1 DAWN STEFFEY

3848 Willow Street

2
Shasta Lake City, Cal. 96019
3 530-510-6536
In Pro-Se
4

5 SHASTA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

6 FOR THE COUNTY OF SHASTA

7
Case No.:
8
DAWN STEFFEY
9
In Pro-Se COMPLAINTS TO FILE:
10
VS. 1. EX-PARTE MOTION FOR
11 EXPEDIATED HEARING
EDWARD PLAZA, RAQUEL MILLIGAN 2. MOTION TO PERFORM SPECIFIC
12 PERFORMANCE
(P0WER OF ATTORNEY FOR
13 DEFENDANT), BANK OF AMERICA, 3. BREECH OF CONTRACT
MISSION HILLS MORTGAGE DBA, 4. MOTION TO VACATE A PREVIOUS
14 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC JUDGEMENT
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS (MERS), 5. MOTION TO QUIET TITLE
15 6. MOTION TO GRANT A LIS
16 Defendant(s) PENDENS
7. DECLARATORY RELIEF
17 ROBERT LEE HAM ILTON 8. GRANT DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE
1745 YUBA STREET BASED ON PROMISSORY
18 REDDING, CALIFORNIA 96001 ESTOPPEL
19
530-222-1115 9. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
Attorney for the Defendant EMOTIONAL STRESS
20

21

22
COURT DATE:
23 TIME:
DEPT:
24

25

26

27

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 1
1

2
PARTIES and COMPLAINT
3

4 Comes now before you the Plaintiff in the matter, Dawn Steffey, who is a resident of

5 Shasta County and is in Pro-Se. She is the daughter of the Defendant, Edward Plaza and
6
complains he has taken possession by way of an unwarranted Unlawful Detainer, Case#
7
19UD0321 filed in the Superior Court in the County of Shasta on June 21, 2019, and is now in
8
possession of her 5 Bedroom 1 Bath home located in Shasta County the city of Shasta Lake
9

10 California recorded as:

11

12
LOT 26, BLOCK5, BOOMTOWN SUBDIVISION UNIT NO.5, AS PER PLAT
13
THEREOF RECORDED JUNE 2, 1938 IN BOOK 5 OF MAPS AT PAGE 29, SHASTA
14
COUNTY RECORDS aka 3857 RED BLUFF STREET SHASTA LAKE CITY
15

16 CALIFORNIA 96019.

17

18
Defendant Edward Plaza, who has been represented by Robert Lee Hamilton in a
19
previous complaint, is the Father of the Plaintiff, and in 2009 entered into an oral agreement that
20
the Plaintiff believed was a Contract for Deed for the above mentioned property
21

22

23

24
Defendant, Raquel Milligan also the Defendant’s daughter, is the Power of Attorney for
25
the Defendant and is named in the complaint for legal reasons. She is not referenced in this
26
complaint.
27

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 2
1 The following Defendant(s) are named in Motions No. 5 and 6 (Quiet Title and Lis
2
Pendens) only:
3
Bank of America is a business of finance and is recorded as the Grantee in a
4
Deed of Trust by the Grantor Edward Plaza, recorded on November 16, 2012 at
5

6 the County Recorders Office in Shasta County, Redding, California.

8
Gateway Business Bank dba Mission Hills Mortgage Bankers is a business of
9
finance and is recorded as the Grantee in a Deed of Trust by the Grantor Edward
10
Plaza, recorded on March 26, 2009, at the County Recorders Office in Shasta
11

12 County, Redding, California.

13 Recontrust Company is a business of finance and is recorded as the Grantee in a

14
Deed of Trust by the Grantor Edward Plaza, recorded on December 12, 2012 at
15
the County Recorders Office in Shasta County, Redding, California.
16

17

18 The Plaintiff believes the Defendant improperly used the platform of an Unlawful

19 Detainer to cancel the oral agreement they had, to take possession of her property and place it for
20
sale. Included in the takeover of the real property, was the Plaintiffs personal property that was
21
disposed of after possession of the property was taken by the Defendant.
22
The Plaintiff dutifully requests of the court to grant the Ex-Parte Motion for Expedited
23

24 Hearing. Just cause is taken by the Plaintiff in asking the courts for this ruling, due to the

25 Defendant currently having her home listed as being for sale. If the Defendant is successful in
26
selling her home, he will prosper from unjust enrichment leaving the Plaintiff permanently
27

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 3
1 homeless and destitute. The Plaintiff argues the equity that she has amassed during her
2
possession of the real property represents her entire life savings
3
She also appeals to the courts for declaratory relief in all matters, as well as judgements
4
on the following motions:
5

6
1. EX-PARTE MOTION FOR EXPEDIATED HEARING
7

8 2. MOTION TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE

9
3. BREECH OF CONTRACT
10
4. MOTION TO VACATE A PREVIOUS JUDGEMENT
11

12 5. MOTION TO QUIET TITLE

13
6. MOTION TO GRANT A LIS PENDENS
14

15
7. DECLARATORY RELIEF

16 8. GRANT DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE BASED ON

17 PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

18
9. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EM OTIONAL STRESS
19

20
_________________________ ___________________
21
Signature of Plaintiff Date
22

23

24 PROCEDURAL
25
1) The Defendant took possession of the above listed property through an Unlawful
26

27

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 4
1 Detainer case #CV- UD-000019321 in which he was represented by Robert Lee Hamilton Esq.
2
who filed against the Plaintiff on August 21, 2009. The final judgement was filed on
3
(Attachment No.1) This was the second UD
4

6 that was filed against the Plaintiff by the Defendant. The Defendant stated under oath at both

7 hearings, that he bought this property as an investment. He was able produce what appeared to be
8
a title deed for the property currently in dispute. The Plaintiff is in agreement that the defendant
9
holds legal titl to the property.
10
2) The Defendant, who appeared in pro-se in the first Unlawful Detainer
11

12 Case# CV-U19-0000248 against the Plaintiff also in Pro-Se, on May 14th, 2019 and was heard by

13 Commissioner John R. Berglund on June 17, 2019 in the Superior Court of the State of
14
California for the County of Shasta. The judgement was entered on June 21, 2019 for the
15
Defendant in that case. (The Plaintiff in this case.) The Plaintiff in that case (the Defendant in
16
this case) failed to serve the Plaintiff with a 3-day notice as required by CCP 1161(2).
17

18 3) In that trial, Commissioner Berglund errored in judgement by establishing that

19 there was a tenant landlord relationship, and that the two had entered into a rental/lease
20
agreement, despite the Plaintiffs Answer to the UD, filed on May 28th, 2019, in which she clearly
21
states that the relationship was not that of a tenant landlord and then detailed the Contract for
22
Deed agreement the litigants had entered into previously. (See Attachment No.2)
23

24 4) In another UD Case# CV-UD-0000321 filed on behalf of the Defendant by

25 his attorney Robert Hamilton, on June 21, 2019, the Plaintiff again stated in her Answer that the
26
platform of the Unlawful Detainer is unwarranted as there is no tenant landlord relationship
27
between the litigants and that no rental contract but rather a contract for deed existed. She also
28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 5
1 offered to the Defendant to pay him in full the amount he had demanded if he would Quit Deed
2
the title to her house to her and allow her an opportunity to obtain the mortgage in her name, and
3
that offer was denied by the Defendant.
4
5) Commissioner Berglund again errored in his Judgement in favor of the Defendant
5

6 and never addressed the Plaintiff’s claims that a Contract for Deed existed between the two. The

7 Commissioner ruled in favor of the Defendant and Judgement was entered on August 2, 2019 for
8
the Defendant to gain possession of the property in dispute and a monetary judgement of
9
$4,510.00 for past due rent and hold over damages.
10
6) On August 9th, 2019 the Defendants attorney filed a Writ of Execution and on
11

12 August 14th, 2019, the Shasta County Sheriff delivered a Notice to vacate on the day of August

13 21, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

14
7) The Plaintiff than filed an Ex Parte Motion for the Stay of Execution and was
15
granted that motion from Commissioner Berglund on August 2019 until September 11th of 2019
16
8) The Plaintiff than filed a Ex Parte Motion to stay the execution pending an appeal
17

18 on September 10, 2019 and was denied by the Commissioner. He stated that the Plaintiff was

19 granted the maximum amount of time for a stay(s) permitted by law and denies the Ex Parte
20
Motion for Stay pending an appeal for it does not provide the Plaintiff (Defendant) enough
21
notice or opportunity to be heard.
22

23

24 9) On September 03, 2019 the Plaintiff filed an appeal in the Appellate

25 Court. Plaintif currently is waiting for the court date.

26
10) On September 11, 2019 the Shasta County Sheriff arrived at the residence of
27
the Plaintiff and ordered a lock out of the Plaintiff and her tenants.
28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 6
1
FACTS
2
The Defendant is currently in possession of the property and has it listed for sale
3

4 by owner. He receives a monetary payment of 630.00, from the Plaintiff, anywhere from the1st to

5 10th of every month and has, since March 26th of 2009.

6
The payments the Defendant received(s) from the Plaintiff have always been referred to
7
as the “mortgage” when there was conversation or communication between the two regarding the
8
money the Defendant received from the Plaintiff. (hence hereafter, the payment shall be called
9

10 the “mortgage”.)

11 On or around January 1st 2019 the Plaintiff discontinued the mortgage payments to the
12
Defendant stating that he was in Breach of Contract by refusing to Quit Deed the Title to the
13
property and allow her to obtain financing in her name or assume the loan, as they had agreed in
14
a previous Contract for Deed that the two had orally entered upon round March of 2009.
15

16 They mutually agreed to the terms as follows:

17 The Plaintiff would be responsible for:

18
A) Finding a piece of real property that was under the selling price of $85,000.00.
19
B) Paying the down payment and all costs associated with title and escrow of the home.
20
C) Paying the mortgage directly to the Defendant as scheduled by whatever lender was
21

22 going to finance the mortgage. Based on the Plaintiffs down payment and the selling

23 price of the house, the two agreed the payment should not be over the Plaintiffs
24
means and should be affordable. Not to exceed $700.00.
25
D) All maintenance, repairs and improvements of the home would be the responsibility
26
of the Plaintiff.
27

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 7
1 The Defendant was happy to be able to provide the opportunity for his daughter (The
2
Plaintiff) and his granddaughter to live in and own their own home so the Defendant agreed to be
3
responsible for
4
A) Securing an assumable loan to be used to purchase a home for the Plaintiffs sole use
5

6 and evenyually title ownership.

7 B) After 60 payments, the Defendant would Quit Deed the title to the Plaintiff and allow
8
her to assume the loan or obtain her own financing. (which would have been feasible
9
to do with the Deed of Trust as collateral.)
10
C) The Defendant would take the tax credits associated with the purchase of the home on
11

12 his personal income taxes.

13

14
On or around that same time the Plaintiff had a payment in the sum of @9,000.00
15
directly deposited into his personal checking account from the Social Security Administration. It
16
was used by the Defendant to pay the down payment, closing costs and escrow fees on the
17

18 purchase of the property.

19 The Defendant has never asked for any kind of additional payments from the
20
Plaintiff that would constitute a late fee charge or payment for the mortgage not being paid on a
21
specific date.
22
However, the Plaintiff does remember the Defendant stating the mortgage company
23

24 should receive her payment by the 5th of each month.

25 The mortgage is 630.00 a month and according to the original Deed of Trust (Exhibit B)
26
the payment includes installment charges that are applied
27
1st to the mortgage insurance premium
28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 8
1 2nd to any taxes special assessments, leasehold payments or grounds rents, fire
2
flood and other hazard insurance,
3
3rd interest due to the note
4
4th to amortization of the principal of the note
5

6 5th late charges due under the note

7 There was no rental contract nor a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant,
8
written, oral, or implied, therefore the Defendants claims for back rent in the Unlawful Detainer
9
UD190321 has no warrant.
10
The purchase of this real property was not used for the purpose of a rental unit or as an
11

12 investment or even as his primary residence, but rather a purchase of real property that he

13 intended to bestow legal title to the Plaintiff, offer her the opportunity to assume the mortgage
14
and allow her boyfriend and their daughter to call their home.
15
The direct deposit into the Defendants checking account and its use for the down, the
16
closing costs and escrow fees for the property, implies
17

18 The property was a bank repo and the Defendant said it would require some repairs to

19 secure an approval for a mortgage loan. With the listing agents permission, the Plaintiff executed
20
and financed the following improvements to the property:
21
1) There was a window that broken out completely in the back room that needed
22
to be replaced.
23

24 2) There was a hole in the kitchen ceiling where it appeared that someone fell

25 through from the attic.

26

27

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 9
1 3) The carpets were soaked with feline urine as the back window was broken and
2
neighborhood cats were frequenting the home, so the carpets were
3
professionally cleaned and shampooed.
4
4) The purchase and installation of closet doors for two of the bedrooms.
5

6 5) The entire interior of the house was painted.

7 The Deed of Trust was recorded on March 26, 2009 at the recorder’s office in Shasta
8
County and the Plaintiff took possession of the real property and resided there continuously until
9
September 11, 2019.
10
The “Borrower” upon purchase is recorded as Edward J Plaza and the lender as Gateway
11

12 Business Bank DBA Mission Hills Mortgage. (see Exhibit A)

13 On page 3 of 7, line Item No. 5 on the Deed of Trust it states:

14
5. Occupancy. Preservation, Maintenance and Protection of the Property
15
Borrower’s Loan Application; Leaseholds
16
Borrower shall occupy, establish, and use property as Borrowers principle residence
17

18 within sixty days after the execution of this Security Instrument. It goes on to state that the

19 property must be Borrowers principle residency for at least one year and that Borrower shall be
20
in default if during the loan process gave materially false information to the lender during the
21
application process concerning Borrowers occupancy of the property as a primary residence.
22
The Defendant entered a Security Instrument with the lender under false claims that this
23

24 property would be his primary residence. At the time the Deed was recorded the Defendants

25 principle residence was 337 Alamine Drive Redding, California 96001, with his wife in a home
26
located in Redding California.
27

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 10
1 The Plaintiff was unaware, until the time she pulled a copy of the original Deed for this
2
case, that the Defendant procured the property with fraudulent information or was unaware the
3
Lender required the Defendant to utilize this property as his primary residence and that he had
4
agreed to certain specifications of the Lender to obtain the mortgage for the property.
5

6 On November 16, 2012, the Defendant, without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff,

7 filed a new Deed of Trust that lists MERS and Bank of America as the Grantee(s) and Edward
8
Plaza as the Grantor. A Substitution for Trustee for the Real Property was filed shortly after on
9
December 14, 2019 and lists Recontrust as the Grantee and Edward Plaza as the Grantor.
10
The Plaintiff is unaware of who the lender is, if there was a second mortgage taken
11

12 against her property and for how much and has asked the Defendant on several occasions for

13 information regarding these transactions, Also she has tried holding the defendant responsible
14
through several requests since the beginning of 2018 to follow through with his responsibilities
15
to complete and terminate the Contract for Deed the had consented to in 2009. The Plaintiff has
16
been unsuccessful in doing so.
17

18

19 Summary
20
1) The Defendant intended for this property to be lived in and paid for by the Plaintiff
21
and his promise to relinquish legal title by way of a Quit Deed and was not honored during the
22
10 years the Plaintiff was in possession of the property. Nor was she given the opportunity to
23

24 assume or even qualify to assume the loan.

25 2) At no time during the 10 years the Plaintiff lived in and had possession of the
26
property (from the filing of the Deed of Trust until the Defendant took possession on September
27
11, 2019) did he ever reside at the property located in Shasta Lake City nor did he ever perform
28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 11
1 any duties to the property such as maintenance, annual safety inspections, or improvements that
2
would imply or support the title of Landlord or increase its value.
3
3) His claim that the property was purchased as an investment rental (as stated to Judge
4
in the Unlawful Detainer case) are unmerited due to the lack of the Non-Owner Occupancy Rider
5

6 that is required by the Lender according to the Deed. The absence of this rider alongside the

7 recorded deed also warrants the lack of a tenant landlord relationship between the litigants.
8
According to California law [Cal. Civ. Code. 1624 (1)] An agreement for the leasing
9
for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property, or of an interest therein; such an
10
agreement, if made by an agent of the party sought to be charged, is invalid, unless the authority
11

12 of the agent is in writing, subscribed by the party sought to be charged.

13 There is enough evidence to support that the Defendant is in violation of the

14
Statute Fraud concerning the sale of real property, the party to be charged, the
15
Plaintiff, has never signed any contract or agreement that would satisfy the Statute of
16
Fraud AND California law [Cal. Civ. Code. 1624] The oral agreement that the Defendant claims
17

18 he had with the Plaintiff for a lease of the property and was the primary basis for an Unlawful

19 Detainer. The Defendant should have used the proper method of ejectment and considered the
20
contract he breached by not ever performing his part of the agreement. Evicting the
21
plaintiff from the property in the UD Case No. 19UD0321 is unenforceable for the following
22
reasons:
23

24 1) IT VIOLATES THE STATUTE OF FRAUD AND CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE

25 1624

26 2) THERE IS NO IMPLIED LANDLORD TENANT RELATIONSHIP IN REGARD

27 TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3857 RED BLUFF STREET IN SHASTA

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 12
1 LAKE CITY. THE DEFENDANT NEVER PERFORMED ANY DUTIES THAT

2 WOULD IMPLY THERE WAS A LANDLORD TENNANT RELATIONSHIP.

3 THE PLAINTIFF PAID A MONTHLY MORTGAGE TO THE DEFENDANT

4 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT SHE WAS PURCHASING THE

5 PROPERTY AND THAT LEGAL TITLE WOULD BE TRANSFERRED BY WAY

6 OF QUIT DEED AFTER THE FIRST 12 PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE

7 DEFENDANT.

8 With the absence of a landlord/tenant relationship, the Unlawful Detainer that evicted the
9
Plaintiff from her home, should have never been granted by Commissioner Berglund. The
10
Plaintiff stated at both UD trials heard by the Commissioner, that there was a Contract for
11
Deed and no relationship of tenant or landlord existed.
12

13

14
PRAYER
15
The Plaintiff prays for a favorable judgement regarding all her motions based on the
16

17 merit and the evidence that she has provided to the courts to sustain her claims in this motion. A

18 prayer for Declaratory Relief (Motion 1) from the Judge would be optimal as the Plaintiff is
19
representing herself with no legal counsel, She prays for the judgement in the UD case # CV-
20
UD-190000321 be vacated and the property be returned to her possession (Motion 2) Also, that
21
the Defendant is held accountable to his performance of the Contract for Deed he entered into
22

23 with the Plaintiff and convey the title for the property located at 3857 Red Bluff Street in Shasta

24 Lake City California through the action of a Quit Deed and allow the Plaintiff the opportunity to
25
secure her own lender (Motion 3) Motion 4 compliments Motion 1 and the Plaintiff prays the
26

27

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 13
1 courts implement the Statue of Frauds and uses its design for the purpose to Vacate the
2
Judgement in the UD Case # UD190000321.
3

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 MOTION FOR DECLATORY RELIEF, TO VACATE, TO PERFORM SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND TO ENFORCE THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS

STEFFEY VS PLAZA 14