1

2
3

Karmel Roe (In Pro Per)

325 w 6th Street
San Bernardino, CA 92401
(951) 205-8616- Phone (909) 546-2317 Fax
karmelroe@aol.com

SAN BERNARDINO JUSTICE CENTER

CIVIL DIVISION OF THE SAN BERNARDINO DISTRICT

5
6
7
8
9
10

KARMEL ROE ,

Case No.:
Plaintiff,

COMPLAINANT
1. WRONGFULL FORECLOSURE ACTION
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC AND QUALITY 2. SLANDER OF TITLE
3. CIVIL CONSPIRACY
4. VIOLATION OF THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR
LOAN SERVICE CORP,
DEBT COLLECTION ACTDefendant
vs.

11
12
13
14

. Plaintiff Karmel Roe (Plaintiff) brings this action against Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and Quality
Loan Service Corp. (Collectively herein the defendants).

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

VENUE
Venue is proper pursuant to U.S. Code 1391 Venue generally.
(a)ApplicabilityofSection.Exceptasotherwiseprovidedbylaw
(1)thissectionshallgovernthevenueofallcivilactionsbroughtindistrictcourtsoftheUnitedStates;and
(2)thepropervenueforacivilactionshallbedeterminedwithoutregardtowhethertheactionislocalortransitory
innature.
(b)VenueinGeneral.Acivilactionmaybebroughtin
(1)ajudicialdistrictinwhichanydefendantresides,ifalldefendantsareresidentsoftheStateinwhichthedistrict
islocated;
(2)ajudicialdistrictinwhichasubstantialpartoftheeventsoromissionsgivingrisetotheclaimoccurred,ora
substantialpartofpropertythatisthesubjectoftheactionissituated;or

24
25
26
27
28

COMPLAINANT 1. WRONGFULL FORECLOSURE ACTION 2. SLANDER OF TITLE 3. CIVIL

CONSPIRACY 4. VIOLATION OF THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT- - 1

1
2

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Karmel Roe is now, and at all times relevant to this action is and was a resident of the

county of San Bernardino, State of California. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff has owned real property

commonly known as 3445 w Elisabeth Ave San Bernardino, Ca 92407 ( the property or subject property)

2. Nationstar is and at all times herein mentioned was a conducting member of the National

Banking Association, and at all times herein was conducting intrastate business in the State of California and claims

to either be a servicer of a party with beneficial interest

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such belief alleges that defendant Quality Loan

10

Service Corp, is and at all times herein mentioned was a corporation existing by virtue of the laws of the State of

11

California, and at all times was duly authorized to conduct business in California.

12

4. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Dose 2-100

13

inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictions names. Plaintiff will amend this complaint to alleged

14

their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges each

15

of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner for the injuries of plaintiff alleged herein and that

16

such injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by such defendants.

17

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned each of

18

defendants was the agent and employee of the remaining defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was

19

acting within the course and scope of such agency and employment.

20
21
22
23

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

24

WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE - all defendants

25

6. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference paragraph 1 through 120 and as if it were fully set

26
27
28

fourth herein.
7. On or about January 2006 plaintiff purchased the subject property for $549,853.00.
COMPLAINANT 1. WRONGFULL FORECLOSURE ACTION 2. SLANDER OF TITLE 3. CIVIL
CONSPIRACY 4. VIOLATION OF THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT- - 2

8. In 2009 and all of 2010 and January September 2011, Plaintiff attempted to work with Bank

of Americas Loan modification department to obtain a modification due to the increased payments plaintiff was

forced to endure.

4
5

9. Plaintiff has just been informed By Bank Of America that Plaintiff should contact Nationstar
Mortgage.

10. A power of sale may be invoked by the lender or Trustee pursuant to California Civil Code

Section 2924 may invoke a power of sale. As set forth in Plaintiffs 2006 Deed of Trust, the Lender is Mountain

West Financial and the Trustee is First American Title Insurance Company. Pursuant to paragraph 22 of the Deed of

Trust, only the lender is authorized to accelerate the loan, stating:

10

Lender shall give notice to Borrower pior to acceleration following Borrowers breach

11

of any covenant or agreement in this Security instrument

12

If Lender invokes the power of sale, Lender shall execute or cause Trustee to execute a

13
14
15

written notice of the of the occurrence of an event of default and of Lenders

election to

cause Property to be sold

11. On or about December 1, 2009 Recontrust recorded a Substation of Trustee and Assignment

16

of Deed of Trust signed by MERS on October 2, 2009 in violation of the California Statute of frauds, signed by

17

Abraham Bartamian Secretary of MERS. The signature of Abraham Bartamian differs on Plaintiffs Substation of

18

Trustee and Assignment of Deed of Trust from Abraham Bartamian Notary bond filed and recorded under oath

19

within the Ventura County Recorders office.

20
21
22

12. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that the Substation of Trustee and Assignment of Deed
of Trust contains a forged signature of Abraham Bartamian thereby rendering the assignment void ab initio.
13. On or about October 2, 2009 and recorded on December 1, 2009 Substation of Trustee and

23

Assignment of Deed of Trust was Notarized by Elizabeth Lopez,. The signature of Elizabeth Lopes differs on

24

Plaintiffs Substation of Trustee and assignment of Deed of Trust from Elizebath Lopez Notary bond filed and

25

recorded under oath in the Los Angles County recorders office.

26
27
28

14. Plaintiff believes and thereon alleges that the Substation of Trustee and Assignment of Deed
of Trust contains a forged signature of Notary Elizebath Lopez, thereby rendering the assignment void ab initio.
COMPLAINANT 1. WRONGFULL FORECLOSURE ACTION 2. SLANDER OF TITLE 3. CIVIL
CONSPIRACY 4. VIOLATION OF THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT- - 3

1
2

Taken From The California Notary Publics handbook:

470. Forgery; signatures or seals; corruption of records

(b) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, counterfeits or forges the seal or handwriting

of another is guilty of forgery.

***

(d) Every person who, with the intent to defraud, falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits,

utters, publishes, passes or attempts or offers to pass, as true and genuine, any of the following

items, knowing the same to be false, altered, forged, or counterfeited, is guilty of forgery:

10

or falsifies the acknowledgment of any notary public, or any notary public who issues an

11

Acknowledgment knowing it to be false; or any matter described in subdivision (b).

12
13

Plaintiff believes and therefore contends that MERS violated the California Statute of Frauds

14

1624(a) (3) and Calif. Civil Code 2309 by failing to subscribe the principal for whom

15

it claimed to act and said assignment is void as a matter of law. See Calif. Civil Code

16

2309; ("In general, if some person executes a deed on behalf of the grantor, the grantor's

17

authorization must be in writing") See Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3rd ed. 2000)

18

Deeds, section 8.27, p. 52. Cases going back more than one hundred years have affirmed

19

this rule. Fisher v. Salmon, 1 Cal. 413 (1815) (holding an instrument conveying an interest

20

in real property executed by an agent in the agent's own name is VOID; Videau V. Griffin,

21

21 Cal. 389, 391 (1863) (where a deed is executed by an attorney without written authority,

22

no subsequent parole acknowledgement by the principal will make that conveyance

23

valid.)

24

The burden of proving an assignment falls upon the party asserting rights thereunder

25

(Read v. Buffum, supra, 79 Cal. 77 [21 P. 555, 12 Am.St.Rep. 131]; Ford v. Bushard, 116

26

Cal. 273 [48 P. 119]; Bovard v. Dickenson, 131 Cal. 162 [63 P. 162]; Nakagawa v.

27

Okamoto, 164 Cal. 718 [130 P. 707]). In an action by an assignee to enforce an assigned

28

COMPLAINANT 1. WRONGFULL FORECLOSURE ACTION 2. SLANDER OF TITLE 3. CIVIL

CONSPIRACY 4. VIOLATION OF THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT- - 4

right, the evidence must not only be sufficient to establish the fact of assignment when

that fact is in issue Quan Wye v. Chin Lin Hee, 123 Cal. 185 [55 P. 783] but the measure

of sufficiency requires that the evidence of assignment be clear and positive to protect an

obligor from any further claim by the primary obligee Gustafson v. Stockton etc. R. R.

Co., 132 Cal. 619 [64 P. 995].

6
7
8

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Slander of Title

- all defendants

9
10

15. Slander of Title has been described as publishing without a Privilege to do so matter

11

which is untrue and disparaging to anothers property in land under such circumstances as would lead a

12

reasonable man to foresee that the conduct of a third person as purchaser or lessee thereof might be determined

13

thereby is liable for pecuniary loss resulting to the other from the impairment of vendibility thus caused Glass v.

14

Gulf Oil Corp., 12 Cal. App. 3d 412, 418 (1970) (quoting Restatement (second) Torts 642).

15

16. The elements of Slander of title are: (1) publication, (2) falsity, (3) absence of privilege, and

16

(disparagement of anothers land which is relied upon by a third party and which results in a pecuniary loss. Storm

17

v. Americas Servicing Co., No. 09-cv-1206-IEG (JMA), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103647, at *8 (S.D. Cal. Nov 6,

18

2009 (citing appeal v. Burman, 159 Cal. App. 3d 1209 (1984.

19

17. Plaintiff beliefs and therefore contends that defendants NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC

20

AND QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP have caused to be published false Notice of Trustee Sale Information

21

defendants have represented to the public that defendants have a right to foreclose. They do not.

22

18. Plaintiff believes and therefore contends that defendants do not have a right to foreclose on

23

plaintiffs home, defendants have been told by plaintiff they have no rights to foreclose, defendants have continued

24

maliciously in their efforts to steal plaintiffs home.

25

19. Defendants each of them knowingly and willfully conspired, engaged in a common enterprise,

26

and engaged ina common course of conduct to accomplish the wrongs complained herein. The purpose and effect of

27

the conspiracy, common enterprise, and common course of conduct complained was inter alia, to financially benefit

28

COMPLAINANT 1. WRONGFULL FORECLOSURE ACTION 2. SLANDER OF TITLE 3. CIVIL

CONSPIRACY 4. VIOLATION OF THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT- - 5

defendants at the expense of plaintiff by engaging in fraudulent activities. Defendants accomplished their

conspiracy, common enterprise and common course of conduct by misrepresenting and concealing material

information regarding the servicing of the loans, and by taking steps and making statements in furtherance of their

wrongdoings as specified herein. Each defendant was a direct, necessary and substantial participant in the

conspiracy, common enterprise and common course of conduct complained of herein, and was aware of its overall

contribution to and furtherance thereof.

7
8

20. Defendants acts inter alia, all of the acts that each of them are alleged to have committed in
furtherance of the wrongful conduct of complained of herein.

21. Plaintiff believes and therefore contends that defendants knew of these falsities when

10

defendants published information in a public forum offering plaintiffs home up for public auction knowing full well

11

that defendants had no lawful right or privilege as a matter of law to plaintiffs home or title.

12

22. Defendants through public recording seek to entice a Third party to purchase plaintiffs home

13

at Trustee Sale Scheduled for December 9, 2014 @9:00a.m. which will result in a loss to plaintiff and said Third

14

Party as said Third party will never have clear Title as defendants have no rights whatsoever to plaintiffs Title.

15

23. Plaintiff further believes and upon such belief contends that defendants further misrepresented

16

the public at large by using its power to make an attempts to transfer Plaintiffs deed of trust after the closing date of

17

the pooling and servicing agreement, thereby providing false information to the public and financially interested

18

parties, that the subject property was properly transferred thereby allowing defendants, and each of them, to

19

foreclose.

20

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

21

CIVIL CONSPIRACY- all defendants

22

24. Plaintiff incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.

23

25. In connection with the foreclosure action and Void not Voidable Substitution of Trustee and

24

Assignment of Deed of Trust witch is the the subject of this action, Defendants agreed, between and among

25

themselves, to engage in actions in a course of conduct designed to further an illegal act or accomplish a legal act by

26

an unlawful means, and to commit one or more overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff,

27

including but not limited to, the commencement of foreclosure.

28

COMPLAINANT 1. WRONGFULL FORECLOSURE ACTION 2. SLANDER OF TITLE 3. CIVIL

CONSPIRACY 4. VIOLATION OF THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT- - 6

26. Defendants agreed between and among themselves to engage in the conspiracy to defraud for

the common purpose of accruing economic gains for themselves at the expense of and detriment to Plaintiff.

27. The acts of the Defendants were committed intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and with

reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff.

5
6

28. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of the Defendants in combination resulting in
fraud and breaches of fiduciary duties, Plaintiff has suffered damages, all according to proof at trial.

7
8

29. Plaintiff first learned of the actions of Defendants, including their failure to disclose and the
fraud committed upon her in September of 2011. Any applicable statute of limitations should run from this date.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

10

VIOLATION OF THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT- all defendants

11

30. Collectors mat not use false or misleading statements, defendants are using a Void document

12

as the basis for their illegal foreclosure.

13

31. Plaintiff incorporates here each and every allegation set forth above.

14
15

I Karmel Roe, am the Plaintiff in the above entitled action. I have read the foregoing Complaint

16

and know the contents thereof and can and will testify to these facts in a court of law. The same is true of my own

17

knowledge; expect as to those matters, which are therein alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I

18

believe to be true.

19
20

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the Laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is
true and correct and that this declaration was executed in San Bernardino, County State of California

21
22
23

Dated this 5 of December 2014.

24
25

Karmel Roe (In Pro Per)

26
27
28

COMPLAINANT 1. WRONGFULL FORECLOSURE ACTION 2. SLANDER OF TITLE 3. CIVIL

CONSPIRACY 4. VIOLATION OF THE STATE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION ACT- - 7