JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ANTHONY J. MANTO III

  1. O. BOX 91

Orick, CA 95555

Telephone:

Email:

 

Plaintiff, pro se

 

 

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 

FOR THE COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT

 

ANTHONY J. MANTO III,

 

PLAINTIFF,

 

vs.

 

PLANET HOME LENDING LLC, and Prestige Default Services

 

Defendants.

 )

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No:

 

 

COMPLAINT FOR

 

(1)   WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

(2)   QUIET TITLE

(3)   VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ

(4)   FRAUD

(5)   NEGLIGENCE

(6)   SETTING ASIDE TRUSTEE SALE

(7)   VOIDING OR CANCELLING TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE

(8)   UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(9)   VIOLATION OF THE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff ANTHONY J. MANTO III (“Plaintiff”) hereby alleges as follows:

PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff ANTHONY J. MANTO III is an individual residing in Orick, California.
  2. Based upon information and belief, Planet Home Lending LLC (“PHL”) is a California corporation doing business in the State of California.
  3. Based upon information and belief, Prestige Default Services is a California corporation doing business in the State of California.
  4. Any applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled by the Defendants’ continuing, knowing, and active concealment of the facts alleged herein. Despite exercising reasonable diligence, Plaintiff could not have discovered, did not discover, and was prevented from discovering, the wrongdoing complained of herein.
  5. In the alternative, Defendants should be estopped from relying on any statutes of limitations. Defendants have been under a continuing duty to disclose the true character, nature, and quality of their financial services and debt collection practices. Defendants owed Plaintiff an affirmative duty of full and fair disclosure, but knowingly failed to honor and discharge such duty.

INTRODUCTION

  1. This action arises out of the wrongful foreclosure of Plaintiff’s property. The foreclosure was done in violation of the law, leading to the illegal sale of Plaintiff’s property.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

  1. Plaintiff purchased the property at 202 Riverview LN Orick CA 95555 (hereinafter “property”), being financed by a VA-backed mortgage loan of a term of 30 years.
  2. On March 11, 2008, Plaintiff and the California Department of Veteran Affairs (hereinafter “VA”) entered a Sale Agreement where the VA sold to Plaintiff the property under the unrecorded CalVet Loan Contract. The Memorandum Agreement was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on March 20, 2008.
  3. On March 13, 2008, Plaintiff and Gelma A. Valezquez, Plaintiff’s spouse, executed an assignment, whereby they assigned and granted to themselves all of their rights and privileges under the sale agreement. The property was held by them as joint tenants.
  4. On August 22, 2008, Gelma, executed a Quit Claim deed, releasing any interests, right, title, or claim in the property to Plaintiff. The Deed was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on September 2, 2008.
  5. On May 30, 2012, the California Department of Veteran Affairs issued a Grant Deed, granting the property to Plaintiff. The Deed was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on June 29, 2012.
  6. On June 25, 2012, the VA issued the VA Guaranteed Loan and Assumption Policy Rider. The rider amended and supplemented the Mortgage, Deed of Trust given by Plaintiff to secure a loan from Flagstar Bank (hereinafter “the Lender”). The rider subjected the loan to Title 38 of the United States Code. Notably, the rider prevented the lender from accelerating payment of the secured debt as provided under condition 18 of the Deed of Trust. The rider also capped the late charge as not exceeding 4% of the overdue payment, when the payment is made more than 15 days after the due date.
  7. On June 25, 2012, Plaintiff took a mortgage debt amounting to $256,500 from Flagstar Bank (hereinafter “Flagstar”). Plaintiff promised to pay the debt in regular periodic payments and to pay the full dent before July 1, 2042. A Deed of Trust was therefore entered between Plaintiff as Borrower, Flagstar as the Lender, Adelita Shubert as the Trustee, and MERS as the Beneficiary. The Deed was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on June 29, 2012.
  8. Also, on June 25, 2012, Gelma, Plaintiff’s spouse, executed an Interspousal Transfer Deed, where she relinquished all her rights, title, and interest in the property. The Deed was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on June 29, 2012.
  9. On October 30, 2014, MERS executed an Assignment Deed of Trust, where it assigned its interest in the Deed of Trust to Flagstar Bank, FSB.
  10. On December 26, 2014, Trustee Adelita Shubert executed a Substitution of Trustee. She was substituted by The Wolf Firm, A Law Corporation. The document was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on January 2, 2015.
  11. On December 30, 2014, The Wolf Firm issued a Notice of Default. The Notice stated the owing amount as $8,356.69 as at December 30, 2014. The Notice was recorded in the Official Records of Humboldt County on January 2, 2015.
  12. On March 7, 2016, Plaintiff received a letter from County of Humboldt Planning and Building Department, which letter notified Plaintiff that the property had a nuisance that violated state law and the County Planning Code. The letter was recorded in the Official Records of Humboldt County on March 11, 2016.
  13. On November 2, 2016, Flagstar Bank assigned all of its rights and interests in the Deed of Trust to Defendant Planet Home Lending, LLC.
  14. Plaintiff notes that on October 3, 2008, the U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (“EESA”), 12 USC § 5201 et seq., which allocated $700 billion to the Treasury Department to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system, and preserve home ownership.
  15. Enabled by the authority granted in the EESA, the Treasury Department and other federal agencies created the Making Home Affordable Program on February 18, 2009, of which the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) was a part of.
  16. HAMP provides financial incentives to participating mortgage servicers to modify the terms of eligible loans for the benefit of homeowners. Further, HAMP obligated servicers to evaluate eligible borrowers for HAMP before referring them to foreclosure or conducting a foreclosure sale. It also obligated servicers to follow the Treasury guidelines for processing HAMP reviews and completing modifications, and obligated servicers to report HAMP activity and performance data to the Treasury.
  17. HAMP ended at the end of 2016. It specifically ended in December 31, 2026.
  18. On November 2, 2016, Defendant executed a Loan Modification Agreement. The agreement noted that the pending amount as at November 2, 2016 was $276,784.44. The modification obligated Plaintiff to make monthly payments of $1,301.54 beginning January 1, 2017. The modification also readjusted the rate to 3.8750% from December 1, 201, and provided for acceleration of the loan, in the event Plaintiff sold or transferred an interest in the property without Defendant’s consent. The Loan Modification Agreement did not comply with the HAMP guidelines. Under the loan modification agreement, the loan payments were too high as a result of Defendant’s non-compliance with the HAMP guidelines.
  19. On December 29, 2016, the Trustee rescinded and/or withdrew the Notice of Default that was issued on June 29, 2012. The document was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on January 12, 2017.
  20. Defendant filed a Complaint for Reformation of a Deed of Trust in the Superior Court of Humboldt County, Case No. DR180860. Judgment on Default was entered on August 9, 2017.
  21. On April 2, 2018, Planet Home Lending LLC executed a Substitution of Trustee, where Prestige Default Services was nominated as the new Trustee. The Substitution of Trustee was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on April 12, 2018. It is notable that this Substitution of Trustee does not mention The Wolf Firm, which was the Trustee on record. Thus, Prestige Default Services was improperly made Trustee. It follows; Prestige Default Services proceeded as Trustee (and executed and recorded a Notice of Default) before it had the legal authority to do so. Accordingly, the following Notice of Default and all subsequent documents are void and of no legal effect.
  22. On April 6, 2018, Prestige Default Services executed a Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust. The notice stated the amount of default to be $11,109.38 as of April 6, 2018. The document was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on April 12, 2018.
  23. On May 3, 2018, Prestige Default Services rescinded the Notice of Default recorded on April 12, 2028. The document was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on May 7, 2018.
  24. Also, on May 3, 2018, Prestige Default Services executed another Notice of Default and Election to Sell Under Deed of Trust. The notice stated the amount of default to be $13,009.63 as of May 3, 2018. The document was recorded in the Official Records of the Humboldt County on May 7, 2018.
  25. The property was consequently sold. The Defendant notified the VA Department that it was a judicial foreclosure. Plaintiff was never advised of the foreclosure sale being conducted. Further, no notice of any foreclosure sale was ever posted on the door of Plaintiff’s residence.
  26. On Jul 2, 2020, David Sulpizi, the Loan Technician at the Department of Veterans Affairs sent Plaintiff an email where he notified Plaintiff that the foreclosure was a judicial foreclosure. David further notified Plaintiff that if he was not properly served or notified as required, he may have a legal case that the proper foreclosure procedure was not followed and that the sale should be rescinded.  Further, David informed Plaintiff that the law allowed him to redeem the property up to one year after the sale date, which would give Plaintiff a deadline of January 24, 2021.
  27. It is notable that shortly after the foreclosure sale, Defendant initially deeded the property to the VA shortly, but it was deeded back to Defendant by the VA sometime later.  These deeds are publicly recorded documents.
  28. Defendant thereafter filed an unlawful detainer action in December, 2021.  Plaintiff filed his answer to the complaint in February, 2022.
  29. The Court gave a judgment in Defendant’s favor in May, 2022.
  30. Consequently, in or about August, 2022 the Sheriff’s Department locked the property, and a foreclosure sale was done.
  31. On June 19, 2020, David Sulpizi, the Loan Technician at the Department of Veterans Affairs, notified Plaintiff that the VA paid a claim to Planet Home Lending. Notably, on June 19, 2020, the VA had paid Defendant $69,796.11.
  32. On March 17, 2023, Shannon Williams, Esq emailed Plaintiff and stated that Defendant had misreported the foreclosure as a judicial foreclosure. This appeared fraudulent since Shannon waited almost three years after the foreclosure (after Plaintiff’s right of redemption expired), to assert that it was a non-judicial foreclosure.
  33. On March 17, 2023, Plaintiff responded to Shannon and informed her that he could access another $80,000 towards settling the loan. Notably, Plaintiff stated that he qualified for the California’s mortgage relief program in which Defendant would receive another $80,000. Plaintiff further reminded Shannon that in the first 10 years of the loan, he was never late with the payments. The amount of money he had been making for the 10 years, combined with the 80,000 would be more than enough to pay for the property in full. Shannon did not consider Plaintiff’s request.
  34. It is also notable that Plaintiff expressed to Katelyn Burnett, Esq and Shannon Williams, Esq., who are the attorneys for Defendant, his intention to repurchase his property. None of the said attorneys considered Plaintiff’s request.
  35. Plaintiff has also been denied opportunity to retrieve his belongings. For several months, he expressed his intention to get to the property and obtain his belongings, but his request could not be allowed. On July 19, 2023, Katelyn Burnett, Esq sent Plaintiff an agreement to retrieve his items from the property.
  36. It is Plaintiff’s further concern that Amadeus, the neighbor in 425 Riverview Lane, has been accessing the property, taking things and cutting some Plaintiff’s favorite trees.
  37. Plaintiff therefore files this Complaint to assert his rights, and seek legal redress for the fraudulent foreclosure and blameworthy conduct of the Defendant.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE

  1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 43, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
  2. Planet Home Lending did not lawfully appoint Prestige Default Services as trustee. Accordingly, Prestige Default Services did not have right to declare default, cause notices of default to be issued or recorded, or foreclose on Plaintiff’s interest in the Subject Property.
  3. Notably, on April 2, 2018, Planet Home Lending LLC executed a Substitution of Trustee, where Prestige Default Services was nominated as the new Trustee. This Substitution of Trustee did not mention The Wolf Firm, which was the Trustee on record at that time. The previous Substitution of Trustee that was executed by Adelita Shubert on December 26, 2014 clearly noted the former Trustee and the new Trustee.
  4. Thus, Prestige Default Services was improperly made Trustee. Prestige Default Services proceeded as Trustee (and executed and recorded a Notice of Default) before it had the legal authority to do so. Accordingly, the Notice of Default and all subsequent documents are void and of no legal effect.
  5. Additionally, Defendant Planet Home Lending breached its obligation to Plaintiff to modify the loan while ignoring HAMP. Plaintiff has already noted that on October 3, 2008, the U.S. Congress passed the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (“EESA”), 12 USC § 5201 et seq., which allocated $700 billion to the Treasury Department to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system, and preserve home ownership.
  6. Enabled by the authority granted in the EESA, the Treasury Department and other federal agencies created the Making Home Affordable Program on February 18, 2009, of which the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) was a part of.
  7. HAMP provides financial incentives to participating mortgage servicers to modify the terms of eligible loans for the benefit of homeowners. Further, HAMP obligated servicers to evaluate eligible borrowers for HAMP before referring them to foreclosure or conducting a foreclosure sale. It also obligated servicers to follow the Treasury guidelines for processing HAMP reviews and completing modifications, and obligated servicers to report HAMP activity and performance data to the Treasury.
  8. HAMP ended at the end of 2016. It specifically ended in December 31, 2026.
  9. On November 2, 2016, Prestige Default Services executed a Loan Modification Agreement. The agreement noted that the pending amount as at November 2, 2016 was $276,784.44. The modification obligated Plaintiff to make monthly payments of $1,301.54 beginning January 1, 2017. The modification also readjusted the rate to 3.8750% from December 1, 201, and provided for acceleration of the loan, in the event Plaintiff sold or transferred an interest in the property without Defendant’s consent. The Loan Modification Agreement did not comply with the HAMP guidelines. Under the loan modification agreement, the loan payments were too high as a result of Defendant’s non-compliance with the HAMP guidelines.
  10. Therefore, Defendants proceeded with a foreclosure of Plaintiff’s home when they had no right to do so.
  11. Defendants further breached the provisions of Civil Code Section 2924g(c)(1) which requires postponement of a foreclosure sale by “mutual agreement, whether oral or in writing, of any trustor and any beneficiary.”
  12. Here, Plaintiff was never advised of the foreclosure sale being conducted. Further, no notice of any foreclosure sale was ever posted on the door of Plaintiff’s residence. It follows; Defendants breached Section 2924g by not providing proper notice of the trustee’s sale.
  13. Additionally, Defendants are liable by failing to review the financial information of Plaintiff and negotiate a loan modification with Plaintiff in good faith.
  14. Defendants failed to acknowledge receipt of payment from the VA. Notably, on June 19, 2020, the VA had paid Defendants $69,796.11. Had the Defendants factored in said payment, they would not have held Plaintiff in default and proceeded to foreclose the property.
  15. Consequently, Defendants engaged in a fraudulent foreclosure of the Subject Property in that Defendants did not have the legal authority to foreclose on the Subject Property and, alternatively, if they had the legal authority, they failed to comply with Civil Code Sections 2924g(c)(1) et seq and HAMP.
  16. Defendants also failed to advise Plaintiff on his right of redemption, following the foreclosure sale. Plaintiff has qualified to the Mortgage Relief Program, and is entitled to $80,000.
  17. As a result of the above-described breaches and wrongful conduct by Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in an amount according to proof at trial.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR QUIET TITLE

  1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 60, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
  2. Plaintiff is the equitable owners of the Subject Property.
  3. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title against the claims of Defendants and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiff’s title, or any cloud on Plaintiff’s title thereto.
  4. Defendants had no right to title or interest in the Subject Property and no right to entertain any rights of ownership including the right to foreclosure, offering the Subject Property for sale at a trustee’s sale, demanding possession or filing cases for unlawful detainer. Nevertheless, the Defendants proceeded with a foreclosure sale, through Prestige Default Services as alleged trustee, illegally and with unclean hands.
  5. At the time that Prestige Default Services signed the Notice of Default, Prestige Default Services had not been properly substituted as the trustee in place of The Wolf Firm. As the Notice of Default must be signed by the trustee, either original or substituted, and the beneficiary or trustee, either original or substituted, must comply with California Civil Code Section 2923.5, the trustee’s sale is void because Prestige Default Services was not the trustee at the time that it signed the Notice of Default and allegedly complied with Section 2923.5. Thus, the trustee and beneficiary failed to follow the statutory rules for a valid foreclosure under the California Civil Code and it is, therefore, void.
  6. Further, as already stated, Defendants failed to acknowledge receipt of payment from the VA. Notably, on June 19, 2020, the VA had paid Defendants $69,796.11. Had the Defendants factored in said payment, they would not have held Plaintiff in default and proceeded to foreclose the property.
  7. Plaintiffs seeks to quiet title. Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that the title to the Subject Property is vested in Plaintiff alone and that the Defendants be declared to have no interest estate, right, title or interest in the subject property and that the Defendants, their agents and assigns, be forever enjoined from asserting any estate, right title or interest in the Subject Property subject to Plaintiff’s rights.

 

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE SECTIONS 17200 ET SEQ

  1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
  2. California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., prohibits acts of unfair competition, which means and includes any “fraudulent business act or practice . . .” and conduct which is “likely to deceive” and is “fraudulent” within the meaning of Section 17200.
  3. As more fully described above, the Defendants’ acts and practices are likely to deceive, constituting a fraudulent business act or practice.
  4. Specifically, the Defendants engaged in deceptive business practices with respect to mortgage loan servicing, assignments of notes and deeds of trust, foreclosure of residential properties and related matters by:
  5. Improperly characterizing customers’ accounts as being in default or delinquent status to generate unwarranted fees;
  6. Instituting improper or premature foreclosure proceedings to generate unwarranted fees;
  7. Misapplying or failing to apply customer payments;
  8. Failing to provide adequate monthly statement information to customers regarding the status of their accounts, payments owed, and/or basis for fees assessed;
  9. Seeking to collect, and collecting, various improper fees, costs and charges, that are either not legally due under California law, or that are in excess of amounts legally due;
  10. Mishandling borrowers’ mortgage payments and failing to timely or properly credit payments received, resulting in late charges, delinquencies or default;
  11. Treating borrowers as in default on their loans even though the borrowers have tendered timely and sufficient payments or have otherwise complied with mortgage requirements or California law;
  12. Ignoring grace periods;
  13. Executing and recording false and misleading documents; and
  14. Acting as trustee without the legal authority to do so.
  15. The Defendants failed to act in good faith as it took payments but did not render them competently and in compliance with applicable law.
  16. Moreover, the Defendants engage in a uniform pattern and practice of unfair and overly-aggressive servicing that result in the assessment of unwarranted and unfair fees against California consumers, and premature default often resulting in unfair and illegal foreclosure proceedings. The scheme implemented by the Defendants are designed to defraud California consumers and enrich the Defendants.
  17. The foregoing acts and practices have caused substantial harm to California consumers.
  18. As a direct and proximate cause of the unlawful, unfair and fraudulent acts and practices of the Defendants, Plaintiff and California consumers have suffered and will continue to suffer damages in the form of unfair and unwarranted late fees and other improper fees and charges.
  19. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched and should be required to disgorge its illicit profits and/or make restitution to Plaintiff and other California consumers who have been harmed, and/or be enjoined from continuing in such practices pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Sections 17203 and 17204. Additionally, Plaintiff is therefore entitled to injunctive relief and attorney’s fees as available under California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 and related sections.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD

  1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 76, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
  2. The Defendants engaged in a pattern and practice of defrauding Plaintiff in that, during the life of the mortgage loan, the Defendants failed to properly credit payments made and foreclosed on the Subject Property based on amounts, which they knew to be incorrect.
  3. The Defendants had actual knowledge that the Plaintiff’s account was not accurate but that the Defendants could use the inaccuracy to foreclose on the Subject Property, to recover its excessive fees, charges and interest. The Defendants also utilized amounts known to the Defendants to be inaccurate to determine the amount allegedly due and owing for purposes of foreclosure.
  4. Additionally, the Foreclosing Defendants concealed material facts known to them but not to Plaintiff regarding payments, notices, transfers, late fees and charges with the intent to defraud Plaintiff.
  5. The Defendants made the above-referenced false representations, concealments and non-disclosures with knowledge of the misrepresentations, intending to induce Plaintiff’s reliance, which the unsuspecting Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon, resulting in damage to Plaintiff’s credit standing, costs and loss of his property. Plaintiff was unaware of the true facts. Had Plaintiff known the true facts, Plaintiff, among other things, would not have maintained the Defendants as the lender, servicer and trustee (and their alleged agents) and/or would have taken legal action immediately to save his house.
  6. As a result of the Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff has suffered compensatory, general and special damages in an amount to proof. Additionally, the Defendants acted with malice, fraud and/or oppression and, thus, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE

  1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 82, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
  2. At all times relevant herein, the Defendants, acting as Plaintiffs’ lender and/or loan servicer, had a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill to maintain proper and accurate loan records and to discharge and fulfill the other incidents attendant to the maintenance, accounting and servicing of loan records, including, but not limited, accurate crediting of payments made by Plaintiff.
  3. In taking the actions alleged above, and in failing to take the actions as alleged above, the Defendants breached their duty of care and skill to Plaintiff in the servicing of Plaintiff’s loan by, among other things, failing to properly and accurately credit payments made by Plaintiffs toward the loan, preparing and filing false documents, and foreclosing on the Subject Property without having the legal authority and/or proper documentation to do so.
  4. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of the Defendants as set forth above, Plaintiff suffered general and special damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION TO SET ASIDE TRUSTEE SALE

  1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 86, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
  2. The Defendants never had the legal authority to foreclose. The Trustee did not have authority to effect the Trustee Sale, thus the foreclosure sale being void ab initio.
  3. Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby requests an order of this Court that the Trustee’s Sale was irregular in that it was legally void and conducted without any right or privilege by the Defendants.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION TO VOID OR CANCEL TRUSTEE’S DEED UPON SALE

  1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 89, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
  2. Although the trustee’s deed upon sale appears valid on its face, it is invalid, and of no force and effect, for the reasons set forth above including, inter alia, the Substitution of Trustee was void.
  3. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an order that the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale is void ab initio and cancelling such Trustee’s Deed.

EIGTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNJUST ENRICHMENT

  1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 92, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
  2. By their wrongful acts and omissions, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff, and thus Plaintiff has been unjustly deprived.
  3. Defendants have been receiving payments from Plaintiff on time, for the first ten years of the loan. Furthermore, on June 19, 2020, the VA paid Defendants $69,796.11. The Defendants then proceeded to effect a foreclosure sale on the property.
  4. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks restitution from the Defendants, and an order of this Court disgorging all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by the Defendants from their wrongful conduct.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT

  1. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in paragraphs 1 through 96, inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
  2. Plaintiff is a consumer and the obligation between the parties is a debt owed pursuant to the subject notes and trust deeds and is a consumer debt pursuant to the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“Rosenthal Act”).
  3. First Defendant is a lender and mortgage servicing company that is in the business of collecting and processing mortgage payments. Second Defendant is alleged Trustee appointed by First Defendant.
  4. After Plaintiff’s debt was extinguished by the foreclosure sale of his property, Defendants accepted payment from Plaintiff on a nonexistent debt. Notably, on June 9, 2022, David Sulpizi, the Loan Technician at the Department of Veterans Affairs, notified Plaintiff that the VA paid a claim to Planet Home Lending.
  5. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Rosenthal Act, Plaintiff is entitled to actual and statutory damages, fees and costs, and such other relief as the court determines is due.

JURY DEMAND

  1. Plaintiff demands a jury trial for all claims set forth herein.

.  PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendants and each of them, jointly and severally, as follows:

  1. For a declaration of the rights and duties of the parties, specifically that the foreclosure of Plaintiff’s residence was wrongful.
  2. For an Order of Preliminary Injunction restraining Defendant from selling Plaintiff’s house to an outside lender.
  3. For compensatory, special, general and punitive damages according to proof against all Defendants.
  4. For an Order reinstating Plaintiff’s loan.
  5. Pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17203, that all Defendants, their successors, agents, representatives, employees, and all persons who act in concert with them be permanently enjoined from committing any acts of unfair competition in violation of § 17200, including, but not limited to, the violations alleged herein.
  6. For civil penalties pursuant to statute, restitution, injunctive relief and reasonable attorney’s fees according to proof.
  7. For reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
  8. For reasonable costs of suit and such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

 

DATED: ____________________

By:      ____________________________

ANTHONY J. MANTO III

Plaintiff, pro se

VERIFICATION

I, Anthony J. Manto III, am the Plaintiff in this action. I have read the foregoing Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my knowledge, except as those matters which are therein alleged on information and belief, which I also believe to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this _____day of August, 2023, in Humboldt, California.

 

 

____________________________

ANTHONY J. MANTO III

Plaintiff, pro se

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on ____________, copies of the foregoing document have been served upon the Defendants in this case by mailing them at the following addresses:

 

[ENTER ADDRESSES]

 

 

DATED: ____________________

 

 

By:      ____________________________

ANTHONY J. MANTO III

 

Plaintiff, pro se

 

 

 

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )