5/13/2018 Herrera vs. Deutsche Bank Complaint

1/5

1011

4

5

Page 1

1 Terry J. Thomas (Bar #133096)7330 Hunter Glen Drive2 Reno, NY 89523(775) 750-63073 email: t2esq(tv.yahoo.comAttorney for Plaintiffs

Assigned to JudgeS TEVEN C . BA IL EYA U G - 3 2 0 0 9

FO R A LL PURPO sES

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIAIN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF EL DORADO

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION6781~--------------------------9 Robert Herrera and Gale Herrera, CASE NO. S C 2 0 0 9 01 7 0

Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT TO SET ASIDE SALE;CANCEL TRUSTEE'S DEED;, QUIETTITLE; and UNJUST ENRICHMENT.12 Deutsch Bank National TrustCompany, a foreign entity, Federal13 National Mortgage Association, aforeign entity, California14 Reconveyance Company, DOES Ithrough 50, inclusive, and all other15 persons unknown claiming any righttitle, estate, lien or interest in the real16 property described herein.17 Defendants.181r----------------------------1920

1. Plaintiffs, Robert Herrera and Gale Herrera are now, and at all times relevant to thicomplaint were, the owners of the subject property pursuant to a Trustee's Deed upon Salfiled approximately August 13, 2008, The real property is commonly known as 739 AlamAve., South Lake Tahoe, EI Dorado County, California. The APN is: 026-062-13-100. Tlegal description is:

2122232425262728

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION(Set Aside Sale)

LOT 11, BLOCK 32, ON THE "AMENDED MAP OF TAHOE" FILEDNOVEMBER 21, 1917 IN BOOK A OF MAPS, AT PAGE 3, EL DORADOCOUNTY RECORDS. A U G

5/13/2018 Herrera vs. Deutsche Bank Complaint

2/5

Page 2

2. Plaintiffs purchased this run-down, filthy, distressed property at a foreclosure sale2 about the middle of June, 2008. Plaintiffs believed the price they paid reflected the actua3 value in the property's as-is state. Plaintiffs planned to and did rehabilitate and repair all t4 severely deferred maintenance and paid over $4,000 in back due El Dorado County proper5 taxes and insurance. Plaintiffs had no inkling that the previous owner MAY have taken o6 an additional mortgage in 2003 since, for whatever reason, this deed of trust did not appea7 on their title search (the "2003 DOT"). Itwas not until about a year later - June of 20098 (Defendants waited until AFTER all the work and substantial money rehabilitating the9 property had been done) that Plaintiffs were informed that, oh, yes, some mega-too-big-to-

10 fail recipient of billions of tax payer dollars now asserted an ownership interest in this11 property dating back to the 2003 DOT!12 3. Defendant Deutsch Bank National Trust Company ("Deutsch") is one of the mega-13 international-European conglomerates that NOW claims to be the owner by virtue of14 trustee's deed recorded on July 6, 2009, by an entity purporting to be the trustee, or some15 purported successor trustee which, on information and belief may be Defendant Federal16 National Mortgage Association. Defendant Deutsch, is not now, and at all relevant times17 herein, was not registered to do business in California.18 4. Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association ("FMA") is not now and at all19 relevant times herein, was not registered to do business in California. On information and20 belief, FMA may have been an improperly substituted trustee on the 2003 DOT. And, ma21 have filed improper Notices of Deficiency relating to the 2003 DOT.22 5. Defendant California Reconveyance Company ("CRC") is a California corporation.23 The only Defendant that actually pays its registration fees to conduct business in Californi24 Itapparently recorded a Notice of Trustee Sale on or about Mayor June of 2009, and is ye25 another improperly substituted Trustee under the 2003 DOT. On information and belief,26 CRC may be, or have been the Trustee, on a purported Trustee's sale of the subject proper27 to an entity which may have transferred whatever interest may have been acquired in the28 trustee's sale to Defendant Deutsch.

5/13/2018 Herrera vs. Deutsche Bank Complaint

3/5

------------------ .. .. ---------

1 6. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, partnership2 otherwise of the defendants herein designated as Does I through 100, inclusive, are unkno3 to plaintiffs, who therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names.4 7. Based upon information and belief plaintiffs allege that at all times mentioned here5 the defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, employees and/or joint ventur6 of their co-defendants, and each were as such, acting within the course, scope, and authori7 of such agency, employment and/or venture, and that each and every defendant, as aforesa8 when acting as a principal, was negligent in the selection, hiring, training and appointment9 each and every other defendant as an agent, employee and/or joint venturer.

10 8. After Plaintiffs purchased the home they began repairing the deferred maintenance11 and paid back taxes and property insurance. Plaintiffs, although the recorded owners for12 almost a full year, never received any notice whatsoever of the apparent assignments of th13 trustee's deeds, or the notice(s) of deficiency, nor the notice(s) of trustee's sale or the14 trustee's deeds.15 9. On or about June, 2009, Plaintiffs' received a Notice of Trustee's Sale from16 Defendant California Reconveyance Company. On information and belief, CRC was not17 trustee and no longer had any authority to conduct the noticed trustee's sale. On informati18 and belief NO trustees sale actually took place. Thus, the "sale" was improperly held and19 trustee's deed was wrongfully executed, delivered and recorded.20 10. On information and belief, whatever promissory note that may have existed21 supporting the 2003 DOT is time barred by the statute and the maker, if she exists, was lu22 into believing that no action would be taken to enforce the 2003 DOT because no collectio23 actions were taken within a reasonable time and no legally required notices of deficiency24 were sent or recorded.

Page 3

2526

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Cancel Trustee's Deed)

27 11. Plaintiffs allege, reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation28 contained in the preceding paragraphs.

5/13/2018 Herrera vs. Deutsche Bank Complaint

4/5

12. Defendant Deutsch Bank National Trust Company claims as estate or interest in the2 subject real property adverse to that of Plaintiffs. Defendant's claims are without any righ3 Defendant has no estate, right, title or interest in the real property.4 13. Defendant's claims are based upon the trustee's deed described above purported to5 have been executed by Defendant Federal National Mortgage Association or Defendant6 California Reconveyance Company and purporting to convey the property.7 14. On information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that the original Trustee's deed and the8 original promissory note(s) no longer exist, if ever they did exist. Thus Defendant's deed9 invalid as it is based solely upon purported copies which have no force and effect.

10 15. The interest claimed by Defendants based upon the Trustee's Deed is a cloud upon11 Plaintiffs' title and if the deed is not cancelled there is a reasonable fear that Plaintiffs will12 suffer serious injury.13 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION14 (Quiet Title)15 16. Plaintiffs allege, reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation16 contained in the preceding paragraphs.17 17. On information and belief plaintiffs allege that no named defendant nor Doe18 defendant owns or possesses an original, verifiable, promissory note or deed of trust19 pertaining to the subject property; that no defendant has standing to foreclose upon Plaintif20 property; that all rights, title and interest asserted by any defendants, if any existed, were21 sublimated into a non-functional "security" instrument that gives no one entity rights in22 individual notes and deeds of trust. Thus no entity has legal standing to oppose this23 complaint.24 18. On information and belief plaintiffs allege that since no entity has obtained all the25 rights necessary to obtain an interest in plaintiffs' property, no Defendant entity has such26 interest.27 19. Defendants have placed a cloud upon plaintiffs' title.28 20. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title against all defendants as of the date of this complaint.

Page 4

- - -_-_-----_---_--_--- - ~-~~~~~--_-.--.--_-----. --.---~~~~-~--

5/13/2018 Herrera vs. Deutsche Bank Complaint

5/5

121314

l.2.3 .

For an Order Setting Aside the Sale of the subject property.For an Order Canceling Defendant's Trustee's Deed.For an Order declaring defendants have no rights, title nor interests in the

1 FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION2 (Unjust Enrichment)3 21. Plaintiffs allege, reallege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation4 contained in the preceding paragraphs.5 22. Plaintiffs paid back taxes, insured the property and repaired all of the deferred6 maintenance of the subject property at their considerable expense.7 23. In the alternative, should Defendants successfully claim any rights title or interest i8 the subject property, that Defendants pay to Plaintiffs all monies necessarily expended upo9 the property for back taxes, insurance, and deferred maintenance.

10 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment against defendants, jointly and several11 as follows:

15 plaintiffs' real property;16 4. For Judgment quieting title in plaintiffs' favor as owner in fee simple of the17 Property described herein. That defendant( s) and each of them have no right, title, estate,18 lien or interest in the Property adverse to plaintiffs;19202122

23 circumstances.2425262728

5.6.7.8.

For all monies expended upon the subject property by Plaintiffs.For costs of suit;For reasonable attorney's fees;For such other, further, or different relief as the court may deem just under t

DATED: August 3,2009By:

Attorneys for Plainti fs

Page 5