CA COMPLAINT Trust

1
3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

4 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
6
, an individual; COMPLAINT FOR RECONVEYENCE OF
7
PROPERTY RELEASE OF LIEN, DAMAGES
8 PLAINTIFF AND OTHER RELIEF
9
10 Vs.
11
HSBC Bank USA. National Association as
12
Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities
13
Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed
14
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-
15 AR6
16
17 DEFENDANTS.
18
19
20 Comes now the Plaintiff, , herein after “Plaintiff”, and files this COMPLAINT FOR
21 RECONVEYENCE OF PROPERTY, RELEASE OF LIEN, DAMAGES AND OTHER RELIEF,
22 against , Defendant, HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo
Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series
23
2007-AR6 as follows, to wit:
24
25
1. NOTICE TO THE COURT: Use of all codes, laws and/or rules of procedure cited herein that
26 may not be or represent law duly passed by the legislature of California, the state of the
27 constitutional republic, United States of America; that government directly created through the
28 sovereign electors on California ; and/or that may not be or represent law enacted by that
1
COMPLAINT FOR RECONVEYENCE OF PROPERTY RELEASE OF LIEN, DAMAGES AND
OTHER RELIEF
legislature acting in its jurisdiction over California , the state of the republic and in its jurisdiction
1
over its state citizens domiciled on the land thereon, is only used here to notice the
2
Defendant(s) of that which is applicable to them and is not intended to be construed by this Court
3 as an act of the Plaintiff granting jurisdiction of such law over him/them , nor to be understood by
4 the Court to mean that Plaintiff, the living soul, confers, submits to, or has knowingly and
5 intentionally entered into any such other jurisdiction alluded to thereby.

As grounds for relief requested, Plaintiffs would show unto the Court the following:
6
7
2. Whereas, Defendant, HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
8
Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6., has
9 assumed all rights and responsibilities for the actions and representations of the original lender in
10 the contract as if being the alleged original lender themselves in its purchase of the loan contract, it
11 is referred to herein, along with WELLS FARGO BANK, NA. , the original lender for whose actions,
, HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation,
12
Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6, is responsible to the Plaintiff,
13
both as “the bank”, and where not specifically differentiated, references to actions and
14
representations of the original lender in the making and closing of that loan, by, HSBC Bank USA.
15 National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-
16 Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6’s liability assumed for said actions as present
holder of this loan, such references are hereby understood to include, , HSBC Bank USA. National
17
Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed
18
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 as if their own actions.
19
20
21 As grounds for relief requested, Plaintiff would show unto the Court the following:
3. PLAINTIFF, Hilary Spencer Gavenda, is an adult Sovereign man on California, a state of the
22
Constitutional republic, United States of America domiciled on the land, on California, near 1542
23
Larkspur Ct., Oakley community, California, on California, state of the republic and the owner of
24
property at 1542 Larkspur Ct., Oakley community, California, on California, state of the republic.
25
26 4. DEFENDANT, HSBC Bank USA. National Association is a national banking corporation

allegedly organized and existing under the laws of the United States, whose address is 1 Federal
27
St, Boston, - 02110 acting in behalf of the holder of the Wells Fargo Asset Securities
28
Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 .
2
OTHER RELIEF
1
3 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
4 1. Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association, acting in behalf of the
5 alleged holder of the loan Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 which is a trust entity also known as a Special
6
Purpose Vehicle became an alleged successor in interest to the originator and issued securities
7
collateralized by the deed of trust under a master pooling and servicing agreement dated
8 November 25. 2007, by which all legal and equitable interest was transferred to the certificate
9 holders. Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association as trustee is acting in the capacity of
10 the alleged representative for and nominee of the certificate holders for the purposes of
foreclosure of the property because the loan was allegedly in default. HSBC Bank USA. National
11
Association is not the holder or owner of the note.
12
2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that the Defendant,
13 HSBC Bank USA. National Association acting in behalf of the holder of the loan Wells Fargo
14 Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-
15 AR6 lacked standing to commence foreclosure proceedings being threatened because they are
not the lawful holders of the rights of the contract in this case.
16
3. Plaintiff alleges Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee
17
for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates
18 Series 2007-AR6 ’s certificate holders lacked standing to commence foreclosure because they
19 were not the lawful holders of the rights of the contract under which foreclosure is being acted
20 on.
The note, which was a negotiable instrument under UCC Article 3, then converted to a security,
21
Once it is securitized, it falls under UCC Articles 8 and 9 as a security. The Federal Courts have
22
ruled that the only way to prove the perfection of any security is by actual possession of the
23 security. (Staff Mortgage & Investment Corp. 550 F.2d 1228 (9th Cir 1997). Under Uniform
24 Commercial Code, the security interest must be perfected by possession. Lacking proof of this
25 possession of the security, it did not have the right to initiate foreclosure proceedings in its name.
4. Defendants HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo
26
Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-
27
AR6 illegally sold the rights and interests in Defendant’s loan instruments as un-registered
28 securities. Selling un-registered securities is an automatic right of rescission of the original
3
OTHER RELIEF
contract.
1
As already noted Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-
2
Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 is a Special Purpose Vehicle and alleged successor in
3 interest to the originator and issued securities collateralized by the deed of trust under a master
4 pooling and servicing agreement dated November 25, 2007 , by which all legal and equitable
5 interest was transferred to the certificate holders.

5. Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee is acting in the
6
capacity of the alleged representative for and nominee of the certificate holders for the purposes
7
of foreclosure of the property. Since the sale of the rights and interests in the unregistered
8 securities of which Plaintiff’s debt instruments were a part was illegal and invalid, no legal and
9 equitable interest in Plaintiff’s debt instruments was transferred to the certificate holders to give
10 Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association as trustee acting in the capacity of nominee of
the certificate holders to have power of foreclosure of the property in the certificate holders’ behalf
11
and the rights of sale are void.
12
13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

14 CIVIL RICO
15 AGAINST HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series
16
2007-AR6
17
18 7. I repeat, re-allege and incorporate all herein by reference and each and every allegation
19 set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19 inclusive, of all allegations and re-plead the same as set out
20 in full with the same force and effect.

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that HSBC Bank USA. National
21
Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed
22
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 Defendants, have engaged in an unlawful pattern of
23 racketeering activity for the common purpose of carrying out a fraudulent scheme against people
24 that they have collected payments from.
25 9. Through the services of lenders marketed to the public that they are in the business to
loan money receiving notes and trust deeds as security for repayment they withhold from the
26
borrower, that in fact, they and the lenders with whom they work are in the business of pooling
27
and bundling these security instruments to sell the rights and interests in these non-registered
28 securities to investors in the form of certificates of investment.
4
OTHER RELIEF
10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Wells Fargo Bank National
1
Association is a servicer and Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee
2
3 Series 2007-AR6 is acting as a trustee, a third party, and as such, their activities affect interstate
4 commerce and each is an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 USC 1961(4) and 1962(b) and
5 (c).
11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants HSBC Bank USA.
6
National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-
7
Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 directly or indirectly conducted and
8 participated in the affairs of a RICO enterprise.
9 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants HSBC Bank USA.
Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 engaged in a scheme of and artifice to
11
defraud as herein described with the specific intent to defraud the public including Plaintiff, and
12
in furtherance thereof, used and/or caused the use of the United States Mail, an indictable
13 offense under USC 1341, in that the Defendants mailed, or caused to be mailed to Plaintiff or
14 others, letters and other matter reflecting their fraudulent scheme as herein described.
15 15. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Wells Fargo Bank N/A
acting in behalf of the holder of the loan Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage
16
Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6, knowingly, willingly, directly and
17
indirectly committed multiple predicate acts of racketeering activity since inception of
18 transaction in [[ July 17th, 2007 ]] , as hereinabove described, and thus have engaged in a
19 “pattern of racketeering activity” within the meaning of 18 USC 1961(5). These acts were
20 and are continuous, through and including the present, and reflect multiple and repeated acts
of misconduct that are not sporadic or isolated in time, but rather are inter-related by their
21
similar purpose and common targets as herein described.
22
16. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants Wells Fargo Bank
23 N/A acting in behalf of the holder of the loan Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage
24 Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 conduct and participation in these
25 affairs through the pattern of racketeering activity as hereinabove described, constitutes a

violation of 18 USC 1964(b) and (c).
26
17. Plaintiff has been injured by Defendants’ and Wells Fargo Bank N/A acting in behalf
27
of the holder of the loan Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-
28 Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 and Defendants fraudulent and unscrupulous
5
OTHER RELIEF
activities. Their proceeding with the unlawful foreclosure without the legal power and
1
authority to act for a lawful owner of the interests in the debt instruments on Plaintiff’s
2
property has caused extreme and undue hardship and detrimental effect on Plaintiff and
3 the loss of the rights of title to his property and the jeopardy of its possession .
4 18. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered
5 direct, actual injury and Plaintiff is entitled to recover threefold damages under 18 USC 1964(c).
The Plaintiff prays for relief from this court and asks that the court order the Defendant Wells
6
Fargo Bank N/A acting in behalf of the holder of the loan Wells Fargo Asset Securities
7
Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 to rescind the
8 Notice of Trustee’s Sale dated June 12, 2009 and the Notice of Default dated March 10, 2009
9 and release title back to Plaintiff and award damages as the court may determine.
10 The facts surrounding these allegations not having been fully developed, Plaintiff here reserves
the right to further plead facts and allegations in regard to this cause of action as may be found
11
or learned during the course of additional investigation and discovery.
12
13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

14 CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD AND CONVERSION
Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series
16
2007-AR6
17
18 19. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations of the Verified
19 Complaint as it fully set forth herein.
20 20. Defendants parties as lenders, Securitizers, and/or’ servicers participating in the ERS
system formed an association to conspire to deprive Plaintiffs of the subject property through
21
fraud and misrepresentation that would result in Plaintiff entering into loan agreements for which
22
Plaintiffs was ultimately not qualified and which would eventually result in Plaintiff’s inability to
23 make payments and stay within the subject residence.
24 Upon information and belief; in furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendants intended that
25 the Plaintiff loan would be packaged with other loans and sold on the secondary market, resulting
in a profit to Defendants.
26
Defendants and each of them, knew prior to their origination of the loans or acceptance
27
of the loans for servicing and subsequent transfer of the loans that Plaintiff was not qualified to
28 make payments under the loan terms; however, defendant’s knew or should have known that
6
OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiffs would rely, and did rely on defendants representations, or the representations of
1
defendants agents, as alleged herein related to Plaintiffs ability to repay the loan or to refinance
2
the loan in taking the loan and signing the documents.
3 Defendants violated the Federal fair Housing Act, and A B 489, AB 90i in procuring Plaintiffs
4 signature on the loan documents. Defendants legal objective of packaging the loan made to the
5 Plaintiffs with other loans and selling the loan was accomplished by illegal means in procuring the
loans because of defendants violation of the Federal Fair Housing Act.
6
Upon information and belief; Defendants knew that the loans would be subject to foreclosure as a
7
result of Plaintiff’s inability to make payments on the loan as payments escalated during the term
8 of the Loans and/or as a result of Plaintiffs inability to qualify to refinance the loan at a later date
9 after the Payments began to escalate because of changes to the interest rates and arbitrary
10 increase of payments by the servicers of the loans, and thus the Defendants committed acts
which constitute unlawful stripping.
11
Upon information and belief; the escalating payments and/or increases in the interest rate were
12
not properly disclosed to Plaintiffs..
13 21. Defendants intended that the Plaintiffs would default on the loan and defendants
14 would be in a position of seizing the Plaintiffs home in foreclosure actions unlawfully depriving
15 Plaintiff of her home.

Defendants, each of them, in furtherance of the conspiracy and agreement alleged herein, acted
16
in a conceited manner to target Plaintiff as borrower, to misrepresent the loan terms and/or to
17
misrepresent Plaintiffs qualification for the loans, knowing that such action or actions would result
18 in Defendant’s ultimate possession of the home of the Plaintiff following foreclosure.
19 s a result of the Defendants’ conspiracy described herein, the Plaintiff has suffered injuries
20 which include mental, anguish, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of

reputation and a decreased credit rating , which has, or will impair Plaintiffs ability to obtain credit
21
at a more favorable rate than before the decrease in credit rating, the loss or anticipated loss of
22
his home and other financial losses according to proof including the court cost and fees incurred
23 in this matter..
24 Defendants conspiracy to unlawfully deceive Plaintiff into taking out the subject loan when and
25 how they did as alleged herein was willful and wanton, justifying award for punitive damages..
That Defendants are with scienter concerning such actions as alleged.
26
Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to equitable relief; including, restitution, disgorgement of profits
27
earned by defendants because of their unlawful and deceptive practices and attorneys fees and
28
7
OTHER RELIEF
costs, declaratory relief and a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from the unlawful
1
activity and enforcement of this contract..
2
The facts surrounding these allegations not having been fully developed, Plaintiff here reserves
3 the right to further plead facts and allegations in regard to this cause of action as may be found
4 or learned during the course of additional investigation and discovery.
5
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
6
7
VOID SALE FROM ULTRA VIRES ACT
9 Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series
10 2007-AR6
11
12
26. Defendants HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
13 Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 did
14 not have the power under their charter to do what they did; illegally sell the rights and interests in
15 Defendant’s loan instruments as un-registered securities to those seeking to make lawful security
investments. It is a violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and provides a right to
16
rescission of the contract.
17
27. In Central Transp. Co. v. Paullman, 139 U.S. 60, 11 S. Ct. 478, 35 L. Ed. 55, the court
18 said: “ contract ultra vires being unlawful and void, not because it is in itself immoral, but
19 because the corporation, by the law of its creation, is incapable of making it, the courts, while
20 refusing to maintain any action upon the unlawful contract, have always striven to do justice
between the parties, so far as could be done consistently with adherence to law, by permitting
21
property or money, parted with on the faith of the unlawful contract, to be recovered back, or
22
compensation to be made for it. In such case, however, the action is not maintained upon the
23 unlawful contract, nor according to its terms; but on an implied contract of the defendant to return,
24 or, failing to do that, to make compensation for, property or money which it has no right to retain.
25 To maintain such an action is not to affirm, but to disaffirm, the unlawful contract.”
28. “When a contract is once declared ultra vires, the fact that it is executed does not validate
26
it, nor can it be ratified, so as to make it the basis of suitor action, nor does the doctrine of
27
estoppel apply.” F&PR v. Richmond, 133 SE 898; 151 Va 195.
28
8
OTHER RELIEF
29. HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities
1
Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 sold the
2
rights and interests in the debt instruments of the Plaintiff as an unregistered security. It
3 is a violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and provides a right to rescission of the
4 contract.
5 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff moves this court to release the lien and restore title to Plaintiff.
6
7
9
10 .
11
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
12
IMPROPER CONVERSION AND ALTERATION OF THE NOTE AND DEED OF TRUST
14 Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6
15
The Plaintiff here is attacking the enforceability of the note and deed of trust by conversion in
16
securitization without the consent of the trustor. Securitization of the note and deed of trust
17
effectively severs financial responsibility for losses from the authority to incur or avoid losses.
18 Securitization converts the deed of trust and note into unalienable instruments. HSBC Bank USA.
20 Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 seeks to enforce the note in this case.
Moreover the court need not decide whether private ordering will allow a trustor to consent to an
21
unmodifiable promissory note when the deed of trust is executed. The court need only rule that
22
the securitization conversion of the note cannot be given effect without the prior consent of the
23 trustor. The securitization of the note constitutes a conversion of the asset rendering it null, void
24 and nontransferable and possibly unenforceable.
25 The trustee of a pass through trust or other special purpose vehicle has no legal or
equitable interest in the securitized deed of trusts. The trustee profits from the fees collected from
26
foreclosure. The certificate holders are ostensibly the owner and holder of the note. However, the
27
terms of the trust as spelled out in the master pooling and servicing agreement do not allow the
28 certificate holders to foreclose or to take part in controlling the deed of trust note. (see the
9
OTHER RELIEF
prospectus for HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
1
Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-
2
AR6 as found on SEC website http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u6SE7.htm#44f7 .)
3
As seen therein, the certificate holders, guarantors and deed of trust insurers bear the
4 losses but do not control the deed of trust. Servicers collect the payments from the homeowners
5 on behalf of the investors. The bulk of their income comes from a percentage payment on the
outstanding principal balance in the pool; the bulk of their net worth is tied to the value of the
6
deed of trust servicing rights they purchased. A servicer may or may not lose money—or lose it in
7
the same amounts or on the same scale—when an investor loses money. And it is servicers, not
8
investors, who are making the day-to-day, on the ground, decisions as to whether or not to modify
9 any given loan. Servicers continue to receive most of their income from acting as largely
10 automated pass-through accounting entities, whose mechanical actions are performed offshore
or by personified computer systems.
11
As the document shows, their entire business model is predicated on making money by
12
skimming profits from what they are collecting: through a fixed percentage of the total loan pool,
13
fees charged homeowners for default, interest income on the payments during the time the
14 servicer holds them before they are turned over to the owners, and affiliated business
15 arrangements. Servicers make their money largely through lucky or strategic investment
decisions: purchases of the right pool of deed of trust servicing rights and the correct interest
16
hedging decisions. Performing large numbers of loan modifications would cost servicers
17
upfront money in fixed overhead costs, including staffing and physical infrastructure.
18
As established in the Prospectus herein referenced, The so-called trust is organized as a
19 special purpose vehicle (“SPV”). The SPV is organized by the securitizer so that the assets of the
20 SPV are shielded from the creditors of the securitizer. The SPV follows the rules prescribed by
the I.R.S. to qualify for treatment as a REMIC so that only the certificate holders but not the trust
21
are taxed. Double taxation of the deed of trust proceeds to the trust and then to the certificate
22
holder is avoided by “passing through” all the income to the certificate holders. The SPV is
23
accordingly a weak repository not engaged in active management of the assets. For this
24 purpose, a servicing agent is appointed. Moreover, all legal and equitable interest in the deed
25 of trusts are passed through to the certificate holders.
As established in the Prospectus herein referenced, a typical deed of trust pool consists of
26
anywhere from 2000-5000 loans. This is millions of dollars in cash flow payments each MONTH
27
from a Servicer (receiving payments from borrowers) to a REMIC (Trust) with the cash
28
flow “passing through” the Trust (RE IC) without taxation to the investors. The investors have to
10
OTHER RELIEF
pay taxes on the cash flow payments from their interests just for the record. The taxes a Trust
1
would have to pay on $30, 50 or 100 million dollars per year if this “pass through” taxation benefit
2
didn’t exist would be enormous. In addition, if a Trust that was organized in February 2005 were
3 found to have violated the REMIC guidelines outlined in the Internal Revenue Code, at $4 million
4 per month in cash flow, there would be $190 Million or more now in TAXABLE income due to
5 have tax paid upon it by the REMIC.

If a Trust - or a Servicer or Trustee acting on behalf of the Trust - were found to have
6
violated these very strict REMIC guidelines to qualify as a REMIC, the taxable status of the
7
REMIC can be revoked; the equivalent of financial Armageddon for the Trust and its investors.
8 As established in the Prospectus herein referenced , A REMIC can be structured as an
9 entity (i.e., partnership, corporation, or trust) or simply as a segregated pool of assets, so long as
10 the entity or pool meets certain requirements regarding the composition of assets and the nature
of the investors’ interests. No tax is imposed at the RE IC level. To qualify as a RE IC, all of the
11
interests in the RE IC must consist of one or more classes of “regular interests” and a single
12
class of “residual interests.” Regular interests can be issued in the form of debt, stock,
13 partnership interests, or trust certificates, or any other form of securities, but must provide the
14 holder the unconditional right to receive a specified principal amount and interest payments.
15 REMIC regular interests are treated as debt for Federal tax purposes. A residual interest in a
REMIC, which is any REMIC interest other than a regular interest, is, on the other hand, taxable
16
as an equity interest.
17
18 As established in the Prospectus herein referenced, In order for the Trust to qualify as a REMIC,
19 all steps in the “contribution” and transfer process (of the notes) must be true and complete sales
20 between the parties and within the three month time limit from the Startup Day. Therefore, every
transfer of the Note(s) must be a true purchase and sale, and, consequently the Note must
21
be endorsed from one entity to another. Any deed of trust note/asset identified for
22
inclusion in a Trust seeking a REMIC status MUST be deposited into the Trust within the
23 three month time period calculated from the official Startup Day of the REMIC as per
24 Section 860 of the Internal Revenue Code.
25
Securitization effectively severs financial responsibility for losses from the authority to
26
incur or avoid losses. Foreclosure avoids litigation from disgruntled certificate holders
27
who could claim a deed of trust modification improperly resulted in a financial loss. Under
28 the original deed of trust, the party deciding to foreclose was the party suffering any loss resulting
11
OTHER RELIEF
from foreclosure. With securitization the deed of trust is converted so the party making the
1
decision to foreclose does not bear the loss resulting from foreclosure but avoids the
2
liability which could result if a class of certificate holders claimed wrongful injury resulting
3 from a modification made to achieve an alternate dispute resolution. By separating the
4 incidence of loss from the authority to foreclose, the original note has been altered
5 resulting in a change to the deed of trust without the consent of the trustor.
Securitization also converts the deed of trust by rendering it unalienable. Once certificates have
6
been issued, the note cannot be transferred, sold or conveyed.
7
An assignee of a deed of trust and note assigned as collateral security is the real party in interest,
8 holds legal title to the deed of trust and the note, and is the proper party to file suit to foreclose
9 the deed of trust . Lawyers Title Ins. Co., Inc. v. Novastar Mortg., Inc., 862 So.2d 793 (App. 4
10 Dist.2003), rehearing denied, review denied 880 So.2d 1212. In the case of a securitization, the
certificate holders become the proper party to bring foreclosure because they own and hold the
11
note outright and not as a pledge of collateral.
12
It appears their inability to alienate and/or sell the note after securitization has no adverse
13 consequences for the maker/ borrower who is the debtor.
14 Recent history disproves this conclusion. Several legislative and executive efforts to pursue
15 alternate dispute resolution and provide financial relief to distressed homeowners have been
thwarted by the inability of the United States Government to buy securitized deeds of trust
16
without purchasing most of the certificates issued.
17
An SPV cannot sell a deed of trust to the United States which is owned by different
18 classes of certificate holders. The certificate holders likewise cannot sell the deeds of trust. All
19 they have are the securities held each of which can be publicly traded.
20 Failure to obtain the consent of the trustor to subsequent securitization of the deed of trust and
note renders the deed of trust unenforceable against him as its securitization constitutes an
21
alteration of the instrument, not on its face, but by change of the nature and use of the instrument
22
from that for which it was given by the trustor, the Plaintiff, i.e. to secure her payment of the note.
23 As now Plaintiff’s deed of trust and note are being used as un-registered securities to
24 collateralize certificates issued under a master pooling and servicing agreement dated May 1,
25 2006, by which all legal and equitable interest in the instruments was transferred to the certificate
holders.
26
As cited above, Securitization effectively severs financial responsibility for losses from the
27
authority to incur or avoid losses. Foreclosure avoids litigation from disgruntled certificate
28 holders who could claim a deed of trust modification improperly resulted in a financial
12
OTHER RELIEF
loss. Under the original deed of trust, the party deciding to foreclose was the party suffering any
1
loss resulting from foreclosure. With securitization the deed of trust is converted so the party
2
making the decision to foreclose does not bear the loss resulting from foreclosure but
3 avoids the liability which could result if a class of certificate holders claimed wrongful
4 injury resulting from a modification made to achieve an alternate dispute resolution.
5 The deed of trust is a security agreement between the creditor and debtor to secure repayment of
the loan by encumbering collateral for the benefit of the creditor. In California, non-judicial
6
foreclosures are conducted by a duly appointed trustee. There can be no disagreement that the
7
deed of trust provides that the agreement may not be modified or amended by one party without
8 the prior written consent of the other.
9 The master pooling and servicing agreement which is the organic document creating the
10 mortgage backed securities changes the terms and conditions of the deed of trust. The changes
are made unilaterally by the holder of the deed of trust as a successor to the original beneficiary
11
named in the deed of trust. The changes are made without the consent of the trustor. These
12
changes restrict the ability of those making the financial decisions for the trust to modify the deed
13 of trust. See, e.g., Anna Gelpern & Adam J. Levitin, Rewriting Frankenstein Contracts: Workout
14 Prohibitions in Residential Deed of trust-Backed Securities, 82 S. CAL. L. REV. (forthcoming
15 2009). Manuel Adelino, Why Don't Lenders Renegotiate More Home Deed of trusts? Redefaults,
Self-Cures, and Securitization, Fed. Reserve Bank of Boston, Public Policy Discussion Paper No.
16
09-4, July 6, 2009, at
17
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/ppdp/2009/ppdp0904.pdf Congressional Oversight Panel, The
18 Foreclosure Crisis: Working Toward a Solution, at http://cop.senate.gov/reports/library/report-
19 030609-cop.cfm. Alan White, Rewriting Contracts, Wholesale: Data on Voluntary Deed of trust
20 Modifications from 2007 and 2008 RemittanceReports, Fordham Urb. L. J. 20 (forthcoming 2009),
available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1259538#
21
22
When the parties executed the deed of trust, the trustor was neither obligated to agree to an
23 alternate dispute resolution in the event of a default nor restricted from entering an alternate
24 dispute resolution. When signing the deed of trust, the trustor neither knew, nor had reason to
25 know that a successor in interest to the beneficiary would subsequently self impose restrictions
upon modification of the deed of trust and create liability for itself if it agreed to alternate dispute
26
resolution.
27
The master pooling and servicing agreement creates restrictions upon modification of the
28 promissory note by:
13
OTHER RELIEF
(a) Imposing the restrictions on deed of trust modification required to be made to qualify for
1
pass through tax treatment under IRS regulations.
2
(b) Imposing restrictions upon the number of deed of trusts in the pool which may be
3 modified.
4 (c) Providing a procedure and fees to be paid for foreclosure but no procedure to modifying
5 the loan as an alternate dispute resolution.

(d) Creating securities with classes of ownership (“tranches”) with adverse and opposing
6
financial interests resulting in so called “tranche warfare” so that a modification which
7
favors one tranche may work a detriment upon another.
8 (e) Restricting the ability to lower interest payments on the note.
9 (f) Restricting the ability to increase the number of payments to be made.
10 (g) Restricting the ability to defer payments.

(h) Restricting the ability to extend the term of the deed of trust.
11
(i) Restricting the ability to impose a temporary moratorium on payments.
12
(j) Restricting the ability to accept “short sales”.
13 (k) Creating potential liability to a specific class of certificate holders by entering into a
14 modification agreement required for an alternate dispute resolution.
15 (l) Requiring the servicing agent to purchase any loan which has been modified.
By separating the incidence of loss from the authority to foreclose, the original note
16
and deed of trust has been altered resulting in a change to the deed of trust without the
17
consent of the trustor.
18 Because these restrictions were imposed by a subsequent transferee of the deed of trust without
19 the consent of the trustor, the deed of trust is unenforceable.
20 Further, as noted above securitization converts the deed of trust and note into unalienable
instruments which are not what they were or what was understood by the Plaintiff they were to
21
become, altering the nature and negotiability of the deed of trust and note without consent of the
22
trustor and the deed of trust is unenforceable for this reason .
23 Plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to equitable relief; including, restitution, disgorgement of profits
24 earned by defendants because of their unlawful and deceptive practices and attorneys fees and
25 costs, declaratory relief and a permanent injunction enjoining defendants from the unlawful
activity and enforcement of this contract..
26
27
14
OTHER RELIEF
1
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2
FRADULENT MISREPRESENTATION AS TO STANDING TO FORECLOSE
3
4 HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities
5 Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6

Defendant has acted to enforce the deed of trust.
6
HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation,
7
Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 actions against Plaintiff’s
8 property in foreclosure is a wrongful and illegal act by FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
9 AS TO STANDING TO FORECLOSE jeopardizing the title and possession of the Plaintiff to his
10 property that is the subject of this dispute in that the Defendant lacked JURISDICTION AND
STANDING TO ENFORCE THE RIGHTS OF CONTRACT in this case.
11
HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation,
12
Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 is identified of public
13 record, and further affirmed and represented in Assignment of Deed of Trust exhibit AD and
14 other official documents as actual holder of the loan contract at the time of, and with the power to
15 exercise foreclosure in its name in this contract that led to its ownership of the property. .
Suit upon a note is a case at law. Foreclosure is an equitable remedy where the court sits in
16
equity. All courts sitting in equity are supposed to do equity between the parties. Demorizi v.
17
Demorizi, 851 So2d 243 (3rd Fla. App. 2003). The requirements to sue to collect a debt upon a
18 promissory note are different from the requirements to foreclose a deed of trust securing a debt
19 on a promissory note.
20 A deed of trust may only be enforced by a person legally entitled to foreclose on the debt
or such person’s representative, such as a nominee or trustee. An assignee of a deed of trust and
21
note assigned as collateral security is the real party in interest, holds legal title to the deed of trust
22
and the note, and is the proper party to file suit to foreclose the deed of trust. Lawyers Title Ins.
23 Co., Inc. v. Novastar Mortg., Inc., 862 So.2d 793 App. (4 Dist. 2003), rehearing denied, review
24 denied 880 So.2d 1212.
25 By transferring ownership and holding of the deed of trust then selling the promissory note
to certificate holders of a publicly traded security, the transfer negates the ability of the trustee or
26
servicing agent to sue as the owner or holder of the promissory note. A deed of trust cannot be
27
foreclosed on behalf of the owner and holder of a note who does not actually own or hold the
28 note. There is a difference between what is required to enforce a note and what is required to
15
OTHER RELIEF
enforce a deed of trust in foreclosure. The promissory note as a note remains enforceable but not
1
the deed of trust.
2
3 As publicly traded securities, the price, value and ownership of certificates are continually
4 in flux. As a collectivity, the certificate holders cannot appoint a representative for a continuously
5 changing collection of certificate holders with changing, competing and conflicting interests. The
certificate holders cannot appoint a representative to act as an agent for purposes of foreclosure
6
because the principal cannot convey power and authority to an agent which the principal lacks. If
7
the principal is incapacitated to foreclose, mutatis mutandi, so is the agent.
8
9 Pursuant to the portions of the IRS Code herein cited, To avoid double taxation of the trust and
10 the certificate holders and obtain a single event tax treatment from the Internal Revenue Service,
deeds of trust are held in Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“RE ICS”). To qualify for
11
the single taxable event, all interest in the deed of trust must be transferred forward to the
12
certificate holders. The legal basis of REMICs was established by the Tax Reform Act of 1986
13 (100 Stat. 2085, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 47, 1042), which eliminated double taxation from these
14 securities. The principal advantage of forming REMICs for the sale of mortgage-backed securities
15 is that REMICs are treated as pass-through vehicles for tax purposes helping avoid double-
taxation. For instance, in most mortgage-backed securitizations, the owner of a pool of mortgage
16
loans (the Sponsor or Master Servicer usually) sells and transfers such loans to a special
17
purpose entity, usually a trust, that is designed specifically to qualify as a REMIC, and,
18 simultaneously, the special purpose entity issues securities that are backed by cash flows
19 generated from the transferred assets to investors in order to pay for the loans along with a
20 certain return. If the special purpose entity or the assets transferred qualify as a REMIC, then any
income of the RE IC is “passed through” and taxable to the holders of the RE IC Regular
21
Interests and Residual Interests.
22
23 Accordingly neither the trustee nor the servicing agent for the trust have a legal or equitable
24 interest in the securitized loans. Often, the servicing agent for the loan will appear to enforce the
25 loan, but the servicing agent does not have standing, for only a person who is the holder of the
note has standing to enforce the note. See, e.g., In re Hwang, 2008 WL 4899273 at Bank of
26
New York v. Williams, 979 So.2d 347 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.,2008). District Court of Appeal of Florida,
27
First District.
28
16
OTHER RELIEF
The servicing agent may have standing if acting as an agent for the holder, assuming that the
1
agent can both show agency status and that the principal is the holder. See, e.g., In re Vargas,
2
396 B.R. 511 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) at 520. The Defendants HSBC Bank USA. National
3 Association alleges that Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association is the holder of the
4 note for purposes of standing to bring an action of foreclosure. This is a legal impossibility and,
5 accordingly, a false assertion. Defendants HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee
6
Series 2007-AR6 were instrumental in the issuance and sale of the certificate to certificate
7
holders. This means the Defendants knew that they were not any longer the holder of the
8 rights to the contract.
9 Only the certificate holders have standing. Hypothetically, HSBC Bank N/A may have derivative
10 standing to foreclose as the representative and nominee of the certificate holders. The servicing
agent may have standing if acting as an agent for the holder, assuming that the agent can both
11
show agency status and that the principle is the holder. See, e.g., In re Vargas, 396 B.R. 511
12
(Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2008) at 520. But there is yet no evidence of competent fact witness that
13 HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation,
14 Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 has been appointed to act
15 on behalf of the certificate holders and that the certificate holders have conferred the
power and authority upon the Defendant necessary to bring an action in foreclosure.
16
Absent this, Defendant’s action in foreclosure is fraudulent.
17
18
Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through
19 Certificates Series 2007-AR6 is a statutory trust under Delaware Statutory law which,
20 according to its prospectus as found on the Securities and Exchange Commission web
21 site http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u6SE7.htm#44f7 , is a specifically created
22 investment vehicle that issues securities “backed” or supported by mortgage
23
financial assets.
Attached is a Memorandum of law of the United States Trustee in support of sanctions
24
against JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Association. This Memorandum is a brief
25
concerning a bankruptcy case that involved Chase, Long Beach Mortgage, Long Beach
26
Mortgage Loan Trust 2006-2, Long Beach securities, WaMu, Deutsche Bank and Lender
27
Processing Service (LPS). (exhibit MS). In further support there is submitted articles from
28
publication in Fraud Digest by competent authorities in the field of bank fraud (exhibit FD).
17
OTHER RELIEF
And a redacted affidavit from one of the cases referenced (exhibit AR).
1
2
According to the authorities therein cited in the affidavit and memoranda, In tens of
3 thousands of foreclosure cases filed by trustees for a mortgage-backed trust, the trustee
4 for the Asset Trust has used specially prepared Mortgage Assignments to show that they
5 have the right to foreclose.
6
These documented authorities spell out in the cases referenced the same thing the facts
7
show to have happened in this case:
8
9 According to Lynn E. Szymoniak, Certified Fraud Examiner and Expert Witness for
the federal Government in Insurance Regulatory and Fraud Matters in the action
10
for sanctions in the cases referenced and in U.S. v. Michael Zapetis, et al.,
11
8:2006cr00026, Middle District of Florida; U.S. v. Thomas D. King, 3:2006cr00212,
12
Middle District of Florida; U.S. v. Donald E. Touchet, Richard E. Standridge and
13
Robert J. Jennings, 3:2007cr00090, Middle District of Florida, 2008 WL 111306M;
14
affirmed, United States v. Jennings, Case No. 08-13434 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2010) The
15 People of the State of California v. Mitchell Zogob, Orange County, California; U.S.
16 v. James Kernan, 5:2008cr00061, Northern District of New York; if a loan was put
17 into a trust with a closing date in the pooling and servicing agreement in 2007, ( in
18 this case November 25, 2007 ) or if the trust indentures show that it was suppose
19 to be put in that trust and follow a chain of ownership until it ended up in that trust
20
by a certain date (closing date of the trust November 25, 2007 ), any assignments
after that closing date, are actually an Assignment specially, and in many cases,
21
fraudulently, made to facilitate foreclosures.
22
As she states, In all of these thousands of cases, no Assignment actually took place on
23
the date stated and no consideration was paid by the grantee to the grantor despite the
24
representations in the Assignments. Most significantly, no disclosure was ever made to
25
the Court in the foreclosure or bankruptcy case or to the homeowners in default that the
26
original Assignments to the Trust were never made or were defective and that the
27 recently-filed Assignments were specially made to facilitate foreclosures years after
28 the property was already transferred if in fact it had been.
18
OTHER RELIEF
1
As she states in these articles, “In the rush to securitize residential mortgages, many
2
securities companies did not secure the essential paperwork. In particular, many trusts
3
have missing Mortgage Assignments. This is true even though the trust documents set
4
forth plainly that such Assignments shall have been delivered to the Trust by the loan
5
originators by a set closing date.”
6
7 According to these authorities, (the originator) should have delivered a signed and dated
8 Assignment to the Trust Depositor, which ultimately should have resulted in delivery of a
9 signed and dated Assignment to the trustee, in 2007.
10
According to these authorities, and as may be found in the prospectus and other official
11
governing documents for these investment vehicles, upon examination, such Mortgage-
12
backed trust contains very specific provisions regarding conveyances of mortgages, notes
13
and Assignments and most often even include the form that each document custodian
14
must sign attesting to the delivery and acceptance of such documents.
15
Further, according to these authorities herein cited, Mortgage-backed trusts are not
16 allowed under their own rules to acquire non-performing loans after the closing
17 date of the trust and add such loans to the trust because of significant additional
18 tax liability to the trust if it adds properties in violation of its own documents.
19 These rules are in place to protect the investors in the trust.
20
In addition, Mortgage Backed Securities Trusts do not acquire loans after the closing
21
date of the trust because they are prohibited from doing so under the Internal
22
Revenue Code, as evidenced by a 100% penalty tax on such prohibited transactions.
23
24
According to these authorities and as confirmed under the very strict rules of its operation
to protect the investors as found in the prospectus and other official governing documents
25
for this investment vehicle, ( as found on the self authenticating official Securities and
26
Exchange Commission website, http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.u6SE7.htm#44f7 ,
27
where either the Mortgage Backed Securities Trust lacked title to the mortgage, or
28
shows assignment to it after the start-up period, the REMIC requirements for a static
19
OTHER RELIEF
pool of qualified mortgages were breached. The notes were not “qualified mortgages”
1
under IRC §860G and the Mortgage Backed Securities Trust received income from
2
borrowers NOT attributable to a qualified mortgage or permitted investment. And under
3
IRC §860F, the Mortgage Backed Securities Trust will owe a 100% penalty tax.
4
Pursuant to IRC §860G, all assignments to the Mortgage Backed Securities Trust after
5
the REMIC start-up period are subject to a 100% penalty tax.
6 Further, pursuant to IRC§ 61, all the payments made from borrowers to the Mortgage
7 Backed Securities Trust in relation to notes and mortgage loans not so protected by
8 assignment to the Mortgage Backed Securities Trust prior the REMIC start-up period
9 represent gross income and are subject to federal income taxes.
10
Again, as a consequence, according to Ms. Szymoniak, if a loan was put into a trust with
11
a closing date in the pooling and servicing agreement in 2007 or if the trust indentures
12 show that it was suppose to be put in that trust and follow a chain of ownership until it
13 ended up in that trust by a certain date (closing date of the trust), as in the case of the
14 assignment of this loan, any assignments after that closing date is actually an Assignment
15 specially, or fraudulently made after the fact to legitimize a chain of title to facilitate
16
foreclosure.
17
As a consequence of these facts affirmed, this is evidence that the assignment to this
18
present claimed holder of rights to this contract is invalid if not fraudulent or
19 illegal. Or that No Assignment actually took place on the date stated and no
20 consideration was paid by the grantee to the grantor despite the representations in the
21 Assignments.
22
Most significantly, no disclosure was ever made to the Court in the foreclosure or in this
23
bankruptcy case or to the homeowners in default that the original Assignments to the
24
Trust were never made or were defective and that the recently-filed Assignments were
25 specially made to facilitate foreclosures years after the fact.
26
27
The record in this case shows exactly that. The Debt instruments of this contract were
28
not assigned to HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
20
OTHER RELIEF
1
AR6 by the then present holder, until April 7, 2009, some 18 months after the closing
2
date of November 25, 2007 see exhibit AS attached, for the REMIC start-up period
3
and of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, as confirmed in the prospectus for this
4
investment vehicle. Therefore, based on the documentation and expert testimony of
5
these authorities in this and other cases herein cited, with the documents in this case,
6 this is prima facie evidence that the assignment of plaintiff’s mortgage to
7 defendant is shown to be invalid, if not illegal or fraudulent as these others were,
8 voiding the standing of the Claimant as the assignment was made solely to
9 facilitate foreclosure and proves no ownership of Plaintiff’s loan whatever by the
10
Claimant and on this basis this claim of the Defendant is invalid and/or fraudulent.
11
As a proximate result of these fraudulent misrepresentations and failures of disclosure and
12
Plaintiff’s justifiable reliance upon the same, the Plaintiff has been damaged by denying him the
13 right to full disclosure of these fraudulent misrepresentations by which he would have had the
14 cause, incentive and opportunity to make defenses against enforcement of the contract he
15 now faces.
16
Plaintiff did not discover either the nature or the extent of this FRAUD AND DECEIT, and
17
MISREPRESENTATION perpetrated upon him by the Defendants until a date on or about August
18 2010.
19
20 Defendants’ actions in foreclosure in the name of HSBC Bank USA. National Association as
Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through
21
Certificates Series 2007-AR6 was fraudulent, misleading, and with callous disregard for the rights
22
of said Plaintiff, with the intention that the Plaintiff would be deceived and placed at
23 unconscionable disadvantage and abuse at the hands of the Defendants.
24 As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions in foreclosure, Plaintiff has suffered damages and is
25 made to suffer loss thereby in the amount of the market value of the property at the time such
spurious sale and Defendant should be ordered to make full reconveyance of said property
26
to Plaintiff, or the Court should restore the quiet title to the security and benefit of the
27
Plaintiff, if the security has been sold to a third party by the time these issues are
28 adjudicated by the Court.
21
OTHER RELIEF
Plaintiff prays the Court for this relief and that it be so ordered.
1
3 41.Further, HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset Securities
4 Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6 are not the
5 holder in due course because they are not the drawer, maker, issuer, originator and do not
have attachment, enforceability, secured interest, or priority. As these terms are defined in
6
UCC 9-203 (a)(b) and priority in Sections UCC 9-301 and UCC 9-317.
7
8 42. According to section UCC 3-302 (c) “a person does not acquire rights of a holder
9 in due course of an instrument taken (i) by legal process or by purchase in an execution.”
10
43. In UCC 3-106(d) “If a promise or order at the time it is issued or first comes into
11
the possession of a holder contains a statement, required by applicable statutory or
12
administrative law, to the effect that the rights of a holder or transferee are subject to claims or
13 defenses that the issuer [you] could assert against the original payee [bank], the promise, or
14 order is not thereby made conditional for the purposes of Section UCC 3-104(a); but if the
15 promise or order is an instrument, there cannot be a holder in due course of the instrument.”
Plaintiff is the true holder in due course and the only person who can assert a claim or defense
16
under UCC 3-305, 3-306 & 3-307 (California Commercial Code 3305, 3306, 3307 respectively).
17
18 44. The note signed by Plaintiff as the drawer/maker became a financial asset under UCC
19 8-102(9) and a security under UCC 8-102 (9)(i), (15), which makes Plaintiff the Appropriate
20 person under section UCC 8-107 and gives Plaintiff control under UCC section 8-106, which in
turn gives Plaintiff “Security entitlement” under UCC 8-102 (17), which makes Plaintiff the
21
“Entitlement holder” under UCC 8-102(7), which generates an “Entitlement order” under UCC 8-
22
102(8).
23 45. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff moves this court to release the lien and restore quiet title to
24 Plaintiff.
25 46, The facts surrounding these allegations not having been fully developed, Plaintiff here
reserves the right to further plead facts and allegations in regard to this cause of action as may
26
be found or learned during the course of additional investigation and discovery.
27
28 Conclusion
22
OTHER RELIEF
1
The Trustee’s Sale (the sale date has been cancelled at this time) should be disallowed by
2
this Court because the deed of trust is unenforceable and because the Defendants lack
3 standing.
4
5 A. The deed of trust is unenforceable because:

1. The trustor never consented to the securitization of the deed of trust
6
7
2. A subsequent transferee of the deed of trust modified the deed of trust by imposing
8 restrictions upon the holder’s ability to modify the deed of trust without the consent of
9 the trustor.
10
3. A subsequent transferee of the deed of trust converted the deed of trust by
11
restricting its transferability and dividing incidence of loss from authority to foreclose
12
without the consent of the trustor.
13
14 4. A subsequent transferee of the deed of trust modified the deed of trust without
15 consideration.
16
B. Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
17
Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6
18 lacked standing to foreclose because:
19
20 (1) Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
21
AR6 does not own or hold the rights to enforce the contract;
22
23 (2) Defendant HSBC Bank USA. National Association as Trustee for Wells Fargo Asset
24 Securities Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-
25 AR6 does not and cannot act as the agent for the certificate holders for purposes
of foreclosure; and
26
27
28
23
OTHER RELIEF
(3) The Notice of Default was void, thus rendering the subsequent recordings void as
1
well. Select Portfolio Servicing Inc. was not the trustee of record with the ability to
2
conduct the foreclosure.
3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff having set forth the claims for relief against Defendants,
4 respectfully prays that this Court grant the following relief against the Defendants:
5 1. Actual Economic and Non-Economic Damages;

2. For a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties relative to Plaintiff’s Home
6
to determine the actual status and validity of the loan, Deed of Trust, and Notice of
7
Default.
8 3. For a temporary restraining order, a preliminary injunction and permanent
9 injunction enjoining all Defendants, their agents, assigns, and all person acting under, for,
10 or in concert with them, from taking possession of or selling, offering, or advertising this
property for sale, or transferring or conveying the property located at 1542 Larkspur Ct.
11
Oakley, California while a question of title still exists in Superior Court.
12
4. Restoration of title to Plaintiff;
13 5. For damages as provided by statute;
14 6. For an Order enjoining Defendants from continuing to violate the statutes alleged
15 herein;
7. For punitive damages;
16
8. For consequential and incidental damages of $1,000,000.00;
17
9. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.
18 Dated: August 23, 2010
19 ________________________________
20 Hilary Spencer Gavenda, sui juris Plaintiff
21
22
23 VERIFICATION
24 I, Hilary Spencer Gavenda, the Plaintiff in this proceeding, have read the foregoing Complaint,
25 am informed and thereon believe and allege the matters stated in it are true, and of my own
knowledge. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California and the
26
United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
27
Dated: _______________ _________________________________
28 Hilary Spencer Gavenda, sui juris Plaintiff
24
OTHER RELIEF
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25
OTHER RELIEF

CA COMPLAINT Trust

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CA COMPLAINT Trust

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

3 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

5 intentionally entered into any such other jurisdiction alluded to thereby.

26 4. DEFENDANT, HSBC Bank USA. National Association is a national banking corporation

5 interest was transferred to the certificate holders.

13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

20 in full with the same force and effect.

25 affairs through the pattern of racketeering activity as hereinabove described, constitutes a

13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

15 Plaintiff of her home.

20 which include mental, anguish, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of

5 have tax paid upon it by the REMIC.

5 the loan as an alternate dispute resolution.

10 (g) Restricting the ability to defer payments.

5 Corporation, Mortgage Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2007-AR6

22 investment vehicle that issues securities “backed” or supported by mortgage

5 A. The deed of trust is unenforceable because:

5 1. Actual Economic and Non-Economic Damages;

20 Hilary Spencer Gavenda, sui juris Plaintiff

You might also like