fraud

please take the time to read my complaint. i am still living in my home. the trustee sale has been put on hold pending this lawsuit. in fact, i have stopped the sale a total of 5 times in the past year and a half.

i never received any loan documents at the time of the loan. in fact, ms. poe did not even have a proper real estate license. a handwriting expert who does work for the department of justice determined that the signatures are forged.

brief description of my legal issue:
i am a homeowner and a victim of mortgage fraud and predatory lending. i currently have a civil case pending in alameda county superior court, case no. rg07353134. i filed the case pro per, in october 2007, but know as a possible trial is approaching, i am in desperate need of some legal representation. please take the time to review my case on the alameda county superior court domain web page. thank you for your time.

i have a court date july 1and 11 2008 in alameda county superior court in oakland department 30 at 9.30 am assigned to honorable judge kenneth mark burr.



pinnacle financial and real estate has file bankruptcy chapter 7 i receive a letter from there lawyer over a week ago

here is the letter i send bankruptcy judge



june 20, 2008
honorable judge arthur s. weissbrodt
u.s. bankruptcy court
northern district of california
san jose division

re: pinnacle financial & real estate, inc
case no: 08-52848; chapter 7
request for relief from automatic stay

dear judge weissbrodt,

i am requesting that you please grant my motion for relief from automatic stay in the above entitled case.

i am sure you are aware of the current housing crisis situation where so many homeowners are at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure due dishonest lenders and brokers. i am one of those homeowners.

i refinanced my home in 2005 with the help of a broker who at the time was employed by pinnacle financial & real estate. she lied to me about the terms of my loan. she forged my signature on the loan documents including the application, and deed of trust. i later discovered that she did not even have a broker’s license. i immediately contacted the lender, argent mortgage company, inc., to inform them of this fraudulent loan, but they were not willing to help me. i contacted my local police department, district attorney office, department of real estate, department of corporations, numerous lawyers, but no one was willing to help me. i was able to stop the sale of my home on five different occasions, due to this being an invalid loan.

in october 2007, i filed a civil complaint with the alameda county superior court against pinnacle financial & real estate, and argent mortgage company, inc., pro-per. case no. rg07-353134. pinnacle financial never answered my original complaint. i filed an amended complaint in march, 2008 due to a demurrur. i was contacted by a lawyer who stated he was representing pinnacle in this matter, and stated they would file an answer by june 8, 2008 .

i then received notice that pinnacle had filed for chapter 7, with myself as the only creditor in the amount of $10,000.00. i am not sure where they came up with that amount due to there not being any judgment entered in the civil case, nor did i state any amount in my complaint.

the reason i am writing you this letter is because, due to the fact that i am not employed, i do not have the $150.00 filing fee to file the motion for request for relif from automatic stay.

i talked to the trustee ms. suzanne becker, and she told me that a judge is the only one who can grant an automatic stay.

it would be detrimental to the outcome of my civil case to proceed without naming pinnacle as a defendant.

please grant the attached motion for relif from automatic stay, so i may proceed with my civil case.

thank you



nicolas e. ramirez
227 central ave.
alameda , ca 94501





amended
memorandum of points and authorities
in support of plaintiff’s amended complaint regarding case no rg07353134

i
statement of facts

1. plaintiff, nicolas e. ramirez (“plaintiff” or “ramirez”), is the owner of a single-family residence located at 227 central avenue , in alameda , california (“the property”).
2. in november, 2005, mr. ramirez suffered a serious accident, which left him in a wheelchair for several months. mr. ramirez had a landscaping, handyman business, and due to the accident was unable to work and support his family.
3. in february, 2006 mr. ramirez was contacted by shelly poe, broker, who at the time was employed by pinnacle financial (defendant). ms. poe had helped him with his previous refinance and was aware of mr. ramirez current situation.
4. ms. poe informed mr. ramirez that she could get him a lower monthly payment, and cash back to help him with living expenses and to help him get his business going once he was able to go back to work.
5. ms. poe informed mr ramirez that he was going to have an $1800.00 per month payment and that i would be receiving approximately $30,000.
6. on march 17, 2006 , an application and related documents requesting to refinance his property were submitted to argent mortgage company, llc (“argent mortgage”), by shelly poe, independent broker who was employed by pinnacle financial. mr. ramirez never signed an application, nor did he authorize ms. poe, or anyone at pinnacle financial to sign for him. mr. ramirez never received any preliminary loan documents.
7. on april 11, 2006 , ms. poe came to mr. ramirez’s residence along with a notary public to sign the final loan documents. mr. ramirez was still under the impression that his payment was to be $1800.00. ms. poe was coming in and out of the room, bringing and taking the papers each time. mr. ramirez was just told where to sign, and not to worry about a thing. ms. poe did not provide mr. ramirez with a copy of the papers. she informed him that she would be sending them in the mail after they were recorded with the county. mr. ramirez felt a little uneasy, but trusted ms. poe, as she had assisted him in his previous refinance.
8. on april 17 2006 , the loan closed with argent mortgage, (defendant). the final terms of the loan unbeknownst to mr. ramirez were as follows: the loan was for $550,800.00 from argent mortgage company, llc (“argent mortgage”),
9. the loan called for an annual percentage rate of 10.660 %. the initial monthly payment $3871.17 per month for the first two years and increased up to $5565.66 over a period of 40 years. the monthly payment of $3871.00 does not cover the monthly payment so my principal balance increases each month. in fact, according to my 2006 mortgage interest statement (attached), only $154.00 went towards the principal balance. the remaining $3717.90 went to the interest.
10. mr. ramirez was unaware of the final terms of his loan until he received his monthly statement on june 1, 2006 . it was at that time that mr. ramirez contacted ms. poe regarding the monthly payment. ms. poe informed mr. ramirez, “not to worry, that this is just a band aid loan and that she would help him with his credit and get him the loan that he deserved. ms. poe informed him to pay the monthly payment, so as not to damage his credit.
11. mr. ramirez immediately contacted amc mortgage services, who was servicing this loan to inform them of what happened and they offered no resolution.
12. over the course of the next several months, ms. poe was in contact with mr. ramirez, assuring him that she was going to get him out of this loan and obtain one that he could afford.
13. in october, 2006, ms. poe called mr. ramirez and informed him that she got him approved for a refinance with the terms they had previously discussed. ms. poe informed mr. ramirez that she would be at his house on the following tuesday to sign the loan papers.
14. on tuesday, october 12, 2006 mr. ramirez waited for ms. poe and she never showed. nor did she call him. on october 13, 2006 mr. ramirez reached ms. poe via telephone and she informed mr. ramirez that she could not get him the loan he was expecting, and that his payments would be going up. she also informed mr. ramirez that he could sign over the title of his home to one of her friends who had good credit to obtain a lower payment and interest rate. mr. ramirez told her that was unacceptable and he did not hear from her again.
15. once mr. ramirez learned that he was not going to be obtaining a better loan, he again contacted amc mortgage services to discuss his options. mr. ramirez then applied for a refinance on his own, through amc mortgage services, which he was denied due to lack of income. mr. ramirez contacted other lenders, but to no avail.
16. in november 2006, mr. ramirez received the first notice of intent to foreclose from amc mortgage. (notice attached as exhibit )
17. in december 2006 mr. ramirez received the first and only notice of default. (notice attached as exhibit )
18. in january, 2007 mr ramirez spoke with a representative from amc and she informed him that he would need to pay at least $5,000 to reinstate this loan.
19. in february, 2007 mr. ramirez received a payment demand letter, which stated a balance of $26,000.00 to reinstate this loan. in one month it jumped from $5000.00 to $26,000.00.
20. in march, 2007 two men arrived at mr. ramirez’s residence stating they worked for a company called titanium solutions. they informed mr. ramirez that they were sent to his home by argent mortgage company to discuss possible solutions to avoid foreclosure. they wanted mr. ramirez to sign papers in which he would lose his rights as a homeowner and be forced to sell. when mr. ramirez became suspicious, and stated he wanted to call argent mortgage himself the two men became impatient and angry with mr. ramirez and left. argent informed mr. ramirez that they were not aware of this meeting.
21. on march 23, 2007 mr, ramirez received a notice of trustee sale, which had a sale date of april 13, 2007 . it stated that the unpaid balance on his loan was $570,608.69.
22. on march 26, 2007 mr. ramirez spoke to michelle from amc reinstatement department, who informed mr. ramirez that the only way to reinstate his loan if they received a downpayment of $25,000.00, and an additional $900.00 would be added to his montly payments, for the next 11 months. this would bring his monthly payment to $4800.00.
23. mr. ramirez then asked if they would extend the foreclosure date to allow him time to sell his property. they stated that the only way they would extend the foreclosure date was if mr. ramirez had an interested buyer who was already approved for the amount owed.
24. at that time, mr. ramirez contacted a local real estate agent, steve sorenson of harbor bay realty to sell his home because he did not think he had any other options. it was mr. sorenson, who after reviewing his loan documents, discovered that his signatures on the documents did not match mr. ramirez’s signature. mr. sorenson also pointed out to mr. ramirez that his typed name on the first page of the deed of trust had been whited out and his name had been handwritten in. mr. sorenson asked mr. ramirez if he authorized anyone to white out his name and mr. ramirez answered no. the copy of the deed of trust that was recorded on april 19, 2006 was different from the copy that was sent to mr. ramirez by the mortgage company. it was at this time that mr. ramirez requested that argent send him copies of his complete loan package.
25. on monday april 9, 2007 , i received my closing loan documents from amc mortgage company. none of the documents i received from the mortgage company had been recorded through the county, but more important they were not the same as the copies that i had received from the county files. on the deed of trust, my name was typed in correctly with no sign of white-out used.
26. these were not the same documents that i had signed on april 11, 2006 . none of the signatures match my signature. to sum this up, the broker submitted fraudulent loan papers to argent mortgage, and to the county to be recorded.
27. on april 11, 2007 mr. ramirez contacted mr. eric musio, of the reinstatement department of amc. he informed mr. musio of the forged documents. mr. musio instructed mr. musio to fax the papers to him, and he would forward them to their legal department in the office of the president, of argent mortgage, who will conduct a formal investigation.
28. on april 12, 2007 mr. ramirez received a call from trish of the legal department and she informed mr. ramirez that the sale date of april 13, 2007 woould be postponed for 30 days while this claim was being investigated. the new sale date was confirmed for may 14, 2007 .
29. the case was assigned to mr. mark verplanck, who instructed mr. ramirez to file an identity theft case with the local police department. mr. ramirez informed mr. verplanck that he was not sure if this was considered an identity theft by their definintion because he knew that he was applying for a loan, he just did not apply for this loan. mr. verplanck assured mr. ramirez that everything was going to be ok, and he went as far as to inform mr. ramirez that the foreclosure was cancelled because this was considered identity theft.
30. mr. ramirez complied with mr. verplanck request and filed an identity theft police report, however on june 28, 2007 he received a letter from mr. verplanck exhibit stating that after an exhaustive investigation of the loan, we have determined that you are not a victim of identy theft and that the collection proceeding would continue.
31. there was no mention of the forgery, which was mr. ramirez’s original complaint to begin with. mr. ramirez then demanded another investigation and the results were as follows;
32. on august 29, 2007 , plaintiff, received a letter from kingkeo kangnavong, legal analyst ii, legal department, acc capitol holdings company a parent company of defendant, argent mortgage in response to his complaint he made with the department of corporations alleging that the signatures on his loan papers did not match and were forged. in her letter she finds that the signatures appear to be similar to plaintiff’s signature on his license and social security card and confirms that after a thorough investigation she finds that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of argent. a copy of this correspondence with attachments pertaining to her findings dated august 29, 2007 is attached to this complaint as exhibit and incorporated by this reference.
33. however, on august 29, 2007 , ramirez spoke to ms. kangnavong on the phone regarding her findings stated in the letter. ramirez stated out that the signatures dated march 17, 2006 and the signatures dated april 11, 2006 clearly do not match. ramirez then
asked how ms. kangnavong came to this decision. ramirez asked if she had tried to contact
ms. shelly poe, the broker in question, the answer was no. ramirez asked if she tried to contact
the notary public to obtain a copy of the line item which should include my fingerprint; the answer was no. ramirez asked her if they used a handwriting analyst to see if the signatures were forged and the answer was no. ramirez then informed her that he had contacted the notary association, and obtained ms.shelly poe’s address and phone number, which by law is to be current. ramirez called ms. poe and left two messages on her voicemail asking for a copy of the line item that included his fingerprint. ramirez sent her the request via certified mail. these requests have gone unanswered. ms. kangnavong verbally admitted that the signatures dated march 17, 2007 appear to be forged. ramirez requested that defendant amend her letter to reflect her statement. ms. kangnavong stated that she could not amend the letter because she was not qualified to determine whether the signatures were forged. ramirez then stated that if that is the case then how she could determine that they were not forged. a copy of the response letter dated september 3, 2007 is attached to this complaint as exhibit “f” and incorporated by this reference.
34. ramirez has sent his loan documents to mr. randall yip, from 7 on your side, who in turn sent them to mr. jim blanco, handwriting analyst who works for the department of justice who determined that the signatures on the loan documents were forged. ramirez has not yet been able to obtain a copy of this report.
35. on october 10, 2007 , defendant, argent mortgage caused defendant, cr title services (“cr title”) to initiate a nonjudicial foreclosure by recording a notice of trustee’s sale in the alameda county recorder’s office. the sale is scheduled for october 25, 2007 , however under civil code section 2924(b), the foreclosure sale must be scheduled at least 20 calender days after the notice of sale was issued.
36. on september 26, 2007, ramirez, received a letter from f. baranski, deputy commissioner, enforcement division, department of real estate in response to the complaint made by ramirez regarding defendant shelly poe, independent broker, pinnacle financial, (“ms. poe). the letter states that they could not find any licensing records under the name “shelly poe”. california business and professions code; section 10130 states, it is unlawful for any person to engage in the business, act in the capacity of, advertise or assume to act as a real
estate broker or real estate salesman within this state without first obtaining a real estate license from the department. because ms. poe acted as a broker in this real estate transaction, without a valid real estate license, all transactions pertaining to this loan, should be considered invalid; including the said deed of trust and the nonjudicial foreclosure, until an investigation is completed and a decision has been made by the department of real estate.

unless the trustee’s sale in enjoined by this court, ramirez will be irreparably harmed.



ii
the foreclosure must be enjoined where the beneficiary
does not have a valid lien ageinst the property
where the beneficiary does not have a valid deed of trust or the deed of trust is not properly recorded against the property, the court should enjoin the foreclosure. see u.s. hertz, inc. vs. niobrara farms (1974) 41 ca3d, 116 cr 44; and saterstrom vs. glick brothers (1931) 118 ca 379, 5 p2d 21. in this case, the court should enjoin cr title from foreclosing because argent mortgage does not have a valid deed of trust encumbering the plaintiff’s property.
iii
the foreclosure must be enjoined where there was
fraud in the original transaction
if there was fraud in the original loan transaction, the foreclosure should be enjoined until the issues of fraud and misrepresentation can be resolved by the court. see stockton vs. newman (1957) 148 ca2d 558, 307 p2d 56; and daniels vs. williams (1954) 125 ca2d 310, 270 p2d 556. in this case, the foreclosure should be enjoined because argent mortgage (lender) and pinnacle financial (independent broker) committed fraud in the original loan application.
iv
injunctive relief is proper where the foreclosure will cause irreparable harm to plaintiff’s unique property
a single-family residence is presumed unique and a foreclosure of that residence would cause “irreparable harm” to the trustor. as such, injunctive relief to enjoin the foreclosure until the underlying issues of the case can be resolved by the court is proper. see united savings vs. reeder (1976) 57 ca3d 282, 129 cr 113; and wright vs. rodgers (1976) 57 ca3d 282, 243, p 866. in this case, ramirez’s property is a single-family residence in which he resides with his family. therefore, the plaintiff’s property must be presumed “unique” by this court and the loss of his property would cause “irreparable harm” to the plaintiff. as such, the foreclosure should
be enjoined until the issues in this case can be resolved.




v
conclusion
based upon the foregoing points and authorities, the plaintiff respectfully requests that the court grant plaintiff’s amended complaint and enjoin any pending trustee’s sale until the court can resolve these various issues.

dated: march 12, 2008 respectfully submitted,

_____________________________
nicolas e. ramirez
plaintiff in pro per