Wrongful Foreclosure Xyz ABC

1
Xyz Abc
2 Plaintiff, In Propria Persona

3
5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
6
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, –Central District Stanley Mosk
7
8
Xyz Abc, Case No.:_
9
Plaintiff
10 FIRST AMENDED VERIFIED
vs. COMPLAINT
11
1. DECLARATORY RELIEF
12
BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS 2. FRAUD & CONSPIRACY TO
13 SERVICING, LP (BOA) f/k/a COMMIT FRAUD;
14 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS
3. TORTIOUS VIOLATION OF
SERVICING LP., INC.(CHL); STATUTE;
15
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC 4. CONVERSION;
16
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.
5. REFORMATION (NOTE);
17 (MERS) as Beneficiary;
6. VIOLATION OF BUSINESS &
18 RECONTRUST (ReCon); PROFESSIONS CODE §17200
19 FIRST LOS ANGELES MORTGAGE 7. VIOLATION OF CA CIV. CODE
20 (1st LAM); §2923.6, 1788.17, 1572;
21 MICHAEL S. MAGNESS; 8. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
JANE/JOHN DOES 1-100, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

22
9. BREACH GOOD FAITH
23 Defendants &FAIRNESS
24 __________________________________
25 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
26
27
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Xyz Abcs, proceeding in propia persona, and files
28
Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 1

1
Plaintiff’s First Amended Verified Complaint.
2 Plaintiff requests that his Pro se status be recognized, and treated by the Court
3
as The United States Supreme Court, and US District Courts have held such status be
4
recognized and treated. “A pro se litigant's pleadings are to be construed liberally and
5
6 held to a less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers”. Haines v.
7
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21, 92 S.Ct. 594, 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972); see also Estelle v.
8
Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106, 97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); Gillihan v.
9
10 Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 938 (10th Cir.1989). “We hold pro se pleadings to a less
11
stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and construe them liberally”.
12
Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir. 1998) (per curiam)
13
14
15 THE PARTIES
16
1. This action concerns certain real property, of which, Plaintiff, Xyz Abc,
17
18 an individual residing in the State of California, County of Los Angeles, and inter alia,
19 is the purchaser of the real property, located at 123 Four Five Six, and claims an
20
equitable and beneficial right of title to the real property described herein at all times
21
22
relevant from and after April 4, 2006., Xyz Abc owns, and where he currently resides.
23 The certain real property is located at 123 Four Five Six, identified as Assessor‟s
24
Parcel Nos. 01, 02, 03 in the County of Los Angeles, State of California (“the
25
property” or “property”) and is more particularly, legally described as:
26
27 Lot 111, 222, 333 of Tract No. 5555, in the City of Los Angeles,
County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map recorded in
28
Book00 pages 00 to 00 inclusive of Maps, in the Office of the County

1
Recorder of said County.
2 2. Defendant BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOAN SERVICING, INC.

3
(“BOA”) formerly known as Countrywide Home Loans Servicing (“CHL”), is a
4
member of a National Banking Association, and are lenders and servicers, which
5
6 regularly engage in business in the State of California, and who regularly provide
7
mortgage loans and related services to residents in the State of California. BOA
8
named Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems “MERS” as nominee and who is
9
10 either assigned or nominated as beneficiary of the certain Deeds of Trust recorded at

11
the County Recorder. CHL was a New York corporation duly licensed to do business
12
in the State of California, with its principal place of business in the state of California
13
14 located at 4500 Park Granada, Calabasas, California 91302, and was the issuer of two
15 separate mortgages taken out by defendant Magness on or about April 4, 2007, and
16
secured by certain Deeds of Trust recorded as Document Nos. 06-0763938 and 06-
17
18 0763939 in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, State of
19 California. Plaintiff is informed and believes, therefore alleges that by virtue of said
20
mortgages, BOA claims some right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property,
21
22
adverse to Plaintiff‟s title.
23 3. Defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

24
SYSTEMS, INC. (“MERS”) is a corporation duly organized and existing under the
25
laws of the State of Delaware, with an address and telephone number of: Post Office
26
27 Box 2026, Flint, Michigan, 48501-2026. MERS is an electronic registration system,

28
that was created by the real estate industry to electronically register properties in order

1
for the properties to be sold into securitization; and keep the costs down by cheating
2 the States and Counties out of the taxes associated with Registering the properties after
3
each such sale. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant MERS is the
4
nominee of Defendant BOA and the beneficiary of those certain Deeds of Trust
5
6 recorded as Document Nos. 06-0763938 and 06-076939 in the Office of the County
7
Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is sued herein on that
8
basis and only in said Defendant‟s capacity as the named Beneficiary for such Deeds
9
10 of Trust and for any part they had in the unlawful Sale Under Power performed by the
11
rest of the defendants.
12
4. Defendant RECONTRUST (“ReCon”) is “Headquartered in Thousand
13
14 Oaks, CA, ReconTrust is a member of the Bank of America family of companies.” 1

15 “Our offerings include: •Foreclosure services in non-judicial states: We currently offer
16
foreclosure trustee services in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Idaho,
17
18 Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
19 and Washington with plans for expansion into additional non-judicial jurisdictions.”2
20
5. Defendant MR. MICHAEL S. MAGNESS3 (“Mr. Magness”, or
21
22
“Magness”) is an individual residing in the State of California, County of Los
1
23 http://www.recontrustco.com/about_us.aspx
2
24 http://www.recontrustco.com/default_services.aspx ReCon states several places
throughout their website “non-judicial foreclosures”, which causes suspicion.
25
3
Plaintiff and Magness had been friends since late childhood, and over the course of
26 their friendship, Plaintiff was aware that Magness was employed as a mortgage broker
27 in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. Magness had informed Plaintiff that
there were problems with Plaintiff‟s credit that would complicate his efforts to obtain
28 financing.

1
Angeles. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on the basis of such information and
2 belief, holds that Defendant Magness claims an interest in the Property, due to having
3
illegally put the loan and deed of the property into his name rather than the name of
4
Plaintiff. Mr. Magness, at all times relevant, has been/was licensed as a salesperson
5
6 employed by 1stLAM with the Department of Real Estate, and also was working part-
7
time as a mortgage broker/salesman with Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (“CHL”),
8
who became Bank of America.
9
10 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Jane/John Does 1 thru 100

11
(“Does”) are liable for some acts, omissions and wrongs committed against Plaintiff,
12
but Plaintiff at present, is uncertain as to the correct names and capacities of said
13
14 unnamed defendants.
15 7. Plaintiff hereby sues such DOES, and reserves the right under Cal. Civ.
16
Code 474, et al., to amend the names and capacities of such DOES when ascertained.
17
18 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
19 8. Mr. Magness committed fraud by knowingly, willingly, wantonly,

20
maliciously, and in bad faith, took out loans for the property that Plaintiff was
21
22
purchasing in his own name.
23 9. Mr. Magness‟ fraudulent, and deceitful acts in bad faith, resulted in great
24
monetary enrichment for Mr. Magness.
25
10. Mr. Magness continued to prevent Plaintiff‟s loan and property from
26
27 being placed into Plaintiff‟s name, with the actual knowledge of Magness‟ employers
28
CHL and 1stLAM.

1
11. Defendant 1stLAM knowingly, willingly, wantonly, maliciously, and
2 intentionally, submitted the loan package, from which key documents, such as the
3
sales contract, were missing.
4
12. Defendant 1stLAM‟s Mr. John Pianalto knowingly, willingly, wantonly,
5
6 maliciously, and with the intent to defraud Plaintiff, had actual knowledge that
7
Plaintiff was the true purchaser of the property, and was aware of Mr. Magness‟s
8
illegal acts; as stated in Sworn testimony, Mr. Pianalto “knew” what was going on, he
9
10 “didn‟t care”, and he only wanted “to get paid”.

11
13. All defendants are business entities unless otherwise stated, they do
12
business and have residency and business contacts within the County of Los Angeles,
13
14 California
15 14. The Defendants,4 and each of them, were the agents, employees,
16
representatives, partners, officers, principals and/or joint venturers of each of the
17
18 remaining defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were acting within
19 the scope, course and purpose of such agency, employment or position, or within the
20
apparent scope, course and purpose of such agency, employment or position and with
21
22
permission and consent of each of the remaining defendants
23 15. Defendants had actual knowledge that Plaintiff had previously sought,
24
and was being approved for a loan elsewhere and defendants led Plaintiff to believe
25
that he would get a much better deal with them.
26
4
27 Whenever appearing in this complaint, each and every reference to Defendants or to
any of them, is intended to be and shall be a reference to all Defendants hereto, and to
28 each of them, unless said reference is specifically qualified.

1
16. Plaintiff is informed, believes, and has a transcript of Mr. Magness
2 stating that he had taken money in the amount of $150,000.00 from Plaintiff that he
3
was to secure a loan for the Plaintiff‟s property, in Plaintiff‟s name.
4
17. Plaintiff is informed and believes that after the loan was originated and
5
6 funded, it was transferred to defendant Mr. Magness.

7
18. Mr. Magness, in fact obtained the loan in his own name, and later took a
8
second loan against the property without Plaintiff‟s knowledge or permission.
9
10 19. Mr. John Pianalto, employed with 1stLAM, in sworn, Oral testimony,
11
stated that they had actual knowledge of Mr.Magness‟ acts, and did nothing to rectify
12
the problem, thereby becoming as guilty as Mr. Magness for the act.
13
14 20. After Plaintiff learned that the loan and deed were not in his name,
15 Plaintiff was able to have the TITLE ordered5 into his name, and although Plaintiff
16
diligently attempted to have the loan transferred into his own name, Plaintiff could not
17
18 have the loan associated with the property transferred.
19 21. Mr. Magness, while under Oath, during Oral testimony, admitted that he
20
had taken out a second loan against the Plaintiff‟s property, and that Mr. Magness had
21
22
spent the money on “various expenses” not associated with the Plaintiff‟s property.
23 22. Plaintiff, while attempting to have the loan put into the proper name, was
24
told by CHL and later BOA, that they would no longer accept payment from him, due
25
to his name not being on the loan documents.
26
27 5
Superior Court of Los Angeles for the County of Los Angeles, Civil Action #:
28 BC3333333

1
23. Mr. Magness failed to make payments, and Plaintiff was forbidden to
2 make payments, causing the loan to go into default.

3
24. BOA, and ReCon unlawfully foreclosed on Plaintiff‟s property, with
4
actual knowledge that Plaintiff had been a victim of fraudulent acts of defendants Mr.
5
6 Magness and 1stLAM.

7
25. Plaintiff, further, is informed and believes, that the documents show
8
without doubt that defendants who performed the unlawful foreclosure of his property,
9
10 lacked standing to perform such foreclosure.

11
26. Plaintiff alleges that the foreclosure sale of the property was not
12
executed in accordance with the requirements of California Civil Code §§ 1624, 2924
13
14 et seq.
15 27. BOA and/or ReCon, who were allegedly acting as the agent of the
16
principal, failed to have written authorization to act for the principal and under Cal.
17
18 Civ. Code §1624 the agency relationship must also be in written form.
19 28. The notices and foreclosure failed to conform with the provisions of Cal.
20
Civ. Code §§1624, 2932.5 et seq., and Commercial Code § 3302 et seq.
21
22
29. Plaintiff further alleges that Cal. Civ. Code § 2924 and its subparts are
23 being/have been applied to Plaintiff in a manner that is unlawful, because at least in

24
part BOA and ReCon had proceeded with the foreclosure of Plaintiff‟s property
25
notwithstanding the following facts and circumstances:
26
27 a. Plaintiff tendered an amount of One Hundred Fifty-Two ,Four

28
Hundred Thirty-Three Dollars ($152,433.00), as more particularly alleged in

1
herein;
2 b. Plaintiff is informed and believes that neither BOA, nor ReCon

3
were in possession of the original Note, that the Note when it was assigned to
4
MERS did not convey the power of sale because it violated the terms of Cal.
5
6 Civ. Code §2932.5, and/or that the Note executed was no longer a negotiable
7
instrument because the assignment was not physically applied to the Note, and
8
as such the foreclosure of Plaintiff‟s subject property did not conform with the
9
10 strict mandates of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.

11
30. Plaintiff is informed and believes that BOA and ReCon were acting as
12
the agent of the agent of the agent of the Beneficiary for Plaintiff‟s Note and the
13
14 notices therein.
15 31. By virtue of the method and manner of defendants‟ carrying out of Cal.
16
Civ. Code §2924, Defendants proceeded with the foreclosure of the property were
17
18 acting in violation of said statute.
19 32. April, 2007, Plaintiff filed a civil action to quiet title, which Quiet Title
20
was Granted in Plaintiff‟s favor.
21
22
33. April, 2010 Plaintiff had to file Bankruptcy due to the actions/inactions
23 of the defendants.
24
34. On or about July 2008, and October 2009, Plaintiff served by letter on
25
Defendants BOA, Notice of Dispute & Request for Accounting, Notice Pursuant to
26
27 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) a Qualified Written Request.

28
35. In violation of RESPA, 12 U.S.C. §2607, said defendants have failed to

1
respond to said notice by plaintiffs and have substantially failed to respond to all other
2 communications and inquiries by plaintiffs. Attached and incorporated by this

3
reference as “Exhibit A”.
4
36. Plaintiff further contends:
5
(a) that Plaintiff tendered the full amount owing as of the date of tender
6
as more particularly alleged herein;
7
(b) that failing to comply with RESPA as more particularly alleged
8
herein, defendants were not entitled to proceed with the foreclosure until
9
such compliance occurred; and
10
(c) on information and belief, that defendants were not otherwise
11
entitled to continue with said foreclosure because of the lack of proper
12
statutory execution of the deed of trust as more fully alleged herein;
13
(d) Although Plaintiff, at the time, did not know the Defendants had
14
actual knowledge that the loan was never in Plaintiff‟s name, took
15
payments from Plaintiff, until he managed to get the Deed transferred
16
into his name, then defendants refused payment from him, claiming that
17
the loan is not in Plaintiff‟s name.
18
19
37. Plaintiff, having been tricked and deceived, through fraud, to think that
20
21
he had applied for, and was approved for a loan in his own name, and having paid a
22 down payment of One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($110,000.00), believed that
23
said loan had been approved, and that the loan and Deed were in Plaintiff‟s name the
24
entire time.
25
26
27
28

1
I.
2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

3 FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AGAINST
4
(As Against All Defendants)
5 38. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through Thirty-Seven (37) of

6
this Amended Complaint, all paragraphs of general allegations, and any unnumbered
7
8
paragraphs, as though they have been fully restated and set forth herein.
9 39. An actual controversy exists in which the parties must ascertain their
10
rights, duties and right to title in the Subject Property.
11
40. A judicial determination is necessary that the parties may ascertain their
12
13 rights, duties and right to title in the Subject Property.

14
41. The Plaintiff desires the court make a judicial determination as to the
15
party‟s rights, and duties concerning Plaintiff‟s Real Property.
16
17 42. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and
18
Defendants, and each of them, concerning their respective rights, obligations and
19
duties as it relates to the Subject Property. In particular, on one hand, Plaintiff
20
21 contends:
22 (a) that Plaintiff tendered the full amount owing as of the date of tender
23 as more particularly alleged herein;
24 (b) that failing to comply with R.E.S.P.A. as more particularly alleged
25 herein, defendants were not entitled to proceed with the foreclosure until
26 such compliance occurred; and
27 (c) on information and belief, that defendants were not otherwise
28 entitled to continue with said foreclosure because of the lack of proper

1
statutory execution of the deed of trust as more fully alleged herein;
(d) Although Plaintiff, at the time, did not know the Defendants had
2
actual knowledge that the loan was never in Plaintiff‟s name, took
3
payments from Plaintiff, until he managed to get the Deed transferred
4
into his name, then defendants refused payment from him, claiming that
5
the loan is not in Plaintiff‟s name.
6
7
43. Plaintiff, having been tricked and deceived, through fraud, to think that
8
9 he had applied for, and was approved for a loan in his own name, and having paid a
10
down payment of One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($110,000.00), and an
11
additional Forty-One Thousand, Seven Hundred Dollars in payments; believed that
12
13 said loan had been approved, and that the loan and Deed were in Plaintiff‟s name the
14 entire time.
15
WHEREFORE Plaintiff Moves for the following Relief:
16
17 (a)Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of Plaintiff‟s Rights, and of
18 Defendants obligations and duties, and a declaration as to who is responsible

19
for payment of the loan;
20
21
(b). For an Order, requiring Defendant to have a loan reflecting only the
22 Plaintiff to coincide with the Deed in Plaintiff‟s name, and a restraining

23
order/injunction preventing Defendants and/or their/its agents, employees,
24
officers, attorneys, and representatives in the future from engaging in or
25
26 performing any of the following acts: (i) offering, or advertising this property
27
for sale and (ii) attempting to transfer title to this property and or (iii) holding
28

1
any auction thereof;
2 (c) For costs of suit incurred herein;

3
(d) For reasonable attorney‟s fees provided by contract or statute; and
4
(e) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
5
6 II.
7
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
8 FRAUD AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD
9 (As against Defendants)
10
44. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through Forty-Three (43) of
11
12
13 paragraphs, as though they have been fully restated and set forth herein.
14
45. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants, each of the separately and together
15
discussed Plaintiff‟s finances and his intent on purchasing the property where he now
16
17 resides; defendants conspired, reached an agreement to defraud Plaintiff out of his

18
property, and they put their scheme into play.
19
46. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, were also engaged in
20
21 an illegal scheme the purpose of which was to execute loans secured by real property
22 in order to make commissions, kick-backs, illegal undisclosed yield spread premiums,
23
and undisclosed profits by the sale of any instruments arising out of the transaction.
24
25 47. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, each of them, had represented to
26 plaintiff, and to third parties, that they were the owner of the Trust Deed and Note as
27
either the Trustee, or the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiff‟s real property.
28

1
48. Based upon the foregoing representations, of the Defendants, Plaintiff
2 did in fact repose his trust in the representations of Defendants, and that such trust was
3
reasonable.
4
49. Defendants, presented a loan to Plaintiff whereby they represented that
5
6 he did qualify for underwriting, and that the loan was within Plaintiff‟s personal
7
financial needs and limitations given the amount of down-payment, and the
8
confidential financial information that Plaintiff shared with Defendants.
9
10 50. Plaintiff believed that his down-payment had been applied to the loan,
11
that his name was on the loan, and the Deed in his name.
12
51. Defendants had a duty to disclose their true acts, and true intentions
13
14 concerning the loan, the amount of down payment paid, and the true name the loan and
15 deed were in.
16
52. Plaintiff acquired the foregoing property by virtue of the said funding
17
18 based on the representations of Defendants, that the loan was the best they could
19 obtain, and that the loan was well within Plaintiff‟s financial needs and limitations.
20
53. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants, represented to
21
22
Plaintiff that they were working for the benefit of Plaintiff and in his particular best
23 interest, to obtain for him the best loan, and at the best rates available.
24
54. At the time Defendants, with actual knowledge that the foregoing false
25
representations to Plaintiff, were untrue and the representations were material
26
27 representations, that Plaintiff would rely and depend upon.

28
55. The foregoing representations were made in order to induce Plaintiff to

1
act on and take the said loan(s) in order for defendants to make a substantial amount of
2 money thereby and there from.

3
56. Plaintiff was induced to believe, and did in fact believe that he had taken
4
out the loan, as his own, based on the said representations
5
6 57. Plaintiff was induced to rely and did rely on the mis-representations of
7
defendants through deception, and his reliance was justified as he believed that
8
Defendants were working for him, and in his best interest.
9
10 58. Defendants had made Plaintiff numerous verbal promises, one of which
11
was that the loan and deed would be, and in fact, were secured in Plaintiff‟s name,
12
while defendants had actual knowledge that they were misleading Plaintiff and that
13
14 Plaintiff was relying on that false representation..

15 59. After Plaintiff‟s payments were rejected, and based upon the defendants‟
16
prior misrepresentations, the defendants caused a Notice of Default to be issued and
17
18 recorded without disclosing their true role, and thereafter a notice of intent to foreclose
19 and finally foreclosure was completed, permanently affecting Plaintiffs right, title and
20
interest in the Subject Property.
21
22
60. Now, by virtue of Plaintiff‟s reliance and the lack of payments accepted
23 toward the property, Plaintiff has been damaged in the loss of his credit, loss through
24
foreclosures, and loss from being involved in litigation that Plaintiff had not bargained
25
for, causing him further harm, damage and injury.
26
27 61. Plaintiff relied on defendants‟ false representations, and because of this

28
reliance, had made various moves to avoid the foreclosure, all to no avail, while

1
defendants knew all the time that they were deceiving Plaintiff.
2 62. Plaintiff‟s reliance was justified based upon cremin falsi, and
3
representations of Defendants, Plaintiff had no reason to believe that a party
4
representing a bank would go to such lengths to deceive and to assist others in
5
6 converting Plaintiff‟s property.

7
63. Defendants knowingly, willingly, wantonly, and maliciously with the
8
intent to defraud, made the misrepresentations to Plaintiff, and defendants knew at
9
10 the time that they were attempting to foreclose on Plaintiff‟s Trust Deed and note that
11
they had no right to do so, but continued anyway.
12
64. Defendants, by and through said conspiracy, and fraudulent scheme,
13
14 knowingly, willingly, wantonly, intentionally, fraudulently, and with malicious intent,

15 aimed to keep Plaintiff‟s right, title and interest to the property, and all equity therein.
16
65. Plaintiff‟s trust and reliance on Defendants‟ mis-representations has
17
18 caused Plaintiff harm, and injury; he has been damaged in an amount that currently
19 exceeds $300,000 and will suffer substantially from additional costs of moving from
20
the property, and the costs to relocate back to the subject Property.
21
22
66. Additionally, Plaintiff has been made to suffer deep and severe
23 emotional distress, mortification, anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation, due to the

24
defendants‟ acts, in an amount the totality of which has not yet been fully ascertained.
25
67. In fact, Plaintiff alleges that the promissory note which Plaintiff thought
26
27 was executed by, and for himself, and which initially formed a basis of a security
28
interest in the subject property, was in fact put into the name of Mr. Magness.

1
68. Mr. Magness was allowed to borrow even more money against the
2 Plaintiff‟s property, when Mr. Magness decided that he wanted a Forty Thousand
3
Dollar ($40,000.00) swimming pool at Mr. Magness‟ own home.
4
69. Further, through Defendants‟ acts of conspiracy and fraud, therefrom
5
6 resulted in a promissory note which had been rendered as non-negotiable and no

7
power of sale was conveyed with the note at the time of the assignment, therefore,
8
Defendants, each of them, had no lawful security interest in the subject property.
9
10 70. Defendants Mr. Magness, and 1stLAM (partners/brokers) as a „partner

11
broker‟ of CHL, had a superior bargaining strength over Plaintiff, and Plaintiff was
12
relegated only the opportunity to adhere to what he was led to believe about the
13
14 contract or reject it; CHL/1stLAM drafted all of the documents related to the loan, and
15 no negotiations were possible between Plaintiff and 1stLAM/CHL and that the
16
contract was a contract of adhesion.
17
18 71. The issues Plaintiff later learned about the loan, were unconscionable in
19 that the loan was never in Plaintiff‟s name, the payments were rejected, making
20
repayment impossible; Plaintiff learned the truth that neither the loan, nor the title was
21
22
in his name.
23 72. Defendants, and each of them, could not enforce the terms and
24
conditions of the loan against Plaintiff, and any non-judicial foreclosure arising there
25
from is void.
26
27 73. Through no fault of the Plaintiff, the loan associated with Plaintiff‟s
28
property went into default; Plaintiff had faithfully, in good faith, paid and had intended

1
to continue paying the loan; the default was occasioned by the rejection of proper
2 tender.
3
74. Plaintiff actually was not in default because of the prior fraudulent acts
4
of defendants, and their breach of the terms of the notes, any claimed default, had to be
5
6 excused.
7
75. BOA and ReCon, acting as the agent of the Principal failed to have
8
written authorization to act for the principal and under California Civil Code §1624 the
9
10 agency relationship must also be in written form.

11
76. Notices, and foreclosure failed to conform with the provisions of
12
California Civil Code §§ 1624, 2923.5, 2932.5 et seq., and Commercial Code Section
13
14 3302
15 77. The loan contract, deed of trust, and accompanying documents were
16
offered to Plaintiff on a take it or leave it basis, and Plaintiff had already provided One
17
18 Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) toward the loan.
19 78. BOA and Recon acted as agents of the Beneficiary and signed
20
documents as the agent, of the agent, of the agent of the Beneficiary for Plaintiff‟s
21
22
Note and the notices therein, notwithstanding the fact that the Note was not negotiable
23 prior to the sale of the Subject Property.

24
79. By virtue of the method and manner of Defendants‟ carrying out Cal.
25
Civil Code § 2924 et seq., the foreclosure of the Subject Property is void ab initio as a
26
27 matter of law.
28
80. Defendants, and each of them, are and have, engaged in, and will

1
continue to engage in, violations of California law, including but, not limited to: Cal.
2 Civil Code §§ 2924 et seq., 2932.5 et seq., and unless restrained, will continue to
3
engage in such misconduct; a public benefit necessitates that Defendants be restrained
4
from such conduct currently being practiced, and that conduct which will be conducted
5
6 in the future.
7
8
(a) For compensatory damages according to proof at time of trial;
9
10 (b) For special damages according to proof at time of trial;

11
(c) For costs of suit incurred herein;
12
(d) For punitive damages subject to proof at time of trial;
13
14 (e) For costs of suit incurred herein;

15 (f) For reasonable attorney‟s fees provided by contract or statute; and
16
(g) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
17
18 III.
19 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

20 Tortious Violation of Statute
21
Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act
12 USC section 2607 (b)
22 (As Against Defendants All Defendants)
23
24 81. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through Eighty (80) of this
25
Amended Complaint, all paragraphs of general allegations, and any unnumbered
26
paragraphs, as though they have been fully restated and set forth herein.
27
28 82. Plaintiff alleges that The Congress by implementing Title 12 U.S.C.

1
§2601 stated the following Congressional findings and purpose:
2 (a) The Congress finds that significant reforms in the real estate
3
settlement process are needed to insure that consumers throughout the
Nation are provided with greater and more timely information on the
4
nature and costs of the settlement process and are protected from
5 unnecessarily high settlement charges caused by certain abusive
6 practices that have developed in some areas of the country. The
Congress also finds that it has been over two years since the Secretary of
7
Housing and Urban Development and the Administrator of Veterans'
8 Affairs submitted their joint report to the Congress on ``Mortgage
9 Settlement Costs'' and that the time has come for the recommendations
for Federal legislative action made in that report to be implemented.
10
(b) It is the purpose of this chapter to effect certain changes in the
11
settlement process for residential real estate that will result--
12
(1) in more effective advance disclosure to home buyers and sellers
13 of settlement costs;
14 (2) in the elimination of kickbacks or referral fees that tend to
15 increase unnecessarily the costs of certain settlement services;
16 (3) in a reduction in the amounts home buyers are required to place in
escrow accounts established to insure the payment of real estate taxes
17
and insurance; and
18
(4) in significant reform and modernization of local recordkeeping of
19
land title information.
20
83. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, as set forth herein
21
22 violated both the terms and spirit of sections 12 U.S.C. §2601, etc. et seq.
23
84. Plaintiff alleges that he was in the group of persons for whom 12 U.S.C.
24
§2601, etc. et seq. was intended to protect and that Plaintiff suffered damages which
25
26 were actually and proximately caused by Defendants‟ violations thereof.

27
85. Plaintiff alleges that section 12 U.S.C. §2607(d)(5) provides for a private
28

1
right of action to recover damages and treble damages for violations therein. Said
2 section provides both civil and criminal penalties for violations thereof.
3
86. That the failure to respond to plaintiff‟s RESPA requests constitutes a
4
violation of 12 USC §2607(b) and that therefore as provided by statute, he is entitled
5
6 to and seek treble damages therefore in a sum subject to proof at time of trial.
7
87. Plaintiff alleges that his‟ claims regarding fees and penalties are not time
8
barred as the purpose of these fees were not explained to Plaintiff.
9
10 88. Plaintiff has suffered damages actually and proximately caused by

11
Defendants‟ violation of the within statute in an amount the totality of which has not
12
yet been fully ascertained but, in no event less than the jurisdictional requirements of
13
14 this court.
15 WHEREFORE Plaintiff Moves for the following Relief:
16
(a) For damages as provided by statute;
17
18 (b) For costs of suit incurred herein;
19 (c) For reasonable attorney‟s fees as provided by contract or statute; and

20
(d) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper
21
22
IV.
23 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24 Conversion
25
89. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through Eighty-eight (88) of
26
27
28 paragraphs, as though they have been fully restated and set forth herein.

1
90. Conversion is an intentional tort that evolved to protect against
2 interference with possessory and ownership interests in personal property.

3
91. Plaintiff has shown that his claims meet the criteria, the three elements
4
required to establish a cause of action for conversion: (1) plaintiff's ownership or right
5
6 to possession of the property at the time of the alleged conversion; (2) defendant's
7
conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of plaintiff's property rights; and (3)
8
damages.
9
10 92. Defendants BOA, ReCon, Mr. Magness, and possibly the Does
11
committed acts that resulted in foreclosure and were of such nature to cause an actual
12
interference with Plaintiff‟s ownership or right to possess the subject property.
13
14 93. The fraudulent acts associated with the loan and deed, show an intention
15 or purpose to convert the property, so that the defendants could exercise ownership
16
over it, and/or to remove the property from Plaintiff‟s ownership.
17
18 94. Defendants knowingly, willingly, wantonly, and with malicious intent,
19 kept the loan from Plaintiff‟s name, refused payments from Plaintiff, and thereby
20
intended to convert the property by taking possession of it.
21
22
95. Further, because the property is of “peculiar interest” to the Plaintiff, and
23 the acts of defendants were willful, both Civ. Code 3355, as well as Civ. Code §3365
24
apply.
25
96. Because the conversion involved malice, fraud, and/or oppression,
26
27 exemplary or punitive damages can be properly awarded; the detriment caused by the
28
wrongful conversion of property is further, presumed to include fair compensation for

1
time and money properly expended in pursuit of the converted property.

3
(a) For an award of exemplary/punitive damages in the amount of Two
4
Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00), which will include all of the damages to
5
6 the Plaintiff and the property for the conversion count, only.
7
(b) Grant attorney‟s fees, which, although Plaintiff currently does not have
8
legal representation, he continues to seek competent legal representation.
9
10 (c) All court costs, and costs associated with pursuing a remedy of the illegal
11
acts of the defendants.
12
(d) Any other relief that Plaintiff fails to realize, and/or that this Court deems
13
14 fair and just under the circumstances.

15 V.
16
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17
Reformation (Note) as Against BOA, ReCon, 1stLAM, and Does
18
19
97. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through Ninety-
20 Six (96) of this Amended Complaint, all paragraphs of general allegations, and any
21
unnumbered paragraphs, as though they have been fully restated and set forth herein.
22
23
98. Plaintiff alleges that BOA, 1stLAM, and Mr. Magness committed a fraud
24 against Plaintiff in that BOA, 1stLAM, employees and/or agents intentionally

25
misrepresented to Plaintiffs that BOA, 1stLAM would only make a loan that Plaintiff
26
could afford to pay, said Defendants did not disclose the terms and conditions for
27
28 repayment, interest, annual percentage rate, or that the loan and deed would not be in

1
Plaintiff‟s name.
2 99. Plaintiff alleges that pursuant to Civil Code §3399, that the loan
3
documents which were executed did not truly express the intention of Plaintiff, more
4
particularly that the loan would have a repayment schedule that Plaintiff could afford,
5
6 as well as that the loan and deed would not be in Plaintiff‟s name.
7
100. Plaintiff alleges that utilization of any reasonable underwriting
8
guidelines, Plaintiffs had no hope whatsoever of repaying the loan, especially after Mr.
9
10 Magness added another Forty Thousand ($40,000.00) to the balance of the loan.
11
101. Employees and/or agents of BOA and/or 1stLAM represented that said
12
employees and/or agents could work-around the fact that Plaintiff‟s credit was not in
13
14 good standing and could get Plaintiff approved for the loan. Defendants did not
15 disclose at any time to Plaintiff that the loan and deed would never be in Plaintiff‟s
16
name.
17
18 102. Plaintiff alleges that the loan contract, deed of trust and accompanying
19 documents were offered to Plaintiff on a take it or leave it basis, and Plaintiff had
20
already at that time, provided One Hundred Ten Thousand Dollars ($110,000.00),
21
22
which had been applied as down payment for the loan.
23 103. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants BOA and 1stLAM had a superior
24
bargaining strength over Plaintiff, and that Plaintiff was relegated only the
25
opportunity to adhere to the contract or reject it, that defendants BOA, and/or 1stLAM,
26
27 and/or Mr. Magness had drafted all of the documents related to the loan, that no
28
negotiations were possible between Plaintiff and lender, and that the contract was a

1
contract of adhesion.
2 104. Plaintiff alleges that the loan was unconscionable in that the repayment
3
terms were unfair and unduly oppressive, the loan was not, and it was never intended
4
to be in Plaintiff‟s name, and Defendants, each of them, could not legally enforce the
5
6 terms and conditions of the loan against Plaintiff, and any non-judicial foreclosure
7
arising there from is void.
8
105. Plaintiff is informed and believe that all Defendants, entered into a
9
10 fraudulent scheme, the purpose of which was to make a loan to Plaintiff, which each of
11
the defendants were keenly aware were never to be placed into Plaintiff‟s name;
12
thereby Plaintiff‟s payments would be denied.
13
14 106. Further, BOA, 1stLAM, and Mr. Magness falsely represented to Plaintiff
15 that he would not qualify for any other financing, that Plaintiffs could not qualify
16
under any reasonably underwriting guidelines, that such scheme was devised to extract
17
18 illegal and undisclosed compensation from Plaintiff by virtue of an undisclosed yield
19 spread premium and which Defendants, shared in some presently unknown percentage.
20
107. The court has by and through its inherent power and discretion, and
21
22
further under the purview of Civil Code §3399, the power to reform the terms of the
23 loan to meet the Plaintiff‟s expectations of the loan, its terms, the principal amount of
24
the loan, interest, and that the court place fair market value of the property of
25
approximately $150,000.00, for purposes of reforming the terms and conditions of the
26
27 loan.
28
108. Since Defendants proceeded with the invalid Foreclosure sale the sale be

1
set aside, and that equity should confer upon said defendants a right of equitable
2 indemnification as against defendants, for their fraud.

3
4
(a) For general damages subject to proof at time of trial;
5

7
(c) For reasonable attorney‟s fees subject to proof at time of trial; and
8
(d) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
9
10 VI.
11
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
VIOLATION of BUSINESS and PROFESSIONS CODE §17200
13
As Against BOA, and 1STLAM, Mr. Magness, and Does Inclusive
14
15 109. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through One
16
hundred eight (108) of this Amended Complaint, all paragraphs of general allegations,
17
18 and any unnumbered paragraphs, as though they have been fully restated and set forth
19 herein
20
A. Plaintiff Suffered Damages As A Result of Defendants’ Conduct:
21
22
110. As a direct result of Defendants‟ acts, Plaintiff has incurred actual
23 damages consisting of mental and emotional distress, nervousness, grief,

24
embarrassment, loss of sleep, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation,
25
indignity, pain and suffering, and other injuries.
26
27 111. Plaintiff has incurred out of pocket monetary damages.

28
112. Plaintiff continue to incur monetary damages.

1
113. Plaintiffs will incur the loss of his personal residence if the defendants
2 are allowed to prevail.

3
114. Each of Defendants harassing acts were so willful, vexatious,
4
outrageous, oppressive, and maliciously calculated enough, so as to warrant statutory
5
6 penalties and punitive damages.

7
8
(a) For an Order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate the
9
10 statutes alleged herein;

11
(b) For costs of suit incurred herein;
12
(c) For reasonable attorneys fees subject to proof and as available by
13
14 contract or statute; and

15 (d) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
16
VII.
17
18 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Violation Of California Civil Code 2923.6
20 115. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through One
21
hundred fourteen (114) of this Amended Complaint, all paragraphs of general
22
23
allegations, and any unnumbered paragraphs, as though they have been fully restated
24 and set forth herein

25
116. Defendants‟ Pooling and Servicing Agreement ( “PSA”) contains a duty
26
to maximize net present value to its investors and related parties.
27
28 117. California Civil Code §2923.6 broadens and extends this PSA duty by

1
requiring servicers to accept loan modifications with borrowers.
2 118. Pursuant to California Civil Code §2923.6(a), a servicer acts in the best
3
interest of all parties if it agrees to or implements a loan modification where the (1)
4
loan is in payment default, and (2) anticipated recovery under the loan modification or
5
6 workout plan exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present
7
value basis.
8
119. California Civil Code §2923.6(b) now provides that the mortgagee,
9
10 beneficiary, or authorized agent offer the borrower a loan modification or workout

11
plan if such a modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other authority.
12
120. Defendants refused to consider such modification with Plaintiff.
13

15 (a) For an Order requiring Defendants to modify the existing loan as set forth
16
herein;
17
18 (b) For costs of suite incurred herein;
19 (c) For reasonable attorneys fees subject to proof and as available by contract
20
or statute; and
21
22
23 VIII.
24
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
25
Violation Of § 1788.17 Of The RFDCPA
26
121. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates Paragraphs One (1) through One
27
28 hundred twenty (120) of this Amended Complaint, all paragraphs of general

1
2 and set forth herein

3
122. California Civil Code §1788.17 requires that Defendants comply with
4
the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 1692, through their acts including but not limited to, the
5
6 following:
7
(a) The Defendants violated California Civil Code §1788.17 by
8 engaging in conduct, the natural consequence of which is to harass,
9
oppress, and abuse persons in connection with the collection of the
alleged debt, a violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692(d);
10
(b) The Defendants violated California Civil Code §1788.17 by
11
misrepresenting the status of the debt, a violations of 15 U.S.C. §
12 1692(e)(s)(A);
13 (c) The Defendants violated California Civil Code §1788.17 by using
14 unfair or unconscionable means to collect or attempt to collect a debt, a
violation 15 U.S.C. § 1692(f); and
15
(d) The Defendants violated California Civil Code §1788.17 by using
16
deceptive means to collect or attempt to collect a debt from the Plaintiff,
17 a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(10).
18
123. The foregoing violations of 15 U.S.C. §1692 by Defendants result in
19
20 separate violations of California Civil Code §1788.17

21 124. The forgoing acts by Defendants were willful and knowing violations of
22
Title 1.6C of the California Civil Code (FRDCPA), are sole and separate violations
23
24 under California Civil Code §1788.30(b), and trigger multiple $1,000.00 penalties.
25 125. California Civil Code §1788.17 provides that Defendants are subject to
26
the remedies of 15 U.S.C. §1692(k), for failing to comply with the provisions of 15
27
28
U.S.C. §1692(b)(6) and §1692(c)c.

1
126. The foregoing acts by Defendants were intentional persistent, frequent,
2 and devious violations of 15 U.S.C. §1692, which trigger additional damages of

3
$1,000.00 under 15 U.S.C. §1692(k)(a)(2)(A).
4
5
6 (a) For an Order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate the statutes
7
alleged herein;
8
(b) For costs of suite incurred herein;
9
10 (c) For reasonable attorneys fees subject to proof and as available by contract
11
or statute; and
12
13
14 IX.
15 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
16 Violation Of Civil Code §1572
17
18
19
hundred twenty-six (126) of this Amended Complaint, all paragraphs of general
20 allegations, and any unnumbered paragraphs, as though they have been fully restated
21
and set forth herein
22
23
128. The misrepresentations by Defendants‟ and/or Defendants‟ predecessors,
24 failures to disclose, and failure to investigate as described above were made with the
25
intent to induce Plaintiff to obligate himself on the Loan in reliance on the integrity of
26
Defendants and/or Defendants‟ predecessors.
27
28 129. Plaintiff is an unsophisticated customer, whose reliance upon Defendants

1
and/or Defendants‟ predecessors was reasonable and consistent with the Congressional
2 intent and purpose of California Civil Code §1572 enacted in 1872 and designed to
3
assist and protect consumers similarly situated as Plaintiff in this action.
4
130. As an unsophisticated customer, Plaintiff could not have discovered the
5
6 true nature of the material facts on his own.

7
131. The accuracy by Defendants and/or Defendants‟ predecessors of
8
representation is important in enabling a consumer, such as the Plaintiff to compare
9
10 market lenders in order to make informed decisions regarding lending transactions

11
such as a loan.
12
132. Plaintiff was ignorant of the facts which Defendants and/or Defendants‟
13
14 predecessors misrepresented and failed to disclose.

15 133. Plaintiff‟s reliance on Defendants and/or Defendants‟ predecessors was a
16
substantial factor in causing him harm.
17
18 134. Had the truth about the Loan been accurately represented and disclosed
19 by Defendants and/or Defendants‟ predecessors, Plaintiff would not have accepted the
20
Loan nor been harmed.
21
22
135. Had Defendants and/or Defendants‟ predecessors investigated Plaintiff‟s
23 financial capabilities, they would have been forced to deny Plaintiff on this particular
24
loan.
25
136. Defendants and/or Defendants‟ predecessors conspired and agreed to
26
27 commit the above mentioned fraud.

28
137. As a proximate result of Defendants and or Defendants‟ predecessors‟

1
fraud, Plaintiff has suffered damage in an amount to be determined at trial.
2 138. The conduct of Defendants and/or Defendants‟ predecessors as

3
mentioned above was fraudulent within the meaning of California Civil Code
4
§3294(c)(3), and by virtue thereof Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages
5
6 in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example of the Defendants.

7
8
(a) For punitive damages subject to proof at time of trial;
9

11
(c) For reasonable attorney‟s fees subject to proof and as available by
12
contract or statute; and
13
15 X.
16
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
17
Injunctive Relief Against Defendants
18
19
20 hundred tthirty-eight (138) of this Amended Complaint, all paragraphs of general

21
22
23
and set forth herein
24 140. Defendants did not have standing or enforceable right to enforce the note
25
and any incidental right to collateral so as to foreclose on Plaintiff‟s Home, including
26
without limitation, conducting a Sale Under Power relative to that property.
27
28 141. Such action resulted in a cause of action for “wrongful foreclosure,” and

1
caused irreparable harm to Plaintiff, and caused pecuniary compensation which will
2 not afford adequate relief because Plaintiff‟s Home is unique.

3
142. Injunctive relief is necessary to enjoin Defendants from continuing to
4
harm Plaintiff and his Home since they lacked standing and any enforceable rights
5
6 under the Promissory Note.

7
8
(a) For an Order, requiring Defendant to reinstate Plaintiffs on title to
9
10 their Property, and or a restraining order preventing Defendants and

11
his, hers, or its agents, employees, officers, attorneys, and
12
representatives from engaging in or performing any of the following
13
14 acts: (i) offering, or advertising this property for sale and (ii)
15 attempting to transfer title to this property and or (iii) holding any
16
auction therefore;
17
19 (c) For reasonable attorney‟s fees provided by contract or statute; and

20
(d) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and
21
22
proper.
23 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

24
Whereas the Plaintiff has shown that Defendants, from the very beginning,
25
showed bad faith, and knowingly, willingly, wantonly, maliciously, and with
26
27 fraudulent intent, conspired and defrauded Plaintiff in acts that encompassed several
28
years of Plaintiff‟s life, thereby causing harm and injury to both himself and his

1
property.
2 The defendants, showing such callous attitudes for the acts, have surely done
3
the same to others, and will continue to do the same to others, unless they are shown
4
that their behavior will not be tolerated. Many of their acts have been not only civil in
5
6 nature, but criminal as well, for which acts, the Plaintiff Moves the court to levy
7
criminal charges against the defendants.
8
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment as follows:
9
10 The Court will levy criminal charges for the crimes committed against the
11
Plaintiff, and surely countless other unsuspecting individuals.
12
FOR THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
13
14 (a) For an Order, requiring Defendant to have a loan reflecting only the Plaintiff
15 to coincide with the Deed in Plaintiff‟s name, and a restraining order/injunction
16
preventing Defendants and/or their/its agents, employees, officers, attorneys,
17
18 and representatives in the future from engaging in or performing any of the
19 following acts: (i) offering, or advertising this property for sale and (ii)
20
attempting to transfer title to this property and or (iii) holding any auction
21
22
thereof;

24
(c) For reasonable attorney‟s fees provided by contract or statute; and
25
26
27 FOR THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:

28
(a) For compensatory damages according to proof at time of trial;

1
(b) For special damages according to proof at time of trial;
2 (c) For costs of suit incurred herein;

3
(d) For punitive damages subject to proof at time of trial;
4
(e) For costs of suit incurred herein;
5
6 (f) For reasonable attorney‟s fees provided by contract or statute; and

7
(g) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
8
FOR THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:
9
10 (a) For damages as provided by statute;

11
12
(c) For reasonable attorney‟s fees as provided by contract or statute; and
13
14 (d) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper
15 FOR THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
16
(a) For an award of exemplary/punitive damages in the amount of Two
17
18 Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00), which will include all of the damages to
19 the Plaintiff and the property for the conversion count, only.
20
(b) Grant attorney‟s fees, which, although Plaintiff currently does not have
21
22
legal representation, he continues to seek competent legal representation.
23 (c) All court costs, and costs associated with pursuing a remedy of the illegal
24
acts of the defendants.
25
(d) (d) Any other relief that Plaintiff fails to realize, and/or that this
26
27 Court deems fair and just under the circumstances.

28
FOR THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

1
(a) For general damages subject to proof at time of trial;
2 (b) For special damages subject to proof at time of trial;

3
(c) For costs of suite incurred herein;
4
(d) For reasonable attorney‟s fees subject to proof at time of trial; and
5
6 (e) For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
7
FOR THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
8
(a) For an Order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate the
9
10 statutes alleged herein;

11
12
13

16
FOR THE SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
17
18 (a) For an Order requiring Defendants to modify the existing loan as set
19 forth herein;
20
21
22

24
25
FOR THE EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
26
27 (a) For an Order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate the

28
statutes alleged herein;

1
2 (c) For reasonable attorneys fees subject to proof and as available by

3
4
5
6 FOR THE NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

7
(a) For punitive damages subject to proof at time of trial;
8
9
10 (c) For reasonable attorney‟s fees subject to proof and as available by

11
12
13
14 FOR THE TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

15 (a) For an Order, requiring Defendant to reinstate Plaintiffs on title to their
16
Property, and or a restraining order preventing Defendants and his, hers, or its
17
18 agents, employees, officers, attorneys, and representatives from engaging in or
19 performing any of the following acts: (i) offering, or advertising this property
20
for sale and (ii) attempting to transfer title to this property and or (iii) holding
21
22
any auction therefore;

24
(c) For reasonable attorney‟s fees provided by contract or statute; and
25
26
27 Respectfully submitted, this 27th day of November, 2010,

28
By: ____________________________

Wrongful Foreclosure Xyz ABC

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Wrongful Foreclosure Xyz ABC

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

2 Plaintiff, In Propria Persona

21 MICHAEL S. MAGNESS; 8. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;

JANE/JOHN DOES 1-100, SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 1

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 2

2 2. Defendant BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOAN SERVICING, INC.

10 either assigned or nominated as beneficiary of the certain Deeds of Trust recorded at

23 3. Defendant MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION

27 Box 2026, Flint, Michigan, 48501-2026. MERS is an electronic registration system,

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 3

14 Oaks, CA, ReconTrust is a member of the Bank of America family of companies.” 1

18 Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, Nebraska, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 4

10 6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Jane/John Does 1 thru 100

19 8. Mr. Magness committed fraud by knowingly, willingly, wantonly,

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 5

10 “didn‟t care”, and he only wanted “to get paid”.

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 6

6 funded, it was transferred to defendant Mr. Magness.

18 have the loan associated with the property transferred.

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 7

2 make payments, causing the loan to go into default.

6 Magness and 1stLAM.

10 lacked standing to perform such foreclosure.

23 being/have been applied to Plaintiff in a manner that is unlawful, because at least in

27 a. Plaintiff tendered an amount of One Hundred Fifty-Two ,Four

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 8

2 b. Plaintiff is informed and believes that neither BOA, nor ReCon

10 strict mandates of Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.

18 acting in violation of said statute.

27 Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) a Qualified Written Request.

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 9

2 communications and inquiries by plaintiffs. Attached and incorporated by this

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 10

2 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

5 38. Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs one (1) through Thirty-Seven (37) of

13 rights, duties and right to title in the Subject Property.

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 11

17 (a)Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of Plaintiff‟s Rights, and of

18 Defendants obligations and duties, and a declaration as to who is responsible

22 Plaintiff to coincide with the Deed in Plaintiff‟s name, and a restraining

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 12

2 (c) For costs of suit incurred herein;

17 resides; defendants conspired, reached an agreement to defraud Plaintiff out of his

25 47. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, each of them, had represented to

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 13

27 representations, that Plaintiff would rely and depend upon.

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 14

2 money thereby and there from.

14 Plaintiff was relying on that false representation..

27 61. Plaintiff relied on defendants‟ false representations, and because of this

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 15

6 converting Plaintiff‟s property.

14 knowingly, willingly, wantonly, intentionally, fraudulently, and with malicious intent,

23 emotional distress, mortification, anxiety, embarrassment, and humiliation, due to the

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 16

6 resulted in a promissory note which had been rendered as non-negotiable and no

10 70. Defendants Mr. Magness, and 1stLAM (partners/brokers) as a „partner

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 17

10 agency relationship must also be in written form.

18 Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) toward the loan.

23 prior to the sale of the Subject Property.

Plaintiff‟s First Amended Verified Complaint - 18