1

Star: Hills & Alan Gjurovich,

2 temporary mailing location,
care of: [ P.O BOX 71537 Bakersfield, California]
3 non domestic, without the US
4
5
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF KERN
9
CASE #: S-1500-CV-271292-SPC;
10 Star: Hills, Alan Gjurovich RELATED #'s S-1500-CL-237061-KTC;
#'s S-1500-CV-625552-WDP
11 plaintiffs,
12 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES
-VS- OF Alan Gjurovich & Star: Hills IN SUPPORT OF
13 GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, MOTION FOR RULING, DECLARATION &
President NICK CANALE Jr.; ORDER IN COURTS EQUITY JURISDICTION
14 ERIC A. FELDSTEIN, (CEO OF THAT ORDERS & JUDGMENT ETC. IN CASE
15 GMAC MORT. LLC); S-1500-CL- 237061-KTC ARE VOID
KERN COUNTY SHERIFF DONNY AS A MATTER OF LAW
16 YOUNGBLOOD (contractor)
Et Al,
17 defendants. HEARING DATE: 3 /18 / 2011;
18 ________________________________ DEPT.: 7; TIME: 8:30 A.M.

19 INTRODUCTION & STATEMENT OF FACTS

FACTS IN THE RECORD IN CASES #:
20
S-1500-CV-271292-SPC; S-1500-CL-237061-KTC
21 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 Plaintiffs (hereafter Alan & Star) hereby incorporate by Reference as if fully set forth herein
23
the contents of their “INTRODUCTION & STATEMENT OF FACTS; FACTS IN THE
24
RECORD IN CASE #:“S-1500-CV-271292-SPC” in the prior filed Motion for Recusal in this
25
26 Case, which is made a part hereof this Supporting Memorandum. Star & Alan filed a Notice
27 of Related Action in this Case on 12/13/10 referring this Court to related Unlawful Detainer
28 (hereafter U.D.)Case#:S-1500-CL-237061-KCT, in which Defendants purport to have obtained

Page 1 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 a Valid Judgment for Possession of the Home of Star & Alan, which in fact is shown in
2 the Records of this Court to be Void as a matter of California Law, as set forth hereafter.
3
In this Case #: S-1500-CV-271292-SPC, in Dept. 7 on 12/20/2010, on the prior Emergency
4
Ex Parte Motion of Plaintiffs, for a Temporary Restraining Order Counsel GANDY for
5
6 GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC,(hereafter GMAC) Et Al stated on the record in his oral argument
7 that Star & Alan are Making a “Collateral Attack” on the alleged “prior Judgment” in U.D.
8 #:S-1500-CL-237061-KTC,GMAC, Apparently contending that the Action can not stand, & the
9
only remedy was an Appeal from the alleged Judgment. Judge Lampe stated the Court in the
10
other case was co-equal & he had no power to set aside the alleged Judgments as Void. It
11
is well & long settled Law that a Void Order or Judgment may be Set Aside by any Court when
12
13 & where the matter arises & the Voidness is pointed out to the Court. Furthermore, When
14 the Void Order or Judgment is pointed out, the Court then has a Mandatory Duty to
15 Declare it Void on the Record, as is set forth more fully hereafter in Court Rulings in
16
this Memorandum. The said alleged “Judgment” is not a “final” “Judgment” & is Void on
17
its Face or Void on the face of the Record, as set forth hereafter, AS ONE COURT STATED,
18
19 CITED HEREIN, IT IS NOT EVEN A JUDGMENT AT ALL, HENCE PLAINTIFFS
20 REFERENCES THROUGH OUT THEIR PAPERS FILED IN ALL CASES TO THE PRE-
21 FIX TERM:“ALLEGED”“JUDGMENT ” Exhibits 1 & 2 attached hereto from the Courts own
22
Records in Cases #'s:S-1500-CV-265552-WDP & S-1500-CL-237061-KTC SHOW ON THEIR
23
FACE THAT THE U.D.COURT, A COURT OF LIMITED JURISDICTION & EXPRESSLY
24
DESIGNATED BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE LEGISLATURE AS A “SPECIAL
25
26 PROCEEDING” UNDER CALIF. C.C.P. SECT. 85 & 86(a)(4), HAD NO JURISDICTION
27 UNDER THE CONTROLLING STATUTE, CALIFORNIA C.C.P. SECT. 1161a (b)(3) TO
28 GRANT A JUDGMENT ALLEGEDLY ENTERED ON THE DATE OF 11/19/09, NOR TO

Page 2 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 ISSUE SUBSEQUENT WRITS OF POSSESSION, AS IT WAS AN IMPOSSIBILITY AT
2 LAW FOR ALLEGED PLAINTIFF TO SHOW THEY HAD PERFECTED THE ALLEGED
3
TITLE TO THE HOME & PROPERTY OF Star: Hills [3018 LINDEN AVENUE,
4
BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA] which SAID Exhibits are hereby incorporated by reference
5
6 as if fully set forth herein, & are hereby made a part of this Memorandum & Motion,
7 which Star & Alan hereby Request the Court to take Mandatory Judicial Notice of as a
8 part of the Courts own Case files & Official Records, Pursuant to Express Mandatory
9
Provisions of Calif. Evid. Code Sect. 450-459. The alleged Order Dismissing Case #:S-1500-
10
CV-265552-WDP is Void on its face as the same Judge Palmer & same Court had
11
previously Sustained a General Demurrer finding that no Cause of Action was stated in
12
13 the Complaint on the Date of May 7, 2009, with 20 days leave to Amend (see Defendants
14 Exhibit # 1 Register of Actions / Docket (hereafter R.O.A.) attached to their Request for
15 Judicial Notice filed in Support of their Demurrer, which the Court is Required to take
16
Mandatory Judicial Notice of under Calif. Evid. Code Sect. 450-459, as it is this Courts own
17
Record in the Computer & in the Courts File in this Case. A copy of said 5/7/09 Entry in
18
19 said Court R.O.A. is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, showing the Courts prior entry of an
20 Order Sustaining a General Demurrer & Granting 20 days leave to Amend the Plaintiffs
21 Complaint; the purported subsequent hearing referred to as a “Case Management / Trial”
22
hearing before said Judge Palmer was due to a Clerical Error of the Judicial Council
23
Judge who Ruled on Plaintiffs Motion to Disqualify Judge Palmer, wherein he stated the Case
24
25 was sent back to Palmer for the per-scheduled “Case Management/Trial” apparently not being
26 aware Judge Palmer had previously sustained a General Demurrer & there was going to
27 be no trial , based on Palmer's finding of no Causes of Action stated in the Complaint
28
that could be tried in the Case. Said Clerical Error has yet to be corrected in the Case by

Page 3 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 said Trial Court.,which said Exhibit 3 is hereby incorporated herein by Reference as if fully set
2 forth & is hereby made a part of this Memo, which the Court is Required to take Mandatory
3
Judicial Notice of Pursuant to Calif. Evid. Code Sect. 450-459. Further still, there were two (2)
4
Motions Pending before the Court, Dept. 15 Judge William D. Palmer in that Case which he
5
6 did not Rule on, prior to the Purported Order DISMISSING THE CASE ON 9/18/09, &
7 PRIOR MINUTE ORDER ISSUED ON 9/14/09 CORRECTED ON 9/15/09 IN THE
8 COURTS RECORD, R.O.A., WHICH IS ATTACHED TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR
9
JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR DEMURRER FILED WITH THE COURT, IN
10
EXHIBIT 1. The Motion of Star: Hills for Clarification & Reconsideration of the Courts
11
12 Prior Order Sustaining the Demurrer of Defendants GMAC , Et Al, on 5/7/09, & for an
13 Extension of Time within which to file an Amended Complaint, which GMAC Et Al, HAD
14 SERVED & FILED OPPOSITION TO, ON 6/6/09, IN THE COURTS REGISTER OF
15
ACTIONS TO WHICH Star: Hills HAD FILED A REPLY TO ON 6/19/09, & WAS SET
16
FOR A HEARING ON 6/22/09, BUT WAS NEVER HEARD OR RULED ON BY THE
17
COURT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PROPERLY BEFORE THE COURT, & THE COURT
18
19 HAD AN EXPRESS MANDATORY DUTY TO RULE ON UNDER CALIF. C.C.P. SECT.
20 170, WHICH FAILURE TO RULE WAS A GROSS MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE &
21 VIOLATION OF THE CALIF. JUDICIAL CANNON WHICH SAID JUDGE WAS BOUND
22
TO COMPLY WITH UNDER HIS OATH OF OFFICE & EXPRESS DUTIES UNDER
23
THE CANNON, & CALIF. C.C.P. 170 ; AS WELL AS A PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS
24
25 PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT SERVED & FILED BY GMAC , FOR FAILURE TO FILE
26 AN AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS AS ORDERED BY THE COURT,
27 THE HEARING UPON WHICH WAS SUSPENDED DUE TO A MOTION OF Star TO
28
DISQUALIFY JUDGE PALMER UNDER C.C.P. 170.1, AFTER WHICH THE MOTION

Page 4 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 WAS DENIED BY A JUDGE APPOINTED BY CALIF. JUDICIAL COUNCIL, WHICH
2 LEAD TO AN ALLEGED CASE MANAGEMENT /TRIAL ON 9/14/09 WHERE THE CASE
3
WAS ALLEGEDLY DISMISSED FOR ALLEGED FAILURE TO APPEAR AT ALLEGED
4
T RIAL, WHICH ALLEGED TRIAL WAS NON EXISTENT IN LIGHT OF THE COURTS
5
6 ORDER ON 5/7/09 THAT DEFENDANTS DEMURRER WAS SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS
7 LEAVE TO AMEND, & IN LIGHT OF THE COURTS FAILURE TO RULE ON THE PRIOR
8 MOTION TO DISMISS OF DEFENDANTS FOR ALLEGED FAILURE TO AMEND THE
9
COMPLAINT WITHIN THE 20 DAYS ORDERED BY THE COURT. The Trial Court in the
10
said U.D. Case #: S-1500-CL-237061-KTC, never obtained subject matter Jurisdiction over
11
the Case under the controlling Statute, C.C.P. Sect. 1161a (b)(3) because the alleged Title
12
13 after Sale was Never Perfected by GMAC , PRIOR TO FILING THE U.D. ACTION, AS
14 THE REQUIREMENT TO PERFECT THE TITLE PRIOR TO FILING AN ACTION IS A
15 PRE-REQUISITE TO FILING AN ACTION, IT IS JURISDICTIONAL & CAN NOT BE
16
IGNORED BY EITHER THE PLAINTIFF IN A U.D. CASE OR THE COURT
17
WHEREIN THE COMPLAINT IS FILED.
18
19 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
20 Movant hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein the contents of
21 the here attached Exhibits 1-4; WHICH ARE TAKEN FROM THE DEFENDANTS
22
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FROM THEIR ATTACHED EXHIBITS PREVIOUSLY
23
FILED BY SAID DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEMURRER
24
25 TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT. EXHIBIT # : 1 BEING THE FIRST PAGE OF THE
26 U.D. COMPLAINT FILED BY “PLAINTIFF” GMAC, IN CIVIL LIMITED CASE #: S-
27 1500-CL-237061-KTC, GMAC VS “STAR HILLS” (MISNOMER, MISJOUNDER, ENS
28
LEGIS FICTION) WITH A FILING DATE OF SAID COMPLAINT OF: 3/26 /09, ON THE

Page 5 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 FACE OF THE RECORD OF THIS COURT. EXHIBIT #: 2 BEING A PAGE FROM THE
2 COURTS R.O.A. IN CIVIL UNLIMITED CASE #: S-1500-CV-265552-WDP SHOWING
3
THE FILING DATE OF THE CIVIL UNLIMITED ACTION ON QUIET TITLE,
4
ENFORCEMENT OF RESCISSION , FRAUD, ETC., AGAINST GMAC ET AL, FILED 11 /
5
6 10/08; EXHIBIT #3 IS A COPY OF THE PAGE FROM THE COURTS R.O.A
7 ATTACHED TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE SHOWING THE
8 ORDER OF JUDGE PALMER SUSTAINING A GENERAL DEMURRER OF
9
DEFENDANTS IN THAT CASE, WITH 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND, WHICH RENDERS
10
THE ALLEGED TRIAL OF 9/ 4/09 A NULLITY & VOID ON ITS FACE. EXHIBIT #4 IS
11
PAGE 3 OF EXHIBIT #4 ATTACHED TO DEFENDANTS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
12
13 NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR DEMURRER, WHICH EXHIBIT IS A COPY OF THE
14 ALLEGED DEED OF TRUST, WHERE PAGE 3 SHOWS THAT EXPRESS LANGUAGE
15 OF SAID DEED OF TRUST STATES:
16
“BORROWER UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT MERS HOLDS ONLY LEGAL TITLE
17 TO THE INTERESTS GRANTED BY BORROWER IN THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT,”
18 There is no issue of fact required to be tried to Determine the questions of law presented
19
in this motion as all essential facts necessary for the courts determination are settled in the
20
record in court cases S-1500-CL-237061-KTC; S-1500-CV-265552-WDP.
21
22 JUDICIAL NOTICE
This Court is Required by law under California Evidence Code Section 450-459 to take
23
Mandatory Judicial Notice of the forgoing Records in the Courts said Case files in Cases
24
25 S-1500-CL-237061-KTC; S-1500-CV-265552-WDP.
26 QUESTIONS & ISSUES OF LAW
27 I
THE ALLEGED JUDGMENT IN CASE S-1500-CL-237061-KTC;
28 & ALL SUBSEQUENT WRITS OF POSSESSION BASED ON SAID
ALLEGED JUDGEMENT ARE VOID ON THEIR FACE OR ON THE

Page 6 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 FACE OF THE COURTS RECORD & MUST BE DECLARED SO BY
THIS COURT & SET ASIDE AS A MATTER OF CALIFORNIA LAW
2
A
3 THE TRIAL COURT IN CASE #: S-1500-CL-237061-KTC
NEVER OBTAINED THE STATUTORY JURISDICTION
4
UNDER CALIFORNIA C.C.P. SECTION 1161a (b)(3) OVER
5 THE ALLEGED CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL
DETAINER DUE TO THE FAILURE OF PLAINTIFF
6 TO PERFECT TITLE TO THE REAL PROPERTY AT
7 [3018 LINDEN AVENEUE, BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIA]
WHICH PERFECTION OF TITLE WAS AN EXPRESS
8 SATUTORY PRE-REQUISITE TO INVOKING THE
9 LIMITED JURISDICTION OF THE COURT UNDER
C.C.P. SECTION 1161a (b)(3)
10 B
11 THE TRIAL COURT IN S-1500-CL-237061-KTC
NEVER OBTAINED JURISDICTION TO GRANT
12 ANY RELIEF UNDER C.C.P. 1161a (b)(3) & THUS
13 ALL ALLEGED PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE
ARE A NULLITY OF NO EFFECT WHATEVER
14 & UNENFORCIBLE UNDER THE LAW
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
15
16 The Court in the prior U.D. Action filed by Defendant GMAC, in Case S-1500-CL-237061

17 -KTC, was strictly limited in its Jurisdiction to Grant Relief under the Controlling
18
Statute California C.C.P. Section 1161a (b)(3), which expressly Mandates the
19
following :
20
21 “ 1161a. (a)”..”” “ (b) In any of the following Cases, a person who holds over and
continues in possession of a manufactured home, mobilehome, floating
22 home, or real property after a three-day written notice to quit the property has
been served upon the person, or if there is a subtenant in actual occupation of the
23
premises, also upon such subtenant, as prescribed in Section 1162, may be
24
removed therefrom as prescribed in this chapter:
25 “ (3) Where the property has been sold in accordance with Section
2924 of the Civil Code, under a power of sale contained in a deed of
26 trust executed by such person, or a person under whom such person
27 claims, and the title under the sale has been duly perfected.”

28 THE COURT IN THE CASE OF Burtnett v. King, 33 Cal.2d 805 (1949) at page 807 ruled:

Page 7 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 “It has been held repeatedly, and recently, that where a statute requires a court to
2 exercise its jurisdiction in a particular manner, follow a particular procedure, or
subject to certain limitations, an act beyond those limits is in excess of its
3 jurisdiction. (See Tabor v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.2d 505 ; Lord v. Superior Court, 27 Cal.2d
4 855 ; Redlands etc. Sch. Dist. v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.2d 348 ; Abelleria v. District Court of
Appeal, 17 Cal.2d 280;Fortenbury v. Superior Court, 16 Cal.2d 405 [106 P.2d 411]; Evans v.
5 Superior Court, 14 Cal.2d 563 [96 P.2d 107]; Rodman v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.2d 262;
Spreckels S. Co. v. Industrial Acc. Com., 186 Cal. 256 .)”
6
As stated by our Supreme Court in the case of: Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17
7
Cal. 2d 280; S. F. No. 16357. In Bank. February 7, 1941, at page: 288:
8 “But in its ordinary usage the phrase "lack of jurisdiction" is not limited to these fundamental
9 situations. For the purpose of determining the right to review by certiorari, restraint by
prohibition, or dismissal of an action, a much broader meaning is recognized. Here it may be
10 applied to a case where, though the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties
in the fundamental sense, it
has no "jurisdiction"(or power) to act except in a
11
particular manner, or to give certain kinds of relief, or to act without the
12 occurrence of certain procedural prerequisites.”
13 “[2] A judgment is void on its face if the court which rendered the judgment
14 lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or exceeded its jurisdiction in
granting relief which the court had no power to grant. (Becker v. S.P.V.
15
Construction Co. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 489, 493; Jones v.World Life Research
16 Institute (1976) 60 Cal.App.3d 836, 840-848 If the judgment is void, it is
17 subject to collateral attack. (Craft v. Craft (1957) 49 Cal.2d 189, 192”
18 The Supreme Court & Courts of Appeal in California have Ruled in numerous cases that the

19 requirements for a Perfected Title include there be no grave doubts about the validity of the title,
20 & that there be no litigation over the Title,& the party claiming title must have both Equitable &
21
Legal Titles: S. P. & C. v. Hollis (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 948 ruled at page 952:
22
“[2] To establish that he is a proper plaintiff, one who has purchased property at a
23 trustee's sale and seeks to evict the occupant in possession must show that he acquired the
24 property at a regularly conducted sale and thereafter 'duly perfected' his title.
[Citation.]" (Vella v. Hudgins (1977) , 20 Cal 3rd 251, at page 255; see Cruce v. Stein (1956)
25 146 Cal.App.2d 688, 692; Kelliher v. Kelliher (1950) 101 Cal.App.2d 226, 232 ; Higgins v. Coyne
26 (1946) 75 Cal.App.2d 69, 73; Nineteenth Realty Co. v. Diggs (1933) 134 Cal.App. 278, 288-289 .
27 The same Court in S.,P. & C. v. Hollis (1987) 196 C.A.3d 948 Cited the case of Hocking v.Title
Ins. & Trust Co. (1951), 37 Cal. 2d 649, when it further stated at page 953:
28 "Title is duly perfected when all steps have been taken to make it perfect, i.e., to convey to the

Page 8 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 purchaser that which he has purchased, valid and good beyond all reasonable doubt. (Hocking
v.Title Ins. & Trust Co.(1951),37 Cal.2d 644 ,649, which includes good record title (Gwin v.
2 Calegaris (1903),139 Cal.384, ."(Kessler v. Bridge (1958) 161 Cal. App.2d Supp.837,841”
3
The Case Relied on by the Court in the Case of Stephens, Partain & Cunningham v. Hollis
4 (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 948, Hocking v Title Ins. & Trust Co. (1951) 37 Cal. 2d 644, clearly
stated at page 649: “In Sheehy v. Miles (1892), 93 Cal. 288, 292, the following appears: "In the
5 case of Turner v. McDonald, 76 Cal. 177, this court said: 'A perfect title must be one that is
6 good and valid beyond all reasonable doubt'; and in that case it was conceded by
counsel upon both sides that a title, to be good, 'should be free from litigation,
7
palpable defects, and grave doubts, should consist of both legal and equitable
8 titles, and should be fairly deducible of record.' It would seem, in fairness to the
9 vendee, that the foregoing requirements should be held absolutely necessary, in order to
fully satisfy the covenant of perfect title. Certainly such a condition of title must
10 exist before it can be said to be good and valid beyond reasonable doubt.
11 [Citations.]".
12 The Record in Defendants Request for Judicial Notice shows their Unlawful Detainer
13
action, Case #: S-1500-CL-237061-KCT was filed in March of 2009 , at a time when
14
there was Litigation over the Title of the Property in question [3018 Linden
15
16 Avenue, Bakersfield, California] in a Civil Unlimited Action filed by the
17 owner of the home Star: Hills on November 10, 2008, Star: Hills vs GMAC
18
MORTGAGE LLC, Et Al, CASE #: S-1500-CV-265552-WDP, and thus the alleged Plaintiff
19
20 in that Case, GMAC MORTGAGE LLC, WAS NOT “A PROPER PLAINTIFF” AS
21 REQUIRED BY THE RULING IN S.P.& C. v.Hollis (1987) 196 C.A. 3d 948 at page
22
952, IN THAT THEY HAD NOT PERFECTED TITLE PRIOR TO FILING THEIR U.D.
23
24 COMPLAINT WHICH IS A MANDATORY PRE-REQUISITE TO FILING AN UNLAWFUL
25 DETAINER ACTION UNDER CALIF. C.C.P. Sect. 1161a (b)(3)AS SET FORTH HEREIN.
26 THIS EXPRESS LANGUAGE IS A JURISDICTIONAL PRE-REQUISITE FOR FILING
27
OF A COMPLAINT REQUIRED TO INVOKE THE RIGHT TO THE JURISDICTIONAL
28
REMEDY UNDER THE STATUTE C.C.P. SECT. 1161a (b)(3), THUS CAN NOT BE

Page 9 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 IGNORED BY EITHER THE ALLEGED PLAINTIFF OR THE LIMITED JURISDICTION
2 TRIAL COURT IN THE CASE, BUT MUST BE STRICTLY COMPLIED WITH,AS RULED
3
BY NUMEROUS COURTS CITED HEREIN THIS MEMO. Thus THE PURPORTED
4
JUDGMENT IN THE U.D. Case #:S-1500-CL-237061-KCT is Void on its face or on the face
5
6 of the Record & must be Declared so by this Court .The California Supreme Court in the
7 Case of: Hayashi v. Lorenz, (1954) 42 Cal. 2d 848 [In Bank. May 28, 1954.] ruled at page 851
8 regarding Judgments that are void as follows:
9
A judgment void on its face may be set aside at any time. (Hayashi v. Lorenz
10 (1954) 42 Cal.2d 848, 851; Estate of Estrem. (1940),16 Cal.2d 563, 572; Plaza
11 Hollister Ltd. Partnership v. County of San Benito (1999) 72 Cal. App.4th 1,
19.”“Both in their amended complaint and in their motion to vacate the orders in the
12 guardianship proceeding, plaintiffs took the position that each of the orders therein was
13 void on its face. In such a case they could be attacked and their invalidity shown at
any time.” (In re Dahnke, 64 Cal.App. 555, 560 ; see also Olivera v. Grace, ,19 Cal.2d 570 ,
14 573-574 ; Estate of Estrem,16 Cal.2d 563, 571; Luckenbach v. Krempel,188 Cal.175,177;People
15 v.Davis,143 Cal.673, 675-676; Winrod v.Wolters,141 Cal. 399, 402-403; Kreiss v. Hotaling, 96
Cal. 617, 622-623; People v.City of Barnes,105 Cal. App. 618, 622-623 ”
16
The Court in: Asuncion v. S.Ct.(W.C.Fin.,Inc.)(1980) 108 Cal. App. 3d 141 Ruled at page 146 :
17
18 “[1] We are prepared to hold homeowners cannot be evicted, consistent with due process
guaranties, without being permitted to raise the affirmative defenses which if proved would
19 maintain their possession and ownership. Such a procedure would be as unfair as the situation
forbidden in Vargas. Accordingly, title to the property is inevitably in issue in this unlawful
20
detainer action, and the action is not within the jurisdiction of the municipal court.”...“A
21 possibility, which we understand is frequently utilized in other counties, is for the
superior court to stay the eviction proceedings until trial of the fraud action, based
22
on the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 526 which permits a
23 preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo on such grounds as irreparable
24 injury, multiplicity of legal actions, or unconscionable relative hardship. fn. 1
(See, e.g.,Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d 512, 528 , and see
25 general discussion of subject in 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Provisional
26 Remedies, § 47, p. 1496; § 73, pp. 1511-1512.)”..” “It has been held where
foreclosure of a trust deed would moot a claim of right under a deed, and the deed
27 is attacked as a fraudulent conveyance, a preliminary injunction is permitted to
28 prevent foreclosure pending trial (Weingand v. Atlantic Sav. & Loan Assn. (1970)
1 Cal.3d 806 . Staying the eviction here is analogous.”

Page 10 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 "Summary proceeding in unlawful detainer is subject to control of equity in
2 proper case; hence, if defendant in such action possessed valid equitable rights in
property that would make it inequitable for plaintiff to proceed, defendant could,
3 by seeking injunction in quiet title suit pending between parties, prevent plaintiff
4 from proceeding. Byrne v. Baker (1963, Cal App 2d Dist) 221 Cal App 2d 1"
5 The California Legislature has expressly Mandated that a Proceeding in an Unlawful
6
Detainer Action is a "Special Proceding" in the "Limited Jurisdcition" of the Superior
7
Court of the State of California under California Code of Civil Procedure Sect. 85 & 86
8
9 (a)(4). In such a Proceeding the Jurisdiction over such a "Special Proceeding" is Limited
10 by the terms and conditions under which it is authorized !!! As the Court Stated in the
11 Case of: Woods-Drury, Inc. v. Superior Court, (1936) 18 Cal. App. 2d 340, at page 344 :
12
“Chapter IV, title III, part III, of the Code of Civil Procedure (secs. 1159-1179a) is commonly
13 referred to as our Unlawful Detainer Act.”“A proceeding in unlawful detainer was not
known at common law. (Sec. 713, Taylor's Landlord and Tenant; Estate of Fair, 132 Cal. 523,
14 534 [60 P. 442, 64 P. 1000, 84 Am . St. Rep. 70].) The proceeding is entirely statutory. (15
15 Cal. Jur. 849; 36 C.J. 616.) [1] Since special proceedings are created and authorized by
statute, the jurisdiction over any special proceeding is limited by the terms and
16
conditions of the statute under which it was authorized. (Lay v. Superior Court, 11
17 Cal.App. 558, 560 [105 P. 775].)”
18 [1] An unlawful detainer action is a summary proceeding, the primary purpose of which is to
obtain the possession of real property in the situations specified by statute.(Childs v. Eltinge
19 29 Cal.App.3d 843,852-853; Union Oil Co. v. Chandler, 4 Cal.App.3d 716, 721.
20 “The statutory procedure must be strictly followed. Greene v. Municipal Court,
21 51 Cal. App. 3d 446, 450 “and such statutes will be construed strictly. (Iburg v.
Fitch, 57 Cal. 189.) [3] In construing the provisions of said act effect must be given
22 to one and all of the foregoing rules.” Iburg v. Fitch, 57 Cal. 189."
23 The fact that the alleged Plaintiff in the alleged U.D. Action, GMAC, went ahead &
24 attempted to Prosecute an Unlawful Detainer without conforming to the Mandatory
25
Pre-Requisite of perfecting their alleged title prior to filing their complaint, & thereby,
26
thereafter suffers financial loss, costs, or expenses because of it, PROVIDES NO BASIS
27
28 OF RELIEF FOR SAID PARTY. Numerous prior notices & warnings ,a matter of record

Page 11 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 in both unlawful detainer cases & in this case, were given to said GMAC & the courts in
2 question, & were all ignored by GMAC, their agents, attorneys, the Unlawful Detainer Court,
3
& by the Sheriff, to their peril, as clearly stated in the following Court Rulings:
4
“The party procuring a judgment against another without due process of law, or
5
by fraud, takes it at his peril, .."citing at page 731 the California Supreme Court
6 Ruling in the Case of Lapham v. Campbell, 61 Cal. 296 at page 300. Thereafter at
7 page 732 the same Appellate Court stated: “ Likewise in Forbes v. Hyde, 31 Cal.
342, 347 (oftentimes quoted by the Supreme Court) it is said: "A judgment
8 absolutely void upon its face may be attacked anywhere, directly or collaterally,
9 whenever it presents itself, either by parties or strangers. It is simply a nullity,and
can be neither the basis nor evidence of any right whatever.”
10 “Whether the want of jurisdiction appears on the face of the judgment or is
11 shown by evidence aliunde, in either case the judgment is for all purposes a
nullity--past, present and future. (Cf.Hill v.City Cab etc.Co.,79 Cal. 188 "Nothing
12
can be acquired or lost by it; it neither bestows nor extinguishes any right ... It
13 neither binds nor bars anyone. All acts performed under it and all claims flowing
14
out of it are void ... No action upon the part of the plaintiff, no inaction upon the
part of the defendant, no resulting equity in the hands of third persons, no power
15 residing in any legislative or other department of the government, can invest it
16 with any of the elements of power or of vitality." (1 Freeman on Judgments, 5th ed., §
322, pp. 643-644.) It is not amiss here to add that while the phrase "void
17 judgment" is convenient, it is a contradiction in terms.
18 IF A JUDGMENT IS VOID IT IS NOT A JUDGMENT.”
19 California Civil Code Section 3539 makes it clear the alleged Judgment in Unlawful
20
Detainer Case as well as the prior Void alleged public Sale it was based upon are Void Ab
21
Initio, as it Mandates: California Civil Code Section 3539: “Time does not confirm a void act.”
22 II
23 UPON DECLARATION OF THE VOID JUDGMENT
& VOID WRITS OF POSSESSION IN CASE # S-1500-CL-
24 237061-KTC BY THIS COURT POSSESSION OF SAID HOME
25 & PROPERTY MUST BE RESTORED TO PLAINTIFFS
IMMEDIATELY & FORTHWITH
26 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27 In light of the foregoing Court Rulings stating that “All acts performed under it and

28 all claims flowing out of it are void” it is clear that the subsequent Writs of

Page 12 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 Possession & actions of the Kern County Sheriff forcing Plaintiffs from their home are also
2 Void on their face & the Court must Order that Plaintiffs be returned to possession of their
3
home immediately & forthwith without delay & said Defendants, their Agents, Contractors,
4
Counsel, Heirs, Successors & Assigns, Cease & Desist any further actions against Plaintiffs
5
6 Home based upon the alleged Mortgage, sale & alleged Unlawful Detainer Judgment.
7 ALLEGED TITLE TRANSFERED BY MERS
8 As set forth herein, Exhibit 4 attached hereto shows that the alleged title, alleged to be
9 transferred to MERS in the alleged Deed of Trust via the alleged Foreclosure sale was “only
10
legal title”, and as such no Perfected Title could have been transferred to anyone at the
11
alleged public sale on 11/13/2008, & as no steps were taken by alleged purchaser GMAC
12
13 MORTGAGE LLC to perfect alleged title the alleged sale can not form any basis in & of
14 itself for filing any Unlawful Detainer Action, aside from the clear fact the alleged sale itself was
15 Void Ab Initio & Non Existent because the alleged Mortgage was Lawfully Rescinded, & an
16
Action for Quiet Title, Enforcement of Rescission, etc. was filed & served on GMAC & alleged
17
Sales Trustee ETS SERV. LLC, prior to alleged Sale, making it an impossibility at law to perfect
18
19 a title thereafter, it is clear on the face of this Record GMAC is barred from filing any
20 Unlawful Detainer Action based upon the current set of facts in the Court Record.
21 -CONCLUSION-
22
In light of all the forgoing it is clear that the prior alleged “Judgment” in Unlawful Detainer
23
Case #: S-1500-CL-237061-KTC WAS VOID AB INITIO ON ITS FACE OR VOID ON THE
24
25 FACE OF THE COURTS RECORD because the alleged plaintiff GMAC had no perfected
26 title at the time of the filing of their complaint as the courts own record shows their was an
27 Action filed by Star: Hills for Quiet Title & Enforcement of Rescission, Fraud, etc., prior to
28
the filing of the Unlawful Detainer Complaint which was pending at the time the Unlawful

Page 13 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID
 1 Detainer was filed by GMAC, & thus the statutory pre-requisite of a “Duly Perfected Title”
2 prior to filing the Action for the statutory remedy in the Limited jurisdiction Court could not
3
have been complied with in light of the Supreme Court & Appellate Court Rulings that a
4
5 Perfected Title is one where both Legal & Equitable Titles are held, & there is no Litigation
6 over the Title.Neither of these conditions were present at the time of the filing of the action,
7 & thus the court in the special proceeding lacked jurisdiction to grant the Relief Requested
8
by GMAC,& the alleged judgment was Void Ab Initio and must now be Ruled & Declared so
9
by this Court, as there is no question of fact to be tried, it is a pure question of Law based on
10
11 the face of the Courts Record. Exhibit 4 establishes that MERS never had Equitable Title
12 granted in the Deed of Trust & thus they could not have transferred a Perfected Title in any
13 alleged sale. The alleged Dismissal in Case S-1500-CV-265552-WDP for failure to attend a
14 trial is Void on its face as the Court had previously sustained a General Demurrer with 20
15
days leave to amend, so there could not have been any trial as a matter of Law.
16
Failure to Declare the alleged Judgment Void is an ongoing Gross Miscarriage of Justice,
17
18 causing Irreparable Harm & Injury to Plaintiffs who were Unlawfully & Unconstitutionally
19 deprived of their Home & property, & rendered Homeless, in direct Violation of the Express
20 Mandatory provisions of Article I Section 1 of the California Constitution which the Court
21
has a Duty under the Administration of Justice to Remedy immediately & Forthwith
22
without delay, in its Equitable Jurisdiction, as it is clear a Void Judgment can be attacked
23
24 Collaterally at any time in any Court. The Court is now Required to Grant this Motion.
25 On this day, the-twenty-second- day-of -the -Second-month-Two-thousand-eleven,
26
27 ________________ _________________
Alan Gjurovich Star: Hills
28 all Rights reserved all Rights reserved

Page 14 of 14
PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DECLARE JUDGMENT VOID