Anda di halaman 1dari 17

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 COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT xxxxxxx DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA xxxxxxx DIVISION

XXXXXXXXXXXXXX Debtor, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, an individual, Plaintiff, v.

Chapter 13 Case No.: ADV No: VERFIFIED COMPLAINT 1. VIOLATION OF SCRA 50 USC. App 521(b)(2). 2. VOIDANCE OF TRUSTEE SALE; 3. FRAUD, FALSE REPRESENTATION, 4. (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) TRO, PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Hon. Judge: XXXXXXXX

Bank of America, N.A; its Assignees, and/or Successors Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation; Quality Loan Servicing Corp.; DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants

COMES NOW, Plaintiff XXXXXXXX, (hereinafter Plaintiff or XXXXXX ), by and through her counsel, for her Adversary Complaint that their federal and state rights violated as follows; alleging against Defendants, Bank of America, N.A as Trustee.

1. app. 597(a). 2.

The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334 and 50 U.S.C.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1408 and 1409 and 28 U.S.C.

1391(b) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the debtors claim occurred in the Central District of California, and because the Defendants does business in the Central District of California. 3. At all time relevant to this complaint, BAC Home Loan Servicing, LP, serviced mortgage

loans, which involved collecting and remitting loan payments, accounting for principal and interest, contacting delinquent mortgagors, and supervising foreclosures.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

4.

Pursuant to rule 11b, if applicable, plaintiff assert under penalty of perjury that the

statements made hereto in this Complaint is filed in good faith and not for the purpose other than seeking a justicable resolution to a matter in court involving the wrongful foreclosure of plaintiffs home and damages caused by improper, illegal and intentional acts by each named defendant and each of them, herein. 5. a heading. 6. The remaining paragraphs contain background and factual allegations necessary or relevant The causes of action in the form of request for relief are contained in those paragraphs with

to the causes of action. 7. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may amend the

party's pleading once as a matter of course at any time before a responsive pleading is served. 'Otherwise a party may amend the party's pleading only by leave of court or by written consent of the adverse party; and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires. PARTIES

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Plaintiff XXXXXXXX is an individual having standing to bring this action pursuant to 11 U.S. C. 323, 1302, and 1330. 8. Plaintiff is a protected class under section 302 as a service member and pursuant to section

306 (50 U.S.C App. 536). 9. Plaintiff XXXXXXXX is a resident of Los Angeles California nd the real property secured

by a deed of trust under the Mortgage Loan is located in Los Angeles, California. At all times hereto relevant Defendant in rem, XXXXXXXXX consisting of improved, residential real property situated within this Judicial District of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, also referred to as Assessor's Parcel No. 1, and more fully and legally described as: PARCEL 1: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as the Property) DEFENDANTS 10. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant FEDERAL HOME

23 24 25 26 27 28

LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, ITS ASSIGNEES AND /OR SUCCESSORS; (hereinafter FHLM ) Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp is a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), which conducts business in the United States residential mortgage market and the global securities market under

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 2

1 2

the direction of its Conservator, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) and conducts business in California and the alleged purchaser of Plaintiffs property. 11. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant BANK OF AMERICA

3 Whose exact business form is a corporation organized in the State of California and doing business in the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

state of California. BAC is and was, at all times material hereto the loan originator and loan servicer of the Mortgage Loan. 12. Defendant Quality Loan Servicing (hereinafter referred to as QLS) is and was, at all times

material, a corporation organized in the State of California doing business in the State of California. 13. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of

Defendants DOES 1 through 25 are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 474. 14. The term Defendant hereinafter refers to each and all of the above -named defendants The parties claim or may claim an interest in the property as a result of a mortgage loan

collectively and individually. 15. transaction between Plaintiff and Defendant s BAC and QLS or as a result of a wrongful foreclosure on Plaintiffs property.

INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF CONTROVERSY


15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

16.

Plaintiff engaged in a purported mortgage loan transaction with Defendant BAC on or On or about August 27, 2010, Plaintiff received a notice alleging default on the loan. On

about December 5, 2007. (a copy of which is attached herein marked Exhibit A). 17.

or about August 31, 2010, Defendant QLS recorded a Notice of Default signed by Anselmo Pagkaliwangan as an employee of QLS as agent for beneficiary BAC. This NOD was sent prior to the QLS Substitution of Trustee. A new NOD should have been filed. (a copy of which is attached herein marked Exhibit B). 18. On or about October 1, 2010, Defendant BAC executed and recorded an Assignment of

Deed of Trust from PRLAP, Inc. The assignment was signed by a person alleging to be Tim Bargenquast as the AVP for QLS and constitutes a conflict of interest. This alleged AVP is a known robo-signer and has been implemented in many wrongful foreclosure cases within Federal and State court actions. (a copy of which is attached herein marked Exhibit C). 19. On October 12, 2010 Defendant OLS recorded a Substituion of Trustee was signed by Tim Bargenquest in the capacity of Assistant Vice President for QLS and as attorney in fact for attorney in fact for BAC Home Loans Servicing,LP . Tim Bargenquest was not employed by BAC or a true
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 3

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

beneficiary under the Deed of Trust on the property. Bargenquest was employed by QLS, but was not an officer of QLS. QLS or Bargenquest did not have legal interest in the Deed of Trust on the property. 20. QLS substituted itself as trustee for the sole purpose of foreclosing on plaintiffs property.

This substitution was signed by Tim Bargenquest as Assistant Vice President of QLS on behalf of BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP. (Debtors counsel is perplexed as to Quality Loan Servicing Corporations ability to self appoint itself as the trustee.) (a copy of which is attached herein marked Exhibit D). 21. One or about December 3, 2010, Defendant QLS recorded Notice of Trustees Sale. The

NTS is defective. (a copy of which is attached herein marked Exhibit E). 22. At the time of the notice of default and notice of trustee sale, Plaintiff was in the military

service of the United States as defined in section 511 of the Servicemembers Civil Rights Act (Title 50 Appendix of the United States Code, 50 App. U.S.C. 501 et seq.) and entitled to benefits of said Act. 23. On or about May 31,2011, Defendant QLS recorded an Assignment of Deed of Trust to

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, signed by Karla Sanchez, Assistant Secretary for QLS in violation of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) section 302 and section 306 (50 U.S.A. App. 536). (a copy of which is attached herein marked Exhibit F). 24. On May 31, 2011, QLS recorded a Trustees Deed Upon Sale to FHLM, this TD was signed

by Karla Sanchez, as Assistant Secretary for QLW. Karla Sanchez is a known robosigner employee of QLS. Karla signed and recorded over one hundred Trustees Deeds Upon Sale in the Los Angeles County Recorders Office and in many of them the signatures appear ver y different. Defendants knew or had reason to know that the documents were robosigned (or forged), containing false claims or were otherwise invalid. 25. Defendants BAC and QLS violated SCRA by conducting a non judicial foreclosure on

Plaintiffs property and failed file a affidavit that the borrower in default was in the armed forces. The foreclosure therefore is voidable 50 USC. App 521(b)(2). 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges: On or about August 27, 2010,

as instrument number 20101317862 defendants QLS AND BAC or some of them, caused to be recorded a notice of default and an election to sell in the Official Records of the City and County of Los Angeles, California, alleging that (a) a breach of an obligation secured by the Trust Deed had occurred, consisting of plaintiffs alleged failure to pay certain monthly installments of principal and interest, and (b) defendants, QLS elected to sell, or cause to be sold, the plaintiffs Property to satisfy that obligation. That notice of default and election to sell was void and ineffective for each of the following reasons:

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 4

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

(i) The Servicemember's Civil Relief Act 2003 (SCRA) was signed into law on December 19, 2003, and codified at 50 USC App. 501 et seq. The SCRA was December 10, 2004. 26. The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) also amended several sections

of this law, extending the time period for certain activities. HERA was amended by the Helping Heroes Keep their Homes Act of 2010 to further extend protections related to mortgages and foreclosures through December 31, 2012. It also established the premise that a person has a private right of action for violation. 27. The SCRA provides a wide range of protections for individuals entering, called to active

duty in the military, or deployed servicemembers. It is intended to postpone or suspend certain civil obligations to enable service members to devote full attention to duty and relieve stress on the family members of those deployed servicemembers. A few examples of such obligations protected against are: Outstanding credit card debt Mortgage payments Pending trials Taxes Terminations of lease. (ii) when the notice of default was recorded the Plaintiff was a Servicemember and a non judicial foreclosure occurred in violation of SRCA. (iii) the act provides that Servicemembers receive a stay, postponement, or suspension of his or her obligations or liabilities. 28. During the pendency of Plaintiffs Bankruptcy, defendant FHLM in bad faith sought relief from the bankruptcy courts automatic stay by filing a motion for relief from stay w ith no true evidentiary support and knew they were in violation of the SCRA. 29. In engaging in the conduct described above, defendants acted maliciously, willfully and

with specific intent to injure Plaintiff and endanger his property. 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that strict compliance with

SRCA has been violated. 31. Defendants herein, and none of them, and no person acting or purporting to act for any of

them, made any of the diligent efforts mandated by the SRCA and California Civil Code 2923.5, wherefore the aforesaid Notice of Default was void or voidable, as a matter of law, and any purported future foreclosure predicated thereon will be unlawful, and likewise subject to avoidance. 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that an actual controversy exists

between Plaintiff and Defendants with regard to the validity, nature and extent of their interests in the

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 5

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, and it is necessary that this Court determine the actual rights and obligations of the parties and make a determination as to the validity, nature and extent of Defendants interest in the Property. 33. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges, that in committing certain acts herein

alleged, some or all of the Defendants herein named were acting as the agents, joint ventures, partners, representatives, subsidiaries, affiliates and/or employees of some or all of the other Defendants, and that some or all of the conduct of such Defendants, as complained of herein, was within the course and scope of such relationship. (Property) 33. The SCRA covers all Active Duty servicemembers, Reservists and the members of the

National Guard while on active duty. The protection begins on the date of entering active duty and generally terminates within 30 to 90 days after the date of discharge from active duty. 35. Plaintiff demands strict compliance with SCRA, specifically Section 533 (c ) of the SCRA,

50 U.S.C. app. 533 (c ). 36. 37. No full accounting was ever provided in support of the alleged default. Defendant QLS lacked standing and is not the holder in due course or the current

beneficiary as falsely asserted. 38. Defendants BAC and QLS can not prove foundation, standing or authority to bring an Defendant BAC is only the alleged "servicer" of the loan, and as such cannot institute or

action of foreclose without filing a judicial foreclosure proceeding. 39.

maintain a foreclosure proceeding without proper authority from the true holder of the note. 40. Defendants, BAC and OLS, failed to determine consistently and accurately the military

status of Plaintiff in foreclosure. As a result, Defendant wrongfully foreclosed without court order on Plaintiffs property and in violation of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) section 302 and section 306 (50 U.S.A. App. 536). 41. Plaintiff in this case is a Servicemember and is asserting her rights under Service members

Civil Relief Act (SCRA). 42. The Plaintiff is a service member who owns the property, who at the time, were on military

service, or were otherwise protected by the SCRA, and who had originated the mortgage before Plaintiff entered into military service. Further, the Plaintiff had not waived her rights prior to foreclosure pursuant to a separate agreement under Section 517 of the SCRA, 50 U.S.C. app. 517. 42. Defendants, BAC and QLS failed to conduct a judicial foreclosure in compliance with

Section 521 of the SCRA.

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 6

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

43.

Defendants conduct was intentional, willful and taken in disregard to the rights of the

Plaintiff as a servicemember. 44. Defendants had actual or constructive notice of military service of the military plaintiff who Defendants conduct was in violation of the protections afforded by the SCRA, specifically

owned the subject property. 45.

Section 533(c ) of the SCRA, 50 U.S.C. app. 533(c ) and constitutes a pattern or proactive of foreclosing on service members during a period of military service, or a period otherwise protected by the SCRA. 46. Service members whose mortgages have been wrongfully foreclosed in violation of the SCRA are aggrieved persons. Plaintiff has suffered as a result of Defendants conduct. 47. Defendant FHLM knew Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and filed a motion for

relief from stay to evict Plaintiff from her home in violation of the SCRA. 48. Defendant FHLM knew Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and violated Section 301 -

Evictions and distress. a) Court Ordered Eviction. (1) IN GENERAL- Except by court order, a landlord (or another person with paramount title) may not(A) evict a servicemember, or the dependents of a servicemember, during a period of military service of the servicemember, from premises-(i) that are occupied or intended to be occupied primarily as a residence; and (ii) for which the monthly rent does not exceed $2,400, as adjusted under paragraph (2) for years after 2003; or (B) subject such premises to a distress during the period of military service. 49. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, or SCRA, provides critical additional consumer and other protections to the men and women serving our nation in the military it was a recognition that those who are making great sacrifices to protect us deserve to know that we have their backs at home. 50. The law postpones, suspends, terminates, or reduces the amount of certain consumer debt

obligations so that members of the armed forces can focus their full attention on their military responsibilities without adverse consequences for themselves or their families. This means that a soldier wont have to worry that his or her car will be repossessed while theyre on the front lines overseas. It means that instead of worrying that their spouse and children will be evicted while theyre deployed, they can focus on the critical role they play in protecting our nation. 51. Among these protections is a prohibition on foreclosure of a servicemembers property

without first getting approval from the court if the servicemember purchased the property prior to entering military service.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 7

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

52.

In civil case number CV11-04534, United States v. Bank of America Corp., Citibank, NA,

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ally Financial, Inc. and Wells Fargo && Co. (D.D.C.) On March 12, 2012, the United States, forty-nine states and the District of Columbia filed a complaint and five proposed consent orders in United States v. Bank of America Corp., Citibank, NA, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Ally Financial, Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co. (D.D.C.). Under the consent orders, which still must be approved by the court, the nation's five largest mortgage loan servicers will conduct reviews to determine whether any servicemembers have been foreclosed on either judicially or non-judicially in violation of the SCRA since 2006, and whether servicemembers have been unlawfully charged interest in excess of six percent on their mortgages since 2008. As a result of these settlements, when combined with the Division's settlements with Bank of America and Saxon covering non-judicial foreclosures filed in 2011, the vast majority of all foreclosures against servicemembers will be subject to court-ordered review. Foreclosure victims identified through these reviews will be compensated a minimum of $116,785 each plus any lost equity with interest, and victims of violations of the SCRA's six percent interest rate cap identified through these reviews will be compensated by the amount wrongfully charged in excess of six percent, plus triple the amount refunded, or $500, whichever is larger. 53. These agreements were incorporated into an historic mortgage servicer settlement between

the United States and 49 state attorneys general and these five servicers, which provides for $25 billion in relief based on the servicers' illegal mortgage loan servicing practices. 54. Although BAC entered into a SCRA global servicing agreements with the United States,

BAC continued to violate SCRA provisions and have not investigated the illegal foreclosure of Plaintiffs home. 55. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants and each of them, in so acting in this case and with

respect to many other mortgage or trust deed security instruments engage in a pattern and practice of utilizing the non-judicial foreclosure procedures of this State to foreclose on service members properties when they do not, in fact, have the right to do so, knowing that the property owner affected is a service member and is protected by the SCRA as an aggrieved person. 56. Should Defendants, and each of them, not be enjoined, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury

for which there is no adequate remedy in law. 57. Defendants and each of them, in committing the acts alleged in this and other cases are

engaging in a pattern of unlawful activity. 58. As a result thereof, Plaintiff has been damaged by these Defendants and each of them.

Plaintiff has been damaged in other ways that are not readily apparent at this time, but will amend this
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

complaint to allege further damages as they are determined. 59. In pursuing non-judicial foreclosure, Defendants and each of them are in violation of the

SCRA, specifically Section 533 (c ) of the SCRA, 50 U.S.C. app. 533 (c ). 60. The defendants and each of them, misrepresented the facts intending either to force Plaintiff

to pay large sums of money to Defendants and each of them to which there not entitled under the law, or to abandon Plaintiffs property after wrongfully foreclosing on plaintiffs property. 61. Plaintiff makes no admissions unless expressly admitted herein. FRAUDULANT ASSIGNMENT OF THE DEED OF TRUST 62. QLS assignment was unlawfully procured and constitutes extrinsic fraud and collusion and

8 there now exist a fraudulent conveyance and fraudulent foreclosure of Plaintiffs real property. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

63.

QLS and BAC participated in a fraudulent scheme to foreclosure on Plaintiff property and knew

they assigned, transferred and filed false and fraudulent documents with the county clerk to foreclose on Plaintiff property. 64. Defendants was never entitled to payment on the Note, and, as such, is not a Beneficiary

of the Mortgage, and does not have an interest in the property. 65. Defendants cannot proved nor can it prove in its foreclosure process that it had STANDING to bring

a foreclosure action in the first place. Plaintiff will show this court that none of the participants to the foreclosure process to be proper party based on the chain of custody leading to ownership or authority to assign, transfer or foreclose Plaintiffs residential real property. 66. The respective Defendants claims of ownership or any interest of any nature in the property are

fatally defective because conveyance of Deed that was not in compliance. 67. Defendant QLS as "substitute trustee" has failed to demonstrate that it is the party with the true ownership interest in the loan . 68. Defendants BAC and QLS as "trustee" for has failed to demonstrate that it has any Plaintiff has received conflicting representations as to the alleged creditors identity, and

authority to foreclose. 69.

believes there exists a title defect or cloud on his title. 70. default. 71. 72. Severance of the ownership and possession of the original note and mortgage has occurred. Defendants, and all of them, are included in each and all of Plaintiffs allegations as and Defendant has not demonstrated actual or threatened injury as a consequence of any

where applicable.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

73.

COURTS HAS THE INHERENT POWER TO VACATE A FORECLOSURE SALE It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has

been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties. 74. Clear Title May Not Derive from a Fraud (including a bona fide purchaser for value). In the

case of a fraudulent transaction California law is settled. The Court in Trout v. Trout, (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 stated: 75. "Numerous authorities have established the rule that instruments wholly void, such as an

undelivered deed, a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase. Consequently, the fact that defendant BAC acted in good faith in dealing with persons who apparently held legal title, is not in itself sufficient basis for relief." (Emphasis added, internal citations omitted). 76. This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc. (2001)

85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the Court stated: 77. "It is the general rule that courts have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has

been fraud in the procurement of the foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be inequitable to purchaser and parties." (Emphasis added). 78. Any apparent sale based on fraud, or altered and forged instrument should be void and

without any legal effect. 79. In Bank of America v. LaJolla Group II, the California Court of Appeals held that if a

trustee is not contractually empowered under the Deed of Trust to hold a sale, it is totally void. Voidness, as opposed to voidability, means that it is without legal effect. 80. 81. Title does not transfer. The property is not sold. PROPERTY TAKING RAISE FEDERAL QUESTION 81. Plaintiffs urge by the filed Complaint and will urge at trial, that the acts surrounding the illegal

24 25 26 27 28

foreclosure was rife with corrupt acts violating federal laws and state law were fraudulent, unenforceable, et al, and that the procedural acts leading up to and including the improper foreclosure on plaintiffs property were done ILLEGALLY. Moreover, the Plaintiffs urge that QLS is NOT a party with standing to bring a foreclosure action
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 10

1 2 3 4

which extensive discovery hereafter, shall reveal. 82. Here, the question of taking without due process by acts of defendants is in issue. The

generalized federal nature of such a taking has precedent. See Grable, supra. CONCLUSION 83. Based on violation of SCRA and failure to conduct a judicial foreclosure Plaintiff moves this Court to void Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporations Trustee Deed Upon Sale , instrument number 20110749531 recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder on May 31, 2011.50 USC App. 521(b)(2). 84. Based on violation of SCRA and failure to comply with SCRA Plaintiff moves this Court to

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

void the Deed of Trust held by Federal Home Loan Mortgage and to permanently enjoin Bank of America as its successor-in-interest, Quality Loan Servicing from taking any action against the Plaintiffs property at 12130 Ohio Avenue, Unit 309, Los Angeles, California 90025. 85. of action: Sec. 597a. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION 86. (A) In general. Any person aggrieved by a violation of this Act [ 50 U.S.C. App.501 et seq] Plaintiff will file and serve memoranda as necessary in support of the following four causes

may in a civil action (1) obtain any appropriate equitable or declaratory relief with respect to violation; and (2) recover all other appropriate relief, including monetary damages. (b) Costs and attorneys fees. The court may award to a person aggrieved by a violation of this Act who prevails in an action brought under subsection (a) the costs of the action including a reasonable attorneys fee.

Sec. 597b. PRESERVATION OF REMEDIES 87. Nothing in Section 801 or 802 [ 50 U.S.C. App. 597 or 597a] shall be construde to

preclude or limit any remedy otherwise available under other law, including consequential and punitive damages. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 11

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

VOIDENCE OF TRUSTEE SALE (All Defendants) 88. 89. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 140, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. By virtue of the Defendants wrongful foreclosure based upon violation of the

aforementioned statutory provisions, as well as the afore-described violation of the SCRA by Defendants, the Notice of Default and all subsequent foreclosure proceedings shall be void. 90. Plaintiff requests that Defendants be ordered to void the Sale, rescind and restore Plaintiffs

property to her. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (VIOLATION OF THE SCRA) (Against Defendant BAC and QLS) 91. 92. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1-83 Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order declaring that Defendant violated the SCRA,

defendants conduct was intentional, willful, and taken in disregard to the rights of a servicemember. 93. consent order. 94. Defendant failed to conduct a judicial foreclosure as required by the Service Members Civil Plaintiff requests that Defendants be ordered to pay Plaintiff $116,785, pursuant to the

Relief Act and had authority to foreclose on a servicemembers property. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (FRAUD, FALSE REPRESENTATION) (Against Defendants BAC QLS, and DOES 1-50) 95. 96. Plaintiff incorporates and re-alleges paragraphs 1-200. Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order declaring Defendant guilty of fraud, false

representation, concealment.
In Re: Norkin v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 237 Cal.App.2d 435, 437 [47 Cal.Rptr. 15], "Initially it is to be noted that 'It is a cardinal rule of pleading that fraud must be pleaded in specific language descriptive of the acts which are relied upon to constitute fraud. It is not sufficient to allege it in general terms, or in terms which amount to mere conclusions.' 'The elements of fraud, which give rise to the tort action for deceit, are (1) misrepresentation (false representation, concealment or nondisclosure); (2) knowledge of falsity (or "scienter"); (3) intent to defraud, i.e., to induce reliance; (4) justifiable reliance; and (5) resulting damage.

97.

Plaintiff alleges seven elements of fraud as set forth below:

(1) Defendant represented itself as the lender in the loan transaction. (2) At the time Defendant made the representation Defendant knew the representation was false or misleading.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 12

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

(3) The representation was made with intent to deceive. Defendant meant for Plaintiff to rely on the representation that it was the lender. Defendant intended to deprive Plaintiff of the legal right and title to his home. (4) Plaintiff did not know the representation was misleading or false. (5) Plaintiff reasonably relied on the representation. (6) Plaintiff has suffered economic and other damage as a result of his reliance. (7) Plaintiff is in a much worse position than he was in before the entering the military service. FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF) TRO, PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS (Against All Defendants BAC, QLS, FHLM For PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION) 98. Plaintiff reallege and incorporate by reference in this Claim for Relief each allegation set

forth in paragraphs 1 through 92 above. 99. Plaintiff move this Court, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for a

Preliminary Injunction against Defendants enjoining them from taking any action to transfer any interest putatively held by the Defendants in Zschaschels residence located at 12130 Ohio Avenue, Unit 309, Los Angeles, California or to encumber the Plaintiffs interest in that property. In support of her Motion, the Plaintiff states as follows: 100. The Plaintiff will suffer immediate and irreparable harm if the Defendants should transfer

any interest in 12130 Ohio Avenue, Unit 309, Los Angeles, California. 101. That Plaintiff have no adequate remedy on the merits of her claims;

The balance of the hardships tips decidedly in favor of granting the requested injunction, inasmuch as the cost to the Defendants of enjoining any such transfer is negligible when compared to the potential harm the Plaintiffs face if she loose her dwelling and property prior to these proceedings ending. 102. Plaintiff asks the Court for a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a

permanent injunction, all enjoining Defendant, and each of them, and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them from foreclosing on Plaintiffs home,
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 13

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

together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable and just under the circumstances. 103. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the injuries that have been suffered, are currently

being suffered, and that are threatened. 104. It is impossible for Plaintiff to determine the precise amount of damages that he will suffer

if Defendants conduct is not restrained. 105. for her injuries. 106. As a proximate result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs property has been Plaintiff will be forced to institute a multiplicity of suits to obtain adequate compensation

substantially damaged in the amount of at least $675,000.00. 107. 108. 109. Plaintiff will be further damaged in like manner so long as Defendants conduct continues. The full amount of this damage is not now known to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to state this amount when it becomes known to him or

on proof of the damages. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that the Court enter an ORDER that: 1. Declares that Defendants, its agents, employees, and successors, and all other persons in

active concert or participation with them from: a. Foreclosing on Plaintiffs property during period of military service or a period otherwise protected by the SCRA, in violation of Section 533 (c ) of the SCRA, 50 USC app. 533(c ); b. Failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to restore, or nearly as practicable, to reverse its illegal conduct to the position she would have been in but for Defendants illegal conduct; and c. Failing or refusing to take such affirmative steps as may be necessary to prevent the recurrence of any conduct that violates Section 533(c ) of the SCRA, 50 USC App. 533(c ) in the future and to eliminate, to the extent practicable, the effects of Defendants illegal conduct and d. Award Plaintiff $116,785 for violation of the SCRA. e. Plaintiff further prays for such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 14

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 COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 15

For a judgment that Defendant does not have standing to pursue the foreclosure; 2. 3. 4. For an order requiring Defendant to provide a full accounting; For general and special damages in amounts to be determined; For punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant and deter others from

engaging in similar misconduct; 5. For a judgment that Plaintiff is the owners of the Property, and that

Defendant has no interest in the Property adverse to the Plaintiff; 6. For an order requiring Defendant to show cause why they should not be enjoined as

set forth in this complaint, during the pendency of this action; 7. For a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction, all

enjoining Defendant, and each of them, and their agents, servants, and employees, and all persons acting under, in concert with, or for them from foreclosing on Plaintiffs home; 8. 9. For costs of suit incurred in this action; and For such other and further relief as the Court may deem reasonable and just under

the circumstances. 10. For an award of attorneys fees and costs pursuant to Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 1021.5 and

12 U.S.C. 2605(f)(3); 11. For such other and further relief as this Court may deem property.

Plaintiff requests a trial by a jury of each and every claim so triable. Dated:

By: /s/ Attorney Name

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT PLAINTIFF XXXXXXXX


2

I , XXXXXXXX, am the Plaintiff in this action. I am familiar with the factual allegations in this
3

complaint and TRO application. Such facts are true as stated herein.
4

I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true.


5

Signed in Los Angeles, California on xxxxx


6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

By: /s/ XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

DECLARATION MILITARY STATUS OF XXXXXXXX

1.
22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, XXXXXXXX am a plaintiff in this action and familiar with the facts and assertions made

in this case. The above information factually is true and correct. 2. I filed this Adversarial Complaint because I have illegally and improperly had my home

foreclosed by defendants to this action, personally, but I believe one or more of the defendants in this case caused this to occur.

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

3.

Plaintiff, XXXXXXXX was in the military service of the United States as defined in section

511 of the Servicemembers Civil Rights Act (Title 50 Appendix of the United States Code, 50 App. U.S.C. 501 et seq.) and entitled to the benefits of said Act. 4. Although I am a Service member Defendants illegally foreclosed on my property without

filing a Judicial Foreclosure and failed to reduce my current interest rate to 6% as required by the SCRA. 5. My Adversary complaint was filed not out of bad faith but to correct the dishonest manner,

in which, I was treated by all the defendants to this action. And those involved in foreclosing upon my home . 6. 7. I will omit the details in support of my full complaint, which would support my claims. I am a layperson and not sophisticated, but understand that if I am a Service member

my property is protected by Section 533 (c ) of the SCRA, 50 USC app. 533(c );and I am entitled to a minimum compensation as specified in the agreed Order in United States vs. Bank of America for being a victim of illegal foreclosure in violation of SCRA, 50 USC app. 533(c );according to a settlement reached on March 13, 2012, between the United States and Bank of America and other mortgage lenders and servicers in case number CV11-04534-PA filed on May 25, 2011. Please your Honor, allow me to have my day in Court so I can keep my home where my family and I live. I am not a deadbeat and I am not seeking a free house however, I am praying for justice. This wrongful foreclosure has caused a significant amount of stress.

6. 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

7.

I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing facts, omitting arguments and speculation to be true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California on xxxxxx.

By: /s/ XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX

COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - 17