Phred Maldonaldo's Page

My loan was originally with a Savings and Loan that was bought by another S&L that was subsequently taken over by the FDIC and assets sold to major bank. Major bank was taken over by FDIC and assets sold to another major bank. Sort of. This is a loan made pre-90's.

Late last year I exhausted my savings and fell behind in mortgage payments. In dealing with the collectors they tipped me off that they did not have the name of my original trustee, and refused to tell me who the beneficiary of my note was. So I went to the net and did my homework.

I found Sect 2943 of the Calif Civ Code that states that I CAN make a demand for a copy of the note at certain times, and the lender / servicer has 21 days to produce it or forfeit $300. The servicer responded that the documents were unavailable ... in paper form. A few months after that a Notice of Default was filed by some company, again, not named in my original loan documents, but recorded with the County Clerk with a questionable document. As prescribed by law I sent a second request, and received the same answer as the first - documents not available ... in paper form. That was followed by additional documents of questionable legality.

And I have the typical file-the-assignments-after-NoD, replete with a 'robo-signer' who signed as officer of FMNA but works for QLS. Throw in a 'robo-signing' judge who has been admonished for 'mechanical' signing of orders in family law cases by the Calif. State Supreme Court, and you have the typical California cocktail.

After a change of judge defendants filed a demurrer and pointed to a recorded assignment to FNMA made just months after loan origination, but mis-recorded under a derivation of my name by the Clerk. But it worked out great, because it provided an 'alternate' signature of one of the parties depicted on earlier documents supplied by defendants, and now I have the pool number and cuspid for my loan.

Now I'm into a First Amended Complaint because opposing counsel offered hearsay evidence that they have my promissory note. However, when I offered to have it examined at my expense, they withdrew their offer to have me view it. As a result of the FAC being sent to Trustee, they requested a Declaration of Nonmonetary Status to avoid being deposed and responsible for monetary damages from their actions. I sent off an appropriate objection with a few of my favorite things and a request for sanctions equal to the uncollected fines for Penal Code violations. Don't want the judge to be bored!

I got all of my causes of action (COA) past demurrer, and finally have an Answer to my complaint to work with. I'll have a hearing pretty soon regarding exceptions to paying tender for quiet title (QT), and hopefully shoot down the Swiss Army Knife of defensive FC cases.

2013 - working with discovery issues now. Got deposed late last year and remembered to question amount, question chain of beneficiary interest.Admitted to nothing. "My signature? It appears so, but I couldn't swear it wasn't a forgery ..."

Got unsatisfactory discovery responses back and judge abdicates decision role to a mediator and uses bogus 'recommendation' to rule again my motion to compel. A few short weeks after being deposed Defendants finally answered my complaint, and I got to file demurrers against their 'defenses'.

Instead of answering my discovery requests, Defendants file a motion for judgment. They claim to have the original promissory note, but that doesn't mean squat because they have no business records they paid any money for it, so their potential losses are ... zero. Not entitled to equitable relief. No standing as a party to equitable issues (QT, FC), but liable for penal code violations.