Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Norman Allen
P.O. Box 70
Janesville, CA 96114
530-253-2100
In Pro Per
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
SUMMIT FINANCIAL GROUP;
)
DANA CAPITOL CORP.; STEVE WEICH; )
ROD HOSILYK; DWIGHT A. BENNETT; )
JUDITH A. ST. JOHN; WILSHIRE CREDIT )
CORP.; EVANS APPRAISAL SERVICES, )
)
INC.; and DOES 1-10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
NORMAN W. ALLEN
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
T.D. SERVICE COMPANY; WELLS FARGO )
)
BANK, N.A. as Trustee for MLMI Trust
)
Series 2005-HE3; and DOES 1-10,
)
)
)
Defendants,
)
WELL FARGO BANK, N. A., as Trustee for )
MLMI Trust Series 2005-HE3; and BAC
)
)
HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, a Texas
)
limited partnership, successor by merger to
)
Wilshire Credit Corporation,
)
)
)
Cross-Complainants,
)
vs.
)
NORMAN W. ALLEN,
1
OBJECTION TO BANKS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
)
)
NORMAN W. ALLEN; DWIGHT A.
)
BENNETT; JUDITH A. ST. JOHN; EVANS )
APPRAISAL SERVICES INC.; and ROES 1- )
)
10,
)
)
Cross-Defendants,
)
)
AND ALL OTHER CROSS - ACTIONS
)
)
)
)
)
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Introduction
19
Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (WFB) and Bank of America, N.A., (BofA)
20
(collectively(Banks')) continuing and contemptible disregard for truth in this case and Court, and
21
related cases and Courts, repeat their false allegations that: 1. "(property was uninsured despite
22
dangers posed by fire season...)" Banks' Notice of Motion and Motion for Clarification (pg. 3,
23
line 24) as the Banks primary justification for the July 21, 2011 imposition of a Rents and
24
Profits Receiver: the truth is the Subject Property and Improvements were fully insured by
25
Servicer force placed hazard insurance from May, 2009 to this date. 2. The second justification
26
for the appointment of a rents and profits receiver was to collect Allen's cell tower lease
27
payments: the truth is Wells Fargo and BAC had been collecting Allen's cell tower lease
28
I. HAZARD INSURANCE
1. Since there were no improvements on Allen's property, Allen stopped buying private
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3. If the Banks' were subject to the contractually required benefits and liabilities of the
9
10
11
12
13
14
MLMI 2005-HE3 REMIC Pooling and Servicing Agreement, then the Banks' knew they were
required to maintain Hazard Insurance on the Mortgage Pooled Properties. On Page 67 of the
MLMI 2005-HE3 Pooling and Servicing Agreement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 12, 2006 as Document EX-4.1 and accompanied by the 8-K Current
Report and EX-99.1 Mortgage Loans Sale and Assignment Agreement; It is stated:
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court need only ask the Receiver for receipts for the necessary purchase of hazard
insurance for the Subject Properties during her Receivership in 2011, 2012 and 2013.
////
////
4
OBJECTION TO BANKS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
1
2
The Ryan Firm mailed a Demand to Pay Rent to Party Other Than Landlord to
Tallac Tower Group, LLC on April 12, 2011, purporting that Wells Fargo Bank was the
secured party and assignee of Allen's cell tower lease payments. (RJN Exhibit 3. pg. 1), two
months prior to Jennifer Fishman's June 10, Declaration wherein Fishman, a BAC Operation
Team Lead, is ...authorized to make this declaration on behalf of BAC. The information set
forth in this declaration was assembled by employees of BAC, with the assistance of counsel,
based on a review of BAC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (emphasis added) (RJN Exhibit 4, pg.
2, lines 17-20) Fishman states that 13. Wells Fargo will suffer irreparable injury if a receiver
10
does not take possession and control of the Subject Property from Allen for the following
11
reasons: (a) As has occurred with past rents collected by Allen, future rental proceeds which are
12
not collected by a receiver are likely to be dissipated by Allen without servicing the debt; (b) A
13
receiver is needed to oversee rent collection and maintenance of the Subject Property to avoid
14
reduction in the value of the Subject Property which is security for the Note, and to ensure that
15
the tenants will make payments to the receiver rather than to Allen; (RJN Exhibit 4, pg. 5, lines
16
16-24) The cell tower lease was the only Rents and Profits arising from the Subject Property,
17
and Allen did not and could not legally collect rents from Improvements that were not on Allen's
18
Property.
19
20
Payments made by Tallac Tower Group to Wells Fargo and BAC, two prior to Fishman's
June 10, 2011 Declaration, and another prior to the July 21, 2011 imposition of the Receiver:
21
22
23
April 25, 2011 check #2330 - to Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. - $900.00
May 23, 2011 check #2339 - to BAC Home Loans Servicing - $900.00
June 21, 2011 check #2344 - to BAC Home Loans Servicing - $900.00
(RJN Exhibit 5, pg 2, first 3 lines, and pg. 4, top, #2.)
24
25
26
27
28
It is noteworthy that Allen negotiated the cell tower lease to help offset excessive
payments for what the Banks' had known for over 5 years to be unimproved land. Allen waited
for the Beneficiary to file a claim against the ALTA policy Mr. Bennett had purchased, at sale,
through Chicago Title Company; and to take action against the appraiser, the County of Lassen,
5
OBJECTION TO BANKS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
and the private surveyor, Mr. James Eddy, who fouled the Certificate of Compliance procedure.
Since July, 2005 Allen had been saddled with a $3,035.69 mortgage payment, reduced in June,
2006 to $2,528.40 after Wilshire Credit Corporation (WCC) received constructive notice of the
missing Improvements, and reduced the property tax impounds, clearly the Banks' knew the
Subject Property had no improvements. From 2005, when Allen notified Banks' of the boundary
and improvements issues, and throughout the installation of the cell tower, Allen was informed
and believed, by representation of Chicago Title Insurance Company, that only the creditor or
beneficiary of the Note was in the position to take action, and that a claim had been entered by a
creditor against the ALTA policy on the missing improvements. Pursuant with communications
10
with Chicago Title regarding the ALTA policy purchased by Bennett at time of sale, the ALTA
11
policy was in place and fully indemnified the creditor or beneficiary against the boundary errors
12
that occurred in the division by the subject Lassen County Certificate of Compliance.
13
14
15
16
The Bank's commissions are legion, based in fraud, and by their cannot be labeled as
17
omissions. It is necessary to correct the record and Allen will address here a few commissions
18
that are related to the Banks' Motion for Clarification re Lassen Case 45679, and related cases:
19
1. The Banks have falsely alleged that Allen participated in a Scheme to Partition
20
the original 54.03 acre parcel when in fact Allen did not participate in the division by Certificate
21
of Compliance (CoC) , which is part of the California Subdivision Map Act. The CoC not only
22
occurred prior to Allen's involvement, but was conducted in accordance with every normal, legal
23
and official process required for completion according to custom and law What was unknown to
24
the parties undertaking the CoC is that communications between Stephen Weich of Summit
25
Financial Group, Inc. and James Eddy, a licensed surveyor acting under contract with Bennett,
26
may have led to an apparent payoff, or other consideration, under which Mr. Eddy failed to
27
fulfill the legal requirements necessary for the division by CoC of a property with
28
improvements. Mr. Eddy, ironically, is the father-in-law and adjoining property owner of
6
OBJECTION TO BANKS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
Defendant/Cross-Defendant Chris Talley (Summit Financial Group's appraiser for the Subject
Properties). Allen, based on information and belief, understands that Eddy, following the
discovery of the boundary error, was found removing Lassen case 45679 pertinent CoC files
from the Lassen County Surveyors Office. Moreover, it has come to Allen's and Bennett's
attention that Eddy, hired by Bennett as a licensed private surveyor to examine the Subject
Properties and prepare an elevation drawing for CoC submission to the Lassen Surveyors Office,
was the acting Lassen County Surveyor, and as entitled, Eddy approved his own examination
and drawings and pushed Bennett's CoC through the normal required procedures of approval by
the Lassen County Planning Department, and the Lassen County Board of Supervisors. More
10
scandalous is that Mr. Pickering, counsel for Evans Appraisal Services and appraiser Chris
11
Talley, hired Chris Talley's father-in-law Eddy to opine as expert witness on the few CoC
12
documents, some counterfeit, remaining in the Lassen County Surveyors Office files.
13
2. On July 21, 2011 Allen and the attorneys of record in Lassen case 45679 were at
14
Whispering Pines Stables, the same day the Receiver was imposed on the Subject Properties and
15
Improvements. Herein is a partial listing of those present: Mr. Tim Ryan of The Ryan Law Firm,
16
as counsel for Banks' and Receiver; Mr. Peter Talia as counsel for Allen; Mr. Gerald Pickering
17
as counsel for Evans Appraisal Services and Mr. Chris Talley; and Mr. Craig Close as counsel
18
19
Let it be noted here that the Banks' and Ryan later claimed in their motion to seize and
20
transfer horses already taken on July 21, 2011, that Ryan found 28 stinking horse carcasses on
21
the Subject Properties, tons of flies and huge piles of manure inside stalls and outside the barn,
22
and worst of all, starving and dying horse, and no horse feed (hay) on the property.
23
Nothing further from the truth has been alleged by the Banks': all attorneys of record at
24
this conclave remarked on how healthy the horses looked, the amount and quality of feed present
25
for the horses, that there were no flies on the property, and no smells that might be associated
26
with a boarding and riding stables. Bennett's help were working on cleaning the last stall in the
27
large stable, everyone present enjoyed the sights and remarked on how good the horses looked,
28
and the well maintained facilities that included stables, corrals, restrooms and picnic areas.
7
OBJECTION TO BANKS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
Let it be known that these attorneys of record, as eyewitnesses and as officers of the
court, did not see and did not report abused, starving and dying horses, and yet they have not
stepped forward to right the Banks' fraudulent allegations in this and related cases, thus allowing
the Banks' and their various counsel to demolish Bennett's constitutional rights.
3. What is intentionally forgotten by the Banks', Lassen County District Attorney's, and
attorney's of record who are officers of the court in Lassen 45679 in their zealous prosecution of
Bennett is: the Receiver was in place for 36 days before The Grace Foundation salvaged the
abused, sick and dying horses; the Receiver did not call a veterinarian while the horses were
under her care; that the horses were well fed and healthy on July 21, 2011, the day the Receiver
10
was imposed and the day the attorneys of record as officers of the court, were at Whispering
11
Pines Stables.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The Banks argue they were awarded an equitable lien and equitable mortgage over the
Subject Properties after the July 21, 2011 Summary Adjudication, but: a court of equity has
never been convened, so no equitable settlement has been determined, thus the equitable dollar
amount can only be zero ($0.00), therefore the services of a Receiver are not warranted.
Where a complaint fails by its allegations to show that the conditions
required by law have been complied with, an order appointing a
receiver is void for all purposes. In re Stein, 14 Cal.App.2d 303 (1936);
Rondos v. Superior Court, 151 Cal.App.2d 190 (1957)
http://www.bronstonlaw.com/selectedissues.htm
24
25
There were not enough rents from Allens cell tower or Whispering Pines to support the
26
Receiver. The Banks paid the Receivers excessive charges, and purportedly these excessive
27
costs will be passed on to Allen's mortgage and Bennetts Bankruptcy estate. If Bennett had
28
remained Debtor in Possession the excessive costs and the extent of decimation of property that
8
OBJECTION TO BANKS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
occurred under the Receiver would have been reduced or eliminated. From Banks' Request for
Clarification:
3
Indeed, the liabilities of the receiver are not ordinarily chargeable even to
the receiver herself: '"[Sh]e is not personally liable for torts committed in
the performance of [her] receivership duties; liability is in [her] official
capacity only, to be satisfied from receivership funds."' McCarthy v.
Poulsen, 173 Cal. App. 3d 1212, 1219 (1985). It does not follow that those
same liabilities are chargeable to the Banks, simply because they sought
the receiver's appointment. Except when the Banks Receiver was
appointed under fraudulent allegations. (Allen's note)
4
5
6
7
8
9
See also (1) New Alaska Development Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d
1298, 1303-1305 (9th Cir. 1989), holding that a state court receiver is
entitled to absolute derivative judicial immunity, where a receiver is acting
in a normal receivership function, as the receiver is an agent of the court;
and (2) Credit Managers Association v. Kennesaw Life and Acc. Ins., 25
F.3d 743,750-751 (9th Cir. 1994), where the Ninth Circuit held that the
general rule in California is that a judgment against a receiver operates
only as an established claim against assets in the receivers possession
and is not enforceable by execution, but then stated that a receiver can
be held personally liable for his misconduct or mismanagement of the
receivership estate. (emphasis added)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
The Banks' knowledge of their fraudulent actions is pertinent to the Banks' lack of
19
respect in questioning this Courts Order on the Receiver as well as the Banks' complete and utter
20
disregard of the Honorable Judge C. Anders Holmer's order from the bench that Allen be given
21
dollar for dollar credit for all cell tower lease payments taken by Wells Fargo Bank, Bank of
22
23
////
24
////
25
////
26
////
27
////
28
////
9
OBJECTION TO BANKS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
Conclusion
1
2
3
Allen opposes the Banks request that the Court instead remove from any Order on the
Ruling any language addressing whether the Order Appointing Receiver in 2011 was necessary
and proper and how any costs or surcharges associated with the receivership be paid.
6
7
8
Allen concurs with the Honorable Judge C. Anders Holmer that the receiver was
wrongfully appointed.
The Banks' perpetuation of false allegations in Lassen Superior Court, the Bankruptcy
Court, the 3d District Court of Appeals, and continuing with these same false allegations in their
10
Motion for Clarification, demonstrate Mr. Tim Ryan's, Bryan Cave LLP's, and the Banks' eager
11
12
Prayer
13
14
15
Allen respectfully requests that the court order Wells Fargo and Bank of America, and
16
their assigns, to cease and desist from any and all past, current and future claims and actions
17
against Plaintiff and immediately return to Allen his rightful rents, leases and assigns, and any
18
other payment(s) (plus interest) made to, or collected by, Wells Fargo, Wilshire Credit
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
OBJECTION TO BANKS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER
VERIFICATION
1
2
3
I have read the foregoing moving papers, ALLENS OBJECTION TO BANKS: NOTICE
and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those
matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe it
to be true.
10
11
If called to the stand to testify under oath to the truth of the matters stated herein I could
and would do so competently and willingly.
12
13
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
OBJECTION TO BANKS' REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF ORDER