Complaint

BENDETTA WILLIAMS
1 1157 SHADYWOOD LN
DESOTO, TEXAS 75115
2
4 Plaintiff, In Pro Se
BENDETTA WILLIAMS
5
6
SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
7
IN AND FOR COUNTY OF DALLAS
8
9
BENDETTA WILLIAMS CASE NO:
10
Plaintiff,
11
COMPLAINT FOR:
12 V.
(1) DECLARATORY RELIEF
13 Chase Home Financial, LLC; (2) CANCELLATION OF DEED
Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & (3) DAMAGES ARISING FROM:
14
Engel, LLP;
(4) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
15 American Investment Mortgage,
(5) BREACH OF COVENANT OF
Inc;
16
GOOD FAITH AND FAIR
DEALING
and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive
17 (6) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(7) FRAUD
18 Defendants.
(8) DAMAGES ARISING FROM:
19
VIOLATION OF [15 U.S.C. § 1611 et
20 seq.]; VIOLATION OF [26 U.S.C. § 2605
et sq.]; VIOLATION OF [15 U.S.C. §
21
1602 et seq.]; VIOLATION OF [15
22 U.S.C. § 1692];
23
24
COMES NOW, Plaintiff(s) BENDETTA WILLIAMS, hereby complains and alleges as follows:
25
26 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
27
28 1
COMPLAINT FOR: DECLARATORY RELIEF CANCELLATION OF DEED DAMAGES ARISING FROM: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY BREACH OF
COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF FRAUD DAMAGES ARISING FROM: VIOLATION OF [15 U.S.C. § 1611 et seq.];
VIOLATION OF [26 U.S.C. § 2605 et sq.]; VIOLATION OF [15 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.]; VIOLATION OF [15 U.S.C. § 1692];
1. Plaintiff(s), BENDETTA WILLIAMS is a resident of the County of DALLAS and
1
2 the owner of certain real property (hereinafter referred to as “the Property”) located
3 at 1157 SHADYWOOD LN, DESOTO, TEXAS 75115

4
2. and more particularly described as: LOT 19 IN BLOCK B OF PLATE OF PLEASANT LAKE
5
ESTATES, SECOND INSTALLMENT AN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DRSOTO, DALLAS
6
COUNTY, TEXAS ACCORDING TO THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN VALUME 72035 PAGE
7
1997 OF THE MAP RECORDS OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
8
3. Defendant, American Investment Mortgage, Inc (hereinafter
9
referred to as “American Investment”.
10
4. Defendant, Chase Home Financial, LLC (hereinafter referred to as
11
12 “CHASE”.
13 5. Defendant , Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel,

14
LLP(hereinafter referred to as “TRUSTEE”.
15
6. The true names of Defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 50, whether
16
individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are presently unknown to Plaintiff(s)
17
18 who therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names; Plaintiff(s) are
19 informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants so
20
designated herein proximately caused and contributed to the damages herein
21
alleged, and Plaintiff(s) will ask leave of Court to amend this Complaint to insert
22
23
the true names and capacity of DOES 1 through 50 when the same have been
24 ascertained and to join such Defendants in this action.

25
7. Plaintiff(s) are informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein
26
mentioned each of the defendants sued herein in relation to the property they claim
27
an interest in was the agent and employee of each of the remaining defendants
28 2
thereof and at all times was acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and
1
2 employment.
3 8. On or about March 20, 1998, Plaintiff(s) executed an “Adjustable Rate Note”

4
promising to pay American Investment Mortgage, Inc., the sum $88,190.00 by
5
monthly payment.
6
7
9. Plaintiff(s) allege that Defendants and each of them neither explained the workings
8 of the rate, how it is computed nor its inherent volatility.

9 10. Further, on information and belief, Plaintiff(s) allege that the Defendants charged
10
and obtained improper fees for the placement of his loan as “sub-prime” when he
11
qualified for a prime rate mortgage which would have generated less in fees and
12
13 interest.
14 11. On information and belief, Plaintiff(s) allege that the service of the purported note
15
was, without his knowledge, by some means transferred from or by Defendant,
16
either completely or by association or other means to DOE 1 who unknown to
17
Plaintiff provided services in various forms to be determined to others which were
18
19 of such a nature to render them a “Servicer” within the definition found within 26
20 U.S.C. § 2605.
21
12. In the course of this consumer transaction, Defendants violated 15 U.S.C. § 1635(a)
22
and Regulation Z, § 226, by failing to deliver to Plaintiffs two copies of a notice to
23
rescind) that: Attached her as Exhibit “1”
24
25 13. Also on March 20, 1998 Plaintiff(s) executed a “Deed of Trust” which cited the
26 lender as American Investment Mortgage, Inc Attached her as Exhibit “2”

27
28 3
14. On or about March 20, 1998, BENDETTA WILLIAMS transferred the deed of
1
2 trust to American Investment Mortgage, Inc.
3 15. Also on March 20, 1998, Plaintiff(s) executed a “Deed of Trust” which cited the
4
lender as American Investment Mortgage, Inc and stating in the definition section
5
that:
6
7
(E) “MERS” is Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. MERS is a
8 separate corporation that is acting solely as a nominee for Lender and Lender’s
9 successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument.
10
15. On or about March 20, 1998, the Deed of Trust was recorded with the DALLAS
11
County Recorder and American Investment Mortgage, Inc was named as Trustee
12
13 of the Deed of Trust.
14 16. On or about March 20, 1998, Plaintiff(s) received a “Mortgage Loan Statement”
15
from American Investment Mortgage, Inc for the property address:
16
1157 SHADYWOOD LN, DESOTO, TEXAS 75115for loan number. 10625
17
17. The Mortgage Loan Statement included a coupon for payment with a mailing
18
19 address for 4407 Beltwood Pkwy No. 112, Dallas, Texas 75224
20 18. On or about March 1, 2011 an unknown employee of Barrett Daffin

21
Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP executed on behalf of the alleged
22
Beneficiary a “Notice of Breach and Default and of Election to Cause Sale of
23
Real Property Under Deed of Trust” (hereinafter referred to as “Notice of
24
25 Breach”) stating that the payments were due to Mortgage Electronic Registration
26 Systems as Beneficiary. Attached here as Exhibit “3”.

27
15. On the Notice of Breach, it stated, in part, that Plaintiff(s) as Trustor, to secure
28 4
certain obligations in favor of Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, as
1
2 beneficiary.
3 16. It further states that:

4
That by reason thereof of the present Beneficiary under such deed of Trust
5
has executed and delivered to said duly appointed Trustee a written
6
7
Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale and has deposited with said
8 duly appointed Trustee such Deed of Trust and all documents evidencing
9 obligations secured thereby and has declared and does hereby declared all
10
sums secured thereby immediately due and payable and has elected and does
11
hereby elect to cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations
12
13 served thereby.
14
15
The Notice of Breach also states:
16
You may have the right to cure the default hereon and reinstate the one
17
obligation secured by such Deed of Trust above described. Section …
18
19 permits certain defaults to be cured upon the Payment of the amounts
20 required by that statutory section without requiring payment of that

21
portion of principal and interest which would not be due had no default
22
occurred. Where reinstatement is possible, if the default is not cured
23
within 35 days following the recording and mailing of this Notice to
24
25 Trustor or Trustor’s successor in interest, the right of reinstatement will
26 terminate and the property may thereafter be sold.

27
28 5
22. Plaintiff(s) are informed and believe and thereupon allege that the NOTE was
1
2 invalid and unenforceable due to the intentional and willful violations including but,
3 not limited to: provisions contained in the Truth In Lending Act 15 U.S.C. '' 1601,
4
1640 etc. et seq.; Regulation Z ' 226 etc. et seq. by failing and/or refusing to provide
5
plaintiff with two copies of the “Notice to Cancel” ; California Civil Code ' 2924b etc.
6
7 et seq., California Civil Code §§§ 2924b(a), 2924b(d), 2924b(e) by failing and/or
8 refusing to mail the Notice of Default within ten business days to Plaintiffs, by failing
9
and/or refusing to post and mail the Notice of Default; by failing and/or refusing to
10
mail Plaintiffs the Notice of Default within one month pursuant to California Civil
11
Code § 2924b (c)(1), (2); by failing and/or refusing to properly set the sale date
12
13 pursuant to California Civil Code § 2924f(b); by failing and/or refusing to publish the
14 Notice of Sale twenty days prior to the date set for sale pursuant to California Civil
15
Code § 2924f(b); by failing and/or refusing to record the Notice of Sale pursuant to
16
California Civil Code § 2924g(d).
17
18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1611 et seq.)
19 Against all Defendants
20 23. Plaintiff(s) repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 22 as though fully set forth
21 herein.
22
24. On information and belief, Plaintiff(s) allege that Defendants and each of them are
23
directly or indirectly agents or employees or persons actively involved in the extension of
24
25
credit as the term is defined under the Truth in Lending Statute (TILA).
26 25. On information and belief, Plaintiff(s) allege that Defendants and each of them are
27 subject to the requirements of the Truth in Lending Statute (TILA) and have violated the
28 6
requirements of the act in that among other things:
A. They have refused and continued to refuse to validate or otherwise make a
1
2 full accounting and the required disclosures as to the true finance charges and fees;
3 B. They have improperly retained funds belonging to Plaintiff in amounts to be

4
determined;
5
C. To disclose the status of the ownership of the loans.
6
7
26. Plaintiff(s) further alleges that these violations are such as to require rescission or
8 cancellation of the loan herein and return of all funds received by Defendants from
9 Plaintiff.
10
27. Plaintiff(s) further alleges that he is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount
11
to be determined at trial.
12
13 28. Plaintiff(s) further alleges that he is entitled to attorneys fees according to statute in
14 the event that he retains counsel.

15
29. On information and belief, Plaintiff(s) allege that Defendants have acted in
16
violation of the TILA act, willfully, maliciously, oppressively and fraudulently and in
17
conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and as such, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive
18
19 damages.
20
21
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
22 (Violation of 26 U.S.C. § 2605 et seq.)
Against all Defendants
23
24
30. Plaintiff(s) repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 29 as though fully set forth herein.
25
26 31. Based upon information and belief, and on that basis Plaintiff(s) allege that Defendants
27 and each of them are such that they fall within the requirements of the Real Estate
28 7
Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA).
32. Based upon information and belief, and on that basis Plaintiff(s) allege that Defendants
1
2 and each of them, placed loans for the purpose of unlawfully increasing or otherwise
3 obtaining yield spread fees and sums in excess of what would have been lawfully earned.
4
33. Based upon information and belief, and on that basis Plaintiff(s) allege that Defendants
5
Chase Home Financial, LLC; Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner &
6
Engel, LLP; American Investment Mortgage, Inc and DOE 1 either
7
8 individually or jointly as “Servicers” as that term is used with the RESPA act and either
9 individually or jointly violated the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 2605(B) in that the

10
servicing contract or duties there under were transferred or hypothecated without the
11
required notice.
12
13
34. Plaintiff(s) allegesthat these violations require rescission or cancellation of the loan and a
14 return of all funds received by Defendants from Plaintiff.

15 35. Plaintiff(s) further allege that he is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be
16
determined at trial.
17
36. Plaintiff(s) further allege that he is entitled to attorneys fees according to statute in the
18
19 event that they retain counsel.
20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq.)
21
Against all Defendants.
22
23
37. Plaintiff(s) repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 36 as though fully set forth herein.
24
38. Based upon information and belief, and on that basis Plaintiff(s) alleges that the mortgage
25
26
obtained by her through Defendants, by means unknown obtained and enforced by other
27 Defendants herein falls within the purview of 15 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., commonly
28 known as the “Home Ownership and Equity
8 Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA).
39. Based upon information and belief, and on that basis Plaintiff(s) alleges that the loan was
1
2 placed in violation of the HOEPA act as it was placed and administered and otherwise
3 utilized without regard to Plaintiff’s income or cash flow and with the intention of
4
inducing a default.
5
40. Plaintiff(s) became aware of this upon the discovery of Defendants’ intent to wrongfully
6
7
foreclose and sell his property.
8 41. As a direct and a legal consequence of the above actions, Plaintiff(s) have been damaged
9 in a sum to be proven at trial.
10
11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12
(Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692)
13
14
42. Plaintiff(s) repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 42 as though fully set forth
15
herein.
16
17 43. Based upon information and belief, and on that basis Plaintiff(s) allege that
18 Defendants and each of them are “debt collectors” either directly or through agents
19
as that term is used in the United States Code.
20
44. Plaintiff(s) alleges that he duly and properly on more than one occasion requested
21
validation of the “debt” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692, the Fair Debt Collection Practices
22
23 Act (FDCPA).
24 45. Plaintiff(s) further allege that Defendants did not respond to his demands in such a
25
ways as to meet the requirements of the act.
26
46. Plaintiff(s) are entitled to statutory damages under the FDCPA.
27
28 9
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
1
(Breach of Fiduciary Duty)
3
5
herein.
6
48. At all times relevant, Defendants created, accepted and acted in a fiduciary
7
relationship of great trust and acted for and were the processors of property for the
8
9 benefit of Plaintiff(s).
10 49. Defendants further placed themselves in a position of trust by virtue of the

11
expertise represented by and through his employees.
12
50. Defendants breached his fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiff(s) as they have acted and
13
continue to act for his own benefit and to the detriment of Plaintiff(s).
14
15 51. Among other things, they have placed and negotiated loans without due care to the
16 best interests of Plaintiff(s) or for the protection of his rights.

17
52. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of the fiduciary duties, Plaintiff(s)
18
have suffered economic damages and loss of funds and payment of fees improperly
19
20
incurred in an amount to be proved at trial.
21 53. On information and belief, Plaintiff(s) alleges that Defendants have acted willfully,
22 maliciously, oppressively and fraudulently and in conscious disregard for the rights
23
of Plaintiff(s) and as such, Plaintiff(s) are entitled to punitive damages.
24
25
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
26 (Breach of Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing)
27
28 10
54. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 53 as though fully set forth
1
2 herein.
3 55. Plaintiff alleges that at all times there existed an implied covenant of good faith and
4
fair dealing requiring Defendants, and each of them, to safeguard, protect, or
5
otherwise care for the assets and rights of Plaintiff(s). Said covenant prohibited
6
7
Defendants from activities interfering with or contrary to the rights of Plaintiff(s).
8 56. Plaintiff alleges that the commencement of foreclosure proceedings upon the
9 property lawfully belonging to Plaintiff without the production of documents
10
demonstrating the lawful rights for the foreclosure constitutes a breach of the
11
covenant.
12
13 57. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has been damaged in a sum to be proven
14 at trial.
15
16
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
17 (Injunctive Relief)
19
20
21 herein.
22 59. Plaintiff seeks a determination as to the legal status of the parties to the Adjustable
23
Rate Note and the Deed of Trust.
24
51. The Rate Note states that the Lender is American Investment Mortgage Inc.
25
26 52. It also states, “Lender or anyone who takes this Note by transfer and who is entitled to
27 receive payment under this Note is called the “Note Holder.”

28
53. DEFENDANT Barrett Daffin11Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP? sent to
Plaintiff(s) a statement dated on or around April 5, 2011 with a coupon asking for
1
2 payment.
3 54. The Notice of Breach signed on or about March 1, 2011 and states that MERS is the
4
Beneficiary.
5
55. Plaintiff(s) say they are entitled to the money
6
7
56. The deed of trust “states that “Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems” is the
8 beneficiary.
9 57. There is a controversy to be decided by this Honorable Court as on or about March 20,
10
1998, Plaintiff(s) received a Deed of Trust stating that the money is owed to Mortgage
11
Electronic Registration Systems, but on or about April 5, 2011, Plaintiff(s) received
12
13 notice that the payments were due to Defendants and on NOITCE OF DEFAULT the
14 Notice of Breach states that MERS is the Beneficiary.

15
58. Additionally, based upon information and belief, Mortgage Electronic Registration
16
Systems has not qualified to do business in the State of California and therefore, would
17
not have standing to seek non-judicial remedies as well as judicial remedies.
18
19 59. Defendants should be required to provide the original note with the appropriate
20 endorsements thereon to Plaintiff(s) or this Honorable Court so that it may determine in

21
accordance with the California Revised Statutes, who owns the right to receive
22
payments on loan number and exercises the rights relating to said ownership.
23
60. Only the Note Holder is authorized to collect payments and, in the event of a default,
24
25 commence foreclosure proceedings, including authorizing the substitution of a Trustee.
26 61. Until Defendants are able to provide Plaintiff(s) and this Honorable Court the
27
aforementioned documents, this Honorable Court should order that Plaintiff(s) are not
28 12
required to make any further payments on the Adjustable Rate Note and enjoin any
1
2 further collection activity on the Note, including staying the count down towards the
3 date a Notice of Trustee’s sale may be filed and served.

4
5 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Injunctive Relief)
6
7
8
62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1 through 61 as though fully set forth
9
herein.
10
11
63. Plaintiff(s) are the owner in fee simple of the real property located at 1157
12 SHADYWOOD LN, DESOTO, TEXAS 75115 and more particularly described as:
13 LOT 19 IN BLOCK B OF PLATE OF PLEASANT LAKE ESTATES, SECOND INSTALLMENT AN
14 ADDITION TO THE CITY OF DRSOTO, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS ACCORDING TO THE MAP
15 THEREOF RECORDED IN VALUME 72035 PAGE 1997 OF THE MAP RECORDS OF DALLAS
COUNTY, TEXAS
16
17 64. Plaintiff(s) received the fee simple title by virtue of the Grant, Bargain, Sale Deed
18 recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Dallas County, Texas.

19
65. Defendants Chase Home Financial, LLC; Barrett Daffin Frappier
20
Turner & Engel, LLP; American Investment Mortgage, Inc claim an
21
interest or estate in the Plaintiff (s) property disputing or denying Plaintiff’s rights to
22
23 ownership and by contending that his ownership is or will be with Defendants by
24 means of a Trustee’s sale.

25
66. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, Chase Home Financial, LLC; Barrett
26
Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP; American Investment
27
Mortgage, Inc have no such right, title or interest in the estate of the Property in
28 13
that the Trustee’s sale proposed will be fraudulent or otherwise in violation of federal
1
2 and state law and transfer no rights to Defendants.
3 67. Defendants have wrongfully interfered with or threaten to interfere with Plaintiff’s use
4
and enjoyment of the Property in that they threaten to dispossess them.
5
68. Defendants’ threats to dispossess Plaintiff(s) of his home will continue unless and
6
7
until enjoined or restrained by this Honorable Court.
8 69. Failure to enjoin or restrain Defendants will cause Plaintiff(s) grave and irreparable
9 harm as they will be deprived of the use and enjoyment of unique property.
10
70. Plaintiff(s) have no adequate remedy at law for the threatened and continuing conduct
11
of the impending Trustee’s sale. The sale of Plaintiff’s home will not be properly
12
13 compensated by an award of money damages.
14 71. Plaintiff(s) further allege that the conduct herein described is of such a nature and
15
character to give them title to the Property
16
17
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
18
(For Declaratory Relief)
20
22 herein.
23
73. A dispute has arisen between and among Plaintiff(s) and Defendants and each of them
24
as to the duties and obligations of the respective parties with regard to the loan or
25
26 the foreclosure.
27 74. These disputes concern but are not limited to the ownership rights and the validity
28 14 process.
of the commencement of the foreclosure
75. As to these issues, Plaintiff(s) are required to seek this relief.
1
2 76. Plaintiff(s) further alleges that a declaration of rights and duties of the parties
3 herein are essential to determine the actual status and validity of the loan, deed of trust,
4
nominated beneficiaries, actual beneficiaries, loan servicers, trustees instituting
5
foreclosure proceedings and related matters.
6
7
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (Fraud)
10
11
12 herein.
13 79. Plaintiff(s) seek a determination as to the legal status of MERS as the Deed of
14
Trust states that “MERS is a separate corporation that is acting as Beneficiary for
15
Lender’s successors and assigns.”
16
17 80. Based upon information and belief and on that basis, Plaintiff alleges that MERS
18 did not pay any consideration for the Adjustable Rate Note and in fact was paid a fee
19
by American Investment Mortgage to act solely as Beneficiary as lender.
20
81. Based upon information and belief, and on that basis Plaintiff(s) alleges that MERS
21
will only notate on its internal record keeping system the name of the beneficiary of
22
23 the deeds of trust and will never tell the trustors the name of the true beneficiary.
24 82. As a result, the loan may be transferred from company to company, or

25
bundled together with other loans, pledged to quasi-governmental agencies and then
26
sold as securities on the stock exchange.
27
83. This practice allows the beneficiary to allegedly be changed without the
28 15
necessity of completing an “assignment of deed of trust”, obtaining the appropriate
1
2 signatures, and recording the assignment with the Dallas County Recorder and
3 otherwise notifying Plaintiff(s) of a change in his beneficiary.

4
84. Courts across the United States have held that MERS, named as a nominee
5
or Beneficiary, does not have the standing of the beneficiary to enforce the Deed of
6
7
Trust through the foreclosure process.
8 85. Defendants Chase Home Financial, LLC; Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner &
9 Engel, LLP; American Investment Mortgage, Inc and MERS, and each of them, made
10
a representation to Plaintiff on March 20, 1998 that MERS had the rights and standing
11
of a beneficiary under Texas law.
12
13 86. This statement was made on the Deed of Trust and presented to Plaintiff(s)
14 at the offices of the Title Company on March 20, 1998.

15
87. When Defendants and MERS, and each of them made the representation
16
that MERS was the beneficiary under the Deed of Trust, they both knew that the
17
statement was false when made.
18
19 88. The statement was made to have Plaintiff(s) rely on the misrepresentation
20 by executing the Deed of Trust and Plaintiff did actually rely on the misrepresentation
21
by his signatures affixed to the Deed of Trust on March 20, 1998.
22
89. Plaintiff(s) have been damaged as a result of said reliance as they have had
23
the title to the Property slandered as a result of the filing of the Notice of Breach.
24
25 90. Plaintiff(s) have been further damaged by the necessity of seeking judicial
26 intervention to prevent the foreclosure of the Property.

27
91. On information and belief, Plaintiff(s) alleges that Defendants and MERS
28 16
have acted willfully, maliciously, oppressively and fraudulently and in conscious
1
2 disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and as such, Plaintiff are entitled to punitive
3 damages.
4
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
5 (For Fraud)
Against Chase Home Financial, LLC; Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel, LLP;
6
American Investment Mortgage, Inc
7
9 herein.
10
93. On or about March 1, 2011 an unknown employee of Barrett Daffin Frappier
11
Turner & Engel, LLP executed on behalf the alleged Beneficiary, Chase Home
12
Financial, LLC, a “Notice of Default” which stated that the payments were due to
13
14 MERS as Beneficiary. “Notice of Breach and Default and of Election to Cause
15 Sale of Real Property Under Deed of Trust” (hereinafter referred to as “Notice of

16
Breach”).
17
94. On the Notice of Breach, it stated, in part, that Plaintiff(s) as Trustor, to secure
18
certain obligations in favor of MERS, as beneficiary.
19
20 95. It further states that: That by reason thereof of the present Beneficiary under such
21 deed of Trust has executed and delivered to said duly appointed Trustee a written
22
Declaration of Default and Demand for Sale and has deposited with said duly
23
appointed Trustee such Deed of Trust and all documents evidencing obligations
24
25
secured thereby and has declared and does hereby declared all sums secured
26 thereby immediately due and payable and has elected and does hereby elect to
27
cause the trust property to be sold to satisfy the obligations served thereby.
28 17
96. This representation was made by these defendants in order to induce
reliance by Plaintiff(s).
1
2 97. Plaintiff(s) did rely on these representations and because of his reliance his
3 property has advanced in the foreclosure stage to a sale and Plaintiff’s reliance was
4
justified.
5
98. Plaintiff(s) is informed and believes that the representation as stated on the Notice of
6
7
Default were a false representation in the following particular(s)
8 A. Documents were not provided to the trustee that showed that either MERS or any
9 of the Defendants Identified as Does 1-10, were the Beneficiary and entitled to the
10
payments.
11
B. At the time Defendants made the representations they knew they were false and
12
13 were made for the sole purpose of inducing reliance.
14 99. Plaintiff(s) has been damaged in having his home wrongfully placed in
15
foreclosure and a slander of his title, and being required to become involved in this
16
litigation all to his damages and injuries the amount of which are subject to proof at
17
the time of trial.
18
19 100. That American Investment Mortgage, Inc was aware of the false
20 representations of American Investment Mortgage, Inc and remained silent thereby

21
aiding American Investment Mortgage, Inc in its misrepresentation.
22
101. That the actions of these defendants were willful, oppressive and fraudulent
23
so as to justify an award of Exemplary damages.
24
25
26 III.
27 TWELVETH CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §2923.6
28 18 Defendants)
(As Against All
1
2
102. Plaintiff(s) reallege and incorporate by reference the above paragraphs 1 through
3
4 101 as though set forth fully herein.
5 103. Defendants’ Pooling and Servicing Agreement (hereinafter “PSA”) contains a

6
duty to maximize net present value to its investors and related parties.
7
104. California Civil Code 2923.6 broadens and extends this PSA duty by requiring
8
9
servicers to accept loan modifications with borrowers.
10 105. Pursuant to California Civil Code 2923.6(a), a servicer acts in the best interest of
11 all parties if it agrees to or implements a loan modification where the (1) loan is in
12
payment default, and (2) anticipated recovery under the loan modification or workout
13
plan exceeds the anticipated recovery through foreclosure on a net present value basis.
14
15 106. California Civil Code 2923.6(b) now provides that the mortgagee, beneficiary, or
16 authorized agent offer the borrower a loan modification or workout plan if such a
17
modification or plan is consistent with its contractual or other authority.
18
107. Plaintiff(s) loan is presently in an uncertain state.
19
108. Plaintiffs(s) are willing, able, and ready to execute a modification of their loan on
20
21 a reasonable basis
22
(a) New Loan Amount: $72,001.00
23
(b) New Interest Rate: 2%
24
(c) New Loan Length: 30 years
25
(d) New Payment: $ 266.13
26
27 109. The present fair market value of the property is 65,000

28 19
110. Alternatively, Plaintiff(s) further allege that obstruction or imposition of
1
2 unwarranted conditions by defendants occurred when defendants’ objection for want of
3 actual tender of money is waived by defendants’ refusal to receive the money if

4
produced. [Shaner v West Coast Life Ins. Co, 73F.2d 681 (C.C.A. 10th Cir. 1934);
5
Buell v. White, 908 P.2d 1175 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995) (when party, who is willing and
6
7
able to pay, offers to pay another a sum of money and is advised that it will not be
8 accepted, offer amounts to tender even though money is not produced); Hall v.
9 Norwalk Fire Ins. Co., 57 Conn. 105, 17 A. 356 (1888); Lamar v. Sheppard, 84 Ga.
10
561, 10 S.E. 10984 (1890); Ventres v. Cobb, 105 Ill. 33, 1882 WL 10475 (1882);
11
Metropolitan Credit Union v. Matthes, 46 Mass. App. Ct. 326, 706 N.E.2d 296 (1999)].
12
13
14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff(s) prays for damages as follows:

15
1. For compensatory damages, amount to be determined.
16
2. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined.
17
3. For any statutory damages according to law;
18
19 4. For Injunctive Relief including the issuance of a restraining order and thereafter a
20 preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending final adjudication;

21
5. For attorney’s fees in the event that counsel is retained;.
22
6. For a declaration of the rights of the parties relative to Plaintiff’s Home, including
23
a declaration that Defendants have no enforceable lien against Plaintiff’s Home;
24
25 7. For a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining all Defendants,
26 their agents, assigns, and all person acting under, for, or in concert with them, from
27
28 20
foreclosing on Plaintiff’s Home or from conducting at trustee’s sale or causing a trustee’s
1
2 sale to be conducted relative to Plaintiff’s Home.
3 8. Cancellation of the sale and restitution of the home to the Plaintiffs; and
4
9. For damages as provided by statute;
5
10. For an Order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate the statutes alleged
6
7
herein;
8 11. For an Order, requiring Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff on title to his Property, and
9 or a restraining order preventing Defendants and his, hers, or its agents, employees,
10
officers, attorneys, and representatives from engaging in or performing any of the
11
following acts: (i) offering, or advertising this property for sale and (ii) attempting to
12
13 transfer title to this property and or (iii) holding any auction therefore;
14 12. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
15
16
DATED April 8, 2011
17
18
19
______________________________________________
20
BENDETTA WILLIAMS
1157 SHADYWOOD LN
21
DESOTO, TEXAS 75115
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 21

Complaint

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Complaint

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

BENDETTA WILLIAMS

26 ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

3 at 1157 SHADYWOOD LN, DESOTO, TEXAS 75115

13 5. Defendant , Barrett Daffin Frappier Turner & Engel,

24 ascertained and to join such Defendants in this action.

3 8. On or about March 20, 1998, Plaintiff(s) executed an “Adjustable Rate Note”

8 of the rate, how it is computed nor its inherent volatility.

26 lender as American Investment Mortgage, Inc Attached her as Exhibit “2”

2 trust to American Investment Mortgage, Inc.

13 of the Deed of Trust.

20 18. On or about March 1, 2011 an unknown employee of Barrett Daffin

26 Systems as Beneficiary. Attached here as Exhibit “3”.

3 16. It further states that:

19 permits certain defaults to be cured upon the Payment of the amounts

20 required by that statutory section without requiring payment of that

25 Trustor or Trustor’s successor in interest, the right of reinstatement will

26 terminate and the property may thereafter be sold.

18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

3 B. They have improperly retained funds belonging to Plaintiff in amounts to be

14 the event that he retains counsel.

9 individually or jointly violated the requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 2605(B) in that the

14 return of all funds received by Defendants from Plaintiff.

19 event that they retain counsel.

20 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

11 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10 49. Defendants further placed themselves in a position of trust by virtue of the

16 best interests of Plaintiff(s) or for the protection of his rights.

27 receive payment under this Note is called the “Note Holder.”

14 Notice of Breach states that MERS is the Beneficiary.

20 endorsements thereon to Plaintiff(s) or this Honorable Court so that it may determine in

25 commence foreclosure proceedings, including authorizing the substitution of a Trustee.

3 date a Notice of Trustee’s sale may be filed and served.

5 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18 recorded in the Office of the County Recorder, Dallas County, Texas.

23 ownership and by contending that his ownership is or will be with Defendants by

24 means of a Trustee’s sale.

2 and state law and transfer no rights to Defendants.

13 compensated by an award of money damages.

24 82. As a result, the loan may be transferred from company to company, or

3 otherwise notifying Plaintiff(s) of a change in his beneficiary.

14 at the offices of the Title Company on March 20, 1998.

26 intervention to prevent the foreclosure of the Property.

14 MERS as Beneficiary. “Notice of Breach and Default and of Election to Cause

15 Sale of Real Property Under Deed of Trust” (hereinafter referred to as “Notice of

13 were made for the sole purpose of inducing reliance.

20 representations of American Investment Mortgage, Inc and remained silent thereby

4 101 as though set forth fully herein.

5 103. Defendants’ Pooling and Servicing Agreement (hereinafter “PSA”) contains a

27 109. The present fair market value of the property is 65,000

2 unwarranted conditions by defendants occurred when defendants’ objection for want of

3 actual tender of money is waived by defendants’ refusal to receive the money if

14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff(s) prays for damages as follows:

20 preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo pending final adjudication;

25 7. For a preliminary injunction and permanent injunction enjoining all Defendants,

2 sale to be conducted relative to Plaintiff’s Home.

S-ar putea să vă placă și