1st Amended Complaint

Rodrick I Satre &
1
Bonita Satre Daley
2 530 Santa Fe Ave
Richmond, CA 94801
3 pro per PLAINTIFFS
p/f (510) 232-5059
4
email: rdsatre@live.com
5
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA- SAN FRANCISCO
9
RODRICK I SATRE &
10
BONITA SATRE DALEY
11 Plaintiffs, ) Case No.: C-10-01405 JSW
vs. )
12 WELLS FARGO BANK, NA aka ) PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED &
AMERICA’S SERVICING COMPANY ) SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR
13
aka WELLS FARGO HOME ) DAMAGES AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
14 MORTGAGE, FIRST AMERICAN ) RE 15 USC §1692 ET SEQ; U.C.C 3-
TRUSTEE SERVICING SOLUTIONS LLC ) 407 ET SEQ, U.C.C SECTION 9,
15 FORMERLY KNOWN AS FIRST ) OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE
AMERICAN LOANSTAR TRUSTEE ) STATUTES AS CLAIMED. DEMAND
16 SERVICES LLC AND LOANSTAR ) FOR JURY TRIAL
17
MORTGAGEE SERVICES, LLC, FIRST )
AMERICAN CORPORATION dba FIRST )
18 AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, LAW OFFICES OF GLENN )
19 H. WECHSLER, AND DOES 1-10 )
20
INCLUSIVE. )
Defendants
21 Jurisdiction
22 1. This Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to United States Code 28, sections 1331
23
and 1332, and from United States Code, 15, sections 1692 et seq..
24
25
Case No. C-10-01405 JSW Page- 1 of 31
26 PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED & SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF RE 15 USC §1692 ET SEQ; U.C.C 3-407 ET SEQ, U.C.C SECTION 9,
OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES AS CLAIMED
Intradistrict Assignment
1
2
2. Plaintiffs were at all times and are residents of the northern district of California. A proper
3 venue for this complaint [15 USC §1692k.(d)]
4 3. The Northern California District Court in San Francisco is appropriate for both Plaintiffs and
5 Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler both located in Contra Costa County,
6
California and Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. with operations located within the City
7
and County of San Francisco.
8
4. Defendant First American Title Insurance Company (Parent to First American Loanstar
9
Trustee Services LLC) has offices in the San Francisco Bay Area with an office in
10
11 Richmond, California.
12 5. Plaintiffs seeks also supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims which arise from the
13 identical circumstances, which is exercisable by this Court under 28 USC 1367.

14
15
BASIS OF FIRST AMENDED / SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
16
6. This is an action for damages and fraudulent actions sustained by Plaintiffs, normal persons
17
citizens of the United States by reason of Defendants’ actions in regards to the Fair Debt
18
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. §1692 et seq, Uniform Commercial Code §3-407, other
19
20 statutes and laws of the US Government and state statutes of California including Cal. Corp.
21 Code §1507 as listed herein or as understood based on the pleadings to embrace regulations
22 and laws that Defendants have violated.

23
24
25
7. This first amended complaint is supplemented by new information of continued and related
1
2
actions by Defendants in ongoing and protracted predatory loan servicing activities by all
3 named Defendants. All named defendants are subject to all causes of action as
4 coconspirators. Each Defendant in some way or other acted in some manner to violate
5 California and Federal Statues, Laws, Regulations and Rules. Each Defendant as a
6
coconspirator with the other Defendants acted to aid and share in the actions to fraudulently
7
attempt to take Plaintiffs’ real property from them. This complaint relies on this complaint
8
and a declaration of facts by Plaintiffs including exhibits.
9
8. In addition, new allegations of illegal activities in loan servicing and mortgage foreclosure
10
11 fraud have surfaced that were alleged in Plaintiffs original complaint.
12 9. Plaintiffs incorporate new authorities including a very current Complaint filed by California
13 Attorney General J. Brown against loan modification companies. While that case is not
14 decided, Plaintiffs wish to bring the California Attorney General’s complaint to the Court’s
15
attention due to exact actions by Defendant ASC which are noted as violating California
16
Civil Code Section as shown in ¶10.
17
18 10. Attorney General Brown's suit contends that U.S. Homeowners Assistance violated:
19 a. California Civil Code section 2945.4 for unlawfully collecting upfront fees for loan
20 modification services;
21 b. California Penal Code section 487 for grand theft.
22 c. California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by failing to perform
23 services made in exchange for upfront fees;
24
25
11. This complaint is the first amended and supplemental complaint. This complaint is filed and
1
2
served within the statutory time limits allowing a first amended complaint as a matter of
3 course. The first amended complaint supercedes the original complaint as to information and
4 fact but does not change the timeliness of the original complaint which relies on the April 3,
5 2010 filing of the original. The exhibits of the original complaint are superseded by recorded
6
documents showing the prima facie files of the Contra Costa County Records Office,
7
Martinez, California. This change is necessary to show the record as filed in 2004 compared
8
to the forged, altered records filed by Defendants in 2006 and 2007.
9
12. New facts that occurred after the filing of the original includes:
10
11 a. phone correspondence from ASC agent “Grant I.D. ‘3CS’” on August 30, 2010;
12 b. confirmation of credit reporting, dated April 2, 2010, by TransUnion based on
13 Plaintiffs’ request for investigation of filings by Defendant ASC and mailed on April
14 23, 2010;
15
c. changes in corporate name and state of organization by defendant First American
16
Loanstar Trustee Services, LLC, now known as FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE
17
SERVICING SOLUTIONS LLC;
18
d. A new, national awareness of mortgage foreclosure filing errors by Defendants First
19
20 American Title Insurance Company and First American Trustee Servicing Solutions
21 LLC as verified by President Obama’s pocket veto of H.R 3808, and,.
22 e. Egregious ex parte communications between Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H.

23
Wechsler and the Office of Judge Judith Craddick, Department 9, Superior Court of
24
25
California, County of Contra Costa on October 8, 2010 in an attempt to influence the
1
2
yet filed judgment of Plaintiffs’ case MSC06-02525.
3 13. Defendant First American Title Insurance Company, previously listed as Doe-1, has been
4 added to pin-point the actions by that alter ego of Loanstar to help Defendants and the Court
5 analyze activities that tie-back to events from the first county recording of Plaintiffs’ note
6
and deed with Argent Mortgage Company filed in October, 2004.
7
14. Based upon ex parte communications between the Court and Defendants’ attorney, the Law
8
Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler, and by contradicting statements by Mr. Wechsler himself on
9
September 22 and 23, 2010, Plaintiffs have adjusted the causes of action. Additional causes
10
11 of action to address the continued practices by Defendants and their attorney/agent that
12 misdirect and misrepresent the facts as they exist are included.
13 15. Plaintiffs also file this first amended complaint and lodged declaration with exhibits to
14 correct ambiguities in the original complaint as raised by Defendants Loanstar and Law
15
Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler1
16
16. . This first amended and supplemental complaint refreshes Defendant Law Offices of Glenn
17
H. Wechsler opportunity to respond in the name of the Defendant identified as a business and
18
not as an individual.
19
20 17. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. has communicated by email to Plaintiffs and by phone
21 call but has not served any formal pleading response. This first Amended/Supplemental
22
23 1
The motion to dismiss by the attorneys for Glenn H. Wechsler have limited
24 their response solely to Mr. Wechsler.
25
Complaint refreshes Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and its listed aliases opportunity to
1
2
respond.
3 18. Because this first amended complaint adds and renames defendants, it is delivered with a
4 summons but addressed to the attorneys that have identified their representation of
5 Defendants.
6
19. Newly named Defendant First American Title Insurance Company (FATCO) is noted as a
7
party of interest to the original complaint.
8
20. FATCO openly claims that Loanstar, now listed as First American Trustee Servicing
9
Solutions LLC, interchangeably uses either name to conduct business.
10
11 21. FATCO’s summons is served on its attorney as an amended complaint.
12 BUSINESS ORGANIZATION OF DEFENDANTS:
13 22. Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, NA. is incorporated in North Dakota with principal
14 headquarters in San Francisco, California.
15
23. Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage originally was incorporated in Iowa with principal
16
offices in Frederick, Maryland.
17
24. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage was licensed in Iowa as a DBA. of Norwest Mortgage
18
Company.
19
20 25. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc ceased to exist as a separate entity on May 5, 2004.i
21 26. Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage forfeited its license in Iowa in 2001 and has no
22 known business license at this time and is acting as an alter ego/ alias of Defendant Wells
23
Fargo Bank, N.A.ii
24
25
27. However Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, aka Wells Fargo Home Mortgage Inc.
1
2
abandoned its mortgaging business license in California in 20004.iii
3 28. Defendant America’s Servicing Company, formally a fictitious business name used by both
4 Norwest and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a D.O.B of Norwest Mortgage, Inc of Iowa has
5 principal offices in Maryland and Iowa.
6
29. Defendant America’s Servicing Company’s Iowa license was inactive as of November 22,
7
1991.iv
8
30. Defendant America’s Servicing Company forfeited its license in Iowa in 2001 and is not a is
9
not a registered business in any state at this time.
10
11 31. Defendant America’s Servicing Company, a fictitious business name used by Wells Fargo
12 Home Mortgage forfeited its Maryland business license on January 6, 2005.v
13 32. Instead, Defendant America’s Servicing Company is an alter ego /alias of Wells Fargo Bank,
14 N.A. with its business focus of third party loan servicing.vi
15
33. Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services’ is incorporated in Texas.
16
34. Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services at one time had a principal office in
17
Santa Ana, California but in 2006 closed that division and was licensed in Texas.
18
35. Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services announced some time in 2010 a new
19
20 name as First American Trustee Servicing Solutions LLC was formerly known as First
21 American LoanStar Trustee Services LLC and LoanStar Mortgagee Services, LLC.
22 36. On information and belief, Loanstar is moving out of Texas and back to the Santa Ana,
23
California Offices.
24
25
37. Defendant First American Title Insurance Company is the “Parent Company” of Loanstar
1
2
also with offices in Santa Ana, California.vii
3 38. Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler is a law firm located in Northern California
4 with an office in Walnut Creek California.

5 39. Plaintiffs are unaware of any licenses of fictitious business Defendant Law Offices of Glenn
6
H. Wechsler but believe attorneys working under that business are licensed to practice law in
7
California.
8
40. Defendants Does 1- 10 are unknown at this time but will be identified and added to the
9
complaint as they are determined.
10
11 Facts Of The Case
12 41. The factual series of events which led to this suit are approximately the following:
13 Plaintiffs Contacted Defendant ASC Before Plaintiffs’ Mortgage Loan Was in Default:
14 42. September 16, 2005 Plaintiffs called loan servicer ASC and talked to agent “C6R” to discuss
15
ways to avoid a foreclosure due to a short term slowdown in Plaintiffs’ consulting business.viii
16
43. Plaintiff told ASC agent C6R that Plaintiff was waiting on client checks and promised to pay
17
when they arrived. Plaintiffs promised to mail a payment of $3,639.56 which included a late
18
fee of $173.31 by September 22, 2005.
19
20 44. On September 19, 2005 Defendant ASC received the payment of $3,639.56 as recorded in a
21 ledger “V” provided by Defendants at trial.
22
23
24
25
45. On September 23, 2005 Defendant ASC recorded the same payment of . $3,639.56 as noted
1
2
in a ”Collections/Customer Service Loan Activity Archive” “DD”” provided by Defendants
3 to the Court on or about August 13, 2009 as “impeachment evidence.”
4 46. However, Exhibit “DD” was not provided to Plaintiffs at trial.

5 47. Plaintiffs demanded Exhibit “DD” in a post trial request to the Court to conditionally accept
6
Exhibit DD and to demand Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler produce that
7
Exhibit.
8
48. The Court did not order Defendants ASC and the Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler to
9
perform.
10
11 49. After a demand by email, Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler emailed Defendant
12 ASC’s Exhibit “DD” in electronic format to Plaintiffs on or about December 16, 2009.
13 50. Plaintiffs bring this discrepancy to the Court’s attention because certain claims made by
14 Plaintiffs based on fact as true, are alleged differently by Defendants America’s Servicing
15
Company and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler. Defendants’ claims rely on facts, shown
16
in evidence provided by Defendants, are inconsistent or untrue. [Cal. Corp. Code Section
17
1507 et seq]
18
51. Plaintiffs initiated the communication with loan servicer ASC as prudent persons and in
19
20 reliance of the suggestions of HUD and credit counselors that stressed homeowners contact
21 their loan servicer as soon as possible to work out solutions to financial difficulties.
22 52. While Plaintiffs’ difficulty was expected to be for only a few months, Plaintiffs believed that
23
all parties would benefit with open discourse.
24
25
53. In the phone conversation, Plaintiffs confirmed with Defendant ASC agent C6R that cash
1
2
flow problems would be resolved by March 2006 due to multiple consulting contracts
3 starting in January, 2006.
4 54. In that phone conversation of September 16, 2005 Defendant ASC agent C6R advised
5 Plaintiffs that a loan modification adding missed payments to the end of the note at the same
6
rate would satisfy handling anticipated missed payments.
7
55. On October 26, 2005 Plaintiffs resumed the conversation of September to correct a
8
procedural error in Defendant ASC’s proposed forbearance agreement dated October 12,
9
2005 which failed to recognize the term of Plaintiffs’ financial troubles.
10
11 56. In the phone conversation with ASC agent “HUG” on October 26, 2005 both parties explored
12 extending the payment periods of the note in a loan modification might better meet Plaintiffs’
13 needs.
14 57. On October 26, 2005 in that same conversation with ASC agent HUG Plaintiffs arranged for
15
a payment of $1,200.
16
58. On October 26, 2005, Plaintiffs paid in check by phone $1,200 as a partial payment and to
17
“set up” a loan modification. [California Civil Code section 2945.4]
18
59. Plaintiffs’ payment of $1,212.50 included a phone charge and was confirmed by ASC agent
19
20 HUG as confirmation number 1060751819.
21 60. Defendant ASC did not credit the $1,200 payment made in October, 2005 towards principal
22 or interest but instead held it in “suspense.”

23
24
25
61. The $1,200 had been an agreed amount suggested by Defendant ASC agent HUG to initiate a
1
2
loan modification as both Plaintiffs and Defendant ASC discussed beginning in September,
3 2005.ix
4 62. However, Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler in an attempt to deceive
5 the court did not account for the $1,200 payment in October and redacted that entry in a
6
simplified “Defendants’ Trial Exibit “E”: “Account Statement for Subject Loan, compiled
7
by Defendant ASC.”x[Cal. Corp Code §1507 et seq]
8
63. Plaintiff Rodrick Satre called ASC and talked with representative JID on January 3, 2006.
9
10 64. Plaintiff Satre explained his current difficulties in consulting, but confirmed that ASC was
11 beginning to sort out a loan modification.
12 65. In that call of January 3, 2006 Plaintiff Satre asked ASC agent JID for an accounting report
13 to show what had happened to Plaintiffs’ payment of $1,200 made on October 26, 2005.
14
66. Plaintiff Satre also explained that he was making a full periodic payment of $3,466.25 that
15
day so that ASC would not have a delinquency of 90 days.
16
67. Plaintiff Satre and ASC agent JID confirmed that the payment made that day would be
17
applied to the current due period of January, 2006.
18
19 68. On January 3, 2006 Plaintiffs paid Defendant ASC an ordinary payment of $3,466.25 via
20 check by phone which was acknowledged by ASC agent JID.
21 69. Defendant ASC did not credit this payment to the month and period, January 2006 payment
22
as had been discussed. [Cal. Civil Code Section 1479]
23
70. , Instead Defendant ASC credited this payment to October 2005.
24
25
71. Defendant America’s Servicing Company, hereafter “ASC”, an unlicensed fictitious loan
1
2
servicer business which is an alias of Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. had offered to work
3 with Plaintiffs during a downturn in Plaintiffs’ earnings with a loan modification suggested
4 by Defendant ASC to avert a default on the Note payments.

5 72. However, Defendant ASC delayed mailing a loan modification package to Plaintiffs, then
6
claimed that Plaintiffs had failed to timely respond. When it arrived, only Defendant ASC’s
7
cover sheet was provided.xi
8
73. On February 23, 2006 Defendant dated a letter purporting to contain paperwork needed for
9
the loan modification.
10
11 74. On February 24, 2006 Defendant ASC paid $95 for a BPO “brokers price opinion.”
12 75. In a meeting held in Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler adjoining conference
13 room on or about August 16, 2007 Defendant ASC’s then Default Litigation Specialist
14 Kathryn Moore admitted, on a break, that upon realizing the high equity of Plaintiffs’ home
15
based on the BPO received the day before, that Defendant decided to “go for it and foreclose
16
on Plaintiffs’ mortgage.”
17
76. The agreement between Defendant ASC as “Master Servicer” and Plaintiffs’ lender
18
Argent/Ameriquest/Park Place which was executed in November, 2004 has a clause that
19
20 allows the Master Servicer an option to buy a >90 day late note at par value of the note’s
21 principal plus any missed interest payments.
22 77. At the time of discussions of the loan modification with Defendant ASC, Plaintiffs were
23
unaware of Defendant ASC’s opportunity to buy at par value to the principal of the note.
24
25
78. During the period beginning in September 2005 and until March 9, 2006 Plaintiffs had
1
2
believed that Defendant ASC had intended to offer a Loan Modification.
3 79. Plaintiffs were unaware of Defendant ASC’s conspiracy to torturously interfere and void
4 Plaintiffs’ mortgage agreement [contract] with Plaintiffs’ lender Argent. [Restatement of

5 Torts]
6
80. In December, 2005 and January 2006 Plaintiffs were of the opinion that Defendant ASC was
7
working with Plaintiffs to solve a short term cash flow problem with a loan modification.
8
81. Plaintiffs are not asserting a cause of action in this first amended complaint because
9
Defendant ASC did not follow through on a loan modification.
10
11 82. Defendant ASC believed it had no obligation to be truthful or have a fiduciary responsibility
12 in honoring a verbal understanding with Plaintiffs. By failing to follow through on a loan
13 modification, Defendant ASC was able to attempt to set the stage to initiate foreclosure on
14 Plaintiffs’ mortgage.
15
83. In this first amended complaint, Plaintiffs will describe the efforts by Defendant ASC and in
16
co conspiracy with Defendants Loanstar / First American Title Insurance Company
17
beginning on or about March 8, 2006; and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler beginning on
18
or about December 16, 2006; that by fraud, deceit and misrepresentation of facts Defendants
19
20 together and all of them conspired and have made every attempt to take Plaintiffs’ property
21 from them illegally.
22 Key Facts Of March 10, 2006

23
84. On March 10, 2006 Plaintiff Rodrick Satre called Defendant ASC and talked to agent GVF:
24
25
a. Plaintiffs complained to ASC agent GVF that a package received the day before, with
1
2
a performance due on that day [March 10, 2006] was missing the attachments which
3 prevented Plaintiffs from filling out an agreement and getting it back to Defendants
4 ASC on time.
5 b. Plaintiffs then offered to mail a $4,000 cashier’s check, already prepared and which
6
exceeded a monthly payment of principal and interest to ASC in a good faith effort in
7
bringing the note current and requested an address to expedite the payment process.
8
c. Defendant ASC’s agent GVF stated that the check would not be accepted and would
9
be returned because Plaintiffs’ note was in default as of March 8, 2006.
10
11 d. The paperwork dated February 23, 2006 that purported to contain the loan
12 modification agreement was not mailed [from the East Coast] until March 7, 2006.
13 e. When Defendant ASC’s letter dated February 23, 2006 arrived, the evening of March
14 9, 2006, the single sheet contained in the envelop demanded that Plaintiffs fill out the
15
“enclosed application” and submit it to Defendant ASC no later than March 10, 2006.
16
f. Plaintiffs could not fill out any application because no such application was inclosed.
17
g. Plaintiff Satre on March 10, 2006 threatened to sue Defendant ASC for “breach of
18
good faith” and “unfair business practices” unless Defendant ASC mitigated
19
20 Plaintiffs’ impending default on their mortgage, put at risk by Defendant ASC’s
21 mailing practices.
22 h. Defendant ASC would routinely mail a document several weeks AFTER the date
23
printed on the letter. At times, Defendant ASC would not include the “paperwork,”
24
25
claimed attached, to a transmittal letter. In addition, ASC would write boilerplate
1
2
default warning letters claiming an inability to reach Plaintiffs.
3 i. Plaintiffs were concerned that Defendant ASC was creating a “paper trail” by
4 artifact which Defendant ASC knew was false.

5 j. In response and within the same phone call made by Plaintiff Rodrick Satre,
6
Defendant ASC agent GVF orally, on March 10, 2006, offered to forebear on its
7
default action. While the repayment of past due mortgage and interest payments were
8
discussed in the March 10, 2006 call, Plaintiffs reminded Defendant ASC that
9
agreements modifying the Note and Deed were to be in writing. [UCC- Statute of
10
11 Frauds] Plaintiffs also orally challenged the calculation of the full value of the sum
12 of payments as appearing instantly as about $25,000 more than past due debt. The
13 first installment of $9,200.00 was due on or about March 27, 2006.

14 85. At the time of this March 10, 2006 phone call and thereafter Plaintiffs called Defendant ASC
15
and requested the written forbearance letter multiple times.
16
86. Plaintiffs did not know exactly what Defendant ASC expected in consideration and did not
17
agree with the sum total of the payments as orally discussed with Defendant ASC on March
18
10, 2006.
19
20 87. With a pending deadline of a payment due March 27, 2006 Plaintiffs were concerned that the
21 written agreement had not arrived and Plaintiffs had no way of knowing where to send a
22 cashier’s check for $9,200.

23
88. Plaintiffs called Defendant ASC and talked to agent STQ on March 21, 2006.
24
25
89. Plaintiff reviewed with agent “STQ” the oral conversation that Plaintiff had made with
1
2
Defendant ASC’s default litigation group on March 10, 2006.
3 90. Plaintiffs made arrangements in that March 21 call to Defendant ASC agent STQ for the first
4 installment by check by phone for $9,220.00 on March 21, 2006.

5 91. Plaintiffs’ payment confirmation number for the $9,220.00 paid on March 21, 2006 was
6
number 1061065602 as told to Plaintiff by ASC agent STQ.
7
92. Plaintiffs made this payment to pay down some of Plaintiffs past due mortgage payments.
8
93. Plaintiffs had not been allowed to pay $4,000 to Defendant ASC on March 10, 2006.
9
94. Defendant ASC had promised to stop any foreclosure action if a payment was made, as
10
11 understood no later than March 27, 2006 for no less than $9,200 in the form of a cashier’s
12 check.
13 95. Plaintiffs’ payment made on March 21, 2005 for $9,220.00 reduced Plaintiffs’ past due
14 amount to only two missed monthly payments.
15
96. With only two missed payments, Plaintiffs’ mortgage payments had never been sequentially
16
late greater than 90 days for a full monthly payment of $3,466.25.
17
97. On March 27, 2006 Plaintiffs received multiple certified mail deliveries of a Notice of
18
Default.xii
19
20 98. Plaintiffs immediately called Defendant ASC and talked with agent Amanda “RQO”and
21 followed up with a letter to Defendants ASC and Loanstar.xiii
22
23
24
25
99. Plaintiffs’ March 27, 2006 letter noted that the alleged forbearance agreement was claimed to
1
2
be mailed on March 24, 2006 but it had not been received and Plaintiffs requested the written
3 agreement be resent.
4 100. Plaintiffs also asked in the phone conversation on March 27, 2006 with Defendant ASC’s
5 agent RQO for an accounting for the last 12 months activities and supporting documents
6
substantiating the nearly $25,000 excess charges that were unspecified in the NOD.
7
101. Plaintiffs repeated request for an accounting and substantiation in Plaintiffs’ qualified written
8
request letter of March 27, 2006 [#1] was never fully acted on by either Defendant ASC or
9
Loanstar.
10
11 102. Even to the first day of Plaintiffs’ state superior court trial [May 4, 2009], Defendants
12 refused to provide any substantiating evidence of the alleged charges made to Plaintiffs’
13 mortgage.
14 103. Plaintiffs’ [no less than two to Defendant Loanstar; five before the complaint; > forty since
15
to Defendant ASC] qualified written requests have never been answered in the form and
16
substance that is a legal requirement to Plaintiffs by Defendants Loanstar or ASC. [RESPA
17
VI]
18
104. In April, Plaintiffs had still not received the alleged forbearance agreement that Defendant
19
20 ASC’s agent RQO [on March 27, 2006] had told Plaintiffs was mailed on March 24, 2006..
21 105. On April 5, 2006 after multiple calls, Plaintiffs requested management intervention to a
22 supervisor Mr. D. Cline-Smythe who the next [4/06/2006] day faxed a letter containing some
23
24
25
of the language Plaintiffs had demanded but which was filled with errors and false
1
2
statements.
3 106. Plaintiffs never sent this April 6, 2006 faxed “agreement” to Defendant ASC.
4 107. During the following months through September 2006 Plaintiffs continued to pay nearly
5 double monthly mortgage payments to Defendant ASC.
6
108. In June, 2006, assuming Plaintiffs had fully caught up with past due Plaintiffs called
7
Defendant ASC on June 15, 2006 and were transferred to ASC agent C33.
8
109. In the call on June 15, 2006 Plaintiffs asked ASC agent “C33” for a written confirmation that
9
Plaintiffs were again current on their mortgage payments.
10
11 110. During the call on June 15, 2006 Defendant ASC’s agent C33 could only find late fees as
12 outstanding charges to Plaintiffs’ mortgage account.
13 111. Plaintiffs requested Defendant C33 have a payoff statement prepared and mailed to
14 Plaintiffs to make sure that Plaintiffs had caught up with their mortgage.
15
112. The next day on June 16, 2006 Plaintiffs called Defendant ASC and talked with agent
16
“SZW” and requested a reconveyence of the default.
17
113. A letter from Defendant ASC dated June 19, 2006 listed the outstanding advances fees
18
incurred on Plaintiffs account for foreclosure related costs totaling $1,681.12
19
20 114. A June 22, 2006 letter from Defendant Loanstar titled “Reinstatement Quote” asked for
21 $25,045.51.
22 115. Plaintiffs called Defendant ASC and talked with agent “PUW” on July 24, 2006.
23
24
25
116. Plaintiffs asked Defendant ASC agent PUW to send Plaintiffs a 24 month payment
1
2
history.
3 117. Plaintiffs received a 24 month payment history in late August, 2006. It was only a ledger
4 with no back up documentation of alleged charges.

5 118. After careful review, Plaintiffs determined that with a succeeding payment of S4,358.76
6
made in late September 2006, Plaintiffs had actually paid $12,000 over and above what
7
Plaintiffs owed.
8
119. Plaintiffs sent a fourth qualified written request to Defendant ASC on September 25, 2006
9
which included a spreadsheet analysis of Plaintiffs’ mortgage account based on Defendant
10
11 ASC’s ledger sent in late August, 2006.
12 120. In their qualified written request 9/25/2006, Plaintiffs again asked for verifying
13 documentation of any and all charges made.

14 121. The spreadsheet attached to the 9/25/2006 qualified written request sent to Defendant
15
ASC confirmed that Plaintiffs had by that time overpaid their mortgage by more than
16
$12,000.
17
122. Instead of investigating Plaintiffs’ request and responding in writing, Defendants ASC’s own
18
record shows that on October 9, 2006 ASC acted upon their position that Plaintiffs had
19
20 broken an unsigned unenforceable agreement. Defendant ASC’s record shows that Plaintiffs
21 had rejected that agreement in April, 2006.
22 123. The next day, October 10, 2006 Defendant ASC initiated foreclosure based an unsigned,
23
unenforceable agreement”
24
25
124. Defendants Loanstar and ASC filed for foreclosure sale for a date of December 19, 2006
1
2
in early October, 2006 allegedly for “breach of contract” of the unsigned, unexecuted, and
3 voided SPPRA.
4 Plaintiffs Scrambled to Find an Attorney to Fight the Foreclosure

5 125. At that time, Plaintiffs had no written notice nor was a notice ever posted on Plaintiffs’
6
property
7
126. The pending foreclosure sale was brought to Plaintiffs’ attention by a neighbor who is an
8
attorney some time around November 21, 2006.
9
127. Facing foreclosure, Plaintiffs searched for an attorney to respond to the looming sale set for
10
11 December 19, 2006.
12 128. Hampered by the time of year, and with a short time to react, Plaintiffs were only able to
13 recruit their existing tax attorney to file a Temporary Restraining Order by December 12,
14 2006.
15
129. Plaintiffs’ attorney, John Villines, was confused by the dates on ASC’ letters of 3/23 and
16
4/06/2006 and deduced that a letter dated April 6, 2006 would follow a letter dated March 23,
17
2006.
18
130. The case was just the opposite. Defendant ASC never mailed the letter dated March 23,
19
20 2006 until April 13, 2006 and again, the same letter was mailed on April 14, 2006.
21 131. All of the mail [allegedly prepared by Defendant ASC on March 23, 2006] was delivered to
22 Plaintiffs on April 18, 2006.

23
24
25
132. Plaintiffs’ attorney incorporated his errors into the pleadings and declaration of the original
1
2
complaint and the first amended complaint.
3 133. Plaintiffs’ attorney’s early effort was made between Thanksgiving and December 11, 2006
4 with the TRO filed 12/12/2006.

5 134. The FAC was filed April 2, 2007, just 13 days before tax attorney Mr. Villines had to finalize
6
all his other clients’ tax filings.
7
135. A very confused Mr. Villines removed himself from representing Plaintiffs the court day
8
before the first scheduled case management conference (May 1, 2007.)
9
Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint
10
11 136. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend the FAC and with Plaintiffs Second Amended
12 Complaint (SAC)
13 137. The errors made in the prior complaint and error filled declarations were corrected.
14 138. Still at trial in State Court, Defendants’ attorney the Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler
15
insisted that the facts found in the FAC could not be changed or corrected. [Cal Code of Prof
16
Cond 5-200]
17
139. Defendants at trial testified that ‘because Plaintiffs had made a payment on March 21, 2006
18
that Plaintiffs “had agreed to the terms of the forbearance agreement [which was dated
19
20 March 23, 2006.]”’xiv
21 140. Defendant ASC’ Witness Ms. Cindy Shanabrook and Defendant ASC’s attorney Defendant
22 Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler propounded a time-challenged conclusion of fact and law
23
that is simply incongruous.
24
25
141. Defendants’ witness at trialxv and Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler continued
1
2
this legal analysis that a payment made before a written agreement had even been put on
3 paper indicated acceptance of a future agreement.
4 142. Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler used this argument in Defendants’ proposed
5 Statement of Decision signed by the Court on August 12, 2010.
6
143. Plaintiffs served and filed a notice of motion, scheduled for a hearing on November 30, 2010,
7
on Defendants Loanstar and Wells Fargo alias America’s Servicing Company to vacate the
8
signed SOD and proposed judgment and replace with a new and different SOD and
9
Judgment under Cal Code of Civil Procedure Section 663 and 663a.[Cal Rules Prof Cond,
10
11 Rule 5-200(B)]
12 The Fact is that Plaintiffs Rejected Defendant ASC’s Forbearance Agreement in Writing
13 and Immediately Upon Reciept

14 144. When the letter (dated March 23, 2006) arrived on April 18th, 2006, Plaintiffs were alarmed
15
that the terms found in that Stipulated Partial Reinstatement Agreement (hereafter SPRA)
16
failed to provide any foundation of the amounts to be paid under that agreement.
17
145. Plaintiffs were also troubled by the requirement that Defendant ASC be paid first, then
18
payments would go towards the principal and interest owed.
19
20 146. Plaintiffs were unwilling to make payments unchecked and uncontrolled for alleged expenses
21 that were undefined.
22
23
24
25
147. According to the correspondence of March 23, 2006 from Defendant Loanstar, Plaintiffs’
1
2
supposedly had accumulated $25,869.22xvi in missed payments and advances that are in
3 excess of the amounts shown on the ledger provided by Defendant ASC in trial exhibit V.
4 148. Firstly the SPRRA demanded $92,000.00 paid by cashier’s check by March 27, 2006.
5 149. Secondly, Defendant ASC demanded approximately $25,000 in additional payments over the
6
monthly mortgage payment during a 12 month period. Each subsequent monthly payment in
7
the SPRRA was nearly double Plaintiffs’ ordinary monthly Principal and Interest.
8
150. Within two days of receipt of a proposed written agreement, Plaintiffs wrote to Defendants
9
America’s Servicing Company and First American Loanstar Trustee Services (hereafter ASC
10
11 and Loanstar, respectively) by mail and by facsimile on April 21, 2006 a rejection letter.
12 151. Plaintiffs’ letter revoked and voided the SPRRA as exceeding the amount owed by
13 approximately $25,000, misstating the $9,200 as $92,000. [U.C.C. Section 9-402(4)]

14 152. Plaintiffs also rejected Defendant ASC’s proposed altered terms to the Note and Deed which
15
would allow Defendant ASC to apply funds from Plaintiffs’ payments as reimbursement to
16
expenses allegedly advanced by Defendant ASC before applying any remaining funds
17
towards interest and principal. [U.C.C. Section 9-402(4)]
18
153. Defendant ASC’s proposed agreement reversed the Priority Of Payments terms in the Note
19
20 and Deed Plaintiffs entered with Argent Mortgage Corporation in 2004.
21 154. Plaintiffs’ Note had not established an escrow account as the loan of $560,000 was
22 approximately only 50% of the appraised value of Plaintiffs’ family home.

23
24
25
155. Instead, the Note relied on the terms in the Deed of Trust that would add any advances
1
2
made by the lender or its agent to the outstanding balance of the note with payments bearing
3 the same interest of the note.
4 156. Plaintiffs requested that Defendant ASC restructure the forbearance terms and amounts,
5 document and provide proof of any advances made and resubmit a revised and corrected
6
agreement.
7
157. Defendant ASC never followed through on that request and refused to provide any
8
supporting documents to verify any “advances” as was requested by Plaintiffs five qualified
9
written requests. [Section 6 RESPA]
10
11 The Court Granted a Temporary Restraining Order to Plaintiffs on December 12, 2006
12 158. Plaintiffs timely filed for a Temporary Restraining Order and subsequently a Preliminary
13 Injunction in Contra Costa Superior Court in Martinez, California on December 12, 2006.
14 159. Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler produced a “signed SPRRA” and
15
moved for Summary Judgment in 2007 but were denied by the Court when Judge Barbara
16
Zuniga determined that the SPRRA produced by Defendants was an altered document. [15
17
USC §§’s 1692e.(9) &(10); and 1692f.]
18
160. Thereafter Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint returning LoanStar to the
19
20 complaint and adding Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Home Mortgage as
21 additional Defendants.
22
23
24
25
161. The trial was for complaints of actions against Defendant America’s Servicing Company due
1
2
to misinformation of law and fact produced by Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler for events
3 up to the scheduled foreclosure sale of December 19, 2006.
4 162. That trial is not yet settled.

5 EVENTS SUBJECT TO PLAINTIFFS’ FEDERAL COMPLAINT AND FIRST
6
AMENDED COMPLAINT
7
163. On or about December 20, 2006 Defendants Loanstar and ASC received the original Note
8
from Deutsche Bank, N.A. which was not in Defendants’ possession at the time of the
9
scheduled foreclosure sale.[U.C.C Section 9-405(2) & (3)]
10
11 164. The above information was only discovered in December, 2009 following the bench trial
12 proceedings.
13 165. Defendants Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler, America’s Servicing Company presented the
14 loan records of correspondence as impeachment evidence during the last days of the bench
15
trial.
16
166. Plaintiffs were not provided an opportunity to inspect and study the evidence and did not
17
have an opportunity to use this evidence in cross examining Defendants’ witness.
18
167. Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler did not provide a copy set of this evidence to
19
20 Plaintiffs at trial, which concluded in August, 2009 and only produced it under demand in
21 Mid December, 2009.
22 168. Ordinary Trial Rules require that impeachment evidence is to be provided to all parties
23
and the Court before its introduction.
24
25
169. This was not followed, and the Court considered the admissibility of the evidence after
1
2
the bench hearings/trial ended.
3 170. Prior to that time, Defendants ASC/Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home
4 Mortgage, Loanstar and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler had this information in their
5 possession.
6
First Cause of Action Deception
7
171. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 170 inclusive as though
8
fully set forth herein.
9 Defendants, and all of them were aware that at the time of the scheduled foreclosure sale
10 (December 19, 2006), Defendants did not have possession of the note and were not lawfully
11 authorized to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ property. [15 USC §§’s 1692e and 1692j]
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set forth.
12
Second Cause of Action Misrepresentation
13
14
15
173. Nor did Defendant ASC disclose to Plaintiffs or the Court until testimony at the trial that it
16
was an alias of Wells Fargo Bank N.A. [15 USC §1692e.(14)]
17
18
Third Cause of Action Unfair Practices
19
20 174. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 173 inclusive as though
21
175. Defendants ASC, Loanstar and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechlser violated the TRO filed on
22
December 12, 2006 when they coconspired to continue the actions of foreclosure by
23
rescheduling a foreclosure sale every month following from December 2006, January
24 through April 2007 and hid Defendants conversion of the note after the TRO was filed and
25
served on Defendants ASC and Loanstar. [15 USC §§’s 1692f.(6)(A) &1692f.(6)(C)]
1
2
Fourth Cause of Action Validation of Debts
3 176. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 175 inclusive as though fully
4 set forth herein.
5 177. Defendants and all of them were asked to verify the debts owed. Plaintiffs requested the
6 validation of debts before the TRO was filed and continued to request under qualified written
7 requests to Defendants ASC and or Loanstar after the TRO. [RESPA 6] Requests have been
8
submitted to Defendant ASC each month since September 2006.
9
178. The trial was delayed until after Defendants produced some records by July, 2009.
10
179. Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler complained at trial that Plaintiffs continually
11
requested verification of debts. [U.C.C Section 9-208(3)]
12
180. The Court agreed with Plaintiffs objection to Defendants’ Exhibit V ledger of financial
13
14 activity as hearsay.xvii
15 181. On the first day of Trial, May 4, 2009, after Plaintiffs repeated requests to the Court the
16 Court demanded Defendants produce the verification of charges made against the mortgage.
17
182. Defendants admitted that no records were provided before trial but provided no excuse nor
18
did Defendants properly ask for an order from the court for leave to submit evidence after the
19
trial began.
20
183. Defendant ASC’s records produced over a month later provided for the continued trial were
21
22 shown to have been produced several days after the trial began by their date stamp.
23 184. When the trial resumed, Plaintiffs objected that records not prepared at the time an event
24 occurred are not verifiable debts under statute. [15 USC 1692g.(b)]
25
185. The Judge overruled Plaintiffs’ objection.
1
2
186. The accounting made by Defendant ASC is based upon charges made by Defendant ASC
3 with no basis and no record of how funds were applied.
4 187. Plaintiffs payments made by the Court Order after the preliminary injunction were sent, by
5 cashier’s check in February, 2007 for the amount of $17,331.25 is not recorded as “Debtor
6
Funds Received.”
7
188. Instead, Defendant ASC shows this amount in a column “Corporate Advanced Fees
8
Assessed or Recovered.”
9
189. Defendant ASC still refuses to provide a verified accounting of debts which has been
10
11 continuously demanded in writing each month for four years. [U.C.C § 9-208; Cal. Com.
12 Code §9210(a) et seq]
13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set forth.

14 Fifth Cause of Action Multiple Debts
15
190. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 189 inclusive as though fully
16 set forth herein.
17 191. Plaintiffs continued to make payments in agreement with the Preliminary Injunction filed
18 in 2007 which called for Plaintiffs to continue “making regular monthly mortgage payments
19
of $3,466.25.”
20
192. However, at trial Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler stated they have
21
not applied any payment made since October 2006 towards Principal and Interest at the
22
direction of legal counsel (Glenn H. Wechsler is principal attorney.)
23
24
25
193. Plaintiffs have requested with each payment made that the payments are to be applied
1
2
towards Principal and Interest as found in the terms of the Deed of Trust[xviiiCal Civil Code
3 Section 1479]
4 194. Defendants ASC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage as instructed by
5 Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler instead have applied well over $200,000 to an
6
“Escrow Account.” [15 USC §1692h.]
7
195. Defendant’s records show that each month, Defendant ASC continues to charge late fees,
8
even though the timing of receipt of payment is not late. [Cal. Civil Code Sections 1477 &
9
1479]
10
12 Sixth Cause Of Action False Misrepresentation of License of Defendant’s LoanStar and ASC
197. Neither Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, ASC nor Loanstar is licensed in the State of California
15
16 which is a statutory requirement for Fictitious Businesses under [California Business and
17 Professions Code §17900(a)(1) et seq; §17910 et seq; &§17918 et seq] to collect mortgage
18 payment debts from California mortgagors [California Financial Code §50005(a)et seq.]; [15
19
USC §1692e.(5)]
20
198. Loanstar, while conducting interstate business during the foreclosure period was a Texas
21
firm and did not seek a California Business License.
22
199. Loanstar, renamed and relocated has still not filed with the California Department of Real
23
24 Estate or any other licensing body.
25
200. Defendant First American Title Insurance Company is licensed as an insurance firm.
1
2
3 Seventh Cause of Action False Representation of Debt
5 set forth herein.
202. Defendant ASC has filed with the three Credit Agencies that the current amount owed is
6
7 $4,583 for 360 months.
8 203. The actual note (Exhibit A) is amortized for 360 months at $3,466.25/month.
9 204. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit Q explains that the ARM feature of the Note is invalid due to failure by
10
ARGENT Mortgage Corporation to meet the criteria of California Civil Code §1916.5 et seq.
11
[15 USC §1692e.(2)(A)]
12
205. On August 14, 2009 Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler produced
13
another impeachment evidence Exhibit BB that purported to state the amount necessary to
14
15
reinstate Plaintiffs loan as of December 20, 2006.
16 206. At the time Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler presented that
17 Exhibit BB to the court, Defendants knew the exhibit was false and that the amount presented
18 was false.
19
207. Defendants, and all of them except Loanstar, had already requested judicial notice of the
20
court on May 8, 2008 that confirmed that by September 25, 2006 Plaintiffs had overpaid their
21
mortgage by over $12,000.
22
23
24
25
208. At the time Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler presented trial Exhibit
1
2
“BB” Defendants knew that that evidence “BB”contradicted an uncontroverted fact that
3 Defendants had requested judicial notice of over a year before.

5 Eighth Cause of Action False Representation of Sale
6
209. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 208 inclusive as though fully
7 set forth herein.
8 210. Defendants ASC with guidance from Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler have
9 filed with the Credit Reporting Agencies that the “loan was foreclosed and collateral sold” in
10
May, 2007.[15 USC §1692e.(8)]
11
211. Defendants, in conspiracy did not foreclose the mortgage but instead, secretly purchased
12
the note at par value as allowed in Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s agreement as Master
13
Servicer to WWF1-2004 as described above.
14
15
16 Ninth Cause of Action False Representation of Accounts
213. Defendant ASC in 2008 and 2009 claimed in IRS form 1099 to have paid interest to
19
20 Plaintiffs of amounts over $1000 each year presumably due to interest on the held money in
21 Defendants’ ASC, Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage “Escrow Account.”
22 214. Such claims are false as Defendants and none of them have any banking relationship with
23
Plaintiffs. Defendants and all of them are acting as third party debt collectors.
24
25
215. Defendant ASC also charges falsely a late payment each month which is in excess of
1
2
$200 each month and deducts those false late charges against the “interest earned.”
3 216. This misrepresentation to the IRS has caused tax issues for Plaintiffs with both the IRS and
4 California Franchise Tax Board which requires extra effort to correct and file tax claims that
5 are(as the result of their illegal actions) questioned and confusing to tax officials.
6
217. Plaintiffs are unilaterally denied the rights to tax deductions for mortgage interest payments
7
due to Defendants’ ASC/Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’s failure to
8
accurately report principal and interest payments properly [USC §1692e.(2)(a)]
9
218. Plaintiffs are unilaterally assessed for tax liability payments due to Defendants’
10
11 ASC/Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage’s reporting of false interest
12 income. [15 USC §1692e.(2)(B)]
13 219. Defendants (ASC & Law Offices of Glenn H. Wecsler) have produced accounting records to
14 the Courts and to the Offices of Housing and Urban Development (ASC) that are false.
15
220. At the time these reports were presented to government official Defendants knew the records
16
were false.xix
17
18
Tenth Cause of Action Unconscionable Practices
19
set forth herein.
21
222. At trial, Plaintiffs learned that each month Defendants ASC/Wells Fargo Bank, Wells Fargo
22
Home Mortgage at the guidance of Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler charge Plaintiffs’
23
24 account for late fees, in spite of receiving the proper monthly mortgage payment on time and
25
by cashier’s check. At times, these fees exceed over $200/month for the last 3 years and
1
2
violate the terms of the Note and Deed of Trust.[15 USC §1692f.(1)]
3 223. Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler have not set an escrow account or
4 an impound account and Plaintiffs have instructed named Defendants that no escrow or
5
impound account is authorized.[Cal. Civil Code Section 2954; U.C.C. §9-402(4)]
6
224. Furthermore, Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler have been
7
instructed to not pay Plaintiffs’ property taxes.
8
225. Both Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler have paid property tax bills
9
10 which Plaintiffs then demand the County Finance Department reimburse Defendants and
11 both of them.
12 226. Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler attempt to claim possession of
13 Plaintiffs’ property by adverse possession by having a series of five years of payment of
14
property taxes.
15
16
Eleventh Cause of Action Real Property Fraud
17
18
full set forth herein.
19
228. Defendants ASC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Home Mortgage and Loanstar
20
colluded to alter the recorded Note which identified one parcel where Plaintiffs’ home is
21
located of 530 Santa Fe Ave and added an additional vacant parcels separately owned by
22
23
Plaintiffs to the Note in January, 2007.
24
25
229. This forged document is signed by the notary in 2004, not at the time it was recorded in
1
2
2007.
3 230. Defendants Loanstar and First American Title Insurance Company with direction from
4 Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler knowingly alerted Defendant Loanstar’s notice
5 of sale by hand writing into the notice two additional parcels not shown on the Notice
6
received by Plaintiffs on dated March 23, 2006.
7
231. When Plaintiffs brought this fact to the state court’s attention, Defendant Law Office of
8
Glenn H. Wechsler objected to the evidence as hearsay, even though Plaintiffs evidence was
9
embossed and signed by the Contra Costa County Records Office.
10
11 232. At the time Mr. Wechsler claimed hearsay, Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler
12 knew it was true as his own client, Loanstar had submitted the very same document in its
13 verified trial Exhibit W. [Code of Prof Conduct Rule 5-200 et seq]

14 233. This was not an action at state court. However this is another unconscionable action by
15
Defendants. [15 USC §1692e.(6)(B); UCC Part 5 §9.502 et seq]
16
17
Twelfth Cause of Action – Other Financial Damages
18
19
20
235. Plaintiffs have suffered financial damages due to the actions by all Defendants.
21
236. Those damages include loss of income due to reputation tarnished by the actions of all
22
Defendants.
23
24
25
237. Those damages include loss of credit due to reputation tarnished by the actions of all
1
2
Defendants.
3 238. Those damages include loss of funds due to inability to refinance the mortgage at a rate
4 lower than present 6.3% because the property is reported “collateral sold.”
5 239. These damages are caused by actions of all Defendants pursuant to [15 USC §1692f.(6) et
6
seq.]
7
8
Thirteenth Cause of Action Defamation of Character
9
10
11
241. Defendants and all of them continue to act to foreclose on Plaintiffs’ property without
12
admitting the amount was contested and publishing this information for the public to read.
13
Such actions create hardships for Plaintiffs in their dealing with their community where
14
15
Plaintiffs are well known. [15 USC 1692d.]
17 Fourteenth Cause of Action Misuse of Funds For Private Gain

19 full set forth herein.
20 243. At trial, Defendants produced an exhibit that showed Defendants and all of them conspired to
21 use mortgage payments made by Plaintiffs for private use to pay for attorney fees and an
22 unverified Bond as well as other charges not within the four corners of the Note and Deed.
23
[Cal Penal Code Section 487]
24
25
244. Defendants also claim payments to file new foreclosure publications during the time of the
1
2
preliminary injunction which is still in place. [15 USC §1692f.]
4 Fifteenth Cause of Action torturous interference with contract

7 246. At the time of the scheduled foreclosures sale of December 19, 2006, Defendants Loanstar,
8 Wells Fargo Bank and the Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler knew that Defendants basis of
9 the foreclosure action was based on a rescinded and voided contract of forbearance. This
10
forbearance agreement was rejected upon receipt as was confirmed for the first time during a
11
trial on quiet title that came about on May 4, 2009 and continued from August 12, 2009
12
through August 14, 2009.
13
247. The disclosure of the actual knowledge that the forebearance agreement was invalid was
14
15
testified on August 13, 2009 by the Default Litigation Specialist Ms. Cindy Shanabrook.
16 248. Until the trial, the actual use of funds paid by Plaintiffs in monthly mortgage and interest
17 payments was unknown.

18 249. Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler conspired to continue applying the
19
terms of a void forbearance agreement in violation of the actual contract with Argent.
20
250. Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler conspired to hide the actual demand
21
of the payment of funds be applied to principal and interest payments.
22
23
24
25
251. Plaintiffs requested, in writing with each payment made to Defendant Wells Fargo through
1
2
its alias ASC, that funds were to be applied to Principal and Interest for Plaintiffs’ mortgage,
3 and also requested a proper accounting..
4 252. At trial, Defendants’ testified that in spite of Plaintiffs’ demand, Defendant WFB/ASC held
5 all funds received and did not disburse these funds to the actual lender (Argent) nor to the
6
investors as described in the 2004-WWF1 securitized mortgage account.
7
253. Instead, Defendant ASC admitted that the funds were retained at the direction of their
8
attorney [Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler] as legal and appropriate.
9
254. Defendant ASC reported to credit agencies that the loan was foreclosed and collateral
10
11 sold in May, 2007.
12 255. In making that actions, under the direction of Defendants’ attorney [Defendant Law
13 offices of Glenn H. Wechsler] Defendants WFB/LoanStar conspired to report to the creditor

14 [Argent or its successors] that the loan had defaulted and that the mortgage was sold.
15
256. This report to the credit reporting bureaus confirmed that Defendants and all of them
16
conspired to defraud the actual note holder as well as Plaintiffs.
17
257. Defendants and all of them are not the holders of the note under due process.
18
258. Defendant Wells Fargo, aka Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, aka America’s Servicing
19
20 Company acts as a 3rd party debt collector “Loan Servicer” under contract to
21 Argent/Ameriquest/Park Place Securities, LLC (hereafter Argent.)
22 259. The actual indebtedness of Plaintiffs is a contract of chattel with Argent.

23
24
25
260. Plaintiffs property, at the time of the interference by Defendants was worth
1
2
approximately $600,000 more than the debt on the property.
3 261. Plaintiffs invested their own time, labor and skills to develop the raw land to improved
4 property as owner builders.

5 262. Plaintiffs’ equity and forecast future appreciation of the value of the improved property was
6
considered not only a home but a security for Plaintiffs’ future retirement years.
7
263. Argent is not a bank, a savings association nor any banking related business.
8
264. Plaintiffs’ contract with Argent included a note and deed. The note was securitized
9
through a private offering as recorded with the Security Exchange Commission.
10
11 265. Defendants, and all of them were fully aware of the valid contract of chattel between
12 Plaintiffs and Argent no later than on or about December 15, 2006.
13 266. Defendant WFB/WFHM/ASC knew Plaintiffs and Argent had a valid contract on or about
14 February 1, 2005 when it began loan servicing Plaintiffs Mortgage.
15
267. Defendant WFB should have known that Plaintiffs and Argent had a valid contract when
16
Wells Fargo Bank entered into a master servicing agreement with Argent’s sister D.B.A.
17
Park Place Securities, LLC on or about November 1, 2004.
18
268. Defendants Loanstar and First American Title Insurance Company, LLC filed a notice of
19
20 Default against Plaintiffs’ property parcel APN 558-182-009 on or about March 13, 2006.
21 269. The NOD identified Plaintiffs and Argent as Mortgagor and Mortgagee as shown in a
22 contract on or about September 24, 2004 and which was the Deed of Trust and Note chattel
23
contract recorded in 2004.
24
25
270. Defendants Loanstar and First American Title Insurance knew that Plaintiffs and Argent had
1
2
a valid contract in place when Defendant First American Title Insurance filed a Notice of
3 Default with the Contra Costa County Records Office on or about March 13, 2006.
4 Defendants LoanStar and First American Title Insurance Company referenced the 2004
5 recorded note.
6
271. The recording of contract [Note and Deed] for 530 Santa Fe Ave, Richmond, California was
7
performed by Defendant First American Title Insurance on or about October 1, 2004.
8
272. Defendant First American Title Insurance Company knew that Plaintiffs and Argent had
9
a valid contract as of the date of recording that chattel contract in 2004.
10
11 273. Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler knew that Plaintiffs and Argent had a valid
12 contract on or about December 15, 2006 as of the date it received the original complaint.
13 274. When Defendants conspired to report that the note was in default and collateral sold, on
14 or about May, 2007, Defendants and all of them fraudulently and with torturous interference
15
with contract, breached the contract of chattel between Plaintiffs and Argent.
16
275. Defendants and all of them were 3rd party co-conspirators and acted as one to defraud
17
Plaintiffs of their contract with Argent or its assignees of the Note and Deed of Trust.
18
276. Defendants and all of them conspired to create a default where none existed and sought to
19
20 foreclose on Plaintiffs’ property for economic gain.
21 277. Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler conspired to fabricate a
22 purported “signed agreement” within their declarations for a motion for summary judgment.
23
24
25
278. The judge denied that summary judgment based on the fact that the “signed agreement”
1
2
attested to by Defendants Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler and ASC had different font and
3 formatting from one page to the other. [Cal. Code of Prof Cond Rule 5-200]
4 279. At the time of Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler motion for summary
5 judgment, Defendants and both of them knew that Plaintiffs had rejected and rescinded the
6
“forbearance agreement immediately upon receipt and mailed that rejection to Defendants
7
Loanstar and ASC.
8
280. In a pre-trial motion and even through the trial, Defendants ASC and Law Offices of
9
Glenn H. Wechsler continued to attempt to maintain this deceit and fraudulent document as
10
11 enforceable.
12 281. When Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler took these actions,
13 Defendants, and both of them, conspired to fraudulently produce an altered, forged

14 agreement as an enforceable agreement. Defendants’ action began in 2007 and was
15
maintained throughout the trial even after Defendant ASC’s witness Default Litigation
16
Specialist Cindy Shanabrook testified that no such agreement had been mailed to Defendant
17
ASC and that ASC had received a rejection of the agreement which was entered into
18
Defendant ASC’s own records on or about April 23, 2006.
19
20 282. All this time, in fraudulent deceit, Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H.
21 Wechsler perjured themselves and knew that the statements they made were false and
22 fraudulent.
23
24
25
283. Defendants and all of them conspired to transfer Plaintiffs property to themselves in
1
2
contempt of the preliminary injunction for economic gain.
3 284. Plaintiffs equity in the property exceeded $600,000 at the time of interference with
4 contract.
5 285. Defendants, following a broker’s price opinion conspired to foreclose on the property at
6
all costs.
7
286. Plaintiffs learned this fact at trial on or about August 12, 2009 when Defendants’ Default
8
Litigation Specialist Ms. Cindy Shanabrook admitted that no payments since September,
9
2006 were applied to Plaintiffs’ mortgage agreement with Argent.
10
11 287. Defendants admitted under oath that instead, Defendant ASC has held all funds for itself
12 in a “suspense account.
13 288. On or about August 30, 2010 at approximately 7:45PM an agent for Defendant America’s
14 Servicing Company called Plaintiffs’ home phone number.
15
289. When Plaintiffs answered, ASC agent “Grant” with company identification code “3CS”
16
informed Plaintiffs that ASC has claimed that no mortgage payment had been made for 48
17
months.
18
290. ASC agent “Grant” ID “3CS told Plaintiffs that Defendant ASC was considering a loan
19
20 modification for Plaintiffs, but was confused on the procedure underway.
21 291. ASC agent “Grant” ID “3CS” confirmed that his employer was both ASC and Wells
22 Fargo Bank, N.A.

23
24
25
292. ASC agent “Grant” would not tell Plaintiffs where over $200,000 total of monthly payments
1
2
had gone, if not to pay the mortgage principal and interest.
4 Sixteenth Cause of Action Torturous Interference With Economic Gain

7 294. Defendant ASC did not provide funds paid to ASC as the Loan Servicer, 3rd party debt
8 collector, to Argent.
9 295. Defendant ASC did report to credit reporting agencies that the note was in default and
10
collateral sold in May, 2007.
11
296. Defendant ASC caused the note and deed of trust chattel agreement to be breached in
12
tortuous interference with contract.
13
297. Defendant Loanstar fully knew that Plaintiffs had challenged the amounts owed to
14
15
Defendant ASC since March, 2006.
16 298. Defendant Loanstar fully knew that Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Contra Costa Superior
17 Court was filed on December 12, 2006.

18 299. Defendant Loanstar knew that a TRO was in place on December 12, 2006.
19
300. Defendants Loanstar, WFB/WFHM/ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler
20
demurred to the complaint and first amended complaint which was denied.
21
301. Defendants Loanstar, WFB/WFHM/ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler knew
22
that included with the denial of Defendants’ demurrer that a preliminary injunction was
23
24 placed upon Defendants WFB/WFHM/ASC and Loanstar on or about March 17, 2007
25
enjoining Defendants from selling, foreclosing or attempting to sell or foreclose Plaintiffs’
1
2
real property until the matter was settled by the courts.
3 302. In spite of that order, Defendants ASC and Loanstar conspired to sell Plaintiffs property
4 in May, 2007.
5 303. Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler instructed Defendants ASC and Loanstar to
6
sell the property and report to the beneficiary that Plaintiffs had defaulted on the note and the
7
collateral was sold.
8
9
Seventeenth Cause of Action False Reporting of Account.
10
12
305. At trial, Defendants ASC at the direction of Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler
13
provided to the Courts and Plaintiffs Defendants’ Exhibit “V” and later, for “impeachment
14
15
evidence. Exhibit “BB”.
16 306. Defendants’ witness, Default Litigation Specialist confirmed that Defendant ASC had
17 charged the Plaintiffs’ mortgage account $17,331.25 for “litigation (borrower funds)” on
18 2/23/2007.
19
307. On this same page (5 of 12) of Exhibit “V’ are six more charges for “litigation (borrower
20
funds) charged for amounts of $999.99 [4 times] $3,466.25 [one time which exactly matches
21
a monthly mortgage payment amount] and $466.48 [one time.] These charges began as
22
noted on 2/23/2007 and continued through 5/01/07. Two more charges of $999.99 and one
23
24 more charge of $466.48 were charged to “litigation (borrower funds)”
25
on May 1, 2007.
1
2
308. At that time, Defendant ASC reported that the loan was foreclosed and collateral sold.
3 309. Defendants’ witness told the Court at trial that those fees were to pay for a bond that
4 Defendants purchased.
5 310. Defendants did not provide any evidence of a bond.
6
311. In March, 2007 Defendant ASC replied to Ms. Eddy Norton of HUD in response to
7
Plaintiffs’ January, 2007 request for intervention in the complaint.
8
312. Within the reply by Defendant ASC to HUD (Housing and Urban Development)
9
Defendant ASC also noted that the charges as described above were for purchase of a bond.
10
11 313. At the time these charges were entered and at the time in March 2007 and on or about
12 April 16, 2009 [the last date entry in Exhibit “V” Defendant knew this accounting
13 information was false and misleading with intention to damage Plaintiffs and influence HUD
14 in 2007 and the Courts in 2009 with knowingly false accounting entries.
15
314. On August 14, 2009, Defendant Glenn H. Wechsler produced as impeachment evidence
16 an accounting statement claiming that as of December 20, 2006 Plaintiffs were still in
17 default.
18 315. Defendants’ Evidence “BB” claimed amount due as of 12/20/2006 to “reinstate” the account
required paying an additional $28,930.99 to Defendants.
19
316. At the time this was presented to the Court by Defendant Glenn H. Wechsler as agent for
20
Defendant ASC, Mr. Wechsler and Defendant ASC knew that amount was false.
21
317. Defendant Glenn H. Wechsler produced and presented Exhibit “BB” at trial to misdirect and
22 deceive the Court knowing that the amount due was false and that the amounts paid plus the
23 amount due if accounted for at that time would total $87,703.80 in payments in 2006.
24
25
318. Plaintiffs missed 2.6 payments the year before. Annual mortgage payments were
1
$41,595/year.
2
319. Defendants’ Reinstatement amount would thus claim that the 2006 calendar year total
3 advances [and then due] paid by ASC and made on Plaintiffs’ account as of December 20,
4 2006 was $36,910.05.
5 320. Defendant ASC’s record of fees in Exhibit “V” showed, for the time period through
12/28/2006 an “Outstanding Corporate Advance Balance” of $1,806.12
6
321. Defendant Glenn H. Wechsler, as agent for Defendant ASC, knowing it to be false
7
participated in the making, issuance, and publication thereof with knowledge that Exhibit
8
9 “BB” was false in a material respect. [California Corporations Code Section 1507]
11 Eighteenth Cause of Action Fraudulent Alteration of Contract

12
13
14
323. Defendants Loanstar in conspiracy with Defendants ASC and Law Offices of Glenn H.
15
Wechsler altered the recorded face of the note and deed of trust to add an unimproved parcel,
16
owned by Plaintiffs since 1994 to the deed and note. Defendants did this crudely by hand
17
18 and recorded this altered deed and trust with the Contra Costa County Office of Records on
19 or about January 7, 2007.
20 324. Plaintiffs only learned of this fraudulent action in 2009 when researching county title
21
records to find the actual owner of Plaintiffs property which had been damaged in an
22
accident.
23
325. Defendants’ fraudulent alteration of the Chattel contract voided the contract. [California
24
25
Civil Code Section 1700; U.C.C. - Article 3 - Negotiable Instruments § 3-407. Alteration]
1
2
3 Nineteenth Cause of Action Fraudulent Accounting With Intent to Deceive.
327. Defendant ASC has presented to the Courts, HUD and Plaintiffs an accounting that
6
7 shows no change in the outstanding balance of principal.
8 328. Defendant ASC at trial testified that all payments since October 2006 have been held in a
9 “suspense account.”
10
329. Defendant ASC, in an attempt to alter the periodic payment amount due on the note mails a
11
notice of change in payments in 6-month intervals.
12
330. Each letter from ASC references that the interest and payment amount is calculated on
13
the outstanding principal balance.
14
331. Each letter from ASC successively shows a lower principal balance which would agree to
15
16 Plaintiffs’ assertion that principal and interest payments have been made, and applied to the
17 loan in normal fashion.

18 332. However, as noted above, ASC employees confirm that ASC has not applied payments to
19
principal and interest since October, 2006.
20
333. A double, fraudulent and contradicted set of accounts is being used to deceive Plaintiffs.
21
334. The deception is being used in conspiracy by all Defendants to deprive Plaintiffs of their
22
property and at the same time, retain all payments made by Plaintiffs and held by Defendant
23
24 ASC.
25
1
Twentieth Cause of Action Contempt of Preliminary Injunction
2
3
4
336. At trial, Defendants Default Litigation Specialist Cindy Shanabrook admitted that
5 Defendants Loanstar and ASC initiated a new and separate foreclosure action to sell
6 Plaintiffs’ property during the time a preliminary injunction was in force.
7 337. Defendant ASC’s Exhibit “V” show in ledger entries on or about 2/14/2008 charges for
FCL Atty Fees, notice fee, publication fee, recording fee, substitution of TT deed fee, and
8
certified mailing cost.
9
338. When cross examined, Defendants’ witness (Ms. Shanabrook) admitted that ASC and
10
Loanstar conspired to restart the foreclosure action on Plaintiffs’ property.
11 339. At that time, and continuing to this day, the preliminary injunction to prevent selling,
12 attempting to sell, advertising and any other activity in an attempt to transfer Plaintiffs’
13
property is stayed until the decision of the Court has been decided.
Defendants’ witness testified that later, this action was halted by defendants.
14
15
Twenty first Cause of Action False Statement in Verified Answer to Second Amended
16
Complaint
17
18
19
341. Defendant Law Office of Glenn H. Wechsler verified that Defendant Loanstar did place a
20 notice of sale on Plaintiffs property in compliance with state foreclosure laws.
21 342. Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler knowingly made this false statement and
22 acted not as the attorney for the named defendants in MSC06-02525 but as a material witness
to the facts of that complaint.
23
Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H. Wechsler signed the verification on July 14, 2008 and at
24
25
the time, knew that the notice of pending foreclosure sale [set for sale 12/19/2006] was
1
posted to a house different than and located 4 to 5 blocks away from Plaintiffs’ residence.
2
3 Twenty Second Cause of Action Fraudulent Alteration of Notice of Default
4
6 344. When Defendant Loanstar mailed a Notice of Default to Plaintiffs, the property identified
7 as 530 Santa Fe Avenue was properly identified as APN 558-182-009. No other property
was included as was appropriate. The note properly identified the property as address 530
8
Santa Fe Ave, Richmond, California.
9
345. Later, in 2009 Plaintiffs discovered that the NOD filed with the County Records had been
10
altered by hand to include two additional parcels owned by Plaintiffs but which were not a
11 part of the note.
12 346. At trial, Defendants objected to this evidence as hearsay, in spite of the documents
13
presented being a verified, embossed document prepared by the County Records Office.
Defendants, at trial, accused Plaintiffs of altering the record and adding the two additional
14
parcels before submitting it to the Court as evidence.
15
16
17
18 PRAYER: Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants for:

19
Compensatory Damages as Determined by the Trier of Fact to adequately compensate for the
20
injuries described in this Complaint;
21
for disgorgement of profits from Defendants and all of them, and
22
for Punitive and Exemplary Damages to punish each Defendant against whom they are awarded
23
24 and to deter future similar conduct by that Defendant;
25
and for Plaintiff’s costs and attorney fees pursuant to 15 USC §1692k. et seq;
1
2
and for Injunctive Relief as deemed proper by the Trier of Fact, to protect Plaintiff from
3 Defendants in the future;
4 and for all other further relief that is proper.

5 Plaintiffs additionally request judgment that the altered contract (original note and deed of trust)
6
which was not noticed to Plaintiffs nor agreed to by Plaintiffs is voided by that fraudulent action
7
by Defendants and that therefore the note and deed have no longer been valid or enforceable
8
upon the date of recording the fraudulent document at the Contra Costa Records Office.
9
Plaintiffs demand judgment that funds paid to Defendants since that time and profits held by
10
11 defendants are to be disgorged to Plaintiffs
12
13
Plaintiffs request a jury trial.
14 //
15 I state that I am/we are the Plaintiff(s)acting in Proper Person and that the foregoing is true to the
16 best of my/our knowledge and belief. I/we agree to comply with all Court Rules.
17
Executed on ___________, 2010, at ___________________ California.
18
19
_________________________ ____________________________
20 Bonita Satre Daley Rodrick I Satre
21 530 Santa Fe Ave
Richmond, California 94801
22
23
24
25
i
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit B.
ii
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit C.
iii
En 1 supra
iv
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit E.
v
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit D.
vi
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit F trial transcript page ________
vii
See Notice of Interested Parties filed by Defendant First American Trustee
Servicing Solutions served on 9/29/2010
viii
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit G Defendants’ trial “impeachment
evidence” Exhibit “DD.”
ix
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit H letter from ASC dated 10/12/2005
from “001325/DFF034/106/A: LF114,26,@BO”
x
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit I-1 and H-2 Defendants Trial Table
of Contents [I-1]and trial exhibit “E” [I-2]filed April 20, 2009 with Superior
Court, Contra Costa County.
xi
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit J [Plaintiffs letter and rejection
/rescission of forbearance agreement dated April 20, 2006] from deposition
discovery documents produced by LOGHW on 2008.
xii
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit K
xiii
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit L [March 27 letter to Loanstar];
Exhibit G [supra]
xiv
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit M transcript of trial page
[regarding payment then verified the contract________ on _________.
xv
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit N transcript of trial page
[regarding Attorney and Shannabrook stating that once a payment was made, the
contract is enforceable contract________ on _________.

xvi
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit O compilation of Charges between
3/21 -23/2006, Exhibit P Defendants’ trial exhibit V, Exhibit Q Defendant Loanstar
trial Exhibit W re letter dated 3/23/2006 claiming amount of debt to be
$578,921.23.
xvii
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit P trial transcript page ________
xviii
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit Q Letter for monthly payment
directing ASC to apply to P & I.
xix
Declaration ¶_________ page _________ Exhibit R correspondence with HUD.

1st Amended Complaint

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1st Amended Complaint

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Rodrick I Satre &

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 venue for this complaint [15 USC §1692k.(d)]

13 identical circumstances, which is exercisable by this Court under 28 USC 1367.

22 and laws that Defendants have violated.

11 fraud have surfaced that were alleged in Plaintiffs original complaint.

12 b. confirmation of credit reporting, dated April 2, 2010, by TransUnion based on

21 LLC as verified by President Obama’s pocket veto of H.R 3808, and,.

22 e. Egregious ex parte communications between Defendant Law Offices of Glenn H.

12 misdirect and misrepresent the facts as they exist are included.

24 their response solely to Mr. Wechsler.

11 21. FATCO’s summons is served on its attorney as an amended complaint.

12 BUSINESS ORGANIZATION OF DEFENDANTS:

12 Home Mortgage forfeited its Maryland business license on January 6, 2005.v

4 with an office in Walnut Creek California.

11 Facts Of The Case

21 ledger “V” provided by Defendants at trial.

3 to the Court on or about August 13, 2009 as “impeachment evidence.”

4 46. However, Exhibit “DD” was not provided to Plaintiffs at trial.

3 starting in January, 2006.

20 HUG as confirmation number 1060751819.

22 or interest but instead held it in “suspense.”

11 beginning to sort out a loan modification.

20 check by phone which was acknowledged by ASC agent JID.

4 by Defendant ASC to avert a default on the Note payments.

21 principal plus any missed interest payments.

4 Plaintiffs’ mortgage agreement [contract] with Plaintiffs’ lender Argent. [Restatement of

12 in honoring a verbal understanding with Plaintiffs. By failing to follow through on a loan

21 from them illegally.

22 Key Facts Of March 10, 2006

20 Plaintiffs’ impending default on their mortgage, put at risk by Defendant ASC’s

4 artifact which Defendant ASC knew was false.

13 first installment of $9,200.00 was due on or about March 27, 2006.

22 cashier’s check for $9,200.

4 installment by check by phone for $9,220.00 on March 21, 2006.

21 followed up with a letter to Defendants ASC and Loanstar.xiii

12 outstanding charges to Plaintiffs’ mortgage account.

4 with no back up documentation of alleged charges.

11 ASC’s ledger sent in late August, 2006.

13 documentation of any and all charges made.

21 had rejected that agreement in April, 2006.

4 Plaintiffs Scrambled to Find an Attorney to Fight the Foreclosure

11 December 19, 2006.

22 Plaintiffs on April 18, 2006.

4 with the TRO filed 12/12/2006.

20 March 23, 2006.]”’xiv

3 paper indicated acceptance of a future agreement.

13 and Immediately Upon Reciept

21 that were undefined.

13 approximately $25,000, misstating the $9,200 as $92,000. [U.C.C. Section 9-402(4)]

20 and Deed Plaintiffs entered with Argent Mortgage Corporation in 2004.

22 approximately only 50% of the appraised value of Plaintiffs’ family home.

3 the same interest of the note.

3 up to the scheduled foreclosure sale of December 19, 2006.

4 162. That trial is not yet settled.

21 Mid December, 2009.

3 with no basis and no record of how funds were applied.

12 Code §9210(a) et seq]

13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set forth.

11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment as hereinafter set forth.

24 Estate or any other licensing body.

3 Seventh Cause of Action False Representation of Debt

7 $4,583 for 360 months.

[regarding payment then verified the contract on _.

contract is enforceable contract on _.