KELLY WARREN, ESQ., SBN 98670 LAW OFFICES OF KELLY …

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

KELLY WARREN, ESQ., SBN 98670LAW OFFICES OF KELLY WARREN155 W. BADILLO STREETCOVINA, CA 91723Telephone (626) 859-1030Facsimile (626) 859-1034

Attorney for Plaintiffs

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CENTRAL DISTRICT

DUANE VAN DYKE, asIndividual, and JOHN VANDYKE, as Trustee of The DuaneVan Dyke Irrevocable Trust

PLAINTIFFS,

vs.

HERMANN MUENNICHOW, HERMANN MUENNICHOWCPA, MUENNICHOW ANDASSOCIATES LLP, 12814RIVERSIDE DR. LLC,HELAYNE MUENNICHOW,and DOES 1 through 100inclusive,

DEFENDANTS.

________________________________

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

CASE NO. BC 526 185

Action filed: October 30, 2013Assigned to Dept. 14Hon. J. Terry A. Green

[PROPOSED] VERIFIED FIRSTAMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:1. BREACH OF WRITTEN

AGREEMENT;2. FORECLOSURE OF

SECURITY INTEREST(PERSONAL PROPERTY);

3. JUDICIAL FORECLOSUREOF REAL PROPERTY;

4. ESTABLISHMENT OF ARESULTING TRUST

5. IMPOSITION OF ACONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTAND/OR EQUITABLE LIEN

6. IMPOSITION OF ARESULTING TRUST

7. CONSTRUCTIVE TRUSTAND/OR EQUITABLE LIEN

8. CONVERSION9. FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE10. CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

Plaintiff hereby alleges:

1. Plaintiff Duane Van Dyke is an individual, at all times mentioned herein

whose age was over 70 and who resided in the City of Covina, County of Los Angeles,

State of California. For purposes of identification, said plaintiff shall hereinafter be

___________________________________________________________________________________ Verified First Amended 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

referred to as DUANE VAN DYKE.

2. On or about November 8, 2012, DUANE VAN DYKE created the Duane

Van Dyke Irrevocable Trust in which he designated John Van Dyke as the Trustee. John

Van Dyke is an individual who manages and operates the Duane Van Dyke Irrevocable

Trust. The principal assets and place of operation of the Duane Van Dyke Irrevocable

Trust dated November 8, 2012 is in the city of Covina, County of Los Angeles, State of

California. John Van Dyke brings this action in his capacity as the individual designated

and acting trustee of the Duane Van Dyke Irrevocable Trust. For reference purposes, he

shall be referred to as the VAN DYKE TRUST within this complaint when allegations

and references are being made to him in his capacity as said trustee.

3. Defendant Hermann Muennichow is an individual operating various

business entities with a principal operation base in the city of North Hollywood, County

of Los Angeles, State of California. For reference purposes, said individual defendant

shall hereinafter be referred to as HERMANN MUENNICHOW.

4. Defendant Hermann Muennichow, CPA is a business entity of unknown

form, believed to be the alter ego or dba of Hermann Muennichow, with its principal

place of business in the city of North Hollywood, County of Los Angeles, State of

California. For reference purposes, said defendant shall hereinafter be referred to as

MUENNICHOW CPA.

5. Defendant Muennichow and Associates LLP is a California limited liability

and partnership with its principal place of business in the city of North Hollywood,

County of Los Angeles, State of California. For reference purposes, said defendant shall

hereinafter be referred to as MUENNICHOW LLP.

6. Defendant 12814 Riverside Dr. LLC is a California limited liability

company with its principal assets located in the city of North Hollywood, County of Los

Angeles, State of California. For reference purposes, said defendant shall hereinafter be

referred to as RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC.

///


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

7. Defendant Helayne Muennichow is an individual residing in the county of

Riverside. For reference purposes, said defendant shall hereinafter be referred to as

Helayne Muennichow. Helayne Muennichow is designated as a defendant in this action

for the purpose of determining whether plaintiff's rights to property are superior to rights

she may claim in the same property. For reference purposes, said individual defendant

shall hereinafter be referred to as HELAYNE MUENNICHOW

8. The causes of action stated in this complaint arise from conduct of the

parties occurring primarily in Los Angeles County and/or arise from contracts and

agreements entered into and expected to be performed primarily within Los Angeles

County. The Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, State of California is the

court of proper Jurisdiction and Venue.

GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

9. During the 30 years prior to filing this complaint, DUANE VAN DYKE

was an individual business entrepreneur involved in various business and other financial

transactions.

10. During the 30 years prior to filing this complaint, HERMAN

MUENNICHOW was a CPA providing accounting services to the general public

primarily in North Hollywood California.

11. During the 30 years prior to filing this complaint, DUANE VAN DYKE is

informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that HERMAN MUENNICHOW served as

his certified public accountant for all of his personal and business transactions.

12. In performing accounting services for DUANE VAN DYKE, among other

services provided, HERMAN MUENNICHOW prepared Federal, State and other

governmentally required income tax returns; was fully advised and aware of DUANE

VAN DYKE’s financial assets and affairs, personal and business holdings, various bank

and investment accounts, and circumstances; and regularly provided advice and counsel

to DUANE VAN DYKE in making decisions for the management of his personal and

business assets.


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

13. Plaintiff alleges that a fiduciary relationship existed between DUANE VAN

DYKE and HERMANN MUENNICHOW in which HERMANN MUENNICHOW owed

a duty of upmost care and confidence, and not to realize personal gain from information

and conduct of the parties while such fiduciary capacity was in effect.

14. In 2005, DUANE VAN DYKE owned a certain parcel of real property

which was leased to the entity which conducted the business operated thereon known as

the Badillo Convalescent Hospital. The leases associated with this real property

generated monthly gross rents in excess of $20,000 per month.

15. In 2005, DUANE VAN DYKE had concerns over his financial privacy,

possible invasion of his rental accounts and fears of identity theft and the possibility of

theft from his rental and other bank accounts. These concerns were justified in that an

entity alleging to be a creditor accessed his accounts and withdrew money from his

accounts without his permission. DUANE VAN DYKE consulted with HERMANN

MUENNICHOW in his capacity as his by fiduciary agent and accountant to discuss his

options in handling the rents being received by DUANE VAN DYKE. On or about June

1, 2005, the parties orally agreed the rents being paid to DUANE VAN DYKE would be

thereafter be paid to HERMANN MUENNICHOW, that HERMANN MUENNICHOW

would establish and create a business entity to act as a separate holding company so as to

avoid public knowledge associated with the title to this real property and the rents

generated therefrom, HERMANN MUENNICHOW would thereafter manage this

holding company by receiving and depositing these rents as a segregated asset and from

these rents pay the leasehold related expenses, and deliver any excess funds in the account

to DUANE VAN DYKE upon demand.

16. Based upon the oral agreement mentioned in the preceding paragraph,

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on those grounds allege, HERMAN

MUENNICHOW opened a personal bank account in which he deposited all rents

received pursuant to this oral agreement. Commencing on or about June 1, 2004, the

rents from the Badillo Convalescent Hospital were thereafter paid to HERMAN


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

MUENNICHOW instead of to DUANE VAN DYKE to be held and managed in

accordance with the terms of this aforementioned oral agreement.

17. DUANE VAN DYKE believed part of their agreement included

HERMANN MUENNICHOW, in his capacity as his personal accountant and financial

advisor, to secure all rents paid to him in a segregated account, to keep track of all sums

paid to him in such capacity, to collect rents, maintain records of all income and/or

interest generated from these proceeds, to maintain records of any disbursements made

from the account for leasehold related expenses and all other disbursements to or on

behalf of DUANE VAN DYKE, and to keep secure and protected any balance of all sums

on hand. Based on the aforementioned oral agreement, DUANE VAN DYKE allowed

HERMAN MUENNICHOW to collect all rents from the period of July 1, 2005, until the

November 1, 2012.

18. From the time proceeds were given to HERMANN MUENNICHOW by

DUANE VAN DYKE as stated herein above until November 1, 2012, pursuant to the oral

agreement between the parties DUANE VAN DYKE would often request cash

disbursements be made to him from the proceeds held by HERMANN MUENNICHOW

on his behalf, or payments to third parties be made on behalf of DUANE VAN DYKE

from these proceeds. Every time such a request was made, the funds were issued and

distributed as requested and HERMANN MUENNICHOW never delay nor indicated

there were not funds on hand or what the source of payment was.

19. Prior to November 1, 2012, DUANE VAN DYKE reposed great trust and

confidence in HERMAN MUENNICHOW. He had never requested any type of formal

and complete accounting from HERMANN MUENNICHOW based upon the trust and

confidence reposed in him as his fiduciary agent.

20. On November 1, 2012, DUANE VAN DYKE was in the process and the

final stages of completing the creation of the Duane Van Dyke Irrevocable Trust. It was

the purpose and intent of DUANE VAN DYKE to designate his son John Van Dyke as

the trustee of the Duane Van Dyke Irrevocable Trust and to transfer ownership of all of


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

his assets, titles, entitlements, and other personal choses or causes an action to the Duane

Van Dyke Irrevocable Trust. In furtherance thereof demand was made by DUANE VAN

DYKE upon HERMANN MUENNICHOW to provide and turn over all of the

aforementioned rents which had been transferred to HERMANN MUENNICHOW

pursuant to the aforementioned oral agreement by the parties.

21. HERMANN MUENNICHOW responded to this demand by indicating he

did not have the funds on hand and had used them for other purposes.

22. At no time prior to or subsequent to being advised by HERMANN

MUENNICHOW that his funds had been used for other purposes did DUANE VAN

DYKE consent or authorize said use of his funds.

23. Subsequent thereto, demand was made upon HERMANN MUENNICHOW

to obtain money in order to pay over the balance of rents on hand he held by HERMANN

MUENNICHOW on behalf of DUANE VAN DYKE to the VAN DYKE TRUST.

Initially, HERMANN MUENNICHOW executed a promissory note for $1 million

payable to DUANE VAN DYKE. A true and correct copy of this promissory note is

attached to this complaint as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference as though

fully stated.

24. Subsequent to the execution of the promissory note described in the

preceding paragraph, John Van Dyke in his capacity as the trustee of the Duane Van Dyke

Irrevocable Trust contacted HERMANN MUENNICHOW and conducted multiple

discussions and negotiations regarding these funds entrusted to HERMANN

MUENNICHOW . The parties entered into a series of agreements in which promises to

repay an agreed-upon sum were made. The agreements entered into by the parties are

stated herein below.

25. HERMANN MUENNICHOW on his own behalf entered into an agreement

entitled Replacement and Restatement of Promissory Note Secured by Deeds of Trust and

Guarantees on February 23, 2013. A true and correct copy of this agreement is attached to

this complaint as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference as though fully stated.


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 salient terms of this written agreement provided that it replaced the promissory note

attached to this complaint as Exhibit A, the sum to be paid would be a total of $800,000,

that certain monthly payments would be made with the next payment due of $100,000 on

March 1, 2013, and provided for certain deeds of trusts and guarantees from other

entities. Terms of the agreement reserved the rights of plaintiff to seek further amounts

due.

26. In furtherance of the aforementioned promissory note obligation, to

MUENNICHOW CPA and MUENNICHOW LLP jointly and severally agreed to

guarantee the obligations of HERMANN MUENNICHOW under said promissory note. A

true and correct copy of this guaranty agreement is attached to this complaint as Exhibit C

and incorporated herein as though fully stated. The terms of this guarantee included

provisions that these defendants as guarantors would also grant a security interest in their

business assets fully stated herein below.

27. On or about February 23, 2013 in furtherance of the guarantee provided

plaintiffs under the guarantee agreement for the benefit of HERMANN MUENNICHOW,

MUENNICHOW CPA and MUENNICHOW LLP, by its authorized officer HERMANN

MUENNICHOW and, executed a Security Agreement to secure the obligations contained

in the promissory notes executed by HERMANN MUENNICHOW which are attached to

this complaint as Exhibits A and B. A true and correct copy of this Security Agreement is

attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein as though fully stated.

28. On February 27, 2013, the same parties who executed the aforementioned

Security Agreement attached as Exhibit D, executed an Amendment to Security

Agreement by which each of the aforementioned defendant parties granted a security

interest in the following assets owned or here after acquired by said defendants: “all

assets of the Guarantors, whether presently existing or hereafter created or acquired, and

wherever located, including but not limited to: (a) all Accounts, Chattel Paper (including

tangible and electronic chattel paper), Deposit Accounts, Documents, client records,

Equipment, General Intangibles (including payment intangibles, goodwill and software),


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

Instruments and letters of credit, Inventory (including all goods held for sale or lease to be

furnished under a contract of service, and including returns and repossessions),

Investment Property (including securities and security entitlements), all money, cash and

cash equivalent; all contracts; and all of Guarantors’ books and records with respect to

any of the foregoing, and the computers and equipment containing said books and

records; and (b) any and all cash proceeds and/or noncash proceeds thereof, including,

without limitation, insurance proceeds, and all supporting obligations and the security

therefore or for any right to payment.” A true and correct copy of this Amendment to

Security Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein as though

fully stated.

29. On or about March 7, 2013 plaintiffs cause to be filed a UCC-1 Financing

Statement which was logged in by the California Secretary of State on said date as

instrument number 13-735-149-1367. A true and correct copy of this filed financing

statement is attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by reference as though

fully stated. The purpose of this UCC-1 financing statement was and is to perfect

plaintiffs’ claim of security to the assets described therein.

30. Defendant RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC also agreed to guarantee the

obligations of HERMANN MUENNICHOW as referenced in the promissory note

obligation which is the subject matter of this Complaint. In furtherance of this agreement

RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC executed a document entitled Guaranty Secured Against Real

Estate on March 2, 2013. A true and correct copy of this agreement is attached to this

Complaint as Exhibit G and incorporated herein as though fully stated. Pursuant to the

terms of this Guaranty Agreement RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC agreed to provide as

additional collateral for the obligations of the promissory note its legal right title and

interest to the real property at 12814 Riverside Dr., North Hollywood, CA., more

particularly described as “The West 65 feet of the North half of the East half of Lot 2 of

Tract No. 2590, in the City of Los Angeles, County of Los Angeles, State of California,

as per map recorded in Book 26 Page 57 of Maps in the office of the county recorder of


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

said county. Excepting therefrom that portion thereof conveyed to the State of California

by Deed recorded January 10, 1957, as instrument No. 1769, in Book 53326, Page 260

Official records, APN 2367-033-020.

31. In furtherance of the aforementioned agreements, and as additional

collateral for the performance of the obligations under the promissory note which is the

subject matter of this action, on or about February 23, 2013, HERMANN

MUENNICHOW, manager of the RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC executed a document

entitled Short Form Deed of Trust and Assignment of rents to the real property at 12814

Riverside Dr., North Hollywood, CA 91607. A true and correct copy of this Deed of Trust

is attached hereto as Exhibit H and incorporated herein as though fully stated. Pursuant to

the terms of said deed of trust, RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC conveyed to R Rosser Cole, a

Law Corporation as trustee its legal right title and interest in the following described real

property to be held for the benefit of the VAN DYKE TRUST.



subject matter of this action, HERMANN MUENNICHOW agreed to obtain and provide

a deed of trust conveyance for the joint interests held by HERMANN MUENNICHOW

and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW in the real property at 29000 Indian Court Ridge Agora

Hills, CA 91301, more particularly described as Lot 163 of Tract 33402 in the City of

Agoura Hills, in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in

Book 906, pate 1-14, inclusive of maps in the office of the County Recorder of said

County, APN 2051-002-035.

33. Notwithstanding the aforementioned agreement, HERMANN

MUENNICHOW only provided a Deed of Trust executed by him on February 23, 2013

but which was not executed by HELAYNE MUENNICHOW . A true and correct copy of

this Deed of Trust is attached to this complaint as Exhibit I and incorporated herein as

though fully stated. Plaintiff VAN DYKE TRUST asserts it has a claim to the legal and

equitable titles to this real property as security for the agreements mentioned herein.


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



subject matter of this action, HERMANN MUENNICHOW agreed to obtain and provide

a deed of trust conveyance for the joint interests held by HERMANN MUENNICHOW

and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW in the real property at 38685 Calle Del Lobo, Murrieta,

CA 92562, more particularly described as: Beginning at the centerline intersection of

Calle De Lobo and Calle De Campanero as shown on aforementioned parcel map 10970;

thence along the centerline of Calle De Lobo, North 72E 48' 22" East a distance of 478.20

feet, to a tangent curve, concave northwesterly, having a radius of 1800 feet; thence along

said curve, northeasterly, having a central angle of 12E 05' 59" and an arc length of

380.12 feet; thence leaving said centerline along the northeasterly line of aforementioned

parcel 3, North 42E 30' 37" West a distance of 376.38 feet, to the corner of parcel 3 and 4,

parcel map 10970; thence North 84E 51' 18" West a distance of 218.92 feet, to an angle

point; thence South 47E 56' 11" West a distance of 175 feet, to an angle point; thence

South 37E 03' 49" East a distance of 117 feet, to a point on the northwesterly line of said

parcel 4, parcel map 10970; thence South 35E 56' 11" West a distance of 466.33 feet, to

the point of beginning, APN 929-090-019.

35. Notwithstanding the aforementioned agreement, HERMANN

MUENNICHOW only provided a Deed of Trust executed by him on February 23, 2013

but which was not executed by HELAYNE MUENNICHOW . A true and correct copy of

this Deed of Trust is attached to this complaint as Exhibit J and incorporated herein as

though fully stated. Plaintiff VAN DYKE TRUST asserts it has a claim to the legal and

equitable titles to this real property as security for the agreements mentioned herein.

36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on those grounds allege, although

HELAYNE MUENNICHOW did not enter into any of the aforementioned agreements, at

all times in which they were in effect she was lawfully married to and living with

HERMANN MUENNICHOW. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on those grounds

further allege, the money obtained by HERMANN MUENNICHOW was used for


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

purchase and maintenance of housing and other necessaries of life, and that HELAYNE

MUENNICHOW received the use and benefit of these monies. As such, Plaintiffs allege

that HELAYNE MUENNICHOW is personally liable for these debts and obligations.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION–BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT

AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW, MUENNICHOW CPA,

MUENNICHOW LLP, and RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC

37. Plaintiffs repeat and reallge the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 36 and

repeat the same as though fully set out herein.

38. By the terms of the promissory note, HERMANN MUENNICHOW agreed

to pay monthly installments of $40,000 on January 30, 2013, then $100,000 per month

commencing March 1, 2013 and each month thereafter for three additional months, then

one payment of $80,000 on July 15, 2013, then five payments of $40,000 per months

commencing on August 15, 2013 and each month thereafter for four additional months,

then one final payment of $80,000 on January 15, 2014.

39. HERMANN MUENNICHOW only made the first payment of $40,000 due

on January 30, 2013 and has not made any further payments under the promissory note.

40. Pursuant to the terms of the written contract between the parties plaintiffs

may elect to accelerate the balance due upon default. By filing this Complaint, plaintiffs

notify defendants, and each of them and, that they are exercising their right to accelerate

the balance and declared the whole sum due.

41. Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest on the sum of $760,000 at the

rate of 10% per annum from the date of March 1, 2013 until the date of entry of

judgment.

42. MUENNICHOW CPA has personally guaranteed the obligations of

HERMANN MUENNICHOW as previously set forth. MUENNICHOW CPA is also

liable for damages in the sum of $760,000 plus interest as set forth in the preceding

paragraph.

43. MUENNICHOW LLP has personally guaranteed the obligations of


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

HERMANN MUENNICHOW as previously set forth. MUENNICHOW LLP is also


paragraph.

44. RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC has personally guaranteed the obligations of

HERMANN MUENNICHOW as previously set forth. RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC is also


paragraph.

45. Pursuant to the terms of the written agreements by and between the parties,

in the event legal action be brought plaintiffs are entitled to recover a reasonable sum as

in and for attorneys fees incurred in enforcing these proceedings. Plaintiffs have retained

the services of Kelly Warren, an attorney duly licensed by the State Bar of California and,

who has 30+ years experience in civil litigation proceedings. Plaintiffs have agreed to pay

said attorney an hourly rate of $300 per hour for legal services rendered in furtherance of

these proceedings. In addition to the actual damages paid for, plaintiffs are entitled to a

reasonable sum as and for attorneys fees incurred pursuant to the terms of the written

contract.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION–FORECLOSE COLLATERAL UNDER

SECURITY INTEREST

AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW, MUENNICHOW CPA, and

MUENNICHOW LLP

46. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 43

and paragraph 45 of the Complaint as though the same were fully set out herein.

47. By reason of the aforementioned promissory note, security agreement, and

amendments to security agreement, and guarantees, plaintiffs allege they hold a security

interest and the assets described in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.

48. HERMANN MUENNICHOW is in breach of the underlying promissory


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

note.

49. By reason of the foregoing breach of HERMANN MUENNICHOW,

plaintiffs are entitled to enforce the security interest created by the security agreement and

amendment to security agreement attached to this complaint as Exhibits D and E.

50. Although pursuant to the agreement HERMANN MUENNICHOW,

MUENNICHOW CPA, and MUENNICHOW LLP have remained to the present time in

possession of the collateral described in Exhibit E to which plaintiffs maintain an interest,

as a further result of the defendants default plaintiff is entitled to re-force this security

interest by judicial foreclosure of all of defendant's rights in the property through public

sale thereof by proper judicial officer. Upon sale, the proceeds shall be applied first to pay

all costs associated with the sale, next as paid to plaintiff for damages sustained by them

by reason of defendant's breach and if said liability is fully satisfied at times shall be

distributed jointly to HERMANN MUENNICHOW, MUENNICHOW CPA, and

MUENNICHOW LLP.

51. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees and costs

incurred in enforcing this security agreement pursuant to the written terms of the

agreements by and between the parties and attached to this Complaint.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION–JUDICIAL FORECLOSE OF REAL ESTATE

COLLATERAL UNDER SECURITY INTEREST

AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW and RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LLC


and paragraphs 44 and 45 of the Complaint as though the same were fully set out herein.

53. By reason of the aforementioned promissory note, guaranty (Exhibit G) and

deed of trust (Exhibit H) to the real property described in paragraph 30, and amendments

to security agreement, plaintiffs allege they hold a security interest in the real property

described in paragraph 30 of this Complaint.

54. RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LLC is the record owner of the property described in

paragraph 30 of this 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

55. The VAN DYKE TRUST is, and all times mentioned herein, the lawful

owner and holder of the underlying promissory note and amendments thereto that are

attached to this Complaint as Exhibits A and B, all rights which are personally guaranteed

by the Guaranty Secured Against Real Estate that is attached to this complaint as Exhibit

G, and all rights granted under the Deed of Trust attached to this Complaint as Exhibit H.

56. The trust deed provides that, should a default occur in the payment of any

debt secured by the trust deed, all sums secured by the trust deed shall, at the election of

the beneficiary, become immediately due and payable.

57. On March 2, 2013, RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LLC personally guaranteed

(Exhibit G) the obligations evidenced by the promissory note (Exhibits A and B).

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION–JUDICIAL FORECLOSE OF REAL ESTATE


AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE

MUENNICHOW



59. By reason of the aforementioned promissory note (Exhibits A and B) and

deed of trust (Exhibit I) to the real property described in paragraph 32, plaintiffs allege

they hold a security interest in the real property described in paragraph 32 of this

Complaint.

60. HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW are the

record owners of the property described in paragraph 32 of this Complaint.

61. The VAN DYKE TRUST is, and all times mentioned herein, the lawful

owner and holder of the underlying promissory note and amendments thereto that are

attached to this Complaint as Exhibits A and B, and all rights granted under the Deed of

Trust attached to this Complaint as Exhibit I.

62. The trust deed provides that, should a default occur in the payment of any

debt secured by the trust deed, all sums secured by the trust deed shall, at the election of


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 beneficiary, become immediately due and payable.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION–JUDICIAL FORECLOSE OF REAL ESTATE



MUENNICHOW



64. By reason of the aforementioned promissory note (Exhibits A and B) and deed

of trust (Exhibit J) to the real property described in paragraph 34, plaintiffs allege they hold

a security interest in the real property described in paragraph 34 of this Complaint.

65. HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW are the

record owners of the property described in paragraph 34 of this Complaint.

66. The VAN DYKE TRUST is, and all times mentioned herein, the lawful owner

and holder of the underlying promissory note and amendments thereto that are attached to

this Complaint as Exhibits A and B, and all rights granted under the Deed of Trust attached

to this Complaint as Exhibit J.

67. The trust deed provides that, should a default occur in the payment of any debt

secured by the trust deed, all sums secured by the trust deed shall, at the election of the

beneficiary, become immediately due and payable.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION–IMPOSITION OF RESULTING TRUST


MUENNICHOW

68. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 5 and

paragraphs 7 through 22 of the Complaint as though the same were fully set out herein.

69. In or about the year 2007, DUANE VAN DYKE became embroiled in a series

of business and personal disputes and transactions in which both he believed he had claims

to receive certain sums from other third parties, while these parties and others asserted rights

to recover damages from DUANE VAN DYKE.


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

70. In or about the year 2007, DUANE VAN DYKE entered into a settlement

agreement for one of the claims he believed was owing to him under which he was to

receive, and thereafter did receive, a sum of approximately $61,000. Initially, when this

money was paid to him, he deposited into several different bank accounts.

71. At this same time, DUANE VAN DYKE still had the same concerns over his

financial privacy and unauthorized access to his accounts. He advised HERMANN

MUENNICHOW about these settlements and his concerns. HERMANN MUENNICHOW

and DUANE VAN DYKE again orally agreed that DUANE VAN DYKE would deliver

these funds to HERMANN MUENNICHOW and that HERMANN MUENNICHOW would

hold this funds in a similar fiduciary capacity for the use and benefit of DUANE VAN

DYKE as he had allegedly been holding the rents from the aforementioned Badillo real

property. HERMANN MUENNICHOW instructed and advised DUANE VAN DYKE to

deliver the funds to him in the form of cashier’s checks totaling $510,000 made payable to

HERMANN MUENNICHOW and two additional cashier’s checks made payable to the

United States Treasury for the sum of $50,000 each. DUANE VAN DYKE believed the two

checks made payable to the United States Treasury were necessary in order to pay tax

obligations owing by him resulting from his receipt of these settlements.

72. In or about the year 2007, DUANE VAN DYKE transferred the sum of

$610,000 to HERMANN MUENNICHOW pursuant to the terms of their oral agreements for

HERMANN MUENNICHOW to hold these funds for the use and benefit of DUANE VAN

DYKE, or transmit them to the United States Treasury in order to be applied to the income

tax obligations owing by DUANE VAN DYKE.

73. DUANE VAN DYKE is informed and believes, and on those grounds alleges,

that HERMANN MUENNICHOW set up and established a business entity known as ESN

Partners, LLC. This was done without advance notice nor consultation nor consent with

DUANE VAN DYKE.


that HERMANN MUENNICHOW deposited $510,000 of the settlement sums delivered to


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

him as described in paragraph 72 of this Complaint into bank accounts set up in the name of

ESN Partners, LLC., and delivered the balance of $100,000 payable to the United States

Treasury to that entity on behalf of DUANE VAN DYKE.


that the two checks payable to the United States Treasury were not delivered to that entity

on his own behalf, but instead were delivered to that entity to discharge income tax

obligations owing by HERMANN MUENNICHOW. If this was done, it was done without

the permission nor consent of DUANE VAN DYKE. DUANE VAN DYKE did not learn

of this event until after November 1, 2012.

76. In addition to the foregoing settlement sums, in the year 2008, DUANE VAN

DYKE became entitled to receive additional sums from a claim filed in certain bankruptcy

proceedings in the approximate sum of $98,000. Operating under the belief at that time that

HERMANN MUENNICHOW was still honorable and trustworthy, DUANE VAN DYKE

delivered this additional sum of approximately $98,000 to HERMANN MUENNICHOW to

be held by him in the same fashion as the other funds delivered to him as described above.

77. In addition to these foregoing sums delivered to HERMANN

MUENNICHOW, DUANE VAN DYKE also negotiated payment of a claim owing to him

by a third party to be paid in monthly payments of $1,667 commencing in or about the year

2008. Once again, operating under the belief at that time that HERMANN MUENNICHOW

was still honorable and trustworthy, DUANE VAN DYKE authorized these monthly

payments to be paid to and held by HERMANN MUENNICHOW to be held by him in the

same fashion as the other funds delivered to him as described above.

78. On or about November 1, 2012, DUANE VAN DYKE was in the process of

creating the Duane Van Dyke Irrevocable Trust as described in paragraph 20 of this

Complaint. His demand for turn over of the funds as stated in paragraph 20 was met with

the same response as set out in paragraph 21 of this Complaint. As stated in paragraph 22

of this Complaint, at no time did DUANE VAN DYKE authorize any of these funds to be

used by HERMANN MUENNICHOW or his spouse HELAYNE MUENNICHOW for any


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

purposes whatsoever.

79. By reason of the foregoing arrangements, plaintiffs are informed and believe,

and on those grounds allege, that a resulting trust pursuant to California Civil Code Sections

2223 and 2224.

80. Being that DUANE VAN DYKE and HERMANN MUENNICHOW agreed

that HERMANN MUENNICHOW would hold these monies in trust and for the benefit of

DUANE VAN DYKE, and therefore the creation of a resulting trust, plaintiffs allege that all

funds held by HERMANN MUENNICHOW in any capacity were held as a trustee for the

benefit of DUANE VAN DYKE and as such a fiduciary relationship was owed to DUANE

VAN DYKE by HERMANN MUENNICHOW.

81. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on those grounds alleges, that

HERMANN MUENNICHOW used the proceeds held in trust by him not only to pay

personal income tax obligations owing by him which are also to be obligations of HELAYNE

MUENNICHOW, but also HERMANN MUENNICHOW used these proceeds to purchase

and acquire the real property the real property at 38685 Calle Del Lobo Murrieta, CA 92652,

more particularly described in paragraph 34 of this Complaint. This real property was

acquired in the name of HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW

as legal holders of title. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on those grounds allege, that

HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW hold title to the property

at 38685 Calle Del Lobo, Murrieta, California as trustees and in trust for the exclusive

benefit of DUANE VAN DYKE and the VAN DYKE TRUST to which these property

interests have been assigned.

82. Plaintiffs allege they are entitled to an accounting for all monies delivered to

HERMANN MUENNICHOW from the various settlement set forth in this Sixth Cause of

Action to determine the exact amount of money delivered to HERMANN MUENNICHOW,

all appropriate and authorized disbursements from these sums, and all property, investments

or other assets acquired with the use of these funds which plaintiffs allege are held for the

exclusive use and benefit of DUANE VAN DYKE.


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

83. Plaintiffs further seek a determination and court order that HERMANN

MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW be found to hold any interest they have

in the real property at 38685 Calle Del Lobo, Murrieta, California, in trust for plaintiffs and

order HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW to immediately and

forthwith convey all legal and equitable rights they have in said property to plaintiffs.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND/OR EQUITABLE LIEN


MUENNICHOW

84. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 5,

paragraphs 7 through 22 and paragraphs, and paragraphs 69 through 83 of the Complaint as

though the same were fully set out herein.

85. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on those grounds allege, that

Defendants HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW used Plaintiffs’

funds without the consent of Plaintiff to purchase and acquire the real property located at

38685 Calle Del Lobo, Murrieta, CA 92562, which is more particularly described in

paragraph 34 of this Complaint.

86. By wrongfully detaining and obtaining Plaintiff’s property by violation of trust

and HERMANN MUENNICHOW’s other wrongful conduct, Defendants HERMANN

MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW have been unjust enriched by diversion

of Plaintiffs’ funds used for the purchase of the real property at 29000 Indian Court Ridge

Agora Hills, CA 91301. Additionally, Defendants HERMANN MUENNICHOW and

HELAYNE MUENNICHOW have received the exclusive use and benefit of said real

property and any rents or income generated therefrom.

87. Plaintiffs request that the court exercise its equitable powers to hold that

Defendants HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW are

constructive trustees who hold title to said real property and any income derived from said

real property, for Plaintiffs.


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

88. Plaintiffs also request the court impose an equitable lien on said real property

and any income derived from said real property.

89. Imposition of the above requested constructive trust and/or equitable lien is

important to prevent Defendants HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE

MUENNICHOW from unconscionably and inequitable benefitting from the wrongful, unjust

and fraudulent conduct of HERMANN MUENNICHOW.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION - CONVERSION

AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW

90. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 5 and

paragraphs 7 through 22.

91. Beginning as early as June 1, 2005, and continuing to the present time,

HERMANN MUENNICHOW wrongfully exercised dominion and control over monies and

property belonging to Plaintiffs, without Plaintiffs’ lawful consent, ay acting in the manner

described above.

92. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on those grounds allege, that

HERMANN MUENNICHOW has used Plaintiffs’ funds to support his lifestyle, purchase

assets and pay his bills, thereby depriving and preventing Plaintiffs from accessing these

monies and property, and Plaintiffs have been harmed as a consequence thereof.

93. As a direct and proximate result of HERMANN MUENNICHOW’s conduct

described above, Plaintiffs have been damaged. Pursuant to Civil Code section 3336,

Plaintiffs are entitled to the recovery of the amount of their damages, with prejudgment

interest at the legal rate from that time, which amount Plaintiffs are informed and believe

exceed $500,000.

94. Through the acts and omissions described above, including but not limited to

misappropriating money entrusted to HERMANN MUENNICHOW, deceiving Plaintiffs as

to his true intentions and actions, lying to Plaintiffs about the use of these funds and treating

the money as his own, HERMANN MUENNICHOW has acted with fraud, oppression, and

malice in the commission of this conversion within the meaning of Civil Code section 3294.

As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover punitive damages. ___________________________________________________________________________________

Verified First Amended 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

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE

AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW,

HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW




HERMANN MUENNICHOW violated the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil

Protection Act by taking financial advantage of Plaintiffs and is liable for punitive and

exemplary damages, Plaintiffs’ attorney fees incurred pursuant to the California Welfare and

Institutions Code §§ 15610.07(a), 15610.70, 15657.5, 15657.6 and also for treble damages

pursuant to Civil Code § 3345.

97. HERMANN MUENNICHOW wrongfully appropriated approximately

$800,000.00 of Plaintiff’s money which MUENNICHOW knew or should have known was

being set aside for Plaintiffs retirement and personal care and maintenance and that these

assets were essential to the health and welfare of a senior citizen.

98. HERMANN MUENNICHOW knew or should have known that Plaintiff was

65 years of age or older at the time of HERMANN MUENNICHOW’s conduct and that

therefore Plaintiff placed a high expectation of trust in HERMANN MUENNICHOW as

Plaintiffs’ fiduciary and certified public accountant.

99. HERMANN MUENNICHOW abused his position of trust when he

appropriated Plaintiff’s $800,000 for a wrongful use,

100. Plaintiff DUANE VAN DYKE was harmed and placed in substantial danger,

distress and anxiety due to Plaintiffs status as a senior citizen; and

101. HERMANN MUENNICHOW’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing

Plaintiffs’ harm.

102. Plaintiffs’ can prove that HERMANN MUENNICHOW appropriated the

$800,000 by proving both of the following:

103. Plaintiff had the right to have the property made readily available to him and,

104. HERMANN MUENNICHOW should have known that DUANE VAN DYKE___________________________________________________________________________________


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

had this right.

105. HERMANN MUENNICHOW should have known that Plaintiff had this right

because it would have been obvious to a reasonable person that Plaintiff had the right to have

the property made readily available to him.

106. HERMANN MUENNICHOW’s conduct was intentionally malicious,

oppressive and fraudulent and subject to an award for punitive and exemplary damages.

107. The Code sections relating to Elder Abuse provide that, in the event of finding

of elder abuse, Plaintiffs’ are entitled to attorney’s fees incurred. Plaintiffs’ have been

obligated to incur attorneys fees to prosecute this action in an amount to be proven at the time

of trial.

108. Plaintiff is also therefore entitled to an affirmative finding of an award which

is up to three times greater than the court would impose in the absence of that affirmative

finding that defendant knew or should have known that his conduct was directed to a senior

citizen, and that defendant’s conduct caused a senior citizen to suffer loss or encumbrance

of a source of income, substantia loss of property set aside for retirement, or for personal

care, or assets essential to the health or welfare of a senior citizen.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD


HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA, MUENNICHOW LLP

and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW




HERMANN MUENNICHOW, HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA and MUENNICHOW

LLP held in trust funds belonging to Plaintiff and breached his fiduciary duty as Plaintiff’s

certified public accountant, without Plaintiffs’ lawful consent, by acting in the manner

described above pursuant to California Civil Code § 1573.

111. Plaintiffs placed a high degree of trust and confidence in the fidelity and

integrity of HERMAN MUENNICHOW CPA are informed and believe, and on those___________________________________________________________________________________


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

grounds allege, that HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA has misled Plaintiffs to their

prejudice and breached his fiduciary duty and that Plaintiffs have been harmed as a

consequence thereof.

112. As a direct and proximate result of HERMANN MUENNICHOW’s conduct

described above, Plaintiffs have been damaged. Pursuant to Civil Code § 1573, Plaintiffs are

entitled to the recovery of the amount of their damages, with prejudgment interest at the legal

rate from that time, which amount Plaintiffs are informed and believe exceeds $800,000.

113. Through the acts and omissions described above, including but not limited to

misappropriating money entrusted to HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA, by breaching his

fiduciary duty and misrepresenting that Plaintiffs rent money was being deposited into the

bank accounts created by HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA.

114. HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA remained silent when a duty existed to

inform Plaintiffs that HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA was not depositing Plaintiffs

lawsuit settlement and rent money into the bank accounts and instead HERMANN

MUENNICHOW CPA was appropriating Plaintiffs rent money as if it were its’ own.

115. Plaintiffs’ relied on HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA’s representations that

the money was being deposited into Plaintiffs’ bank accounts.

116. Plaintiffs were injured as a proximate cause of this reliance thereof; and

117. HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA gained an advantage by his conduct at the

expense of Plaintiffs.

118. HERMAN MUENNICHOW CPA’s conduct was intentionally malicious and

despicable that subjected Plaintiff to such a cruel and unjust hardship as to justify an award

of punitive and exemplary damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION–BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT


MUENNICHOW LLP, and RIVERSIDE DRIVE LLC

1. Against Hermann Muennichow, Muennichow CPA, Muennichow LLP, and___________________________________________________________________________________


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

Riverside Drive LLC for the total sum of $760,000, principal and interest, together with

interest at the rate of 10% per annum from March 1, 2013 to the date of entry of

judgment;

2. Against Hermann Muennichow, Muennichow CPA, Muennichow LLP, and

Riverside Drive LLC for attorney’s fees in an amount that the court adjudges reasonable;

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION–FORECLOSE COLLATERAL UNDER

SECURITY INTEREST

AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW, MUENNICHOW CPA, and

MUENNICHOW LLP

3. Against Hermann Muennichow, Muennichow CPA, Muennichow LLP, for the

total sum of $760,000, principal and interest, together with interest at the rate of 10% per

annum from March 1, 2013 to the date of entry of judgment;

4. For an order directing public sale of the property herein described to foreclose

all of these Defendants’ rights therein and to apply the proceeds, in the following order:

a. To the costs of taking, holding, and selling the property and, to the

extent provided for by agreement and not prohibited by law, reasonable

attorney’s fees and legal expenses incurred by the secured party in

doing so;

b. To the cots of suit herein, as may be awarded by the court;

c. To the satisfaction of damages and interest thereon under the

agreement;

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION–JUDICIAL FORECLOSE OF REAL ESTATE


AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW and RIVERSIDE DRIVE, LLC

5. Adjudging that the trust deed be foreclosed, that the property described in

paragraph 30 be sold according to law by a levying officer to be appointed by the court, that

the proceeds of the sale be applied in payment of the amounts due to plaintiff, that Riverside

LLC and Hermann Muennichow and all persons claiming under Riverside LLC and Hermann

Muennichow, after execution of plaintiff’s trust deed, whether as lien claimant, judgment___________________________________________________________________________________


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

creditor, claimant under a junior trust deed, purchaser, lienholder, or otherwise, be barred and

foreclosed from all rights, claims, interests, or equity of redemption in the property and every

part fo the property when time for redemption has elapsed;

6. Adjudging that Riverside LLC and Hermann Muennichow are personally

liable for payment of the obligation secured by the trust deed, and that a deficiency judgment

may be ordered following proceedings prescribed by law;

7. Permitting plaintiffs to become purchasers at the foreclosure sale;

8. Directing the levying officer, after the time for redemption has elapsed to

execute a deed to the purchaser of the property at the sale, and directing that the purchaser

be let into possession of the property on production of the levying officer’s deed;

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION–JUDICIAL FORECLOSE OF REAL ESTATE


AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW



the proceeds of the sale be applied in payment of the amounts due to plaintiff, that Hermann

Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow and all persons claiming under Hermann

Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow, after execution of plaintiff’s trust deed, whether as

lien claimant, judgment creditor, claimant under a junior trust deed, purchaser, lienholder,

or otherwise, be barred and foreclosed from all rights, claims, interests, or equity of

redemption in the property and every part of the property when time for redemption has

elapsed;

10. Adjudging that Hermann Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow are

personally liable for payment of the obligation secured by the trust deed of the property

described in paragraph 32, and that a deficiency judgment may be ordered following

proceedings prescribed by law;



execute a deed to the purchaser of the property at the sale, and directing that the purchaser___________________________________________________________________________________


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


FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION–JUDICIAL FORECLOSE OF REAL ESTATE





the proceeds of the sale be applied in payment of the amounts due to plaintiff, that Hermann

Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow and all persons claiming under Hermann

Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow, after execution of plaintiff’s trust deed, whether as

lien claimant, judgment creditor, claimant under a junior trust deed, purchaser, lienholder,

or otherwise, be barred and foreclosed from all rights, claims, interests, or equity of

redemption in the property and every part of the property when time for redemption has

elapsed;

14. Adjudging that Hermann Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow are

personally liable for payment of the obligation secured by the trust deed of the property

described in paragraph 34, and that a deficiency judgment may be ordered following

proceedings prescribed by law;



execute a deed to the purchaser of the property at the sale, and directing that the purchaser


SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION–IMPOSITION OF RESULTING TRUST


17. Declaring that Hermann Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow hold title to

the real property described in paragraph 34 of this complaint as a trustee of a resulting trust

for the benefit of plaintiffs, and that Hermann Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow have

no right, title nor interest in said real property;

18. Ordering that Hermann Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow convey to

plaintiffs forthwith all of the title to said real property;___________________________________________________________________________________


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

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST AND/OR EQUITABLE LIEN


19. Declaring that Hermann Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow hold title to

the real property described in paragraph 34 of this complaint as constructive trustees for the

benefit of plaintiffs, and that Hermann Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow have no right,

title nor interest in said real property;

20. For a determination that Plaintiffs are entitled to and possess and equitable lien

against the real property described in paragraph 34 of this complaint for the amount of money

used by Hermann Muennichow and Helayne Muennichow for the purchase of said real

property plus interest at the legal rate of interest;


plaintiffs forthwith all of the title to said real property;

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION–CONVERSION


and MUENNICHOW LLP

22. Against Hermann Muennichow, Muennichow CPA, Muennichow LLP, for the

total sum of $760,000, principal and interest, together with interest at the rate of 10% per

annum from March 1, 2013 to the date of entry of judgment;


plaintiffs forthwith all of the title to said property;

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FINANCIAL ELDER ABUSE


HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA and HELAYNE MUENNICHOW

24. Against Hermann Muennichow, Muennichow CPA, and Helayne Muennichow,

for an affirmative finding of an award up to three times greater than the total sum of

$760,000, principal and interest, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from

March 1, 2013 to the date of entry of judgment pursuant to California Civil Code § 3345.

25. For an award of punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be___________________________________________________________________________________


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

determined by the court.

26. For an award of Plaintiffs’ attorneys fees incurred herein pursuant to Elder

Abuse statutes.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD

AS TO DEFENDANTS HERMANN MUENNICHOW and

HERMANN MUENNICHOW CPA

27. Against Hermann Muennichow, Muennichow CPA, Muennichow LLP, and

Riverside Drive LLC for the total sum of $760,000, principal and interest, together with

interest at the rate of 10% per annum from March 1, 2013 to the date of entry of judgment;

28. For punitive and exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the

court.

FOR ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

29. For attorney’s fees as provided for by statute or agreement.

30. For costs of suit herein incurred; and

31. For any other and further relief as the court may deem proper.

DATED: April 10, 2014 ___________________________KELLY WARREN, ESQ.Attorney for Plaintiffs


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

VERIFICATION OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

I, Duane Van Dyke, hereby declare as follows:

I am one of the Plaintiffs in these proceedings and the person most involved and

knowledgeable with the events stated in this Complaint. All of the matters stated herein are

personally known to me and I believe them to be true, except those which are stated upon

information and belief, and those matters I believe to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this

__th day of April 2015, at Covina, California.

_________________________________________DUANE VAN DYKE


KELLY WARREN, ESQ., SBN 98670 LAW OFFICES OF KELLY …

Documents

Transcript of KELLY WARREN, ESQ., SBN 98670 LAW OFFICES OF KELLY …