IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION THREE

LEIGHTON LEE PERRY Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NA, QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP, Defendants and Respondents.

Court of Appeal No. A139655

(Super. Ct. No. MSC10-02914)

Appeal From a Judgment Of The Superior Court, County of CONTRA COSTA Hon. Laurel S. Brady, Judge _________________________________________ MOTION TO REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENTS; REQUEST TO PROVIDE TENTATIVE RULING BEFORE ORAL ARGUMENTS; PROPOSED FINDINGS _________________________________________ John C. Cox, Esq. Keesal, Young & Logan 450 Pacific Ave San Francisco, CA 94133 (415) 398-6000 Leighton Lee Perry 6724 Waverly Rd, Martinez, CA (925) 949-8377 LL_Perry@att.net Appellant Self-Represented

Charles Bell, Esq McCarthy & Holthus LLP 1770 Fourth Ave San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 685-4800

PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al

MOTION TO REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENTS MEMORANDUM Appellant has attached the standard form to request oral arguments with some notable exceptions. When this motion was filed no notice from the Court had been received regarding waiver of oral arguments either by mail or email. Appellant is attempting to arrange to be represented by counsel who would like to know the date the arguments are scheduled. Due to the uncertainty of counsels participation information regarding both Appellants personal appearance and appearance of counsel are presented. Appellant requests a waiver of the teleconference fee of $20 as he has presented a toll free number to call. Appellant is attaching a check for the $20 with the understanding that it is refundable should counsel be unavailable. At this time it is uncertain whether Appellant or counsel will make a personal appearance. REQUEST TO PROVIDE TENTATIVE RULING BEFORE ORAL ARGUMENTS MEMORANDUM Pursuant to Rule 8.252(a) of the California Rules of Court, Appellant Leighton Lee Perry requested augmentation of the record on appeal to include documents pertinent to this case that were not available at the time his Opening Brief was filed. Pursuant to RC 8.252(b) Appellant requests that the reviewing court make findings under Code of Civil Procedure 909. The motion must include proposed findings. CCP 909 - In all cases where trial by jury is not a matter of right or where trial by jury has been waived, the reviewing court may make factual determinations contrary to or in addition to those made by the trial court. The factual determinations may be based on the evidence adduced before the trial court either with or without the taking of evidence by the reviewing court. The reviewing court may for the purpose of making the factual determinations or for any other purpose in the interests of justice, take additional evidence of or concerning facts occurring at any time prior to the decision of the appeal, and may give or direct the entry of any judgment or order and may make any further or other order as the case may require. This
Page 1 of 3 PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al

section shall be liberally construed to the end among others that, where feasible, causes may be finally disposed of by a single appeal and without further proceedings in the trial court except where in the interests of justice a new trial is required on some or all of the issues. Appellant therefore requests the findings, such as may be a part of a draft of the ruling, be made available before the oral arguments to all parties due to the possibility that Appellant will be representing himself at arguments. At 66 years Appellant is a California senior who is dealing with a mind inevitably fading into the twilight but with some semblance of sentience remaining. Usually his most acute moments are at 4:30 am, and on a few days by 3:30 pm Appellant has problems understanding long sentences due to short term memory failure. So it would be most helpful for Appellant to have a few days, if possible, to review the findings in order to focus his arguments during his time before the panel. And a morning session is much preferred over one in the afternoon. PROPOSED FINDINGS Appellant requests the following findings be promulgated by this Court:
1.)

That the special endorsement to Federal Home Loan Bank San Francisco is determinative of the lack of beneficiary interest in the Subject Loan by Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA) and their alleged successors in that interest.

2.)

That the third party payment arranged by Attorney General Kamala Harris from JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA (JPM) to the mortgage backed securities held by CalPERS make any remaining balance on the Subject Loan allegedly held by JPM indeterminate and hereby cancelled absent a showing of a beneficiary statement reflecting third party payments.

3.)

That Respondents JPM and FNMA waived federal preemption of Cal Civil Code 2943(e)(4) by proffering the deed of trust form containing 25 that
Page 2 of 3 PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al

specifically exempts requests for beneficiary statement. As such, their denial of such statement and delay in producing a copy of the promissory note make them subject to criminal penalties and the actual, punitive, and exemplary damage provisions of that statute.
4.)

That the bid-rigging actions undertaken by Respondents was unforeseen by the Stockwell1 court upon which Calvo2 was based, and the law now supports the ability of a stranger to the contract or recorded title documents to substitute the trustee for any deed of trust loan making the holder of title uncertain to the borrower and public. In order to restore the finality between parties of a clear title and stifle alienation of title, we reverse our decision in Calvo with respect to the inapplicability of Cal. Civil Code 2932.5 to deed of trust loans.

Respectfully submitted this 12h day of March, 2014,

Leighton Lee Perry, Appellant

1 2

Stockwell v. Barnum, (1908) 7Cal.App.413,416-17 Calvo v HSBC Bank (2011) 199 CA4th 118, 130 CR 3d 815
Page 3 of 3 PERRY V. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA et al

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Court of Appeal

OFFICE OF THE CLERK FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT 350 McALLISTER STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-4712

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

INSTRUCTIONS: If oral argument is not requested within 10 days after notice, the court will deem oral argument waived. If requesting oral argument, complete this form and return it to the clerk's office with PROOF OF SERVICE ON OPPOSING COUNSEL. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.256 (c), only one counsel may argue for each separately represented party. Please indicate only the person that will be arguing in No. 5. Counsel may elect to present oral argument either by personal appearance or by telephone conference call. Check the appropriate line under No. 1. If counsel requests oral argument by telephone conference call, a fee of $20 must be paid at the time oral argument is requested.* Make the check payable to the Court of Appeal, attach it to this form and return it to the clerk's office. Please Note: Teleconference calls made outside the geographic boundaries of the First Appellate District will be made collect. 1. Request for oral argument by:
X _____ Personal appearance
X _____ Telephone conference call

Conference call number:

A139655 2. Case Number: _________________________

___________________________ 3. Division No. THREE

Perry v. JP Morgan Chase Bank et al 4. Title of Case: __________________________________________________________

5. Name of Person Arguing: _______________________________6. CA Bar #________

Appellant Leighton Lee Perry 7. Attorney for: ___________________________________________________________

Check One:

 Appellant

Respondent

Real Party in Interest

___________________________________ Signature of person requesting argument * Except that no fee shall be charged to court-appointed counsel in any criminal, juvenile or civil case, or to the Attorney General or governmental agency.

PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL I declare that I am a citizen of the United States and over the age of 18. My email address is LL_Perry@att.net, and my phone number is: (925) 949-8377. On the date shown below, I served the attached per RC 8.71(c): APPELLANTS MOTION TO REQUEST ORAL ARGUMENTS; REQUEST TO PROVIDE TENTATIVE RULING BEFORE ORAL ARGUMENTS; PROPOSED FINDINGS On the following parties or entities named by: X Transmitting by email from my email address above a true copy thereof, to the emails addressed as follows: John C. Cox, Esq. Keesal, Young & Logan 450 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, California 94133 John.Cox@kyl.com Charles Bell, Esq McCarthy & Holthus LLP 1770 Fourth Ave San Diego, CA 92101 cbell@mccarthyholthus.com

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on March 12, 2014, at Martinez, California

_______________________ Leighton Lee Perry, Appellant

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