Adverse Rial Complaint

8/3/2019 Adverse Rial Complaint

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/adverse-rial-complaint 1/37

Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Tina Backstrom6755 S. Garth AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90056Telephone No. (310) 256-8308

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

IN THE CENTRAL DISTRICT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In Re

TINA BACKSTROM

Debtors.

TINA BACKSTROM

Plaintiffs.

VS.

WORLD SAVINGS BANK, WACHOVIAMORTGAGE, WELLS FARGO HOMEMORTGAGE, WELLS FARGO, N.A.,MORTGAGE ELECTRONICREGISTRATION SYSTEMS (“MERS”), andDOES 1 through 20

Defendants.

)))))))))))

)))))))))))))

Case No.:CHAPTER 13

ADVERSARY CASE NO:

PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT

1. NOW COMES, TINA BACKSTROM, Debtor and Plaintiff in the above-entitled and

numbered cause (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and files this “Original Complaint”



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pursuant to Sections 524 and 105 of Title 11 United States Code (“Bankruptcy Code”), hereby

sues Defendants World Savings Bank, Wachovia Mortgage, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage

Wells Fargo, N.A., and Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”), to Determine

Existence of Lien, violations of predatory lending, violations of Debt Collection Act, Good Faith

and Fair Dealing; Violations of TILA (15U.S.C. section 1601); Violation of RESPA; Breach of

Specific Performance; Anticipatory Breach; Intentional Misrepresentation; Negligent

Misrepresentation; Civil Conspiracy to Defraud; Fraudulent Concealment; Promissory Estoppel

Declaratory Relief, by bringing an adversary proceeding.

II. JURISDICTION

2. The Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants named herein because a

substantial portion of the wrongdoing alleged in this complaint took place in the Central District

of California, and the Defendants are authorized to regularly do business in the Central District

of California.

3. The jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, pursuant to 15

U.S.C. 1640(e); in that alleged herein arise under the laws of the United States. This Court has

supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 to hear and determine Plaintiffs’ state

law claims because those claims are related to Plaintiffs’ federal claims, arise out of a common

nucleus of related facts, and form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the

United States Constitution.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. The jurisdiction of this Court for the Cause of Action is invoked pursuant to the Truth in

Lending Act and Real Estate Protection Act 15 U.S.C. §1640(e) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 AND

1337.

5. The Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ action for declaratory relief pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6. Venue is proper in the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) in

that the unlawful conduct that gave rise to these claims occurred within the Central District of

California. Further, Jurisdiction of this Court for the pendent claims is authorized by Rule 18(a)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

7. Intradistrict assignment in Los Angeles, California, is proper because the unlawful

conduct that gives rise to the alleged claims occurred in Los Angeles County. The loan

contracts between Plaintiffs and Defendants were made and to be performed, and obligations

arose in the Central District of California. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C

section 1367 of the claims asserted by Plaintiffs’ under the laws of California.

IV. PARTIES

8. Plaintiff, TINA BACKSTROM, is a natural person currently residing at 6755 S. Garth

Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90056 (“Subject Property”).

9. Plaintiff at all times has been the owner of the Subject Property and has maintained her

residence at the subject property.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that, at all relevant times mentioned in this complaint

Defendant World Savings Bank, is a federally-chartered savings and lending institution with

headquarters located in Oakland, California. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant WORLD

SAVINGS BANK, was and is engaged in the business of promoting, marketing, distributing and

selling the Option ARM loans that are the subject of this Complaint. Defendant WORLD

SAVINGS BANK transacts business in the United States and at all relevant times promoted,

marketed, distributed, and sold Option ARM loans throughout the United States. Defendant

WORLD SAVINGS BANK has significant contacts throughout the United States and the

activities complained of herein occurred, in whole or in part, in the United States.


Defendant Wachovia Mortgage, Defendant WACHOVIA CORPORATION is a North Carolina

corporation with headquarters located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Defendant WACHOVIA

CORPORATION operates as a financial holding company. At all times alleged herein

Defendants were engaged in the business of promoting, marketing, distributing, and selling the

Option ARM loans that are the subject of this Complaint, throughout the United States.


Defendant Wells Fargo, N.A., were and are a corporation organized and existing under the laws

of the State of California and regularly conducted business activity with Los Angeles County,

California residents. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and at all time mentioned in this

complaint, defendant Wells Fargo, N.A., was, and remains, licensed by the California

Department of Real Estate as a wholesale mortgage brokerage firm. Plaintiffs are informed and



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

believe that, at all times mentioned herein, defendants operated and did business in the State of

California, County of Los Angeles.


Defendant Wells Fargo Home Mortgage is a Delaware Corporation duly licensed under the

Consumer Loan Act, which regularly conducted business activity with Los Angeles County

California residents.

14. Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration System (“MERS”) is a wholly-owned

subsidiary is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Vienna

Virginia. The members of MERS include the shareholders of MERSCORP, INC., and any other

mortgage lenders who make application and pay a membership fee, which regularly conducted

business activity with Los Angeles County, California residents. MERS members may use the

registration system to establish and maintain by MERS, as more fully described later in this

complaint.

15. The causes of action alleged herein apply equally and jointly and severally to all of the

Defendants to the extent that they were agents, servants, and employees of each other and were

acting within the scope of such agency or employment while engaged in the acts, omissions, and

other conduct alleged in this Complaint, or the alleged acts, omissions, and other conduct of

each Defendant were subsequently ratified or adopted by the other Defendants.

16. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant is an at all

times herein was, the agent, employee, alter-ego, principal, employer, servant, co-conspirator of

each of the remaining co-defendants, and in committing the acts herein alleged, was acting in



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the scope of their authority as such agents, employee, alter-ego, principal, employer, servant, co-

conspirator, principals and with the permission and consent of the remaining co-defendants.

17. DOES 1-50, inclusively, are individuals and/or businesses whose forms are unknown and

were agents, principals, employees, employers, and co-conspirators of each and every other

named or unnamed Defendants in this complaint. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and

thereon alleges, that each such defendant was acting in the scope of their authority as such

agents, employee, alter-ego, principal, employer, servant, co-conspirator, principals and with the

permission and consent of the remaining co-Defendants named and unnamed.

18. The true names and/or capacities of Defendants 1-20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff

and therefore they sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and

believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants fictitiously named herein as DOE is

responsible for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to and thereby proximately caused

the injuries and damages to Plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged. Plaintiffs will seek leave of the

Court to amend this complaint to allege the true names and/or capacities of said DOE

Defendants.

19. Wherever in this Complaint an act or omission alleged herein apply equally and jointly

and severally to all of the Defendants to the extent that they were business entity or corporation

agents, servants, and employees of each other and were acting within the scope of such agency

or employment while engaged in the acts, omissions, and other conduct alleged in this

Complaint, or the alleged acts, omissions, and other conduct of each Defendant were

subsequently ratified or adopted by the other Defendants.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

20. On March 7, 2007, the Debtor/Plaintff Tina Backstrom executed a promissory note in

favor of World Savings Bank. This Note was secured by a Deed of Trust. The original Deed of

Trust purports to designate MERS as its “nominee” with respect to the mortgage. Although

Debtors would argue there is in fact no beneficial assignment of the mortgage to MERS1, and

the lender remains the owner and holder of the promissory note and mortgage.

21. Plaintiff Tina Backstrom refinanced her existing home loan and entered into an Option

ARM loan agreement with Defendants. The Option ARM loan agreement was secured by

Plaintiff’s primary residence. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of her Note

and Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement pertinent to this action.

22. At the time of signing, the loan documents failed to include the required initia

disclosures and final disclosures, which include RESPA, TILA, ECOA and FCRA disclosures.

23. Further, in the Notice of Right to Cancel, neither the transaction date nor the expiry of

recession period are completed, and were left blank and was never given to plaintiffs to sign at

the time of closing or signing the Loan Documents. Plaintiffs were never explained the full

terms of the loan, including but not limited to the rate of interest, how the interest rate would be

calculated, what the payment schedule would be, the risks and disadvantages of the loan, the

prepayment penalties, the maximum amount the loan payment could arise to.

24. No determination of whether Plaintiffs would be able to make the payments of the loan as

specified in the loan was verified. During the loan application process, Defendants listed

1 MERS has/had not legal right or standing as the registered mortgage note holder for the subject property; and thus, had noright or authority to transfer, assign, convey, deliver or grant the right of beneficiary or mortgagee rights. Moreover, MERSwas and is not authorized to do business in the State of California at the time of any of the aforementioned transactions.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs income well in excess of their stated income. Defendants’ reviewed the income taxes

and were fully aware of the stated income, though chose to approve the loan as Stated Income,

in order to use and inflated income on the application.

25. Plaintiffs are informed and belief Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors

established and implemented the policy of failing to disclose material facts about the Loan

failing to verify income, falsifying income, and causing Loan to include a penalty for early

payment.

26. Plaintiffs are further informed and belief Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors

established and implemented such policy so as to profit, knowing that Plaintiffs would be unable

to perform future terms of the loan.

27. Plaintiffs were victims of Fraud in Fact since the foregoing misrepresentations caused

them to obtain the home loan without accurately realizing the risks, duties, or obligations

incurred.

28. The Promissory Note contains sufficient space on the note itself for endorsement

whereby any assignment by allonge is ineffective pursuant to Pribus v. Bush, 118 Cal. App. 3d

1003 (May 12, 1981).

29. Mrs. Backstrom was given a “jumbo” at an interest rate of 7.1% which is predatory, as a

the time the loan was originated, the LIBOR for jumbo loan index was 4.75% with a margin of

2.4%. Mrs. Backstrom’s loan appears to be way above industry standards for those situated in

her same income and rating bracket. It appears to be predatory rate based on race.

30. The Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement Analysis reveals a clear miscalculation of the

finance charge. The Disclosed APR shows 7.1430% on a 7.1 interest rate making the finance



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

charge $1,700,038.23. However, the actual APR should reflect 7.109% with the total finance

charge of 1,280,511.24. WOW! That is a difference of $420,000.00. The total payments should

be $2,182,715.24 instead of $2,602,243.05. Such TILA violations make the loan rescindable

void and voidable. There appear to be several other TILA, HOEPA, RESPA and UDAP

regarding disclosures. The variable interest rate was not included on the disclosure statement.

31. Such actions by your predecessor “World Savings Bank” were ratified by Wachovia and

accepted by Wells Fargo and are clear violations of the Truth in Lending Act (“ TILA”), 15

U.S.C., §§ 45(a) and 53(b), and Section 108(c), 15 U.S.C. § 1607 (c), for injunctive relief

rescission, restitution, reformation, disgorgement, and other equitable relief against Defendants

for engaging in acts or practices in violation of TILA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 - 1666j, Federal

Reserve Board Regulation Z , 12 C.F.R. § 226, as amended, and for unfair or deceptive acts of

practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45, as amended, including, but

not limited to, the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (“HOEPA”) Section 8 of

the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act 1974 (“RESPA”), 12 U.S.C. § 2607 , and its

implementing regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 3500.

32. WACHOVIA CORPORATION (collectively “Defendants”), based on Defendants’

failure to clearly and conspicuously disclose to Plaintiffs and the Class Members, in Defendants’

Option Adjustable Rate Mortgage (“Option ARM”) loan documents and in the required

disclosure statements accompanying the loans, (i) the actual interest rate on which the payment

amounts listed in the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statements are based (12 C.F.R. § 226.17);

(ii) that making the payments according to the payment schedule in the Truth in Lending

Disclosure Statement provided by Defendants will result in negative amortization and that the



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

principal balance will increase (12 C.F.R. § 226.19); and (iii) that the payment amounts listed on

the Truth in Lending Disclosure Statement are insufficient to pay both principal and interest.

33. In mid-2009 Plaintiff Tina Backstrom began experiencing financial difficulties and

contacted her servicer Wachovia Mortgage. On September 27 & 28, 2009, Mrs. Backstrom

attended a NACA event in Los Angeles hosted and sponsored by various mortgage lenders and

servicers, of which Wachovia was well represented by its loan officers, loan counselors and/or

other employees, representatives and agents. All of whom were acting on behalf of Wachovia.

34. At this event, Mrs. Backstrom met with such agents and representatives of Wachovia to

discuss her mortgage loan and her current financial condition. After discussing such matters

with loan officers, loan counselors, agents and representatives of Wachovia it was expressly told

to Mrs. Backstrom, “since she was current on her mortgage, she would be given a 2 month

mortgage payment extension (forbearance) for the months of September & October 2009 and

her next payment due date would be November 2009.” The contractual between Wachovia and

Mrs. Backstrom was ratified in NACA’s computer database and later in correspondence from

Wachovia dated October 8, 2009.2 Further proof of the contractual relationship and terms of

Wachovia’s offer and Mrs. Backstrom’s accepts is demonstrated in the signed

Acknowledgement of Payment Deferral and capitalization signed by Mrs. Backstrom on

October 18, 2009. In consideration, to her legal detriment, Mrs. Backstrom did not make her

September and October 2009 monthly mortgage payments. The promises by Wachovia were

reasonable expectation in inducing Mrs. Backstrom’s actual reliance in forbearing from making

her mortgage payments, which was reasonably foreseeable.

2 Attachments



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35. On or about October 29, 2009 Mrs. Backstrom received notice that she was in arrears for

two mortgage payments and her third mortgage payment was coming due November 1, 2009.

Mrs. Backstrom was now facing foreclosure. Mrs. Backstrom made repeated attempts at having

this matter re with Wachovia. Nevertheless, after creating Mrs. Backstrom’s economic duress

by its breach and bad faith business practices, Wachovia demanded Mrs. Backstrom pay more

than $17,000 to bring her loan current or face loss of her home through foreclosure. Mrs

Backstrom under duress and undue influence borrowed the money from her 401K to pay

Wachovia, although Mrs. Backstrom’s situation was a direct result of Wachovia’s breach of

contract.

36. Such promises, agreements made by Wachovia was done with intent to induce

detrimental reliance on the part of Mrs. Backstrom, which not only caused her to go into

foreclosure but caused her credited rating to be negatively impacted, incur additional monetary

loss in upwards of $60,000, and severe emotional trauma.

37. There are sufficient facts clearly demonstrate Wachovia’s misrepresentation, fraud

concealment, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel and

unfair business practices pertaining to the terms of the “forbearance” (See Stansfield v. Starkey,

220 Cal.App.3d 59, 72-73 (1990). Mirkin v. Wasserman, 5 Cal. 4th 1082, 1088-89 (1993)).

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

1. The Borrower Mrs. Backstrom and the Lender/Servicer Wachovia

Mortgage entered into an agreement (“express and written”) on September 28,

2009 and again on October 18, 2009 to forbear Mrs. Tina Backstrom’s mortgage

payments for the months of September 2009 and October 2009.

http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?tf=-1&rs=WLW11.01&referencepositiontype=S&serialnum=1990077053&fn=_top&sv=Split&referenceposition=72&pbc=F1618CD4&tc=-1&ordoc=2022559006&findtype=Y&db=226&vr=2.0&rp=%2Ffind%2Fdefault.wl&mt=7










Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Wachovia agreed to suspend Mrs. Tina Backstrom’s mortgage payments

for September 2009 and October 2009 while she was being reviewed for a

modification. In reliance on these representations, Mrs. Tina Backstrom did

forego making her monthly mortgage payments for September 2009 and

October 2009 at the instruction of Wachovia.

PARTICULARS

i. Wachovia Mortgage agreed to defer and capitalize the regularlyscheduled mortgage payments due for September 15, 2009 and October 15,2009;

ii. For each payment deferral, Wachovia would add capitalization theinterest and if applicable, the escrow or impound portion of the payment tothe principal balance of the loan;

iii. The payment would be recomputed at the next scheduled paymentchange date (November 15, 2009); and

iv. At the time of the contract Wachovia Mortgage knew or should haveknown that their representations would induce reliance on the part of Mrs.Tina Backstrom upon these terms offered by Wachovia.

38. Nevertheless, Plaintiff Backstrom attempted to work this matter out with Wachovia for

months, to no avail.

39. On December 7, 2010, Defendants caused the recording of the Notice of Default. On or

about March 3, 2007 MERS as nominee for World Savings Bank, assigned the underlying Deed

of Trust to Washington Mutual Bank. On October 2, 2008 Washington Mutual assigned, sold or

transferred the underlying Deed of Trust to Wachovia Mortgage, who states they are the

servicing agent to U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee for Master Asset Backed

Securities.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

40. Plaintiffs have repeatedly made attempts to rehabilitate their loan but for various breach

of agreements, anticipatory breach of agreement, conspiracy and various violations of California

Civil and Commercial Codes, Federal and State Public Policy by Wachovia and Wells Fargo

Home Mortgage, has prevented the impeded the rehabilitation efforts and demands by Debtor

Tina Backstrom.

41. Defendants simply failed and refused to comply with the Section requirements of Civil

Code §2923.5 for a Notice of Sale declaration of contact or list of efforts made at contacting

plaintiff and other homeowners in similar situations. Several new sections were added to the

California Civil Code. One section, 2923.5, requires the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or

authorized agent to include a declaration in any notice of default. The declaration must state that

the party has contacted the borrower in effort to workout a solution to the default . In addition

if a notice of default was recorded prior to the enactment of the new statute, the notice of sale

must include a declaration that either: (1) states that the borrower was contacted to assess the

borrower’s financial situation and to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure, or

(2) lists the efforts made to contact the borrower in the event no contact was made.

42. The Notice of Default contained errors, inaccuracies and did not take into account the

overage paid by plaintiff. The default did not reflected a true and accurate accounting of

plaintiff’s mortgage payments made, owed or the true and actual principle owed on th

mortgage loan.

43. Thereafter, Plaintiff contracted with a company to conduct a forensic, evaluation and

review of plaintiff’s loan, it was discovered that defendant breached their duties as a lender in

extending credit to plaintiff; defendant failed to provide the necessary disclosures and



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

information concerning the cost of the credit, there were unauthorized fees and/or kickbacks on

settlement proceeds, they failed to disclose the amount to be financed, the amount of the finance

charge, the annual percentage rate, the method of calculating finance charges, the number and

amount of payments, and the due dates or schedule of payments to pay the indebtedness. As

such, defendants failure to provide the required disclosures mandated by the Truth and Lending

Act and RESPA violations, along with Wachovia’s bad faith tactics, mismanagement of accurate

account of payments received, miscalculation of plaintiff’s mortgage loan directly caused

plaintiff to become delinquent on her loan obligations, which lead to commencement o

foreclosure proceedings against plaintiff’s property. As such, the notice of default is incorrect

for the following reasons:

• misapplied payments;

• Modification agreement which was not adhered to by the Defendants;

• improper accounting and promissory estoppels

44. Accordingly, the Plaintiff without the benefit of an accurate accounting is not at al

certain she is in default under the terms of the mortgage loan agreement and deed of trust. As

such, an actual dispute exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant concerning their rights and

duties with respect the pending nonjudicial foreclosure.

45. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination and declaration of Plaintiff’s and Defendants

respective rights and duties; specifically that Plaintiff did not breach the terms of the promissory

note and deed of trust.

46. Defendants simply failed and refused to comply with the Section requirements of CC

§2923.5 for a Notice of Sale declaration of contact or list of efforts made at contacting plaintiff

and other homeowners in similar situations. Several new sections were added to the California



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Civil Code. One section, 2923.5, requires the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent to include a declaration in any notice of default. The declaration must state that the party

has contacted the borrower in effort to workout a solution to the default. In addition, if a notice

of default was recorded prior to the enactment of the new statute, the notice of sale must include

a declaration that either: (1) states that the borrower was contacted to assess the borrower’s

financial situation and to explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure, or (2) lists the

efforts made to contact the borrower in the event no contact was made.

47. Defendants’ unethical practices culminated with the scheduled sale of the Property on

June 17, 2011. See CAL. CIV. CODE § 2924 (California law only permits foreclosure

proceedings after the debtor enters default); Castillo v. Skoba, No. 10-CV-1838-BTM, 2010 WL

3986953, *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2010) (citing CAL. CIV. CODE § 2924) (“The power of sale in a

nonjudicial foreclosure may only be exercised when a notice of default has first been

recorded.”); In Re Henry, 266 B.R. 457, 472 n.14 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (citing CAL. CIV. CODE §

2924) (“Under California law, a secured creditor has no right to commence foreclosure

proceedings unless the debtor is in default.”).

48. Taking these allegations as true, the conduct by Wachovia and Wells Fargo appears to be

“immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers,” and thus

satisfies the UCL’s “unfair” prong. See Casa Blanca, 159 Cal. App. 4th at 530; McDonald , 543

F.3d at 506. Moreover, a reasonable consumer is likely to rely on representations by a bank’s

agent; thus, such conduct also violates the UCL’s “fraudulent” practices prong. See Puentes, 72

Cal. Rptr. 3d at 909.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I:

Defendants Do Not Have Standing To Enforce Secure

Lien without Existence of Valid Security Instrument

49. It is the belief and contention of Plaintiff Tina Backstrom that Defendants, and each of

them, do not in fact have a valid security interest in Debtors property that would entitle them to

relief from stay.

50. Pursuant to (Uniform Commercial Code) UCC §3-309 A person entitled to enforce an

instrument must be a person entitled to enforce the instrument, and that person must prove the

instrument’s terms and that person’s right to enforce the instrument. UCC §3-309 (a)(1) & (b).

51. Enforcement of a note always requires that the person seeking to collect show that it is

the holder. A holder is an entity that has acquired the note either as the original payor or transfer

by endorsement of order paper or physical possession of bearer paper. These requirements are

set out in Article 3 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted in every state

Even in bankruptcy proceedings, State substantive law controls the rights of note and lien

holders, as the Supreme Court pointed out almost forty (40) years ago in United States v.

Butner, 440 U.S. 48, 54-55 (1979).

52. Recently, Judge Bufford has recently illustrated, in one of the cases discussed below, in

the Bankruptcy and other federal courts, procedure is governed by the Federal Rules of

Bankruptcy and Civil Procedure. And, procedure may just have an impact on the issue of “who,”

because, if the holder is unknown, pleading and standing issues arise.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

53. As such, Debtors have filed the adversarial proceeding to determine the validity of

security interest of Chase, its successors, predecessors and agents. Therefore, pursuant to Fed.

R. Bankr. P. 7001 validity and priority of Debtors’ mortgage should be decided in the context of

an adversary proceeding. A proceeding “to determine the validity, priority, or extent of a lien or

other interest in property, other than a proceeding under Rule 4003(d) . . . .” is an adversary

proceeding which must be commenced by the filing of a complaint with the bankruptcy court

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001(2).

54. As such, it is well established that the security interest follows the debt. Id. If the debt is

not transferred, neither is the security interest. Id. The note and mortgage are inseparable; the

former as essential, the latter as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with

it, while an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity. (See Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S. 271

(1872).

55. It is also well established that a plaintiff must prove standing by showing: (1) injury in

fact; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the defendant's conduct; and (3) a likelihood

that a favorable outcome will redress the injury. (See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S

555, 560-61 (1992). To proceed with this action, Chase must demonstrate that it is the holder of

not only the deed of trust but also the promissory note. If not, it has no injury in fact. See In re

Foreclosure Cases, 521 F. Supp. 2d 650, 653 (S.D. Oh. 2007) (stating that, "[t]o show standing

in a foreclosure action, . . . the plaintiff must show that it is the holder of the note and the

mortgage at the time the complaint was filed [and] . . . that the holder of the note and mortgage

is harmed, usually by not having received payments on the note").



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

56. In the context of a relief from stay motion, a motion for relief from the automatic stay

must satisfy both substantive and procedural requirements. The substantive requirements are

provided by § 362(d). The procedural requirements are imposed by the United State

Constitution (due- 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 process)

and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (which mostly incorporate the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure). The applicable rules here are the "real party in interest" rule and the "required

joinder" rule. See In re Kang Jin Hwang , 393 B.R. 701, 712 (C.D. Cal.2008).

COUNT II

(Violation of California Civil Code § 2923.5)

57. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegation of paragraphs 1 through 56

inclusive, as if fully set forth herein verbatim.

58. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at no time during the course

of the foreclosures process, nor anytime leading up thereto, did Defendants make a good faith

and bona fide attempt at a loan modification with Plaintiffs.

59. Defendants, as a servicer under a pooling and servicing agreement, were required to

implement a loan modification plan if said loan was in payment default or default was

reasonably foreseeable and where anticipated recovery under the modification exceeds the

anticipated recovery through foreclosure.

60. As described herein above, Plaintiffs were unable to make said loan payments as were

initially required, but were and could have made payments under a modified payment plan, thus



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

allowing them to retain their home and providing the defendants with a higher recovery than

through the foreclosure.

61. California Civil Code § 2923.6(b) provides that a mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized

agent offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan is such modification or plan is

consistent with its contractual or other authority.

COUNT III

(Violation of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601, et seq.,

and Regulation Z, 12 C.F.R. §§ 226, et. seq.)

62. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 45


63. In the course and conduct of offering and making HOEPA mortgage loan to Plaintiffs

Defendants and Does 11 through 20, through their agents, assignees and successors violated the

requirements of HOEPA and Regulation Z in the following and other respects by: Charging,

including but not limited to fees paid to others that were not bona fide and reasonable and were

“finance charges” under TILA that required disclosure.

(a) failing to disclose or accurately disclose;

(b) Failing to provide Plaintiffs with appropriate material

disclosures required by TILA;

(c) the annual percentage rate was in violation of Section

129(a)(2) of TILA; Plaintiffs were not given copies of a Notice

of Right to Cancel – a notice of the right to cancel the loan.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to rescind the loan that they

obtained from Defendants;



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(d) Plaintiffs were never counseled, explained to or even

mentioned that they had a right to cancel the loan.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to rescind the loan that they

obtained from Defendants;(e) failing to provide the required disclosures prior to

consummation of the transaction in violation of 15 U.S.C.

1638(b);

(f) Defendants used coercion of payment back to the buyer

from the seller to obtain a fraudulent loan;

(g) other acts and omissions by Defendants that may come

out during the discovery process.

64. By failing to disclose, or accurately disclose, material information, as described above, all

Defendants have engaged in deceptive acts or practices in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a). Moreover, Defendants are aware of the illegal nature of the loans and of

Plaintiffs request for rescission.

COUNT IV.

(Violation of Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act,

12 U.S.C. §§ 2601, et seq., and Regulation X, 24 C.F.R. §§ 3500, et seq.)

65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 64


66. The loan to Plaintiffs by Defendants is federally related mortgage loans as defined in the

Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and implemented by Regulation X.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

67. The fees paid to others were unlawful kickbacks, referral fee profits from sham

arrangements, and/or unearned fees under RESPA because they were not reasonably related to

the performance of lawful services.

68. Undisclosed payments from the seller to the borrower violate RESPA. Such practice

violates RESPA and consequently rescinds and invalidates the loan.

69. By the actions described herein and as a proximate cause of Defendants conduct

Plaintiffs were damaged, in an amount to be proven at trial but not yet ascertained.

COUNT V.

(Predatory Lending)

70. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1- 69 of the general allegation as if fully set forth herein.

71. Plaintiffs are informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, assuming arguendo that

defendant Chase does have the right under the law of negotiable instruments in this State, by

endorsement, assignment, agency or otherwise, to receive payment under a valid note, payment

of which is secured by the security instrument that is identified in the loan agreement, and to

initiate foreclosure under a power of sale contained therein, if any, then defendant Chase is

subject to defenses that would have been available against others, the original lender identified

in the security instrument that is referred to in the original loan agreement.

72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that WMC Mortgage Corp., the initial lender, has

engaged in predatory lending practices with respect to plaintiffs in violation of Home Ownership

and Equity Protection Act (HOEPA), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1637, Truth in Lending Act 15 U.S.C. §

1601, Regulation Z 12 C.F.R. 226, AND Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) 15 U.S.C



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

§§ 41-58, the specifics of which are unknown, but amendment to this complaint when

ascertained.

COUNT VI.

Contractual Breach Of Covenant Of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

73. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 to 73 of this complaint.

74. Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing and its

performance and its enforcement. This implied covenant of good and fair dealing requires tha

no party will do anything that will have the effect of impairing, destroying, or injuring the rights

of the other party to receive the benefits of their agreement. This covenant implies that in all

contracts each party will do all things reasonably contemplated by the terms of the contract to

accomplish its purpose. This covenant protects the benefits of the contract that the parties

reasonably contemplated when they entered into the agreement.

75. The terms of the promissory note and trust deed imposed upon the Defendants a duty of

good faith and fair dealing in this matter.

76. Defendants enjoyed substantial discretionary power affecting the rights of plaintiff during

the events alleged in this complaint. Defendants were required to exercise such power in good

faith.

77. California foreclosure law and procedure is based on the social policy. The goal of

California non-judicial foreclosure law under California Civil Code section 2923.6 and Civil

Code 2924 et seq. is to provide fast, efficient and non-judicial remedies to beneficiaries while at



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the same time providing protection to trustors. California non-judicial foreclosure law also is

intended to protect the trustor from the wrongful or unfair loss of his property.

78. California non-judicial foreclosure law requires strict compliance on the part of

beneficiaries and trustees.

79. Defendants willfully breached their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with

plaintiff. Defendants attempted to non-judicially foreclose on Plaintiffs home.

80. Defendants breached their covenants of good faith and fair dealing with Plaintiffs by

violating California Civil Code 2923.6 and by their actions as alleged in this complaint.

81. The 2007 World Savings Bank’s promissory note was incomprehensible, filled legalese

and filled with mumbo-jumbo. This incomprehensibility was intended to insure that the plaintiff

did not comprehend its terms, which in turn permitted the Defendants and their successors to

mislead the plaintiff and thereby financially profit from its terms. In this manner, Defendants

breached their duty of good faith and fair dealing.

82. Defendants have willfully breached their implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing

for the reasons and actions which are outlined in the aforementioned Causes of Action.

COUNT VII.

Anticipatory Breach of Agreement

83. Plaintiffs realleges and repleads paragraphs 1 through 82 herein and incorporates the

same by reference as though set forth in full at this time and place.

84. Representatives of Wachovia loan officers, loan counselors and agents expressly told to

Mrs. Backstrom, “since she was current on her mortgage, she would be given a 2 month



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

mortgage payment extension (forbearance) for the months of September & October 2009 and

her next payment due date would be November 2009.” The contractual agreement between

Wachovia and Mrs. Backstrom was ratified in NACA’s computer database and later in

correspondence from Wachovia dated October 8, 2009.3 Further proof of the contractua

relationship and terms of Wachovia’s offer and Mrs. Backstrom’s accepts is demonstrated in the

signed Acknowledgement of Payment Deferral and capitalization signed by Mrs. Backstrom on

October 18, 2009. In consideration, to her legal detriment, Mrs. Backstrom did not make her

September and October 2009 monthly mortgage payments. The promises by Wachovia were

reasonable expectation in inducing Mrs. Backstrom’s actual reliance in forbearing from making

her mortgage payments, which was reasonably foreseeable.

85. On or about October 29, 2009 Mrs. Backstrom received notice that she was in arrears for

two mortgage payments and her third mortgage payment was coming due November 1, 2009.

Mrs. Backstrom was now facing foreclosure. Mrs. Backstrom made repeated attempts at having

this matter re with Wachovia. Nevertheless, after creating Mrs. Backstrom’s economic duress

by its breach and bad faith business practices, Wachovia demanded Mrs. Backstrom pay more

than $17,000 to bring her loan current or face loss of her home through foreclosure. Mrs

Backstrom under duress and undue influence borrowed the money from her 401K to pay

Wachovia, although Mrs. Backstrom’s situation was a direct result of Wachovia’s breach of

contract.

86. Such promises, agreements made by Wachovia was done with intent to induce

detrimental reliance on the part of Mrs. Backstrom, which not only caused her to go into

3 Attachments



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

foreclosure but caused her credited rating to be negatively impacted, incur additional monetary

loss in upwards of $60,000, and severe emotional trauma.

COUNT VII.

(Fraud)(As Against Defendants)

88. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate Paragraphs and General Allegations as though such

have been fully set forth herein.

89. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, were engaged in an illegal scheme the

purpose of which was to execute loans secured by real property in order to make commissions,

kick-backs, illegal undisclosed yield spread premiums, and undisclosed profits by the sale of any

instruments arising out of the transaction. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them

have represented to plaintiff and to third parties that they were the owner of the Trust Deed and

Note as either the Trustee or the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiff’s real property. Based on this

representation they caused a Notice of Default to be issued and recorded without disclosing their

true role, and thereafter a notice of intent to foreclose and finally they executed a foreclosure

which was completed, permanently affecting Plaintiff right, title and interest in the Subject

Property. In fact, Plaintiff alleges that the promissory note which was executed by Plaintiff and

which initially formed a basis of a security interest in the subject property, was assigned in

violation of Civil Code section 2932.5 et seq., and as such the promissory note was rendered as

non-negotiable and no power of sale was conveyed with the note at the time of the assignment



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and therefore, Defendants, and each of them, had no lawful security interest in the subject

property.

90. Plaintiffs allege that based upon the foregoing representations of Defendants, and each of

them, Plaintiffs did in fact repose their trust in the representations of Defendants, and each of

them, and that such trust was reasonable.

91. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant, and each of them, presented a loan to Plaintiffs whereby

their represented that they did qualify for underwriting, and that the loan was within Plaintiffs’

personal financial needs and limitations given the confidential financial information tha

Plaintiffs shared with Defendants. Defendant verbally promised a modification and subsequently

Rejected said offer after Plaintiff fully complied with Defendant’s requests for financia

information.

92. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to disclose the true cost of

the loan which was made to Plaintiffs, and the fact that Plaintiffs could not afford the loan in the

first instance.

93. Plaintiff acquired the foregoing property by virtue of the said funding based on the

representations of Defendants, and each of them, that the loan was the best they could obtain for

him, and that the loan was well within Plaintiff’s financial needs and limitations.

94. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendants, and each of

them, represented to Plaintiffs that Defendants, and each of them, were working for the benefit

of Plaintiffs and in their particular best interest to obtain for them the best loan and at the best

rates available.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

95. That at the time Defendants, and each of them, made the foregoing false representations

to Plaintiffs they knew that they were untrue and that these representations were material

representations.

96. That the foregoing representations were made in order to induce Plaintiffs to act on and

take the said loan(s) in order for both defendants to make a substantial amount of money thereby

and there from.

97. Plaintiffs were induced to and did take this loan based on the said representations.

98. That Plaintiffs were induced to rely and did rely on the representations of these

Defendants through deception and their reliance was justified, as they believed that Defendants

and each of them, working for them and in their best interest. Defendant verbally promised a

modification and subsequently Rejected said offer after Plaintiff fully complied with Defendant

Bank1’s requests for financial information.

99. That by virtue of Plaintiffs’ reliance and the increased interest they made to pay, they

have been damaged in the loss of their good credit and a higher payment and are now being

involved in litigation that they did not bargain for, all to their damage and injury.

100. Plaintiffs have relied on the representations of this Defendant and because of this reliance

has made various moves to avoid the foreclosure all to no avail, while defendants knew all the

time that they were deceiving Plaintiffs.

101. Plaintiffs’ reliance was justified based upon the false representations of Defendants, and

each of them, and had no reason to believe that a party representing a bank would go to such

lengths to deceive and to convert Plaintiffs’ property.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

102. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, knew at the time they made these

representations to Plaintiffs that they were untrue, and defendants knew at the time that they

were attempting to foreclose on Plaintiff’s Trust Deed and note that they had no right to do so.

103. Plaintiffs allege Defendants, and each of them, by said fraudulent scheme intentionally

and fraudulently intended to convert Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest to their property, and any

equity therein.

104. Plaintiffs allege that due to their reliance on Defendants representations they have been

damaged in an amount that currently exceeds $100,000 and will suffer additionally costs of

moving out of Plaintiffs’ property and the costs to relocate back to the subject Property.

105. Additionally, Plaintiffs have been made to suffer deep and severe emotional distress

mortification, anxiety and humiliation all to their damage and injury in an amount the totality of

which has not yet been fully ascertained, but in no event less than the jurisdiction limitations of

this court.

COUNT VII.

(Intentional Misrepresentation)

106. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 105

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

107. Defendant, by and through its authorized representatives, as identified above, falsely

fraudulently and repeatedly represented to Plaintiff that Wachovia would be granting Plaintiff a

loan modification with deferment of some of their principle balance and that Plaintiffs payments



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

would be suspended for two months. These representations were made on numerous occasions

by Wachovia representatives in several conversations

108. The representations made by defendants were in fact false and concealed to string

Plaintiffs along while they foreclosed on their property.

109. When defendants, by and through its authorized representatives, made the representations

to Plaintiffs, they knew them to be false and/or made them recklessly and without regard for

their truth. Moreover, defendants made these representations with the intent to induce Plaintiffs

into not acting to redeem their home from foreclosure proceedings, and in reliance thereon

Plaintiffs foregone obtaining third party financing.

110. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent conduct of Wachovia and Wells

Fargo, Plaintiff was damaged as is described above in an amount according to proof.

111. Moreover. Defendant’s acts were committed fraudulently, maliciously and/or

oppressively with the intent of injuring Plaintiffs, and/or with a willful and conscious disregard

of Plaintiffs’ rights. Because these acts were carried out by Defendant in a despicable

deliberate and intentional manner, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages in a sum

sufficient to punish and deter future such conduct.

COUNT VIII.

(Negligent Misrepresentation)

112. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation of paragraphs 1 through 111

inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

113. Defendants by and through its authorized representatives, as identified above, falsely

fraudulently and repeatedly represented to Plaintiff that Wachovia would be granting Plaintiff a

loan modification, suspend her payment for two months and grant her a deferment of some of

their principle balance. These representations were made on numerous occasions by Wachovia

and Wells Fargo representatives in several conversations

114. The representations made by Wachovia and Wells Fargo were in fact false and concealed

to string Plaintiffs along while they foreclosed on their property.

115. When Wachovia and Wells Fargo, by and through its authorized representatives, made

the representations to Plaintiffs, they knew them to be false and/or made them recklessly and

without regard for their truth. Moreover, Wachovia made these representations with the intent

to induce Plaintiffs into not acting to redeem their home from foreclosure proceedings, and in

reliance thereon Plaintiffs foregone obtaining third party financing.

116. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendant’s representations were justified because a loan

modification would be decided solely by Wachovia and because the representations were

repeated several times by Wachovia representatives.

117. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent conduct of Wachovia, Plaintiffs

were damaged as is described above in an amount according to proof.

118. Moreover. Defendant’s acts were committed fraudulently, maliciously and/or

oppressively with the intent of injuring Plaintiffs, and/or with a willful and conscious disregard

of Plaintiffs’ rights. Because these acts were carried out by Defendant in a despicable

deliberate and intentional manner, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages in a sum

sufficient to punish and deter future such conduct.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT IX.

VIOLATION OF UNRUH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

CAL. CIVIL CODE § 51

119. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the above

paragraphs and incorporates the same as though fully set forth at length.

120. On information and belief, the conduct of Defendants violated California Civil Code § 51

in that Defendants discriminated against, boycotted, or blacklisted, refused to lend to, contract

with, or refinance, or offered significantly less worthy credit to the Plaintiff based on his race,

color, religion, ancestry, and national origin.

121. As a direct and legal result of Defendants' violation of Civil Code § 51 and other state

constitutional rights, Plaintiff suffered violations of her civil rights.

122. As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of said wrongful acts by Defendants

Plaintiff suffered incidental and consequential damages and losses, all in an amount to be proven

at time of trial. Plaintiff claims such amount as damages together with prejudgment interest

pursuant to Civil Code § 3287 and any other provision of law providing for prejudgment

interest.

123. As a further direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of said wrongful acts by

Defendants, Plaintiff suffered and will continue to suffer humiliation, shame, despair

embarrassment, depression, and mental pain and anguish, all to Plaintiff's damage in an amount

to be proven at time of trial.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees in an amount to be determined, for which

Plaintiff claims a sum to be established according to proof.

125. The conduct of Defendants and their agents and employees as described herein was

oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, and done

by managerial employees of Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to an

award of punitive damages against Defendants, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an

example of Defendants, and in an amount to conform to proof.

126. By virtue of the provisions of Civil Code § 52.1, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

COUNT X.

QUIET TITLE (Cal. Civ. P. § 760.010-764.080)

127. The allegations contained in all previously numbered paragraphs are realleged and

incorporated herein by reference.

128. The Plaintiffs are the owners of the PROPERTY, are currently in possession of the

PROPERTY and are entitled to possession of the PROPERTY.

129. The Defendant claims an adverse interest in the PROPERTY owned by the Plaintiffs, but

such claims are without right, the Defendant has no right, title, stake, lien, or interest in the

PROPERTY.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

130. Because the plaintiffs have properly exercised their rescission rights under the Foreign

Language Contract Act, any debt owed by the plaintiffs to the Defendant is an unsecured debt

and does not impair title. There is no debt that impairs title to the PROPERTY.

131. Plaintiff seeks a determination of its fee simple title in this action as against the

Defendant as of the date that this complaint is filed.

COUNT XI.

CANCELLATION OF INSTRUMENT

132. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.

133. As a result of the wrongful and/or illegal acts of Defendants BEARS STEARN and

DOES 1-10, the instrument purported to be a valid Trustee’s Deed, or other such instrument of

transfer are invalid. The alleged Trustee Sale is invalid.

134. This Notice of Default, Notice of Trustee Sale and potentially any Trustee’s Deed or

other such instrument purporting to transfer title of the Subject Property from Plaintiff to

Defendants is invalid as an instrument of transfer.

135. Plaintiffs will suffer further serious injury in that Defendants or their representatives

agents, or assignees will eject Plaintiffs and their family from their home, and/or transfer title of

the Subject Property to a third party if the invalid instrument is allowed to stand.

136. Wherefore, Plaintiffs pray for judgment and relief as more fully set forth below.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

COUNT XI.

RECESSION IN EQUITY

137. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding allegations contained

herein.

138. Based on the above-referenced facts, the subject loan transactions are void and voidable.

139. The subject loan transactions are unlawful for causes which do not appear in its terms

and conditions, and the parties are not equally at fault, pursuant to California Civil Code sections

1689(b)(5), 2924 and 1632.

140. The public interest will be prejudiced by permitting the subject transactions to stand

pursuant to California Civil Code § 1689(b)( 6).

141. Plaintiff has offered a loan modification proposal to Defendants as substitute tender and

offer to do equity.

142. Due to the current economic recession, restoration or offer to restore is not essential.

143. Plaintiff would have been above to rescind this loan under the Truth in Lending Act, bu

for the statutory limitations. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for rescission in equity.

COUNT XII.

VIOLATION OF EQUAL CREDIT OPPORTUNITY ACT [15 U.S.C. § 1691]

144. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the above

paragraphs and incorporates the same as though fully set forth at length.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

145. This cause of action is brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1691, which makes it unlawful for

any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credi

transaction, on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, or age.

146. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that at all times herein

mentioned Defendants have engaged in practices that are unlawful under the Act, including but

not limited to providing an exorbitant loan amount to Plaintiff, with a limited and/or inconsistent

income, from a minority background, with no prior home buying experience, and/or offering a

loan to Plaintiff that is significantly more costly than those offered to others of a different race

ethnicity or national origin.

147. The Defendants preyed upon this minority, and with reckless disregard to how Plaintiff

could make payments without default, provided Plaintiff with a higher cost loan that he/she

should have never qualified for, therefore getting him/her into a deep financial mess which

he/she may not have ever been in had the Defendants done ample due diligence and concluded

that he/she should not qualify for such financing on such loan amount.

148. Plaintiff seeks full compensation for the discriminatory acts he/she has suffered.

As a direct, foreseeable, and proximate result of said wrongful acts by Defendants, Plaintiff

suffered and will continue to suffer humiliation, shame, despair, embarrassment, depression, and

mental pain and anguish, all to Plaintiffs in an amount to be proven at time of trial.


Defendants, Plaintiff has incurred attorneys' fees in an amount to be determined, for which

Plaintiff claims a sum to be established according to proof.



Complaint

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

150. The conduct of Defendants and their agents and employees as described herein was

oppressive, fraudulent and malicious, done in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs rights, and done

by managerial employees of Defendants. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to an award of punitive

damages against Defendants, in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of

Defendants, and in an amount to conform to proof.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiffs pray for all relief in law and in equity to

which they may show themselves entitled, for compensatory damages, including all reasonable

fees, costs and for all relief the Court may deem just.

Date: June , 2011

_________________________________ TINA BACKSTROM



Superior Court – Central Los Angeles

Adverse Rial Complaint

Documents

Transcript of Adverse Rial Complaint