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 Frank D’Anna, Pro Per Salvatore B. D’Anna, Pro Per 3941 ¾ Kenwood Dr. Spring Valley, CA 91977 Telephone: (619) 602-6647 Fax: (619) 374-2268 Email: [email protected]SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY DIVISION Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., Plaintiff, vs. Frank D’Anna, Salvatore B. D’Anna Defendant ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 37-2009-00033936 DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BRIEF Trial Date: June 24, 2009
My trial brief I submitted to the judge before he heard the unlawful detainer case in the San Diego Superior Court, California.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
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
Frank D’Anna, Pro Per Salvatore B. D’Anna, Pro Per 3941 ¾ Kenwood Dr. Spring Valley, CA 91977 Telephone: (619) 602-6647 Fax: (619) 374-2268 Email: [email protected]
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY DIVISION
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Frank D’Anna, Salvatore B. D’Anna
Defendant
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: 37-2009-00033936 DEFENDANT’S TRIAL BRIEF Trial Date: June 24, 2009
The evidence at trial will establish the following facts which are dispositive of the issues to be decided:
1. In July 2008, the Governor of California signed into law SB 1137, intended to ameliorate
the deleterious effects on the state economy and local economies and the California
housing market resulting from the foreclosures of residential properties in unprecedented
numbers resulting from subprime lending practices.n1 In SB 1137, the Legislature found
and declared (1) that residential property foreclosures increased sevenfold from 2006 to
2007; (2) that more than 84,375 properties were lost to foreclosure in California in 2007;
and (3) that 254,824 loans went into default, the first step in the foreclosure process.
2. SB 1137 modified the foreclosure process to require mortgagees, beneficiaries, or
authorized agents to provide notice to borrowers and explore options that could avoid
foreclosure.
3. Effective September 6, 2008, a mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent may
not file a notice of default pursuant to Civ. Code § 2924 until 30 days after the
mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent has contacted the borrower in person or by
Defendant’s Trial Brief - 2
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
29
30
31
32
telephone in order to assess the borrower's financial situation and explore options for the
borrower to avoid foreclosure.
4. A notice of default filed pursuant to Civ. Code § 2924 must include a declaration from
the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent that it has contacted the borrower, tried
with due diligence to contact the borrower, or the borrower has surrendered the property
to the mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
5. On October 16, 2008 Plaintiff had a Notice of Default recorded in the San Diego County
Recorder’s Office which is attached to this Trial Brief as Exhibit A and made a part
hereof.
6. The Declaration of compliance with newly enacted Civil Code 2923.5 was attached to the
Notice of Default and stated that the Plaintiff contacted Defendant on July 11, 2006 to
discuss his financial situation to avoid foreclosure which is a false statement.
7. On February 2, 2009 Defendant had a Notice of Intention to Preserve Interest in Real
Property recorded in the San Diego County Recorder’s Office due to Plaintiff’s non
compliance with Civil Code 2923.5.
8. On February 6, 2009 Defendant sent a Notice of Non Compliance which included a copy
of the recorded Notice of Intention to Preserve Interest recorded on February 2, 2009 to
all parties involved in this matter including two Certified Letters to Plaintiff and two
Certified Letters as well as a fax to the Trustee conducting the non judicial foreclosure
sale. A copy of the recorded notice from the San Diego County Recorder’s Office is
included with the Certified Letter of Non Compliance attached hereto as Exhibit B and
made a part hereof.
9. All parties sent Notice of Non Compliance ignored it and proceeded to sell Defendant’s
property on February 25, 2009 where Plaintiff purchased the property with a credit bid of
$204,750.00.
10. On or about March 17, 2009 Defendant was contacted by someone named Jake May who
informed Defendant that he represented the bank that now owned the property and was
authorized to offer to Defendant close to $5,000 in exchange for the keys to the house.
11. Defendants informed Jake May that they have been trying to either receive consideration
for a loan modification or to purchase the property outright from Plaintiff’s with the
assistance of Defendant’s parents who own several properties throughout San Diego
County.
Defendant’s Trial Brief - 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
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
12. Jake May insisted that an unlawful detainer action had already been filed and that if
Defendants vacated the premises, he would make sure that they had the first right to
purchase the property before it was put on the market. He stated that Defendant would
be back in his home in about 3 weeks.
13. On March 17, 2009 Jake May faxed a copy of the Move Out Agreement which was
between Defendant and Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, LP and not Plaintiff
Greenpoint Mortgage Funding Inc. The contract stated that Countrywide had purchased
the home at 644 Hillsview Rd at the non judicial foreclosure sale and was now the owner
and had already commenced eviction proceedings against Defendant. The move out
agreement as well as all correspondence between Defendant and Jake May are attached
hereto as Exhibit C and made a part hereof.
14. Defendants refused to sign the contract and filed a lawsuit against Greenpoint,
Countrywide, MERS, and Old Republic on April 3, 2009.
15. Plaintiff’s filed this Unlawful Detainer lawsuit on April 23, 2009. C. Issues to be decided.
1. Whether Plaintiff duly perfected title to Defendant’s home after the non judicial foreclosure sale.
2. Whether Plaintiff could have perfected title to Defendant’s home without compliance with Civil Code 2923.5.
3. Whether the Recorded Notice of Intention to Preserve Interest in Real Property due to non compliance with Civil Code 2923.5 which attaches to any sale of the property is proof that Plaintiff could not have perfected title.
II. LEGAL AUTHORITY A. NON COMPLIANCE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 2923.5 A qualified exception to the rule that title cannot be tried in an unlawful detainer
proceeding [see Evid Code § 624; 5.45[1][c]] is contained in CCP § 1161a. By extending the
summary eviction remedy beyond the conventional landlord-tenant relationship to include
purchasers of the occupied property, the statute provides for a narrow and sharply focused
examination of title. A purchaser of the property as described in the statute, who starts an
unlawful detainer proceeding to evict an occupant in possession, must show that he or she
acquired the property at a regularly conducted sale and thereafter "duly perfected" the title [CCP
Defendant’s Trial Brief - 4
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
29
30
31
32
§ 1161a; Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 C3d 251, 255, 142 CR 414, 572 P2d 28 ]. To this limited
extent, as provided by the statute, title may be litigated in the unlawful detainer proceeding [
In the case at hand, the deed of trust, which binds the trustor, directs the trustee to include in
the deed to the property recitals that notice was given as required under the deed of trust and
state that such recitals shall be conclusive proof of the truthfulness and regularity thereof. The
Trustee Deed upon Sale includes the following recitals:
This conveyance is made pursuant to the powers conferred upon Trustee by that
certain Deed of Trust dated 05/05/2005 and executed by FRANK D'ANNA, A MARRIED
MAN, as Trustor, and Recorded on 05/09/05 AS DOC#2005-0391304 of official records
of San Diego County, California, and after fulfillment of the conditions specified in said
Deed of Trust authorizing this conveyance.
Default occurred as set forth in a Notice of Default and Election to Sell which was
recorded in the Office of the Recorder of said County, and such default still existed at the
time of sale.
All requirements of law regarding the mailing of copies of notices or the
publication of a copy of the Notice of Default or the personal delivery of the copy of the
Notice of Default and the posting and publication of copies of the Notice of a Sale have
been complied with. EMPHASIS ADDED.
1 Many notice defect cases do not even address the question of whether the sale was void or voidable. In these cases the trustor was precluded from challenging the sale by conclusive presumption language as to the regularity of notice in the executed and delivered deed. ( Sorensen v. Hall (1934) 219 Cal. 680, 682-683 [28
P.2d 667]; Pierson v. Fischer, supra, 131 Cal.App.2d 208, 217; but see Garfinkel v. Superior Court (1978)
21 Cal.3d 268, 279, fn. 16 [146 Cal.Rptr. 208, 578 P.2d 925]; and see also Civ. Code, § 2924, which provides that notice recitals in deeds shall constitute prima facie evidence of compliance and conclusive evidence thereof in favor of bona fide purchasers and encumbrancers for value and without notice.)
Defendant’s Trial Brief - 13
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
29
30
31
32
The Trustee recital above is not conclusive proof of Compliance with Civil Code Section
2923.5 which is not mentioned in the above recital. The above recital is only conclusive
evidence that mailing, posting, and publication of Notices were done as required by law. It does
not state that the Declaration required by Civil Code 2923.5 was attached to the Notice of
Default as required by law or that the requirements of Civil Code 2923.5 were made as required
and since no such recital was made, the foreclosure is completely void, not voidable which
relieves Defendant of the requirement to do equity before the Sale will be set aside because
no valid sale ever took place to set aside as it was void ab initio.
D. Matter of First Impression in the Superior Court This case is a matter of first impression in the Superior Court and no appellate decisions
have been decided on the consequences of non compliance with Civil Code 2923.5. The
Legislature was quite clear when they enacted the statute and specifically made compliance with
Civil Code 2923.5 a requirement before the Notice of Default could be recorded. The only case
that has been decided involving Civil Code 2923.5 is from the Bankruptcy Court [In re GANICE
MORGAN-AUSTIN, DARREN AUSTIN, Debtors. GANICE MORGAN-AUSTIN, DARREN AUSTIN, Plaintiff, vs.
PATELCO CREDIT UNION, Defendant.] decided on February 14, 2009. The decision states the
following:
Because of the national epidemic of foreclosures on home mortgages, in July
2008, the California legislature enacted emergency legislation, requiring lenders
to attempt to negotiate workout agreements on loan defaults before commencing
or continuing foreclosure proceedings. See Cal. Civ. Code §§ 2923.5, 2923.6,
2924.8, and 2929.3. The legislation was effective immediately. The legislation did
not require lenders such as Patelco, who had already recorded notices of default,
to re-record those notices after attempting to negotiate.
However, it did require such lenders, who had not yet recorded notices of sale, to
attempt to negotiate before recording a notice of sale. There is no dispute that
Patelco made no attempt to negotiate with the Debtors before recording Notice of
Sale on January 14, 2009.
Patelco contends that the legislation exempted them from any obligation to
negotiate with the Debtors before recording a Notice of Sale because the Debtors
were at that time still debtors in a bankruptcy case. The specific provision upon
which they rely is Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.5(h)(3) which states as follows: (h)
Subdivisions (a), (c), and (g) shall not apply if any of the following occurs:
....
....
(3) The borrower has filed for bankruptcy, and the proceedings have not been
finalized.
Defendant’s Trial Brief - 14
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
29
30
31
32
It is undisputed that the Debtors' bankruptcy case was still pending at the time
Patelco recorded the Notice of
Sale. The Debtors contend that the exemption did not apply because the
bankruptcy case had been finalized as to Patelco. Patelco had obtained relief
from the automatic stay and had never filed a proof of claim in the case.
Patelco contends that the phrase is clear and exempts it from compliance unless
the bankruptcy case has been dismissed.
There is some appeal to the Debtors' argument. The exemption may have been
created in recognition of the difficulty created by the automatic stay with respect
communications between creditors and debtors. Once the automatic stay has been
vacated, the Debtors contend, the exemption no longer serves any purpose. On
the other hand, Patelco argues instead that the exemption reflects the legislature's
recognition that the bankruptcy process provides an adequate opportunity for
negotiation.
The Court has no way to determine the legislature's intent in this regard. It can
only construe the statutory language as it would be commonly understood. Doing
so, the Court finds Patelco's construction of the language more plausible.
Therefore, the Court concludes that Patelco did not violate Cal. Civ. Code §
2924.8 when it recorded the Notice of Sale without first attempting to negotiate
with the Debtors.
III. CONCLUSION Plaintiff is not entitled to possession of the property because Plaintiff can not prove that they duly perfected title without first proving that they complied with Civil Code Section 2923.5 which is a prerequisite to the recording of the Notice of Default which makes the entire non judicial foreclosure void an initio. Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 24, 2009
By:____________________ By: ________________________ Frank D’Anna, Pro Per Salvatore B. D’Anna, Pro Per
Defendant’s Trial Brief - 15
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
29
30
31
32
VERIFICATION I, Frank D’Anna, declare that I am the defendant in the above entitled action; I have read the foregoing trial brief and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: June 24, 2009 By: __________________ Frank D’Anna, Pro Per VERIFICATION I, Salvatore B. D’Anna, declare that I am the defendant in the above entitled action; I have read the foregoing trial brief and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on information and belief, and, as to those matters, I believe it to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated: June 24, 2009 By: _____________________ Salvatore B. D’Anna, Pro Per
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
B Y S A L V A T O R E B . D ’ A N N A , A T T O R N E Y - I N - F A C T F O R F R A N K D ’ A N N A
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET
TO: FROM:
Debbie Jackson
Frank D’Anna
COMPANY: DATE:
Old Republic Title Company - Trustee Services Division
2/6/2009
FAX NUMBER: TOTAL NO. OF PAGES, INCLUDING COVER:
925-798-3283 6
PHONE NUMBER: SENDER’S FAX NUMBER:
925-363-2239 619-374-2268
RE: TRUSTEE SALE NO. 08-16402
X URGENT FOR REVIEW PLEASE COMMENT PLEASE REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE
NOTES/COMMENTS:
See attached
Salvatore B. D’Anna, Attorney-in-fact SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL For Frank D’Anna, Principal 3941 ¾ Kenwood Dr. Spring Valley, CA 91977 Property Address 644 Hillsview Rd El Cajon, CA 92020 February 6, 2009 Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP Customer Service Correspondence, SV3-14B Purported Loan# 22150300 P.O. BOX 1140 Simi Valley, CA 93062-1140 Old Republic Title Company - Trustee Services Division c/o Debbie Jackson 1000 Burnett Avenue, Suite 400 Concord, CA 94520 Old Republic National Title Insurance Company Purported New Trustee For Loan # 0086769734 500 City Parkway West, Suite 200 Orange, CA 92868-2913 Marin Conveyancing Corporation Purported Trustee For Loan # 0086769734 275 Broadhollow Rd. Melville, NY 11747 Marin Conveyancing Corporation Purported Trustee For Loan # 0086769734 2730 GATEWAY OAKS DR STE 100 SACRAMENTO, CA 95833 Greenpoint Mortgage Purported Servicer P.O. Box 84013 Columbus, GA 31908-4013 Greenpoint Mortgage Funding, Inc Purported Lender 100 Wood Hollow Dr. Novato, CA 94945 Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. Purported Beneficiary P.O. Box 2026 Flint, MI 48501-2026
1 of 3
Re: NOTICE OF NON COMPLIANCE CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE § 2923.5 Dear All: Notice is once again given that the LENDERS AND OR TRUSTEES LISTED ABOVE has not complied with California civil code 2923.5. As such all notices of default and or trustee sales and such other recordings and actions are void as a matter of law. In California, a Lender is allowed to foreclose on real property without a judicial process, but only if they follow the strict statutory requirements. Nonjudicial foreclosure is deemed to be a harsh remedy subject to careful scrutiny by the courts [see System Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank
(1971) 21 Cal. App. 3d 137, 153, 98 Cal. Rptr. 735] , which is why a private sale must strictly comply with the terms of the power-of-sale provision [ Hill v. Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn.
(1967) 254 Cal. App. 2d 241, 243, 62 Cal. Rptr. 188] and any applicable statutory requirements [ Whitman v. Transtate Title Co. (1985) 165 Cal. App. 3d 312, 322, 211 Cal. Rptr. 582] . The trustee also has a duty to conduct the sale fairly and openly, with diligence, discretion, and integrity, so as to protect the rights of all interested persons and obtain a reasonable price [ System Inv. Corp. v. Union Bank (1971) 21 Cal. App. 3d 137, 153, 98 Cal. Rptr. 735 ; Hill v.
Gibraltar Sav. & Loan Assn. (1967) 254 Cal. App. 2d 241, 243, 62 Cal. Rptr. 188]. However, all aspects of the nonjudicial foreclosure process including civil code 2923.5 are also regulated in detail by a comprehensive statutory scheme [see Civ. Code § 2920 et seq.] that is designed to protect the trustor against unreasonable forfeiture [ Garfinkle v. Superior Court of Contra Costa
County (1978) 21 Cal. 3d 268, 278, 146 Cal. Rptr. 208, 578 P.2d 925]. I have in good faith attempted to mediate the loan and the true beneficiary has refused to negotiate in good faith. They have not complied with the provisions in which they were to meet with me in person or by telephone in order to assess the borrower’s financial situation and explore options for the borrower to avoid foreclosure. During the initial contact, the mortgagee, Beneficiary, or authorized agent shall advise the borrower that he or she has the right to request a subsequent meeting and, if requested, the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall schedule the meeting to occur within 14 days. The assessment of the borrower’s financial situation and discussion of options may occur during the first contact, or at the subsequent meeting scheduled for that purpose. I am unhappy to find that out of the numerous entities involved in this matter, not one has even attempted to comply with California Civil Code 2923.5. Proof of this can be found at the website of Old Republic, the now supposed Trustee of the Deed of Trust and in particular, a document titled “RevisedDeclarationDefaultIndividual.pdf” which is required to be submitted before they will initiate a foreclosure. The document as described by the title was recently revised in December 2008 and yet fails to ask for the Civil Code 2923.5 required information. One could conclude that the Civil Code 2923.5 information on any Old Republic recorded document does not reflect the actual knowledge of compliance and/or that the information is produced out of thin air!!
For the reasons stated above, the attached Notice of Intention To Preserve Interest in Property was recorded with the San Diego County Recorder on February 2, 2009. My decision to record and thereby preserve my interest came only after several months of my repeated attempts to negotiate with an undisclosed beneficiary. Your continuing lack of cooperation left me no choice but to turn this matter over to the county recorder office for future resolution by putting the world on notice of my continued interest in my property.
2 of 3
If we had met as required by California Civil Code § 2923.5 the property would have reflected a value of approximately $200,000. I am willing to pay an interest rate of 6.25 % and I will be able to make monthly payments of $1,246.00. The principal balance of my loan should be reduced the present market value of $200,000. As an alternative, I am willing to pay an interest rate of 1.75% and am able to make monthly payments of $1,246.00 with the principal balance of my loan remaining at $352,000. Please be advised that you are all on Notice that if you continue to pursue the sale of my property by recording the date it is to be sold, you will do so knowing that any subsequent buyer will take title with Notice of my interest in my property due to your intentional tortuous violations of the law and you will be held liable for the consequences of your actions. I write this letter with the hope that out of the ever growing list of entities involved, one of you willdiscuss this matter further and give it the attention it deserves. Please call me at 619-602-6647 and/orsend a fax to 619-374-2268. Sincerely, _________________________________ Frank D’Anna by Salvatore B. D’Anna, attorney-in-fact.
3 of 3
Date Produced: 02/16/2009
POSTEDIGITAL LLC
The following is the delivery information for Certified Mail™ item number 7114 7336 15544319 1814. Our records indicate that this item was delivered on 02/13/2009 at 11:43 a.m. inMELVILLE, NY, 11747. The scanned image of the recipient information is provided below.
Signature of Recipient:
Address of Recipient:
Thank you for selecting the Postal Service for your mailing needs. If you require additionalassistance, please contact your local post office or Postal Service representitive.
Sincerely,
United States Postal Service
The customer reference number shown below is not validated or endorsed by the UnitedStates Postal Service. It is solely for customer use.
Customer Reference Number: 40586632-42512053-0
Date Produced: 02/16/2009
POSTEDIGITAL LLC
The following is the delivery information for Certified Mail™ item number 7114 7336 15544319 1821. Our records indicate that this item was delivered on 02/12/2009 at 08:04 a.m. inCOLUMBUS, GA, 31908. The scanned image of the recipient information is provided below.
Signature of Recipient:
Address of Recipient:
Thank you for selecting the Postal Service for your mailing needs. If you require additionalassistance, please contact your local post office or Postal Service representitive.
Sincerely,
United States Postal Service
The customer reference number shown below is not validated or endorsed by the UnitedStates Postal Service. It is solely for customer use.
Customer Reference Number: 40586633-42512055-0
Date Produced: 02/16/2009
POSTEDIGITAL LLC
The following is the delivery information for Certified Mail™ item number 7114 7336 15544319 1838. Our records indicate that this item was delivered on 02/12/2009 at 11:15 a.m. inSACRAMENTO, CA, 95814. The scanned image of the recipient information is providedbelow.
Signature of Recipient:
Address of Recipient:
Thank you for selecting the Postal Service for your mailing needs. If you require additionalassistance, please contact your local post office or Postal Service representitive.
Sincerely,
United States Postal Service
The customer reference number shown below is not validated or endorsed by the UnitedStates Postal Service. It is solely for customer use.
Customer Reference Number: 40586633-42512055-1
Date Produced: 02/16/2009
POSTEDIGITAL LLC
The following is the delivery information for Certified Mail™ item number 7114 7336 15544319 1845. Our records indicate that this item was delivered on 02/13/2009 at 08:58 a.m. inLARKSPUR, CA, 94939. The scanned image of the recipient information is provided below.
Signature of Recipient:
Address of Recipient:
Thank you for selecting the Postal Service for your mailing needs. If you require additionalassistance, please contact your local post office or Postal Service representitive.
Sincerely,
United States Postal Service
The customer reference number shown below is not validated or endorsed by the UnitedStates Postal Service. It is solely for customer use.
Customer Reference Number: 40586633-42512055-2
Date Produced: 02/16/2009
POSTEDIGITAL LLC
The following is the delivery information for Certified Mail™ item number 7114 7336 15544319 1852. Our records indicate that this item was delivered on 02/14/2009 at 11:06 a.m. inOCALA, FL, 34478. The scanned image of the recipient information is provided below.
Signature of Recipient:
Address of Recipient:
Thank you for selecting the Postal Service for your mailing needs. If you require additionalassistance, please contact your local post office or Postal Service representitive.
Sincerely,
United States Postal Service
The customer reference number shown below is not validated or endorsed by the UnitedStates Postal Service. It is solely for customer use.
Customer Reference Number: 40586632-42512053-1
Date Produced: 02/16/2009
POSTEDIGITAL LLC
The following is the delivery information for Certified Mail™ item number 7114 7336 15544319 1869. Our records indicate that this item was delivered on 02/11/2009 at 09:19 a.m. inSIMI VALLEY, CA, 93062. The scanned image of the recipient information is provided below.
Signature of Recipient:
Address of Recipient:
Thank you for selecting the Postal Service for your mailing needs. If you require additionalassistance, please contact your local post office or Postal Service representitive.
Sincerely,
United States Postal Service
The customer reference number shown below is not validated or endorsed by the UnitedStates Postal Service. It is solely for customer use.
Customer Reference Number: 40586633-42512055-3
Date Produced: 02/16/2009
POSTEDIGITAL LLC
The following is the delivery information for Certified Mail™ item number 7114 7336 15544319 1883. Our records indicate that this item was delivered on 02/12/2009 at 10:36 a.m. inCONCORD, CA, 94520. The scanned image of the recipient information is provided below.
Signature of Recipient:
Address of Recipient:
Thank you for selecting the Postal Service for your mailing needs. If you require additionalassistance, please contact your local post office or Postal Service representitive.
Sincerely,
United States Postal Service
The customer reference number shown below is not validated or endorsed by the UnitedStates Postal Service. It is solely for customer use.
Customer Reference Number: 40586633-42512055-5
EXHIBIT C
Salvatore B. D’Anna, Attorney-In-Fact SENT VIA EFAX For Frank D’Anna, Principal 3941 ¾ Kenwood Dr. Spring Valley, CA 91977 V: (619) 602-6647 F: (619) 374-2268 Property Address 644 Hillsview Rd El Cajon, CA 92020 March 17, 2009
The Jake May Team Jake May 2335 8th Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Countrywide Home Loans Loan # 22150300 400 Countrywide Way Simi Valley, CA 93065 Re: Offer to Vacate and First Right to Re-Purchase Property
Dear Jake May:
Per our discussion yesterday regarding your offer to pay $5,000 in exchange for vacating the property voluntarily and our right to repurchase the property at 644 Hillsview Rd before it goes on the market, I have attached a copy of the recorded Power of Attorney from my brother Frank D’Anna.
As a preliminary matter, your statement that the Unlawful Detainer has already been filed with the court is erroneous since no 3 day notice has been given which is a prerequisite to filing the unlawful detainer petition. I am very familiar with the eviction process because our family owns numerous rental properties including single family homes, apartments, and commercial centers.
Here’s the promised summary of where we are on the issues we discussed. If you disagree with anything I’ve written, let me know in writing by sending a fax to 619-374-2268 as soon as possible. Otherwise, I’ll move ahead based on these assumptions.
Jake May March 17, 2009 Page 2
2
Payment to vacate in lieu of eviction.
1. You have offered to pay Frank D’Anna a lump sum payment of $5,000 to voluntarily vacate the premises rather than filing an unlawful detainer.
2. Frank D’Anna will have 30 days to vacate the premises.
3. You will spend approximately 3-4 weeks preparing the premises for liquidation.
4. The property will then be offered to our family for purchase before it is offered to anyone else and before it is put on the open market for others to purchase.
5. You estimate the property will be listed at a price close to $180,000.
6. You will notify us of the purchase price as soon as it is determined conclusively so that we may have the funds available as soon as the property becomes available.
7. We will have the financing required to make the purchase on hand when you inform us that the property is ready to be sold and before you offer it to anyone else.
As you are aware, we would rather not vacate the premises, but proceed directly to a purchase of the property as soon as a sale price can be determined. In order for the unlawful detainer procedure to apply in foreclosure cases, the Plaintiff must show that they have perfected title. In this case, the Notice of Intent to Preserve Interest recorded on February 2, 2009 put any buyer on notice of our claim to the property. It also shows non-compliance with the foreclosure statutes which is a requirement to perfect title and initiate the unlawful detainer. That being said, Frank D’Anna will vacate his home based on your request and assertions mentioned above that we will be given the opportunity to repurchase the home. By vacating the premises, Frank D’Anna is in no way relinquishing his current rights to either the loan modification or to purchase back his own home. He reserves his right to file a lawsuit based on those claims and all others deemed appropriate should it become necessary. Sincerely,
_________________________________ Frank D’Anna by Salvatore B. D’Anna, attorney-in-fact.
Salvatore B. D’Anna, Attorney-In-Fact SENT VIA EFAX For Frank D’Anna, Principal 3941 ¾ Kenwood Dr. Spring Valley, CA 91977 V: (619) 602-6647 F: (619) 374-2268 Property Address 644 Hillsview Rd El Cajon, CA 92020 March 17, 2009
The Jake May Team Jake May 2335 8th Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Countrywide Home Loans Loan # 22150300 400 Countrywide Way Simi Valley, CA 93065 Re: MOVE OUT AGREEMENT
Dear Jake May:
This is to inform you that we cannot accept the terms as written in the Move Out Agreement you recently faxed over to us. In particular, we will not and cannot agree with Sections 7, 8, and 10. SECTION 7 While this section states that we will not be locked out or removed from the property at any time before the Move Out Date, it nevertheless allows Countrywide to start and/or continue the eviction process before the Move Out Date. Such a clause would inhibit our rights in the court by not being able to present a defense to the action. SECTION 8 In this section, we are giving up any and all claims that we may have or may continue to have against Countrywide or any other entity involved in any way with the subject property. Basically, once the agreement is signed, we have no right moving forward to any claim ever.
Jake May March 17, 2009 Page 2
SECTION 10 This section states that we are voluntarily signing this agreement and have not received any inducements or promises other than what is in the agreement. It also says that we have had the opportunity to have the document reviewed by an attorney before signing it. Both statements would be false if we signed this agreement because we have been inducted into this agreement and have clearly stated our reasoning including the not vacating the premises and requesting to purchase the property immediately. Since I will assume that these three provisions will not be removed by Countrywide, we hereby refuse to accept the terms mentioned above and reject the Move Out Agreement as written. Sincerely,
_________________________________ Frank D’Anna by Salvatore B. D’Anna, attorney-in-fact.