's contract, had breached their fiduciary duty,
were grossly negligent, or were at least negligent. The contract was clearly illegal. On
information and belief Stanley Feldsott authored and delivered to the Association with a
contract for collection and HOA home foreclosure that was against the law. It was Rustan
Laine, President of the Board of Directors, who signed the contract along with Stanley
Feldsott of Feldsott-Lee.
94. A limited civil trial was conducted in September 2012. Feldsott-Lee, Pagano,
Complaint for DamagesPage 24
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
28/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and Jones had rejected and returned Miner’s payments. During the months it took to get to
trial Feldsott-Lee, Pagano, and Jones continued to refuse payment. During this time
Miner’s assessment account swelled.
95. At trial it came out that Feldsott-Lee’s collection assistant Jones, who had no
accounting background, was managing Miner’s account doing some mysterious accounting.
Jones was not applying Miner's substantial payments to his assessment account as the law
required. Rather then applying payments to assessments, Jones was holding Miner’s monies
in an unknown trust fund. The accounting, at best, was improper, at worst perhaps
fraudulent. Not applying Miner’s assessment payments to his debt was a clear violation of
the Davis Stirling Act. Jones, a law firm collection assistant with no accounting
background, was tasked with the accounting duties. Jones could not explain to the Court
what exactly he was doing with Miner's funds. He could not explain his personal
unprofessional accounting methods. Feldsott-Lee and Jones lost a $500 payment made by
Miner’s that in court Miner had proved he made. Jones’ accounting at Feldsott-Lee proved
to be erroneous, confusing and perhaps fraudulent.
96. During Miner's research he noted there were a litany of legal, notice, and
procedural issues, required by law, the Association's agents were not following. He
believed the Notice of Delinquent Assessments (Association calls it a pre-lien notice) wasnot proper, that the lien recorded was not proper, notifications to Miner were not proper,
the Association failed to send Miner monthly invoices as required by the Declaration, it
failed to send all collection notices to both addresses, both primary and secondary. The
Association along with Feldsott-Lee, Pagano, and Jones failed to accept assessment
payments and failed to apply accepted payment to his assessment balance. These actions, or
inactions, were all improper and in violation of law.
97. Judge Galivan (deceased) was the presiding Judge in trial court. Miner’s
attorney had only arrived from out of town the day before; there was not much time to
prepare. The trial was short. Judge Galivan eventually ruled against Miner, with no
statement of decision.
Complaint for DamagesPage 25
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
29/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
98. Miner appealed. The Orange County Superior Court appellate division came
back and ruled for Miner 3-0 and reversed the judgment, then published the decision. The
decision set the law straight for nine million homeowners who live in a community
Associations in that any payment made shall be applied to assessments; Associations are
“compelled” to accept payment.
99. Huntington (or it’s attorneys Feldsott-Lee), not happy with Miner's very
favorable ruling, that changed the way HOA collection attorney’s do business, then spent a
significant amount of the homeowner’s assessment funds. Stanley Feldsott signed the
document that appealed the case to the Fourth District where the case is currently on
appeal. The homeowners at Huntington Continental had no reason whatsoever to spend
additional homeowner funds on this legal battle.
100. Miner contends the “real’ person who would benefit was Stanley Feldsott, his
collection firm Feldsott-Lee, his collection attorneys Jacqueline Pagano and Maria Kao and
the Association he founded CAI - who most, if not all, HOA collections attorney belong to
throughout the Sate of California.
101. On information and belief Miner therefore alleges it was Stanley Feldsott
who gained the most benefit, using the standing of the Association, the Association’s funds,
to attempt to change a law he had violated for close to two decades. Miner estimates,Stanley Feldsott’s law firm Feldsott-Lee collected $150,000 of the Association’s funds,
while paying his own law firm Feldsott-Lee to fight a legal battle that benefitted him and
his firm the most.
102. Miner alleges Feldsott-Lee, Feldsott, Pagano, and Jones not only violated the
Davis Stirling Act and collection law in it’s pursuit of Miner, but violated their duty to the
Association.
103. Following the trial Miner's attorney Sam Walker wrote Ms. Pagano, the
Association’s attorney controlling Miner’s file, a letter telling her that Miner was going to
appeal the decision and that Miner was willing to pay his past assessments, and again begin
paying his regular assessments monthly. [exhibit#8] There was no response from Feldsott,
Complaint for DamagesPage 26
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
30/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Pagano, Action, or the Association. Radio silence from all parties.
104. The Court trial was September 20, 2012 in Orange County Superior Court
(30-2011-00466754). Miner appealed to Superior Court Appellate Division (2013-
30-2013-00623099). The Appellate Division ruled on September 26, 2013 in Miner’s
favor. Feldsott asked for a rehearing on October 11, 2013, a second ruling was on January
13, 2013, again in Miner’s favor. Stanley Feldsott, in the name of Huntington, then
requested the case be transferred to the Fourth District Division Three on January 22, 2014,
and filed a briefing request on February 13, 2014. On October 14, 2014 the Fourth District
Division Three (G049624) ruled in Miner’s favor and reversed the foreclosure. The Court
remitted the remaining Counts to the Superior Court. On May 12, 2015 Miner was found to
be the prevailing party by the Superior Court on all counts. The Association took nothing in
the action on any count or cause of action against Miner.
105. The only person on trial was Miner. The gravamen of the trial was ‘illegal’
foreclosure on Miner’s property, whether rejecting payments was legal, what amounts of
money Miner had paid and when. There were no charges or causes of action litigated
‘against’ the Association or it’s service providers during the trial or appeals.
THE KEYSTONE COLLECTION106. Miner, worried about payments during the appeal period, not hearing
anything from the Association, wrote his own letter on May 1, 2013 to Action Property
Management (still known to Miner as the property manager at that time) asking about
making payments once again. Again, there was no reply. It had been so long, Miner could
not remember the last time he received any correspondence, invoices or demands of any
kind from the Association or it’s agents.
107. On or about June 1, 2013 Miner received an invoice (collection notice) from
the Association sent by a new property management company / collection agent: Keystone
Pacific Property Management (Keystone). The notice came to Miner's office but was not
sent to his primary property address at the Condo. Miner contacted his tenant, Judith
Complaint for DamagesPage 27
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
31/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Spiritos, and asked if she had received anything in the mail for him, she said no. In the prior
Court trial Spirtos, under oath, testified she was never served with the foreclosure
complaint, never received the complaint in the mail, and does not, and has not received
monthly invoices. She stated she receives nothing.
108. After receiving the new collection invoice from the new management
company, Miner contacted his attorney and asked if he had ever heard from Pagano about
making payments. The attorney said no, he received nothing. Miner asked what to do about
the invoice. Miner stated it was inaccurate. Besides the assessments that were in default, it
was for $80 in late fees and about $40 in interest Miner stated he did not owe.
109. A discussion ensued. Miner decided to hold off on payment because the
appellate decision was due soon. Miner had never been given authority to again start
making payments by the Association's attorney Pagano (Pagano and Jones had refused all
prior payments). Miner’s attorney stated there should be a ‘set off’ for any amounts owed
by the substantial amount Miner had paid in legal fees and costs. Coincidentally the first
collection invoice Miner received from the new management company Keystone was again
about the level needed for foreclosure: $1800. Again it was confusing to Miner. Miner’s
debt to this Association was years in default. It was further in default at least 8 months after
trial. The situation was in limbo. The documents from Keystone explained nothing.Feldsott had sent no explanation. The situation was confusing.
110. Miner waited to make payment as instructed by his attorney. In the meantime
he received a generic collection letter about the amount of assessments owed post trial.
This letter, a form ‘dunning’ letter, was not addressed to Miner personally and it did not
address the intense situation that had played out. It was sent by Bennett at Keystone.
111. About August 6, 2013 Miner again concerned that 60 days had passed since
he had started receiving collection invoices, sent a letter to Keystone, the new manager, for
clarification. He again asked for the Association’s attorney to address the situation and get
a proper authorization on record about Miner again making payments. Again, there was no
reply to Miner’s request from the new management company, the Association or it’s
Complaint for DamagesPage 28
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
32/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
attorney.
112. On August 16, 2014 or thereabout the Association replied through Keystone.
The reply was a new Notice of Delinquent Assessment (pre-lien notice) again with intent to
foreclose. Three letters had been written to address the payment issue. The Association
failed (refused) to respond to every letter.
113. Keystone, the new management company for the Association, was again
sending un-itemized invoices with summarized totals and amounts that do not give a person
the facts to figure out what exact charges, dates, fees, interest, and late fees that they would
owe to the Association. Their collection letters were confusing.
114. Pursuant to the Davis Stirling Act the Association is required by law to send a
required legal Notice of Delinquent Assessment (Keystone calls it a pre-lien notice), and an
Itemized Statement of Charges together to complete the legal requirements of the notice.
The management company sent a three page document, what they call a pre-lien notice (a
term not found in the Davis Stirling Act 2013), with summary totals of different categories
of assessments and fees. Miner contends the notice was statutorily void.
115. Miner alleges Keystone is a debt collector under Federal law because his
account was years in default when they took it over and began collecting. Keystone failed
to follow federal law. On information and belief Brittany Bennett (Bennett) was in chargeof Miner’s collection file.
116. To protect himself legally Miner properly disputed the charges on the Notice
of Delinquent Assessment (pre-lien notice). In writing, to make the Association aware he
had every intention of paying what was legally due, which included all assessments, he
included that statement on his letter. Miner never once disputed he owed assessments.
Miner in his letter, as the law states, requested mediation and alternate dispute resolution
and was required to do so to protect himself because the Association stated it would file a
lien and foreclose on his property. Miner had not yet received the decision from the first
trial’s appeal.
117. Miner was troubled. Not only had the Association “lump sum” billed Miner
Complaint for DamagesPage 29
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
33/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
for about 9 months unpaid assessments, on his account, after repeatedly refusing payments,
failing to respond to all letters, failing to send invoices; someone then added late fees and
interest! It added these amounts for the time period: 1) while the Association was refusing
his payments and 2) would not respond to his or his attorney’s correspondence about
making payments! Miner believed this to be illegal.
118. Mediation was then set and Miner was to meet a member of the Board he had
never met. Miner welcomed that as perhaps this person would be reasonable,
knowledgeable, and understanding. Just prior to the meeting Erica Griffith (Griffith), the
Association manager appointed by Keystone contacted Miner and notified him there would
be a change of plans. Miner was notified that Myra Kuck (Kuck), and Humberto Macias
would be meeting with Miner. Miner attended a meeting with Kuck and Macias at Polly's
Pies in Huntington Beach close to the Association complex.
119. Miner was jubilant as the appeal ruling had just come in from the Orange
County Appellate Court Division. A three judge panel had just ruled 3-0 in Miner's favor,
and reversed the trial Court ruling in total. Miner reserved a table and waited for Kuck and
Macias, the two Board members. The members showed up and the meeting began. Miner
knew that it was Kuck, who was one of the board members who voted to foreclose on
Miner's property; Kuck would also refuse his personal letters about the important issuesconcerning the Association’s agents. Miner had heard from a long time resident at a board
meeting that Kuck was impossible to deal with.
120. Miner introduced himself. A conversation began. Miner discovered in no
time the meeting would be fruitless. He soon discovered Macias had NEVER read the
CC&Rs as long as he had been a board member. Kuck stated she had read them but was no
longer familiar. Miner had asked the Board members if he could record the meeting. They
allowed the recording.
121. Miner attempted to inform the Board members how much money they were
wasting of the homeowners money on legal issues, and the fact that he had just won the
appeal, both of them stated they did not know much about it! At one point Kuck was
Complaint for DamagesPage 30
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
34/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
laughing at Miner. It was clear to Miner Kuck did not understand the gravity of the
situation. No payment plan was offered by the board. Miner informed the board that he did
not get invoices to either his office or his condo. Kuck responded - all Kuck knew was she
received her invoices. It was apparent to Miner these Board members were incompetent and
uninformed. They did not know about the appeal, had not even read the CC&Rs that govern
their Board decisions.
122. Miner does not believe the board mediated in good faith. They should have
seen the issues loud and clear. Miner concluded that with their complete lack of knowledge
they should not be running a $90,000 a month non-profit and they had no obvious concern
about how much money, belonging to the owners, was being wasted in litigation. It
appeared to Miner they did not know enough about the issues they were making decisions
about to be decision makers. Miner, at the end of the meeting, offered the Board members a
certified funds check for $780 at the meeting as a good faith payment. Myra Kuck rejected
Miner’s check.
123. When Griffith, the community manager, informed Miner that Kuck would
replace the other board member at the meeting Miner had no idea of the history of these
two associates. Later, at a board meeting, Miner attended he was warned by a long term
owner, of Griffith's history at Huntington. Miner was informed that Griffith and Kuck are personal friends (Miner was able to confirm they were Facebook friends).
124. This owner informed Miner that many years ago Griffith worked with an
individual named Robert Kirschner who was a Board member at Huntington Continental.
Miner was told that Kirschner was a very bad guy. It was relayed to Miner that Griffith was
his right hand helper and effectively his “hench-woman.”
125. It was also revealed to Miner that Griffith was ejected from the Huntington
Continental by the owners over a management scandal. Griffith and Kuck had become
friends. Miner was informed the situation was so bad the California Attorney General was
involved in Griffith’s departure, but Miner has not confirmed this. Miner was warned these
two may be trouble if they chose to target him.
Complaint for DamagesPage 31
-
8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins
35/71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28