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 Timothy L. McCandless, Esq. SBN 147715 LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS 1881 Business Center Drive, Ste. 9A San Bernardino, CA 92392 Tel: 909/890-9192 Fax: 909/382-9956 Attorney for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ____________ _________________________________ __, And ROES 1 through 5,000, Plaintiff, v. SAND CANYON CORPORATION f/k/a OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2; DOCX, LLC; and PREMIER TRUST DEED SERVICES and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto, Does CASE NO: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE, DECLARATORY RELIEF, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CANCELATION OF INSTRUMENT AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM: SLANDER OF TITLE; TORTUOUS VIOLATION OF STATUTE [Penal Code § 470(b) – (d); NOTARY FRAUD; 1 COMPLAINT
43
Embed
(Name, Address Of Party or attorney) - Web viewfor quiet title, declaratory relief, temporary restraining order, preliminary injuntion and permanent injunction, cancelation of instrument
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
Timothy L. McCandless, Esq. SBN 147715LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY L. MCCANDLESS1881 Business Center Drive, Ste. 9ASan Bernardino, CA 92392Tel: 909/890-9192Fax: 909/382-9956
Attorney for Plaintiffs
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ____________
___________________________________,
And ROES 1 through 5,000,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAND CANYON CORPORATION f/k/a OPTION ONE MORTGAGE CORPORATION; AMERICAN HOME MORTGAGE SERVICES, INC.; WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., as Trustee for SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2; DOCX, LLC; and PREMIER TRUST DEED SERVICES and all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto, Does 1 through 10, Inclusive,
Defendants.
CASE NO: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR QUIET TITLE, DECLARATORY RELIEF, TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, PRELIMINARY INJUNTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION, CANCELATION OF INSTRUMENT AND FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM:
SLANDER OF TITLE; TORTUOUS VIOLATION OF STATUTE [PenalCode § 470(b) – (d); NOTARY FRAUD;
///
///
///
1
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
///
Plaintiffs ___________________________ allege herein as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Plaintiffs ___________ (hereinafter individually and collectively referred to as
“___________”), were and at all times herein mentioned are, residents of the County of
_________, State of California and the lawful owner of a parcel of real property commonly
known as: _________________, California _______ and the legal description is:
solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage; 09-04-2009 Asst. Secretary, Mortgage
Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., acting solely as nominee for American Home Mortgage;
09-08-2009 Vice President, Bank of America, N.A.; 09-21-2009 & 09-22-2009 Vice President,
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., as nominee for American Home Mortgage
8
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
Acceptance, Inc. Plaintiffs further allege that Linda Green was never lawfully the vice president
of any entity, more particularly the foregoing listed entities.
22. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that Defendant DOCX
was a continuing criminal enterprise whose sole function was to create and forge fraudulent
assignments which would purport to convey interests in real property and the entities listed in
Paragraph 21 hereinabove, were complicate in Defendants’ fraud.
23. Plaintiffs are informed and believe from beginning circa 2007 and continuing
until sometime in 2010, DOCX produced thousands upon thousands of false and fraudulent
assignments which were recorded in the Offices of the County Recorders of the State of
California, and several other States in the United States of America as well.
24. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that during the “60
Minutes” program on April 3, 2011, another former DOCX employee, Savonna Krite [sic] acted
as a notary public and notarized that the signatures of Linda Green and others, were valid,
however, she admitted that the notarizations were not that of Linda Green. Savonna Krite [sic]
further admitted that she was told by officers of DOCX that it was “alright” for her to notarize
signatures as being valid. Savonna Krite [sic] also admitted as of the program that she now
understands that her notarizations of said assignments were “not alright.”
25. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that because the entire
company structure of DOCX was to manufacture forged assignments by the thousands per day,
without any consideration whatsoever that the information contained on those assignments was
valid, and that the notarizations were in fact fraudulent, that no reasonable expectation can be
made that any of the assignments executed by DOCX employees were or are valid.
26. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that circa _______,
9
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants, and each of them, utilized the services of DOCX in order to manufacture a
fraudulent assignment from Defendant AMERICAN to WELLS FARGO, because WELLS
FARGO could not find documents which would demonstrate that it owned an interest in the
Plaintiffs’ subject property.
27. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that WELLS FARGO
never had a lawful interest in the Plaintiffs’ subject property, either in its own capacity or as that
as Trustee for the SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2.
28. Plaintiffs allege that they fully tendered all mortgage payments which were
lawfully due under the DEED, and that they are not in default of their payments, having lawfully
tendered all amounts due and owing.
29. Plaintiffs allege that WELLS FARGO made demands for payment as against the
DEED, however, Plaintiffs allege that WELLS FARGO was not a lawful holder in due course,
that SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2007-OPT2 was not a lawful holder in due course,
and that neither party had any lawful right, title and interest in the DEED.
30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that on or about,
_______________, Defendant DOCX at the request of Defendants, and each of them, forged an
instrument (hereinafter “FORGED ASSIGNMENT”) with the name “Linda Green” which was
notarized by
“Ellis Simmons.”
31. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that on or about,
_______________, an unknown employee of DOCX, in the course and scope of their
employment, signed the name “Linda Green” and that such document had a notary stamp placed
10
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
upon the FORGED ASSIGNMENT which purported to be lawfully notarized by “Ellis
Simmons.”
32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the FORGED
ASSIGNMENT was then sent by DOCX through the United States Postal Service or transmitted
by facsimile over the telephone and telegraph wires of the United States of America to
Defendants, and each of them, in order that such FORGED ASSIGNMENT would be recorded
in the Office of the County Recorder of the County of _______________.
32. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that on or about
_______________, that Defendants, and each of them, their employees and/or agents, caused the
FORGED ASSIGNMENT which unlawfully affected Plaintiffs’ subject property to be recorded
in the Office of the Country Recorder of the County of _______________ as Instrument No.
_______________. A true and correct copy of the assignment set forth in Paragraphs 30 – 31, is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated by this reference.
33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the sole claim of
Defendants, and each of them, as to their right, title and/or interest in the Plaintiffs’ Subject
Property is the FORGED ASSIGNMENT.
34. Plaintiffs allege that the FORGED ASSIGNMENT as a matter of law is void and
that it did not constitute a conveyance of an interest to Defendants, or to anyone at all, and that
the FORGED ASSIGNMENT is a legal nullity.
35. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, are presently relying upon the
FORGED ASSIGNMENT and are knowingly and intentionally prosecuting a non-judicial
foreclosure based solely upon the recordation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, necessitating the
instant action.
11
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
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Slander of Title As Against All Defendants)
36. Plaintiffs incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 35 of the General Allegations as
though such have been fully set forth herein.
37. Plaintiffs allege that on or about, _______________, Defendants, and each of
them, in some measure actively, directly, indirectly, openly and secretly contributed to the
preparation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT and the recordation of said Instrument in the
Official Records of the Office of the County Recorder of _______________ County.
38. Plaintiffs allege that the recordation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, by
Defendants and each of them, rendered Plaintiffs’ title to the Subject Property as unmarketable.
39. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, recorded the FORGED ASSIGNMENT without privilege, knowledge and/or consent of Plaintiffs, the information
contained in said FORGED ASSIGNMENT is false in that no lawful conveyance ever existed
between the parties thereto, and said FORGED ASSIGNMENT when recorded published the
information therein which disparaged Plaintiffs’ title as would lead a reasonable man to falsely
assume that Defendants, and each of them, in some measure actually maintained some right, title
and interest in Plaintiffs’ Subject Property, whereas, some of the information contained in the
FORGED ASSIGNMENT is false. A true and correct copy of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT is
attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated by this reference.
40. Plaintiffs allege that they actually and proximately suffered damages due to the
planning, preparation and recordation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT in an amount the totality
of which has not been fully ascertained, but in no event less than the jurisdictional limitations of
this court.
41. Plaintiffs allege that the slander of the Subject Properties title was intentional,
fraudulent, malicious, oppressive and burdensome and deserving the imposition of punitive
12
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
damages in an amount sufficient that such conduct will not be repeated.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION(Tortuous Violation of Statute Penal Code §§ 470(b), 470(d)
As Against Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation;
American Home Mortgage Services, Inc.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee
for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2; DOCX, LLC)
42. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 35 of the General
Allegations and Paragraphs 36 through 41 of the First Cause of Action as though such have been
fully set forth herein.
43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that circa July 2004,
Defendants, and each of them, contrived a scheme to replace missing documents which
purported to assert interests in real properties through-out the United States of America.
44. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that by August 2008,
Defendants, and each of them, had in some measure participated in the request for production of
forged instruments from DOCX, as well as other document forgery mills, the purpose of which
was to effect title to real properties through-out the United States of America.45. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that on or about, August
8, 2008, the agents and/or employees of Defendants and each of them, knowingly and
intentionally with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs’ interest in the Subject Property, prepared the
FORGED ASSIGNMENT and caused said FORGED ASSIGNMENT to be recorded in the
Official Records of the Office of the Recorder of the County of _______________ as Instrument
No. _______________. A true and correct copy of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated by this reference.
46. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, tortuously forged the
13
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
signature of Linda Green, on the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs,
and such forgery directly affected Plaintiffs’ interest in the Subject Property in tortuous violation
of California Penal Code sections 470(b) and 470(d).
47. Plaintiffs allege that they actually and proximately suffered damages due to the
planning, preparation and recordation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT in an amount the totality
of which has not been fully ascertained, but in no event less than the jurisdictional limitations of
this court.
48. Plaintiffs allege that the tortuous violation of Penal Code sections 470(b) and
470(d), by and through the preparation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, and subsequent
recordation thereof was in willful disregard for Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the Subject
Property, intentional, fraudulent, malicious, oppressive and burdensome and deserving the
imposition of punitive damages in an amount sufficient that such conduct will not be repeated.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION(Notary Fraud As Against DOCX, LLC and Defendants 1 through 10, Inclusive)
49. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 35 of the General
Allegations, Paragraphs 35 through 41 and Paragraphs 42 through 48 of the First and Second
Causes of Action as though such have been fully set forth herein.
50. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that circa July 2004,
Defendants, and each of them, contrived a scheme to replace missing documents which
purported to assert interests in real properties through-out the United States of America.
51. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that by August 2008,
Defendants, and each of them, had in some measure participated in the request for production of
forged instruments from DOCX, as well as other document forgery mills, the purpose of which
was to effect title to real properties through-out the United States of America.
14
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
52. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that on or about,
_____________, the agents and/or employees of Defendants and each of them, knowingly and
intentionally with the intent to defraud Plaintiffs’ interest in the Subject Property, prepared the
FORGED ASSIGNMENT and caused said FORGED ASSIGNMENT to be recorded in the
Official Records of the Office of the Recorder of the County of _______________ as Instrument
No. _______________. A true and correct copy of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A”, and is incorporated by this reference.
53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the FORGED
ASSIGNMENT contained knowingly false statements including, but not limited to: that Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2, that Linda Green
was a vice president of American Home Mortgage Services, Inc., and that Ellis Simmons
lawfully notarized the FORGED ASSIGNMENT.
54. Plaintiffs allege that they actually and proximately suffered damages due to the
planning, preparation and recordation of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT in an amount the totality
of which has not been fully ascertained, but in no event less than the jurisdictional limitations of
this court.
55. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants, and each of them, committed notary fraud by
and through the preparation and notarization of the FORGED ASSIGNMENT, and subsequent
recordation thereof was in willful disregard for Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the Subject
Property, intentional, fraudulent, malicious, oppressive and burdensome and deserving the
imposition of punitive damages in an amount sufficient that such conduct will not be repeated.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Cancellation of Instrument As Against Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as Trustee for
Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2 and Defendants 1 through 10, Inclusive)
15
COMPLAINT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
56. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 35 of the General
Allegations, Paragraphs 35 through 41 and Paragraphs 42 through 48 and Paragraphs 49
through 55 of the First, Second and Third Causes of Action as though such have been fully set
forth herein.
57. Plaintiffs allege that a FORGED ASSIGNMENT was recorded in the Official
Records of the Office of the County Recorder for the County of _______________ as Instrument
No. _______________.
58. Plaintiffs seek an Order of the above-entitled court cancelling Instrument No.
_______________, in as much as said document contains false information and affects
Plaintiffs’ right, title and interest in the Subject Property.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Quiet Title As Against All Defendants)
59. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 35 of the General
Allegations, Paragraphs 35 through 41 and Paragraphs 42 through 48 and Paragraphs 49 through
55 of the First, Second and Third Causes of Action as though such have been fully set forth
herein.
60. For all the facts alleged herein, Plaintiffs seek an Order quieting title as of
_______________.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION(Declaratory Relief As Against All Defendants)
61. An actual controversy has arisen.
62. The parties desire a judicial determine that they may ascertain their respective
right, title and interest in the Subject Property.
63. A judicial determination is necessary that the parties may right, title and interest
in the Subject Property.64. Plaintiffs allege that as a regular and ongoing part of the business of Defendant
16
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
DOCX was to have persons sitting around a table signing names as quickly as possible, so that
each person executing documents would sign approximately 2,500 documents per day. Although
the persons signing the documents claimed to be a vice president of a particular bank of that
document, in fact, the party signing the name was not the person named on the document, as
such the signature was a forgery, that the name of the person claiming to be a vice president of a
particular financial institution was not a “vice president”, did not have any prior training in
finance, never worked for the company they allegedly purported to be a vice president of, and
were alleged to be a vice president simultaneously with as many as twenty different banks and/or
lending institutions, that the actual signatories of the instruments set forth in Paragraph 12 herein,
were intended to and were fraudulently notarized by a variety of notaries in the offices of DOCX
in Alpharetta, Georgia, that for all purposes the intent of Defendant DOCX was to intentionally
create fraudulent documents, with forged signatures, so that said documents could be recorded in
the Offices of County Recorders through the United States of America, knowing that such
documents would forgeries, contained false information, and that the recordation of such
documents would affect an interest in real property in violation of law, that on or about, May 7,
2007, that they conveyed a first deed of trust (hereinafter “DEED”) in favor of Option One
Mortgage, Inc. with an interest of approximately $815,000, that Option One Mortgage sold
interest in the aforementioned DEED to unknown parties as a derivative security, who then
repeatedly resold their respective interests, if any, in said DEED on at least six different
occasions, that pursuant to California Civil Code section 2932.5, an assignee may effectuate the
power of sale provided the assignment is properly acknowledged and recorded. Plaintiffs further
allege that due to acts and/or omissions of Defendants, and each of them, that none of the named
Defendants herein are holders in due course and do not maintain an interest in the Subject
17
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
Property, including but, not limited to: there are no lawful records connecting Defendants to this
property other that Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation, and the
interest of Sand Canyon Corporation f/k/a Option One Mortgage Corporation was long ago sold-
off to unrelated third parties for which there is no proper “paper trail” to establish the true holder
in due course. Plaintiffs allege that as will be seen hereinafter that Defendants, and each of them,
resorted to forged instruments in an attempt to create the appearance that Defendant Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. as Trustee of the Soundview Home Loan Trust 2007-OPT2, that due to certain acts
and/or omissions once the DEED was “assigned” to various parties the DEED was detrimentally
affected in a number ways, including but, not limited to: that the power of sale inherent in the
DEED was severed, because the subsequent parties were no longer holders in due course as a
matter of law, that on April 3, 2011, on the national program “60 Minutes”, two former
employees of DOCX made admissions which entirely support the allegations set forth in
Paragraphs 12 and 13, herein. During said program, former employee, Chris Pendley [sic] stated
that he personally drafted the name of “Linda Green” on thousands and thousands of
assignments, although he was not Linda Green, that he was signing in excess of 2,500 documents
per day, and that he was paid the sum of ten ($10.00) per hour to forge the name of “Linda
Green” and that he made no inspection of any documents to determine whether the execution of
the assignment was lawful, had no training to make an inspection of documents to determine if
the assignment was lawful, and was told by his superiors that his execution of the name Linda
Green was lawful, on April 3, 2011, Linda Green, a former employee of DOCX, appeared on the
aforementioned “60 Minutes” program and stated that she worked in the mailroom of DOCX and
eventually signed some documents, that although she was listed as a vice president of several
companies, that she had no connection with those companies, and that she was aware that her
18
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
signature was being used by several other persons on assignments because her name was short
and easy to spell, that Linda Green, acting in her capacity as an employee of DOCX allowed her
name to forged upon literally thousands of purported assignments, although Linda Green never
executed those assignments, never inspected those assignments, and that DOCX simply listed
that Linda Green was a vice president at various Banks and lending institutions, however, Linda
Green was not lawfully a vice president, and the assertion that Linda Green was a vice president
was an artifice. Plaintiffs further allege that Linda Green’s name fraudulent appeared on
documents for the following institutions: 11-11-2004 & 06-22-2006 Vice President, Loan
Documentation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., successor by merger to Wells Fargo Home Mortgage,