(name, address of party or attorney) - web viewfor quiet title, declaratory relief, temporary...

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

Timothy L. McCandless, Esq. SBN 147715LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS1881 Business Center Drive, Ste. 9ASan Bernardino, CA 92392Tel: 909/890-9192Fax: 909/382-9956

Attorney for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF ____________

___________________________________,

And ROES 1 through 5,000,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAND CANYON CORPORATION f/k/a OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2; DOCX, LLC; and PREMIER TRUST DEED SERVICES and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive,

Defendants.

CASE NO: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE, DECLARATORY RELIEF, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CANCELATION OF INSTRUMENT AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM:

SLANDER OF TITLE; TORTUOUS VIOLATION OF STATUTE [PenalCode § 470(b) – (d); NOTARY FRAUD;

///

///

///

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

///

Plaintiffs ___________________________ allege herein as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiffs ___________ (hereinafter individually and collectively referred to as

“___________”), were and at all times herein mentioned are, residents of the County of

_________, State of California and the lawful owner of a parcel of real property commonly

known as: _________________, California _______ and the legal description is:

Parcel No. 1:

A.P.N. No. _________ (hereinafter “Subject Property”).

2. At all times herein mentioned, SAND CANYON CORPORATION f/k/a OPTION

ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION (hereinafter SAND CANYON”), is and was, a corporation

existing by virtue of the laws of the State of California and claims an interest adverse to the right,

title and interests of Plaintiff in the Subject Property.

3. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE

SERVICES, INC. (hereinafter “AMERICAN”), is and was, a corporation existing by virtue of

the laws of the State of Delaware, and at all times herein mentioned was conducting ongoing

business in the State of California.

4. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as

Trustee for SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2 (hereinafter referred to as

“WELLS FARGO”), is and was, a member of the National Banking Association and makes an

adverse claim to the Plaintiff MADRIDS’ right, title and interest in the Subject Property.

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

5. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant DOCX, L.L.C. (hereinafter “DOCX”),

is and was, a limited liability company existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Georgia, and

a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation.

6. At all times herein mentioned, __________________, was a company existing by

virtue of its relationship as a subsidiary of __________________.

7. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein

as DOES I through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names

and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the

property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs’ title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs’ title

thereto. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint as required to allege said Doe Defendants’ true

names and capacities when such have been fully ascertained. Plaintiffs further allege that

Plaintiffs designated as ROES 1 through 5,000, are Plaintiffs who share a commonality with the

same Defendants, and as the Plaintiffs listed herein.

8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times herein

mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agent and employee of each of the remaining

Defendants.

9. Plaintiffs allege that each and every defendants, and each of them, allege herein

ratified the conduct of each and every other Defendant.

10. Plaintiffs allege that at all times said Defendants, and each of them, were acting

within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.

11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that circa July 2004,

DOCX was formed with the specific intent of manufacturing fraudulent documents in order

create the false impression that various entities obtained valid, recordable interests in real

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

properties, when in fact they actually maintained no lawful interest in said properties.

12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that as a regular and

ongoing part of the business of Defendant DOCX was to have persons sitting around a table

signing names as quickly as possible, so that each person executing documents would sign

approximately 2,500 documents per day. Although the persons signing the documents claimed to

be a vice president of a particular bank of that document, in fact, the party signing the name was

not the person named on the document, as such the signature was a forgery, that the name of the

person claiming to be a vice president of a particular financial institution was not a “vice

president”, did not have any prior training in finance, never worked for the company they

allegedly purported to be a vice president of, and were alleged to be a vice president

simultaneously with as many as twenty different banks and/or lending institutions.

13. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the actual signatories

of the instruments set forth in Paragraph 12 herein, were intended to and were fraudulently

notarized by a variety of notaries in the offices of DOCX in Alpharetta, GA.

14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that for all purposes the

intent of Defendant DOCX was to intentionally create fraudulent documents, with forged

signatures, so that said documents could be recorded in the Offices of County Recorders through

the United States of America, knowing that such documents would forgeries, contained false

information, and that the recordation of such documents would affect an interest in real property

in violation of law.

15. Plaintiffs allege that on or about, ____________, that they conveyed a first deed

of trust (hereinafter “DEED”) in favor of Option One Mortgage, Inc. with an interest of

approximately $_________________.

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

16. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Option One

Mortgage sold interest in the aforementioned DEED to unknown parties as a derivative security,

who then repeatedly resold their respective interests, if any, in said DEED on at least six

different occasions.

17. Plaintiffs allege that pursuant to California Civil Code section 2932.5, an assignee

may effectuate the power of sale provided the assignment is properly acknowledged and

recorded. Plaintiffs further allege that due to acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and each of

them, that none of the named Defendants herein are holders in due course and do not maintain an

interest in the Subject Property, including but, not limited to: there are no lawful records

connecting Defendants to this property other that Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One

Mortgage Corporation, and the interest of Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage

Corporation was long ago sold-off to unrelated third parties for which there is no proper “paper

trail” to establish the true holder in due course. Plaintiffs allege that as will be seen hereinafter

that Defendants, and each of them, resorted to forged instruments in an attempt to create the

appearance that Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee of the Soundview Home Loan

Trust 2007-OPT2.

18. Plaintiffs allege that due to certain acts and/or omissions once the DEED was

“assigned” to various parties the DEED was detrimentally affected in a number ways, including

but, not limited to: that the power of sale inherent in the DEED was severed, because the

subsequent parties were no longer holders in due course as a matter of law.

19. On April 3, 2011, on the national program “60 Minutes”, two former employees

of DOCX made admissions which entirely support the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 12 and

13, herein. During said program, former employee, Chris Pendley [sic] stated that he personally

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

drafted the name of “Linda Green” on thousands and thousands of assignments, although he was

not Linda Green, that he was signing in excess of 2,500 documents per day, and that he was paid

the sum of ten ($10.00) per hour to forge the name of “Linda Green” and that he made no

inspection of any documents to determine whether the execution of the assignment was lawful,

had no training to make an inspection of documents to determine if the assignment was lawful,

and was told by his superiors that his execution of the name Linda Green was lawful.

20. On April 3, 2011, Linda Green, a former employee of DOCX, appeared on the

aforementioned “60 Minutes” program and stated that she worked in the mailroom of DOCX and

eventually signed some documents, that although she was listed as a vice president of several

companies, that she had no connection with those companies, and that she was aware that her

signature was being used by several other persons on assignments because her name was short

and easy to spell.

21. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Linda Green, acting

in her capacity as an employee of DOCX allowed her name to forged upon literally thousands of

purported assignments, although Linda Green never executed those assignments, never inspected

those assignments, and that DOCX simply listed that Linda Green was a vice president at various

Banks and lending institutions, however, Linda Green was not lawfully a vice president, and the

assertion that Linda Green was a vice president was an artifice. Plaintiffs further allege that

Linda Green’s name fraudulent appeared on documents for the following institutions: 11-11-

2004 & 06-22-2006 Vice President, Loan Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by

merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc.; 08-11-2008 & 08-14-2008 Vice President,

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage

Acceptance, Inc.; 08-27-2008 Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing as successor-

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

in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation; 09-19-2008 Vice President, Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit; 09-30-2008;

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home

Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 09-30-2008 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit; 10-08-2009 Vice President & Asst.

Secretary, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Ameriquest Mortgage

Corporation; 10-16-2008 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as

nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 10-17-2008, 11-20-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American

Brokers Conduit; 11-20-2008 Vice President, Option One Mortgage Corporation; 12-08-2008

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American

Brokers Conduit; 12-15-2008 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as

nominee for HLB Mortgage; 12-24-2008 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 12-26-2008 Vice

President, American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.; 01-13-2009 Vice President, Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for Family Lending Services, Inc.; 01-15-2009

Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for

American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 02-03-2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit; 02-05-2009 Vice

President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for

American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 02-24-2009 Vice President, American Home

Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

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

02-25-2009 Vice President, Bank of America, N.A.; 02-27-2009 Vice President, American

Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

03-02-2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as

nominee for American Home Mortgage; 03-04-2009 Vice President, Argent Mortgage Company,

LLC by Citi Residential Lending Inc., attorney-in-fact; 03-06-2009 & 03-20-2009 Vice

President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home

Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 04-15-2009, 04-17-2009, 04-20-2009 Vice President, Bank of

America, N.A.; 05-11-2009, 07-06-2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration


President, Bank of America, N.A.; 07-15-2009 Vice President & Asst. Secretary, American

Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as

trustee for, Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc. asset-backed pass through certificates, series

2004-R7, under the pooling and servicing agreement dated July 1, 2004; 07-30-2009 Vice


Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 08-12-2009 Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option

One Mortgage Corporation; 08-28-2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 09-03-2009

Asst. Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation formerly known as Option One Mortgage

Corporation; 09-03-2009 Asst. Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting

solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage; 09-04-2009 Asst. Secretary, Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage;

09-08-2009 Vice President, Bank of America, N.A.; 09-21-2009 & 09-22-2009 Vice President,


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

Acceptance, Inc. Plaintiffs further allege that Linda Green was never lawfully the vice president

of any entity, more particularly the foregoing listed entities.

22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendant DOCX

was a continuing criminal enterprise whose sole function was to create and forge fraudulent

assignments which would purport to convey interests in real property and the entities listed in

Paragraph 21 hereinabove, were complicate in Defendants’ fraud.

23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe from beginning circa 2007 and continuing

until sometime in 2010, DOCX produced thousands upon thousands of false and fraudulent

assignments which were recorded in the Offices of the County Recorders of the State of

California, and several other States in the United States of America as well.

24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that during the “60

Minutes” program on April 3, 2011, another former DOCX employee, Savonna Krite [sic] acted

as a notary public and notarized that the signatures of Linda Green and others, were valid,

however, she admitted that the notarizations were not that of Linda Green. Savonna Krite [sic]

further admitted that she was told by officers of DOCX that it was “alright” for her to notarize

signatures as being valid. Savonna Krite [sic] also admitted as of the program that she now

understands that her notarizations of said assignments were “not alright.”

25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that because the entire

company structure of DOCX was to manufacture forged assignments by the thousands per day,

without any consideration whatsoever that the information contained on those assignments was

valid, and that the notarizations were in fact fraudulent, that no reasonable expectation can be

made that any of the assignments executed by DOCX employees were or are valid.

26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that circa _______,

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

Defendants, and each of them, utilized the services of DOCX in order to manufacture a

fraudulent assignment from Defendant AMERICAN to WELLS FARGO, because WELLS

FARGO could not find documents which would demonstrate that it owned an interest in the

Plaintiffs’ subject property.

27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that WELLS FARGO

never had a lawful interest in the Plaintiffs’ subject property, either in its own capacity or as that

as Trustee for the SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2.

28. Plaintiffs allege that they fully tendered all mortgage payments which were

lawfully due under the DEED, and that they are not in default of their payments, having lawfully

tendered all amounts due and owing.

29. Plaintiffs allege that WELLS FARGO made demands for payment as against the

DEED, however, Plaintiffs allege that WELLS FARGO was not a lawful holder in due course,

that SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2 was not a lawful holder in due course,

and that neither party had any lawful right, title and interest in the DEED.

30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that on or about,

_______________, Defendant DOCX at the request of Defendants, and each of them, forged an

instrument (hereinafter “FORGED ASSIGNMENT”) with the name “Linda Green” which was

notarized by

“Ellis Simmons.”


_______________, an unknown employee of DOCX, in the course and scope of their

employment, signed the name “Linda Green” and that such document had a notary stamp placed

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

upon the FORGED ASSIGNMENT which purported to be lawfully notarized by “Ellis

Simmons.”

32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the FORGED

ASSIGNMENT was then sent by DOCX through the United States Postal Service or transmitted

by facsimile over the telephone and telegraph wires of the United States of America to

Defendants, and each of them, in order that such FORGED ASSIGNMENT would be recorded

in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of _______________.

32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that on or about

_______________, that Defendants, and each of them, their employees and/or agents, caused the

FORGED ASSIGNMENT which unlawfully affected Plaintiffs’ subject property to be recorded

in the Office of the Country Recorder of the County of _______________ as Instrument No.

_______________. A true and correct copy of the assignment set forth in Paragraphs 30 – 31, is

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated by this reference.

33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the sole claim of

Defendants, and each of them, as to their right, title and/or interest in the Plaintiffs’ Subject

Property is the FORGED ASSIGNMENT.

34. Plaintiffs allege that the FORGED ASSIGNMENT as a matter of law is void and

that it did not constitute a conveyance of an interest to Defendants, or to anyone at all, and that

the FORGED ASSIGNMENT is a legal nullity.

35. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, are presently relying upon the

FORGED ASSIGNMENT and are knowingly and intentionally prosecuting a non-judicial

foreclosure based solely upon the recordation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, necessitating the

instant action.

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

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Slander of Title As Against All Defendants)

36. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 35 of the General Allegations as

though such have been fully set forth herein.

37. Plaintiffs allege that on or about, _______________, Defendants, and each of

them, in some measure actively, directly, indirectly, openly and secretly contributed to the

preparation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT and the recordation of said Instrument in the

Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder of _______________ County.

38. Plaintiffs allege that the recordation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, by

Defendants and each of them, rendered Plaintiffs’ title to the Subject Property as unmarketable.

39. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, recorded the FORGED ASSIGNMENT without privilege, knowledge and/or consent of Plaintiffs, the information

contained in said FORGED ASSIGNMENT is false in that no lawful conveyance ever existed

between the parties thereto, and said FORGED ASSIGNMENT when recorded published the

information therein which disparaged Plaintiffs’ title as would lead a reasonable man to falsely

assume that Defendants, and each of them, in some measure actually maintained some right, title

and interest in Plaintiffs’ Subject Property, whereas, some of the information contained in the

FORGED ASSIGNMENT is false. A true and correct copy of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT is

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated by this reference.

40. Plaintiffs allege that they actually and proximately suffered damages due to the

planning, preparation and recordation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT in an amount the totality

of which has not been fully ascertained, but in no event less than the jurisdictional limitations of

this court.

41. Plaintiffs allege that the slander of the Subject Properties title was intentional,

fraudulent, malicious, oppressive and burdensome and deserving the imposition of punitive

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

damages in an amount sufficient that such conduct will not be repeated.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Tortuous Violation of Statute Penal Code §§ 470(b), 470(d)

As Against Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation;

American Home Mortgage Services, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee

for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2; DOCX, LLC)

42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 35 of the General

Allegations and Paragraphs 36 through 41 of the First Cause of Action as though such have been

fully set forth herein.


Defendants, and each of them, contrived a scheme to replace missing documents which

purported to assert interests in real properties through-out the United States of America.

44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that by August 2008,

Defendants, and each of them, had in some measure participated in the request for production of

forged instruments from DOCX, as well as other document forgery mills, the purpose of which

was to effect title to real properties through-out the United States of America.45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that on or about, August

8, 2008, the agents and/or employees of Defendants and each of them, knowingly and

intentionally with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs’ interest in the Subject Property, prepared the

FORGED ASSIGNMENT and caused said FORGED ASSIGNMENT to be recorded in the

Official Records of the Office of the Recorder of the County of _______________ as Instrument

No. _______________. A true and correct copy of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, is attached

hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated by this reference.

46. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, tortuously forged the

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

signature of Linda Green, on the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs,

and such forgery directly affected Plaintiffs’ interest in the Subject Property in tortuous violation

of California Penal Code sections 470(b) and 470(d).




this court.

48. Plaintiffs allege that the tortuous violation of Penal Code sections 470(b) and

470(d), by and through the preparation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, and subsequent

recordation thereof was in willful disregard for Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the Subject

Property, intentional, fraudulent, malicious, oppressive and burdensome and deserving the

imposition of punitive damages in an amount sufficient that such conduct will not be repeated.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(Notary Fraud As Against DOCX, LLC and Defendants 1 through 10, Inclusive)


Allegations, Paragraphs 35 through 41 and Paragraphs 42 through 48 of the First and Second

Causes of Action as though such have been fully set forth herein.


Defendants, and each of them, contrived a scheme to replace missing documents which

purported to assert interests in real properties through-out the United States of America.

51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that by August 2008,

Defendants, and each of them, had in some measure participated in the request for production of

forged instruments from DOCX, as well as other document forgery mills, the purpose of which

was to effect title to real properties through-out the United States of America.

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


_____________, the agents and/or employees of Defendants and each of them, knowingly and

intentionally with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs’ interest in the Subject Property, prepared the

FORGED ASSIGNMENT and caused said FORGED ASSIGNMENT to be recorded in the

Official Records of the Office of the Recorder of the County of _______________ as Instrument

No. _______________. A true and correct copy of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, is attached

hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated by this reference.

53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the FORGED

ASSIGNMENT contained knowingly false statements including, but not limited to: that Wells

Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2, that Linda Green

was a vice president of American Home Mortgage Services, Inc., and that Ellis Simmons

lawfully notarized the FORGED ASSIGNMENT.




this court.

55. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, committed notary fraud by

and through the preparation and notarization of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, and subsequent

recordation thereof was in willful disregard for Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the Subject

Property, intentional, fraudulent, malicious, oppressive and burdensome and deserving the

imposition of punitive damages in an amount sufficient that such conduct will not be repeated.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Cancellation of Instrument As Against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee for

Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2 and Defendants 1 through 10, Inclusive)

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


Allegations, Paragraphs 35 through 41 and Paragraphs 42 through 48 and Paragraphs 49

through 55 of the First, Second and Third Causes of Action as though such have been fully set

forth herein.

57. Plaintiffs allege that a FORGED ASSIGNMENT was recorded in the Official

Records of the Office of the County Recorder for the County of _______________ as Instrument

No. _______________.

58. Plaintiffs seek an Order of the above-entitled court cancelling Instrument No.

_______________, in as much as said document contains false information and affects

Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the Subject Property.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Quiet Title As Against All Defendants)


Allegations, Paragraphs 35 through 41 and Paragraphs 42 through 48 and Paragraphs 49 through

55 of the First, Second and Third Causes of Action as though such have been fully set forth

herein.

60. For all the facts alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek an Order quieting title as of

_______________.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Declaratory Relief As Against All Defendants)

61. An actual controversy has arisen.

62. The parties desire a judicial determine that they may ascertain their respective

right, title and interest in the Subject Property.

63. A judicial determination is necessary that the parties may right, title and interest

in the Subject Property.64. Plaintiffs allege that as a regular and ongoing part of the business of Defendant

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

DOCX was to have persons sitting around a table signing names as quickly as possible, so that

each person executing documents would sign approximately 2,500 documents per day. Although

the persons signing the documents claimed to be a vice president of a particular bank of that

document, in fact, the party signing the name was not the person named on the document, as

such the signature was a forgery, that the name of the person claiming to be a vice president of a

particular financial institution was not a “vice president”, did not have any prior training in

finance, never worked for the company they allegedly purported to be a vice president of, and

were alleged to be a vice president simultaneously with as many as twenty different banks and/or

lending institutions, that the actual signatories of the instruments set forth in Paragraph 12 herein,

were intended to and were fraudulently notarized by a variety of notaries in the offices of DOCX

in Alpharetta, Georgia, that for all purposes the intent of Defendant DOCX was to intentionally

create fraudulent documents, with forged signatures, so that said documents could be recorded in

the Offices of County Recorders through the United States of America, knowing that such

documents would forgeries, contained false information, and that the recordation of such

documents would affect an interest in real property in violation of law, that on or about, May 7,

2007, that they conveyed a first deed of trust (hereinafter “DEED”) in favor of Option One

Mortgage, Inc. with an interest of approximately $815,000, that Option One Mortgage sold

interest in the aforementioned DEED to unknown parties as a derivative security, who then

repeatedly resold their respective interests, if any, in said DEED on at least six different

occasions, that pursuant to California Civil Code section 2932.5, an assignee may effectuate the

power of sale provided the assignment is properly acknowledged and recorded. Plaintiffs further

allege that due to acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and each of them, that none of the named

Defendants herein are holders in due course and do not maintain an interest in the Subject

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

Property, including but, not limited to: there are no lawful records connecting Defendants to this

property other that Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation, and the

interest of Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation was long ago sold-

off to unrelated third parties for which there is no proper “paper trail” to establish the true holder

in due course. Plaintiffs allege that as will be seen hereinafter that Defendants, and each of them,

resorted to forged instruments in an attempt to create the appearance that Defendant Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A. as Trustee of the Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2, that due to certain acts

and/or omissions once the DEED was “assigned” to various parties the DEED was detrimentally

affected in a number ways, including but, not limited to: that the power of sale inherent in the

DEED was severed, because the subsequent parties were no longer holders in due course as a

matter of law, that on April 3, 2011, on the national program “60 Minutes”, two former

employees of DOCX made admissions which entirely support the allegations set forth in

Paragraphs 12 and 13, herein. During said program, former employee, Chris Pendley [sic] stated

that he personally drafted the name of “Linda Green” on thousands and thousands of

assignments, although he was not Linda Green, that he was signing in excess of 2,500 documents

per day, and that he was paid the sum of ten ($10.00) per hour to forge the name of “Linda

Green” and that he made no inspection of any documents to determine whether the execution of

the assignment was lawful, had no training to make an inspection of documents to determine if

the assignment was lawful, and was told by his superiors that his execution of the name Linda

Green was lawful, on April 3, 2011, Linda Green, a former employee of DOCX, appeared on the

aforementioned “60 Minutes” program and stated that she worked in the mailroom of DOCX and

eventually signed some documents, that although she was listed as a vice president of several

companies, that she had no connection with those companies, and that she was aware that her

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

signature was being used by several other persons on assignments because her name was short

and easy to spell, that Linda Green, acting in her capacity as an employee of DOCX allowed her

name to forged upon literally thousands of purported assignments, although Linda Green never

executed those assignments, never inspected those assignments, and that DOCX simply listed

that Linda Green was a vice president at various Banks and lending institutions, however, Linda

Green was not lawfully a vice president, and the assertion that Linda Green was a vice president

was an artifice. Plaintiffs further allege that Linda Green’s name fraudulent appeared on

documents for the following institutions: 11-11-2004 & 06-22-2006 Vice President, Loan

Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,

Inc.; 08-11-2008 & 08-14-2008 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,

as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 08-27-2008 Vice President,

American Home Mortgage Servicing as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage

Corporation; 09-19-2008 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as

nominee for American Brokers Conduit; 09-30-2008; Vice President, Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 09-30-

2008 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American

Brokers Conduit; 10-08-2009 Vice President & Asst. Secretary, American Home Mortgage

Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Ameriquest Mortgage Corporation; 10-16-2008 Vice President,


Acceptance, Inc.; 10-17-2008, 11-20-2008 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit; 11-20-2008 Vice President, Option


Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Brokers Conduit; 12-15-2008 Vice President, Mortgage

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

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for HLB Mortgage; 12-24-2008 Vice


Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 12-26-2008 Vice President, American Home Mortgage Servicing,

Inc.; 01-13-2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for

Family Lending Services, Inc.; 01-15-2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 02-03-

2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American

Brokers Conduit; 02-05-2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.,

acting solely as nominee for

American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 02-24-2009 Vice President, American Home

Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

02-25-2009 Vice President, Bank of America, N.A.; 02-27-2009 Vice President, American

Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as successor-in-interest to Option One Mortgage Corporation;

03-02-2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as

nominee for American Home Mortgage; 03-04-2009 Vice President, Argent Mortgage Company,

LLC by Citi Residential Lending Inc., attorney-in-fact; 03-06-2009 & 03-20-2009 Vice


Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 04-15-2009, 04-17-2009, 04-20-2009 Vice President, Bank of

America, N.A.; 05-11-2009, 07-06-2009 Vice President, Mortgage Electronic Registration


President, Bank of America, N.A.; 07-15-2009 Vice President & Asst. Secretary, American

Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc., as servicer for Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, as

trustee for, Ameriquest Mortgage Securities, Inc. asset-backed pass through certificates, series

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

2004-R7, under the pooling and servicing agreement dated July 1, 2004; 07-30-2009 Vice


Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 08-12-2009 Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option


Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage Acceptance, Inc.; 09-03-2009

Asst. Vice President, Sand Canyon Corporation formerly known as Option One Mortgage

Corporation; 09-03-2009 Asst. Secretary, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting

solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage; 09-04-2009 Asst. Secretary, Mortgage

Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage;

09-08-2009 Vice President, Bank of America, N.A.; 09-21-2009 & 09-22-2009 Vice President,


Acceptance, Inc. Plaintiffs further allege that Linda Green was never lawfully the vice president

of any entity, more particularly the foregoing listed entities, that Defendant DOCX was a

continuing criminal enterprise whose sole function was to create and forge fraudulent

assignments which would purport to convey interests in real property and the entities listed in

Paragraph 21 hereinabove, were complicate in Defendants’ fraud, that beginning circa 2007 and

continuing until sometime in 2010, DOCX produced thousands upon thousands of false and

fraudulent assignments which were recorded in the Offices of the County Recorders of the State

of California, and several other States in the United States of America as well, allege that during

the “60 Minutes” program on April 3, 2011, another former DOCX employee, Savonna Krite

[sic] acted as a notary public and notarized that the signatures of Linda Green and others, were

valid, however, she admitted that the notarizations were not that of Linda Green. Savonna Krite

[sic] further admitted that she was told by officers of DOCX that it was “alright” for her to

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

notarize signatures as being valid. Savonna Krite [sic] also admitted as of the program that she

now understands that her notarizations of said assignments were “not alright,” that because the

entire company structure of DOCX was to manufacture forged assignments by the thousands per

day, without any consideration whatsoever that the information contained on those assignments

was valid, and that the notarizations were in fact fraudulent, that no reasonable expectation can

be made that any of the assignments executed by DOCX employees were or are valid, that circa

July 2008, Defendants, and each of them, utilized the services of DOCX in order to manufacture

a fraudulent assignment from Defendant AMERICAN to WELLS FARGO, because WELLS

FARGO could not find documents which would demonstrate that it owned an interest in the

Plaintiffs’ subject property, that WELLS FARGO never had a lawful interest in the Plaintiffs’

subject property, either in its own capacity or as that as Trustee for the SOUNDVIEW HOME

LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2, that they fully tendered all mortgage payments which were

lawfully due under the DEED, and that they are not in default of their payments, having lawfully

tendered all amounts due and owing, that WELLS FARGO made demands for payment as

against the DEED, however, Plaintiffs allege that WELLS FARGO was not a lawful holder in

due course, that SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2 was not a lawful holder in

due course, and that neither party had any lawful right, title and interest in the DEED, that on or

about, _______________, Defendant DOCX at the request of Defendants, and each of them,

forged an instrument (hereinafter “FORGED ASSIGNMENT”) with the name “Linda Green”

which was notarized by “Ellis Simmons,” that on or about, _______________, an unknown

employee of DOCX, in the course and scope of their employment, signed the name “Linda

Green” and that such document had a notary stamp placed upon the FORGED ASSIGNMENT

which purported to be lawfully notarized by “Ellis Simmons,” that the FORGED

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

ASSIGNMENT was then sent by DOCX through the United States Postal Service or transmitted

by facsimile over the telephone and telegraph wires of the United States of America to

Defendants, and each of them, in order that such FORGED ASSIGNMENT would be recorded

in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of _______________, that on or about

_______________, that Defendants, and each of them, their employees and/or agents, caused the

FORGED ASSIGNMENT which unlawfully affected Plaintiffs’ subject property to be recorded

in the Office of the Country Recorder of the County of _______________ as Instrument No.

_______________. A true and correct copy of the assignment set forth in Paragraphs 30 – 31, is

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated by this reference, that the sole claim of

Defendants, and each of them, as to their right, title and/or interest in the Plaintiffs’ Subject

Property is the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, that the FORGED ASSIGNMENT as a matter of law

is void and that it did not constitute a conveyance of an interest to Defendants, or to anyone at

all, and that the FORGED ASSIGNMENT is a legal nullity, that Defendants, and each of them,

are presently relying upon the FORGED ASSIGNMENT and are knowingly and intentionally

prosecuting a non-judicial foreclosure based solely upon the recordation of the FORGED

ASSIGNMENT, necessitating the instant action, and as such, the Defendants set forth herein

have no right, title and interest in the Subject Property, whereas, Defendants contend that all of

their acts and/or omissions were lawful and that Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee of the

Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Manuel A Madrid and Virginia J. Madrid pray for Judgment as

follows:

FOR THE FIRST AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION:

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

1. For an Order, restraining Defendants, and their agents, employees, officers, attorneys,

and representatives from engaging in or performing any of the following acts: (i) proceeding

with the non-judicial foreclosure without an Order of this court, (ii) offering, or advertising this

property for sale and (ii) attempting to transfer title to this property and or (iii) holding any

auction therefore;

2. For general damages subject to proof at time of trial;

3. For special damages subject to proof at time of trial;

4. For punitive damages subject to proof at time of trial;

5. For costs of suit herein;

6. For reasonable attorney’s fees provided by contract or statute; and

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

FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

1. For general damages according to proof at time of trial;

2. For special damages according to proof at time of trial;

3. For costs of suit incurred herein;

4. For reasonable attorney’s fees provided by contract or statute; and


FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

1. For an Order cancelling Instrument No. _______________, which was recorded on

August in the

Office of the Country Recorder of the County of _______________;


3. For reasonable attorney’s fees as provided by contract or statute; and

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


FOR THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

1. For an Order quieting title to the Subject Property from _______________;


3. For reasonable attorney’s fees subject to proof at time of trial; and


FOR THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

1. For a declaration that Defendants do not have a right, title and interest in the Subject

Property;


3. For reasonable attorney’s fees subject to proof at time of trial; and


Dated: _______, 2011 LAW OFFICES OFTIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS

__________________________________ Timothy L. McCandless, Esq., Attorney for Plaintiffs

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

VERIFICATION

I, Timothy L. McCandless am the attorney of record for Plaintiffs in the above-entitled

action. The Plaintiffs are either absent from the County of Los Angeles where my office is

located, or is otherwise unable to verify this complaint, or the facts are within the knowledge of

the undersigned. For this reason, I am making this verification.

I have read the foregoing Complaint and know of its contents. I am informed and believe

the matters therein to be true, and on that ground, allege that the matters stated in it are true. I

declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration

was executed at San Bernardino, California

DATED: __________, 2011

____________________________ Timothy L. McCandless, Esq.

26

COMPLAINT

(name, address of party or attorney) - web viewfor quiet title, declaratory relief, temporary...

Documents