Attorneys for Plaintiff - Mortgage Fraud and Foreclosure ...

[Pages:35]1 Attorneys for Plaintiff

2

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

3

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARIN

4

JOHN DOE an individual

) Case No. ______________________

5

)

6

vs.

Plaintiff,

) COMPLAINT FOR:

)

) 1.

LACK OF STANDING TO

7 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FSB; )

FORECLOSE;

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST )

8 CO. AS TRUSTEE FOR SECURITIZED ) 2.

FRAUD IN THE CONCEALMENT

TRUST WAMU MORTGAGE PASS-

)

9 THROUGH CERTIFIACTES SERIES )

10 11

2006-AR4 TRUST; WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA; WAMU ASSET ACCEPTANCE CORP.; WASHINGTON

) 3. ) ) 4. )

MUTUAL/JP MORGAN CHASE;

12

MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC

) ) 5.

FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT

INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

QUIET TITLE

13 REGISTRATION SYSTEM, AKA

)

"MERS" AND DOES 1 THROUGH 100, 14 INCLUSIVE

) 6. ) ) 7.

SLANDER OF TITLE DECLARATORY RELIEF

15

)

Defendants.

)

16

) 8. VIOLATIONS OF TILA;

)

17

)

) 9. VIOLATIONS OF RESPA;

18

)

)

19

) 10. RECISSION.

20

21

22 COMES NOW the Plaintiff, ("JOHN DOE"), PLAINTIFF John Doe ("Plaintiff"),

23

complaining of the Defendants as named above, and each of them, as follows:

24

I. THE PARTIES

25

1. Plaintiff is now, and at all times relevant to this action, a resident of the County of

26

27 Marin, State of CALIFORNIA.

28

1 COMPLAINT

1

2. Defendant, Washington Mutual Bank, FA is a National Banking Association, doing

2 business in the County of Marin, State of CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff is further informed and

3

believes, and thereon alleges, that Washinton Mutual is the Originator of the loan.

4

3. Defendant, Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (hereafter "Deutsche Bank"), as

5

6 Trustee for securitized trust WAMU Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AR4

7 Trust (hereafter "WAMU 2006-AR4 Trust"). Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon

8

allege that, Defendant Deutsche Bank, is a national banking association, doing business in the

9

County of Marin, State of CALIFORNIA and is the purported Master Servicer for Securitized

10

Trust and/or a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or the Deed

11

12 of Trust as more particularly described in this Complaint.

13

4. Defendant, Washington Mutual Bank, FA. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and

14

thereon allege that, Defendant Washington Mutual Bank, FA, is a corporation, doing business

15

in the County of Marin, State of CALIFORNIA and is the purported Sponsor for Securitized

16

17 Trust and/or a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or the Deed

18 of Trust as more particularly described in this Complaint.

19

5. Defendant, Wamu Asset Acceptance Corp.. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and

20

thereon allege that, Defendant Wamu Asset Acceptance Corp., is a corporation, doing business

21

in the County of Marin, State of CALIFORNIA and is the purported Sponsor for Securitized

22

23 Trust and/or a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or the Deed

24 of Trust as more particularly described in this Complaint.

25

6. Defendant, Washington Mutual/JP Morgan Chase. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and

26

thereon allege that, Defendant Washington Mutual/JP Morgan Chase, is a corporation, doing

27

business in the County of Marin, State of CALIFORNIA and is the purported Master Servicer

28

2 COMPLAINT

1 for Securitized Trust and/or a purported participant in the imperfect securitization of the Note

2 and/or the Deed of Trust as more particularly described in this Complaint.

3

7. Defendant, MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC., aka

4

MERS ("MERS"), Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that MERS is a

5

6 corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of BROWARD, whose last known

7 address is 1818 Library Street, Suite 300, Reston, Virginia 20190; website:

8

. MERS is doing business in the County of BROWARD, State of

9

CALIFORNIA. Plaintiff is further informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant

10

MERS is the purported Beneficiary under the Deed of Trust and/or is a purported participant in

11

12 the imperfect securitization of the Note and/or the Deed of Trust, as more particularly described

13 in this Complaint.

14

8. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff has owned the Property located at 65

15

Mariners Cir., San Rafael, CA 94903 (the "Property").

16

17

9. Plaintiff does not know the true names, capacities, or basis for liability of Defendants

18 sued herein as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, as each fictitiously named Defendant is in some

19 manner liable to Plaintiff, or claims some right, title, or interest in the Property. Plaintiff will

20

amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is

21

informed and believe, and therefore allege, that at all relevant times mentioned in this

22

23 Complaint, each of the fictitiously named Defendants are responsible in some manner for the

24 injuries and damages to Plaintiff so alleged and that such injuries and damages were

25 proximately caused by such Defendants, and each of them.

26

10. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and thereon allege, that at all times herein mentioned,

27

each of the Defendants were the agents, employees, servants and/or the joint-venturers of the

28

3 COMPLAINT

1 remaining Defendants, and each of them, and in doing the things alleged herein below, were

2 acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment and/or joint venture.

3

II. JURISDICTION

4

11. The transactions and events which are the subject matter of this Complaint all occurred

5

6 within the County of Marin, State of CALIFORNIA.

7

12. The Property is located within the County of Marin, State of CALIFORNIA with an

8

address of 65 Mariners Cir., San Rafael, CA 94903.

9

III. INTRODUCTION

10

13. This is an action brought by Plaintiff for declaratory judgment, injunctive and

11

12 equitable relief, and for compensatory, special, general and punitive damages.

13

14. Plaintiff, homeowner, disputes the title and ownership of the real property in question

14

(the "Home"), which is the subject of this action, in that the originating mortgage lender, and

15

others alleged to have ownership of Plaintiff's mortgage note and/or Deed of Trust, have

16

17 unlawfully sold, assigned and/or transferred their ownership and security interest in a

18 Promissory Note and Deed of Trust related to the Property, and, thus, do not have lawful

19 ownership or a security interest in Plaintiff's Home which is described in detail herein. For

20

these reasons, the Court should Quiet Title to the property in Plaintiff's name.

21

15. Additionally, Plaintiff homeowner brings causes of action against all defendants for

22

23 fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, rescission, declaratory relief based, and

24 violations of T.I.L.A. and R.E.S.P.A., upon the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiff's

25 original loan transaction and subsequent securitization. Defendants' violations of these laws

26

are additional reasons this Court should quiet title in Plaintiff's property in Plaintiff and award

27

damages, rescission, declaratory judgment, and injunctive relief as requested below.

28

4 COMPLAINT

1

16. From 1998 until the financial crash of 2008-2009, over 60 million home loans where

2 sold by originating lender banks to investment banks to be securitized in a complex series of

3

billions of transactions. The Plaintiff's home loan was one of the 60 million notes that were

4

securitized.

5

6

17. Securitization is the process whereby mortgage loans are turned into securities, or

7 bonds, and sold to investors by Wall Street and other firms. The purpose is to provide a large

8

supply of money to lenders for originating loans, and to provide investments to bond holders

9

which were expected to be relatively safe. The procedure for selling of the loans was to create

10

a situation whereby certain tax laws known as the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit

11

12 (hereinafter "REMIC") Act were observed, and whereby the Issuing Entities and the Lenders

13 would be protected from either entity going into bankruptcy. In order to achieve the desired

14

"bankruptcy remoteness," numerous "True Sales" of the loans had to occur, in which loans

15

were sold and transferred to the different parties to the securitization.

16

17

18. A "True Sale" of the loan would be a circumstance whereby one party owned the Note

18 and then sold it to another party. An offer would be made, accepted and compensation given to

19 the "seller" in return for the Note. The Notes would be transferred, and the Deeds of Trust

20

assigned to the buyers of the Note, with an Assignment made every step of the way, and,

21

furthermore, each Note would be endorsed to the next party by the previous assignee of record.

22

23

19. Each REMIC Trust created by the investment banks, usually under New York Law,

24 would be funded with thousands to tens-of-thousands of mortgage notes. In order to maintain

25 their bankruptcy-protected status, REMIC's had to have closing dates by which every

26

mortgage note that was to be sold to the REMIC had to be "owned" by the REMIC. Once the

27

28

5 COMPLAINT

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download