Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
B239793
CLERK'S OFFICE
COURT OF APPEAL-SECONDDIST*
MGC Mortgage Inc., LLP Mortgage Ltd, LP, Loan Acquisition Corporation,
DefendantsRespondents
Appeal From the Superior Court for Santa Barbara County Colleen K. Sterne, Judge SBSC Case 1384851
Nancy D McCarron CBN 164780 950 Roble Lane Santa Barbara, CA 93103 805-965-3492 Attorney for Appellant Real Estate Broker, Certified Forensic Loan Auditor Notary Public, Certified Arbitrator for BBB Nationwide
STATEMENT OF THE CASE Plaintiff appellant David W. Gates, trustee of the David W. Gates Trust dated August 5, 1996, appeals the denial to stay foreclosure on a ranch he has owned for 35 years, originally set for April 5, 2012. Gates is in poor health at 70 years old with chronic heart condition. On 3-29-12 this court granted preference for oral arguments under CRC 8.240, but in the same order denied Gates emergency request to stay foreclosure, and all proceedings below, pending this appeal. This court formerly held an appeal of the denial of an injunction prohibiting foreclosure of a primary residence, regardless of its label, constitutes a mandatory injunction invoking the automatic stay of CCP 916, as it would alter status quo and cause irreparable harm.
Royal Thrift v. County Escrow (2004-2nddist) 123 C.A.4th 24,35-36; Stewart v. Whitmyre (1961) 192 C.A.2d 327,328-329.
Absent a stay, a pretend lender who never held any beneficial interest in his note or trust deed, and who never lent Gates a penny, will steal his $1,000,000 ranch through forgery, perjury, and fraud. The court affirmed crimes by turning a blind eye to uncontroverted and undenied evidence of forgery and an uncontroverted expert opinion of fraud. The court ignored prohibitions by this court and the Supreme Court on admitting hearsay in recorded documents.
Stor Media, Inc. v. Supr Court (1999) 20 Cal4th 449,457,n9.; Dugar v Happy Tiger Records, Inc. (1974, 2nd) 41 C.A.3d 811; People v Wohlleben (1968, 2nd Dist) 261 Cal App 2d 461 (best evidence rule)
Gates cited them in Objections to Judicial Notice and oral argument. [Vol.II.p.14.582] and [transcript: p.5, line 24-28; p.6, lines1-15]
A preliminary injunction evaluation is based upon admissible evidence and rests on only two factors: a likelihood that an applicant will prevail on the merits and balancing interim harm to applicant if injunction is denied compared to respondents harm if it is granted. The court found factor 2 tips in favor of Gates [Vol.IIIp.20.708]. Factor 2 is unchallenged. The court erred in applying the first factor. The court found foreclosure statutes and enforcement of negotiable instruments under UCC Article 3 governed here. [Vol.III.p.20.708] The court erred in applying UCC, evidence rules, and judicial notice. Evidence 450-453. The court took judicial notice of fabricated, forged documents and overruled evidentiary objections to admission. The court erred by finding hearsay contents as true. [Vol.III.20:711]. Gates pointed out all errors during oral argument. (see transcript). The court denied Gates sixth amendment right to a jury trial, his due process right to discovery and an opportunity to prove fraud. To guard errors from appellate scrutiny, the court denied a request for a stay pending appeal without opposition or a hearing, exposing Gates to irreparable harm and forced bankruptcy. [Vol.III,20:703,12] Denial of an injunction is an appealable order. CCP 904.1(a)(6). STATEMENT OF FACTS The court refused to acknowledge Gates is not trying to avoid a debt and will cure arrears once a real beneficiary is identified. Respondents are not/never were owner, note holder, or beneficiary. They failed to answer a verified complaint to deny his allegations, and failed to offer any party affidavit swearing they are an owner, lender, beneficiary or holder in due course of the note. 1
Bret Maloney (only affiant) swears respondents are agents of servicers-not owners 2
Gates will not pay an imposter who recorded forged assignments. Gates bought his ranch 35 years ago. [App.Vol.I,p.1.29]. On 9-29-05 Gates refinanced an existing WaMu loan with a higher amount to build a second wing to generate rents to help make loan payments. Gates timely paid for four years until tragedies occurred in 2009. Gates wife of 20 years died on 11-19-08. Six months later their home burned in the Santa Barbara Jesusita fire on 5-6-09. [Vol.I,p.1.3] The double trauma and stress resulted in remedial heart surgery When his 6-1-09 payment came due he called GMAC (WaMus then loan servicer) to report he could not make payments without rent. Unbeknownst to Gates, a week later two fraudulent assignments, executed by robo-signers, were hastily recorded.[Vol-I,p.1.63-1.66] Both contained most of the indicia of forged, fabricated instruments. Loan expert Bill Paatola testified about this fraud. [Vol-II,p.11.457]
Either Riley or another LPS forger created fraudulent assignments recorded against Gates property on 6-12-2009 right after the fire. Below are samples of LPS forgeries using Ms. Rileys signature: She was never WaMus Vice President & others used her LPS stamp
Many variations in Rileys signature indicate multiple LPS forgeries From: robo-signing (Cynthia Riley-Florida) [App:Vol.I,pp 5.270-272]
*Below is a forged, fabricated assignment, containing a photo-shop robo-stamp of Cynthia Riley, and a photo-shop stamp of a division of Deutsche Bank entitled DP Structured Products, Inc. (Wall St. NY)
[App Vol.II, p.12.547] *** see Attachment A to this brief (copy of fraudulent assignment) Any unbiased person looking at Attachment A would realize it is a photo-shopped, poorly fabricated cut & paste creation.
7
Cynthia Riley worked for Lender Processing Services in Florida (the same firm under indictment for forgery of loan assignments) Gates intends to prove Rileys stamp was photo-shopped at LPS. Four days after 2 forged assignments were recorded, following a fire, loan servicer GMAC & MGC both notified Gates on the same day [6-16-09] that GMAC had sold its loan servicing rights to MGC [VolII-10.388]. Why GMAC quickly sold loan servicing rights after the fire to MGC is explained in detailed chronology in Gates Reply. [Vol-I, p.10-370] GMAC could not foreclose on a distressed home owner because its receipt of $16 billion in TARP funds in June 2009 was conditioned upon using funds to provide relief-not to foreclose!!! MGC could foreclose as Beal Bank (Andy Beal) didnt get any TARP money as his bank had too many billions in cash disqualifying him. Although GMAC and MGC served written notice of a CHANGE IN LOAN SERVICER on the same day (6-16-09) as required by law, neither served written notice of a CHANGE IN LENDER, required by 15 USC 1541(g). A new lender who acquires a loan must notify the borrower within 30 days of acquisition of the loan. The fact that GMAC and MGC notified Gates of a change in SERVICER but did not mention a CHANGE IN LENDER creates inferences there was never a new lender at all, or they would have included notice of it. Farmers Fire Exchange refused to issue claims benefits until Gates rebuilt the home to 80% completion, forcing him to charge materials to rebuild the home so he could collect claims benefits. Gates incurred $200,000 in credit card debt for building materials and living costs charged during a 2-year home rebuilding project.
Farmers issued $202,548.64 in 3 checks payable to Gates and MGC who was only loan servicer---not the lender. Gates called MGC when he received the 3 checks. MGC staff told him to sign checks & mail them to MGC to be endorsed and returned to Gates for deposit. MGC did not return the checks but instead applied them to his loan. MGC is waiting for Gates to finish the last 20% so they can convert his final reimbursement funds. After 5 months Gates had to hire counsel to get funds released to payoff credit cards. Gates received $113,622.96 out of $202,548.64 in 2010. [Vol.I.p.1.109-1.111] In 2011 Gates received an IRS 1099-C form from a Dovenmuehle
PRELIMINARY MOOTNESS ISSUE After a preliminary injunction was denied Gates moved the court below for a stay pending appeal. It was denied. Gates moved this court to stay foreclosure pending appeal, and for age preference. The court denied a foreclosure stay but granted preference.(3-29-12) Gates was forced to file a Chapter 11 bankruptcy to avoid a trustee sale set for April 5, 2012. Due to the bankruptcys automatic stay Gates dismissed state court proceedings below without prejudice. Gates dismissal necessarily created a mootness issue on appeal. Dismissal usually moots the appeal as jurisdiction below is divested after dismissal. But there are three recognized exceptions to mootness. Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City
10
Californias Foreclosure system is broken. (audit) [V-III 19.682] Eric Holder is investigating after an Aequitas audit revealed that 99% of foreclosures had irregularities, 84% had violations of law and contained suspect documents, with a high rate of conflicts as to the actual beneficiary, creating doubt as to whether homeowners were denied due process. The Aequitas audit concluded: Californias foreclosure process appears utterly broken. [VIII 19.696] On June 25, 2012 anti-foreclosure advocates demonstrated at Santa Barbara Court at 12:00 demanding suspension of foreclosures and an investigation by the County Recorder of forged documents. If the issue is such that every case presenting it would become moot in the normal course of events, before the appeal could be decided, the appellate court should decide the issue, even though it has become moot between the parties currently before the court.
Conservatorship of Forsythe (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d. 1406. see also 9 Witkin, Cal Proc., Appeal 759-761 (5th. Ed 2008) see discussion
and examples of public interest exceptions to the mootness doctrine. Exception 2 case qualifies as it is likely to recur with the parties.
Environmental Charter High School v. Cennela Valley Union HS Dist. (2004) 122 CA4th.139.
11
Gates is in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy which stays foreclosure. However, if his case is dismissed, or the trustee determines the real property should be abandoned, Gates would face foreclosure again. Appellate scrutiny would be circumvented again with same parties. Exception 3 case qualifies as material question is still controverted
Viejo Bancorp, Inc. v. Wood (1989) 217 CA3d. 200, 205. Gates was
denied his right to a jury trial on the issue of fraudulent recordings and who really owns a loan is a material question still controverted. GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS After the Great Depression of 1934, as part of the New Deal, the National Housing Act (NHA) was enacted to revive the economy and encourage citizens to work toward the American Dream of a home. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie May, FHA, FNHA all evolved. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 created an anomaly entitled REMIC (Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit) to facilitate origination of loans via securitization, explained in Gates complaint [Vol-I,1.76] By 2000 hungry Wall Street brokers met with greedy banksters
2
to devise a secondary sub-prime mortgage market where thousands of loans would be converted into bond certificates to sell to investors This process was commonly referred to as sub-prime securitization.
Sub-prime mortgages were for risky borrowers who did not qualify
under underwriting policies used in traditional bank loan portfolios. By pooling the risky loans brokers could spread default risks among millions of investors guaranteed by government. How could it lose?
2
As part of a 2012 $26 billion settlement the DOJ granted immunity to bank officers who admitted 2.5 million crimes of fraud, forgery & perjury 12
The highest commissions were paid to originators of the riskiest loans while hungry brokers, greedy banksters, and fee-gorging
13
When the bubble burst in 2008 housing prices took a nose-dive leaving half of American homes underwater. Prices fell 40% while shock rates kicked in on the mortgages. As monthly payments doubled owners could not afford to pay; they could not sell in a down market; they could not refinance. Default rates skyrocketed to a level never before seen in our history. Thousands of homes across the USA foreclosed and millions were left homeless and jobless. As banksters foreclosed on thousands of homes they realized notes, trust deeds and assignments were missing. Cognizant that judges would expect them to be filed, banksters cured the dilemma by fabricating the missing instruments through photoshop software. They looked real! After all, what Judge would believe a national bank forged loan instruments to be filed in court? Loan Processing Services, dba Doc X, came to the rescue of the banks!! [V-II 10.383] Doc X advertised as paid runners ensuring speedy foreclosure to
14
This settlement affirmed crimes and will encourage more crimes. See Criminal Affirmance by Mary Ramirez, Professor at Washburn University Law School, 13-yr.veteran DOJ prosecutor. [V-III 18.601] She explains how affirming crimes of elite banksters puts them in a class above the law. As law-abiding citizens, who are left homeless and jobless, watch banksters get richer they ponder if they should also break the law as they discover crime pays ---- resulting in a lawless society. Anger percolates to inevitable revolution. We see it in its embryonic stage; i.e. Occupy Wall Street & Occupy County Recorders Office. Angry citizens are starting to become violent. Murders and suicides are being reported regularly in foreclosures.
15
A securitization chart shows Gates loan in AR-16 trust.[V-I 1.81] A Pooling and Service Agreement governed party rights and duties, listing all contracting parties [V-II 10.371] see excerpts [V-II 10.396] DB Structured Products,Inc.[DBSP] was never a party to the P&S. DBPS was/is a stranger to the P&S and the loan. WaMus purported
16
APPEALABILITY Denial of a preliminary injunction is appealable. CCP 904.1(a)(6) Denial of prohibition against foreclosure is appealable as final order.
El Dorado Meat Co., v. Yosemite Meat Svs. (2007) 150 C.A.4th. 612,
617. Huang v. Luir (2007) 150 C.A.4th 400, 408-409. (injunction). The analysis is hybrid when an injunction order is based on questions of law mixed with facts. Where the trial court's ruling depends on determination of the applicable principles of law, however, it is subject to an independent appellate review.
Strategix v. Infocrossing West, Inc. (2006) 142 C.A.4th 1068, 1072. Herbst v. Swan (2002) 102 C.A.4th. 813. 816 (de novo-const.issues)
Even when the standard is substantial evidence where records show a court based ruling on a mere scintilla of evidence it need not affirm
ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL A. Taking Judicial Notice of disputed hearsay is prejudicial error. Though courts may take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of matters stated therein. StorMedia v.
Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 449, 457 fn 9; Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184 CA.3d 369, 374. Love v. Wolf (1964) 226
C.A.2d 378, 403; People v Long (1970, 3rd Dist) 7 Cal App 3d 586. Where factual findings or contents of documents are in dispute, those matters of dispute are not appropriate for judicial notice.
. the Substitution of Trustee recited that Deutsche Bank "is the present beneficiary under" the 2003 deed of trust. This fact was hearsay and disputed. Therefore, the trial court could not take judicial notice of it. Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106. Nor would taking judicial notice of the Assignment of Deed of Trust establish that the Deutsche Bank was the beneficiary under the deed of trust. A recitation that JPMorgan Chase Bank is the successor in interest to Long Beach Mortgage Company, through Washington Mutual, is hearsay. Plaintiffs disputed the truthfulness of the contents of all of the recorded documents. A supporting declaration must be made on personal knowledge and "show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated." Code Civ. Proc., 437c, subd. (d). Deborah Brignac's declaration did not affirmatively show that she can competently testify that the bank is the beneficiary under the deed of trust. At most, her declaration shows she can testify as to what the Assignment of Deed of Trust "indicates." The factual contents of the assignment were hearsay and defendants offered no exception to the hearsay rule to make these factual matters admissible. At oral argument, defendants contended that the recorded documents were actually business records and admissible under the business record exception. However, Brignac did not provide any information in her declaration establishing that the sources of the information and the manner and time of preparation would indicate trustworthiness. (Evid. Code, 1271 (d). A declaration that the Substitution of Trustee by Deutsch Bank made CRC trustee would require admissible evidence that the bank was the beneficiary under the 2003 deed of trust and thus had the authority to substitute the trustee. Because defendants failed to present facts to establish that the bank was beneficiary and CRC was trustee under the 2003 deed of trust, and therefore had authority to conduct the foreclosure sale, triable issues of material fact remain.
The court below erred in taking judicial notice of the contents of recorded documents validating them as genuine loan assignments.
19
California Evidence Code*fn2 1451 creates a presumption that an acknowledged document is genuine. The statute provides: A certificate of the acknowledgment of a writing other than a will...is prima facie evidence of the facts recited in the certification and the genuineness of the signature of
20
each person by whom the writing purports to have been signed.Cal. Evid. Code 1451; see also Cal. Evid. Code 602 (stating that "a statute providing that a fact or group of facts is prima facie evidence of another fact establishes a rebuttable presumption.)" The document is "as strong as if the facts certified had been duly sworn to in open court by a witness apparently disinterested and worthy of belief." Ware v. Julien, 122 Cal. App. 354, 355 (1932). This presumption extends to the situation of deeds. "A deed absolute in form is just what it purports to be." Develop-Amantic Engineering v. Republic Mortgage Co., 12 Cal. App. 3d 143, 148 (1970). "All presumptions are in favor of the validity of a deed when it is regular on its face and recorded or acknowledged." Du Bois v. Larke, 175 Cal. App. 2d 737, 745 (1960). This "presumption is not conclusive but the burden of overcoming them is on the one who disputes them." Id. "When a disputable presumption is controverted by other evidence, a question of fact arises which must be resolved by the trial court." Id. Although the evidence is not conclusive, the document is enough, standing alone, to send the case to the jury, so that the jury can decide between the probative force of the document supported by the presumption and the evidence produced in rebuttal. Ware, 122 Cal. App. at 355. Here, it is for the jury to weigh the evidence of the alleged forged loan documents themselves against the evidence produced by Plaintiff indicating forgery See also Fares v. Morrison (1942-2nd) 54 C.A.2d. 773 (jury issue) Erroneously applying 1451 as a conclusive presumption, and denying Gates a right to jury trial on this issue was biased, and a highly prejudicial error. The court knew the two recorded assignments were challenged as fraudulent and was fully aware of expert Paatalos opinion explaining the fraud in assignments, as the court mentioned his report. At the very least the dispute presented a triable issue of fact for a jury or evidentiary hearing. The court showed bias against Gates in ruling against reason and the law.
21
C. Court may not disregard uncontroverted expert opinion. When a qualified expert renders an opinion on a subject of his expertise, no objections to it are made, and no opposing expert opinion is offered, a court may not disregard it. It must be validated.
22
Lynn Szymoniak, a Florida lawyer who is also an expert in white collar crime and document examination (and a friend of ours) appeared on the CBS news magazine in April of this year. 60 Minutes has now updated that story.
New information includes the fact that people who were high school kids were signing documents as vice-presidents of banks, which of course they weren't. The people who signed these dummied-up documents created to facilitate the foreclosure of many Americans' homes were paid $10 an hour to do that work, but had to sign a minimum of 350 documents an hour, a figure which clearly means they never read anything they signed. Other employees notarized the documents, despite the certain knowlege that they were NOT signed by the persons named (many different people signed as Linda Green, an actual lady who's name was picked for these documents because it was short and easy to spell, facilitating the use of multiple signers). Of course, at this point, Americans can hardly be shocked any more, there have been so many revelations. http://www.propertylawgroup.com/Video-
Reports-You-Will-Want-to-See/8-7-2011.html An assignment on Gates home included the bogus photo-shop signature of robo-signer Cynthia Riley, posing as Vice President of Wamu Bank Riley actually worked for Lender Processing Services in Florida, who created, executed and notarized thousands of forged foreclosure documents. Managers have been indicted for the crimes. Either Riley or another LPS forger created fraudulent assignments. Gates provided evidence that his loan was fully paid off in the WaMu 2005 AR-16 REMIC Trust by filing an affidavit in Reply to Opposition to Preliminary Injunction which authenticated a 1099-c (debt cancellation) form he received for the 2010 tax year. This was after he submitted a fire claim to Firemans Exchange Insurer.
23
Respondents did not deny Gates sworn testimony. [Vol-II,13.575] [see Attachment B to this brief copy of IRS 1099-c Gates received] Any unbiased person reviewing it would conclude there are issues of fact to be resolved as to whether Gates loan was paid off, who paid it off, and why it was paid off. Gates is entitled to any credit which may have been paid by an insurer to MGC after the Jesusita fire. Gates is entitled to discovery on these issues and trial in the case. The court showed bias against Gates in ruling against reason & law.
D.
24
E. Court misapplied UCC and misallocated burden of proof The court found UCC Division 3 applied to the case. [Vol.III, 20.708] UCC 3308 applies as validity of Cindy Rileys signature is disputed. The following shows respondents had the burden to prove validity.
3308. Admission of authenticity of and authority to make signature; Burden of proof (a) In an action with respect to an instrument, the authenticity of, and authority to make, each signature on the instrument is admitted unless specifically denied in the pleadings. If the validity of a signature is denied in the pleadings, the burden of establishing validity is on the person claiming validity,
Respondents failed to provide even a scintilla of evidence to show that the purported signature of Cynthia Riley, purporting to be a Vice President of Wamu was valid. Gates denied it in pleadings. The court was aware of Gates challenge to validity [Vol.III, 20.710] All evidence presented showed the signature was forged. Not only did the court fail to allocate the burden to prove validity to MGC, but the court denied Gates any opportunity to prove it was invalid. If the first assignment was invalid, the next assignment was invalid. The court showed a bias toward Gates by not only failing to properly allocate the burden of proof to respondents to prove the validity of Cynthia Rileys signature, but denied Gates of any opportunity to disprove validity or to give this factual issue to a jury. The court usurped Gates right to a jury trial on a material issue.
25
F. Refusal to issue CCP 632 statement is reversible error per se. Under CCP 632 Gates was entitled to a statement of decision including specific findings upon which the court based its ruling. Gates moved for a statement of decision under CCP 632 during oral argument which the court denied. [see transcript, p. 14, line 7-10]. Failure to issue a statement of decision is reversible error per se. It is prejudicial error to fail to make findings where they are necessary and have not been waived. Carpenter v Pacific Mutual
Life Ins. Co. (1937) 10 Cal 2d 307; affirmed 305 US 297. The court
never made any findings as to whether the assignments recorded on 6-12-09 were valid or not. The court recited Evidence Code 1451 (presumption of validity of recorded documents) to conclude Gates was not likely to prevail. The presumption is not conclusive. It is rebuttable as explained on page 20 above. A judgment rendered without findings on all material issues must be reversed.
26
CONCLUSION The trial court has demonstrated a clear bias towards Gates and is presumed to be biased since Gates appealed the erroneous ruling. If the disabled Gates loses his ranch in a trustee sale he will be homeless for the first time in his life at the age of 70. The ranch Gates has nurtured and improved for 35 years will be acquired by a Texas imposter who never lent Gates a penny and who is/was never the owner, beneficiary, or note holder in due course. The real beneficiaries --- investors who purchased certificates in the WaMu 2005-AR-16 Trust used to fund Gates loan at closing, along with thousands of other loans, may not be repaid and could sue Gates to collect on his promise to pay (the underlying note). Andrew Beal (Beal Bank) will acquire a $1,000,000 ranch for free. Is this justice? Beal created MGC to start loan servicing in 2008 [Vol.II 10.385] Beals annual net income soared from $281 million in 2008 to $559 million in 2009 [Vol-II,p 10.395]. (by using LPP as a pretend lender) Beal has become a multi-billionaire by stealing homes as alleged. The time has come for courts to stop affirming elite bankster crimes. END I certify that, according to the computer program used to prepare this brief, Appellants Opening Brief contains 7,197 words, not including cover, Table of Contents & Authorities. I declare under penalty of perjury California law that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed 7-2-12 in Santa Barbara, California. July 2, 2012 __________________________________ Nancy Duffy McCarron, CBN 164780 Attorney for Plaintiff Appellant
27
2Q83-0034 366
' tu,1
ASSI-NT
b a a No.:07M948033
OF DEER OF TRUST
E x d By: D A W W GAWS k atid t 0 'O~ATA @%5V J , 1 4 Fb To: Werblagtcn hfotad Ban& FA Mortgage DatEd. 0912012005 snd Raordedon ia SANTABARBARh
'd.cmks T k W
04 [ 3 9 / ~ a a r
O/I in>wuP%+
IJ0
-00CIC(b2b
@ Q C O I ~
R o K r ( y A d b . 1200 P A L O ~ O D R
$ A h 4 BARBARA,CA 93105
KNOWN ALL M13N BY THFSEPRESENTS thst in cmsidwtion of tht mof TlEN md nollOMhsDOUARS md othm good md valusblc maidaatim, -id to above m e d A i s o , T k mciptand s i c j e n c y of artdeh is hereby ar.tmowlcdgebtho mid Aspignar baby mmn r usigms m , e abov. r r d Assigrioc. the said I%edofTNat u B with the Note mothe; evidence ofindebtedness(thc '"NOTE"), said No- having a original principal sum of 81,142,302.00 n with h n r .mud thacby, t a @ m with ell monies now owulmtho( m y k R c r becorn t ut due orowmg UI rcspathamf,and the hrll benefit of all te p w m and of all :he Envensnk md h rn1 thmm cmtaheQ the said Ammm hmby mt~ WVEYR mm the =id md md k i g n c c , the k g n d n bojfieial intcrc~l& d the Dced of TNa. ~
~
MHAVE AND TO HOLD thc said Deed of Tut and Notr. aad also the mid pupaw uato rs m L e tnmk contained i naid Decd ofTnrst end Note. n
STATE OF m m A 1
COWEf
1 OF DWAL )
On Augw: 30,2006, f roe, Q. F. Carney, a Notsry Public, pzmmagp km C y n W A. Riley, persmally h w n to me (OK @tom on the basis nf sntisfUrlary to $ S x pzmmwhwhow:name i s suhscijhcd to the within inst~m~nt achovledged nnd to mc that she ertcurcd the a,mc k Aer -mi caperily, md that by bsignam on ihe a the Entityupvn behalf ofwhich the pasooacted, exccu&d this inatnwcnt. in&umentflr
appw&
-~ This is e true certified c w of the dglnal documenton me orof recordin my office. It bears the seal and sIgnaiure, Imprinted in purpleink of the
~~
~.. ..~
~~ ~~
PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE O F CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, B239793 David W. Gates v. MGC, et a1 SBSC 1384851, Dept. 5 Colleen K. Sterne
I am counsel for appellant and not a party to the action. My address is 950 Roble Lane, Santa Barbara, CA 93103.805-450-0450fax 805-965-3492
On July 2,2012 I served respondents with the following document: APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF - B239793 [XI (By Personal Delivery) a s follows: Clerk of the Court, Santa Barbara 1100 Anacapa St., Santa Barbara CA, for Colleen Sterne, Judge Dept 5
1: 1 (By Facsimile) The fax machine I used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no
Pursuant to Rule CRC, 2008 [c1(4). error was reported by machine. I caused the machine to maintain a record of same. [XI(By Electronic) to address below (aareement) & nancvduffvsb@,vahoo.com: **also served electronic copv of transcript Regina McClendon, Locke Lord LLP 300 So Grand Ave, Suite 2600 Los Angeles, CA 90071 for respondents MGC, LLP,LAC rmcclendon@lockelord.com 213-485-1500 fax 213-485-1200
SUPREME COURT via website: ~tt~://w~1~.courts.ca.~ov/7423.htm Second Appellat? District Court of Appeal
the above is true. Executed in Santa Barbar , CA on July 2,2012 Note: Original + 4 copies (Green Covers) elivered to appellate court
&
""r$$L