CALIFORNIA 'QUIET TITLE' VICTORY: PAUL NGUYEN V. CHASE et al

CALIFORNIA ‘QUIET TITLE’ VICTORY: PAUL NGUYEN V. CHASE et al

CALIFORNIA ‘QUIET TITLE’ VICTORY: PAUL NGUYEN V. CHASE et al

The yellow in the picture represents all the hard work and sweat Mr. Nguyen encountered for this victory.

Quiet Title, Rescission and Damages, and Unfair Business Practices

JUDGMENT


1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and over the Defendants.

2. Venue as to the Defendants in the Central District of California is proper.

3. Default judgment is hereby entered against Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC and in favor of Plaintiffs Paul Nguyen and Laura Nguyen on all claims in Plaintiffs’ SecondAmended Complaint.

4. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Deed of Trust recorded with Orange County Recorder as instrument No. 2007000731120 on 12/12/2007 is wholly voided as to plaintiff Laura Nguyen.

5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services record a DEED OF RECONVEYANCE to reconvey unto Plaintiffs thereto all right, title and interest which was heretofore acquired by First American Loanstar Trustee Services under deed of trust recorded with Orange County Recorder as instrument No. 2007000731120 on 12/12/2007.

6. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all adverse claims against property known as 16141 Quartz Street, Westminster, CA 92683 are quieted.
The legal description of said property is:

LOT 44 TRACT NO. 8977, IN THE CITY OF WESTMINSTER, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF  CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 369, PAGE(S) 46 AND 47 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Assessor’s Parcel No.: 107-903-44.

7. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Promissory Note dated 12/12/2007 executed by Plaintiff Paul Nguyen in favor of Chase Bank USA, N.A. rescinded pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(i).

8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(b), Plaintiffs had made offer to tender the loan evidenced by promissory note dated 12/12/2007 and Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. did not take possession within 20 days after tender by the Plaintiffs. Therefore, ownership of the loan proceed is vested in the Plaintiffs without obligation on their part to pay for it.

9. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Chase Bank USA, N.A. within 20 days after entry of judgment shall return to the Plaintiffs any money or property given as earnest money, down payment, or otherwise pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(b).

10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs are awarded their costs of suit, to be paid by Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC, in an amount to be determined by the Clerk of the Court.

DATED: September 15, 2010
____________________________
The Honorable A. Howard Matz
JS-6 United States District Judge

[ipaper docId=37596755 access_key=key-1473obcdj4vb1esh5oz5 height=600 width=600 /]

© 2010-17 FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA. All rights reserved.



Comments

comments

This post was written by:

- who has written 8684 posts on FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA.

CONTROL FRAUD | ‘If you don’t look; you don’t find, Wherever you look; you will find’ -William Black

Contact the author

7 Responses to “CALIFORNIA ‘QUIET TITLE’ VICTORY: PAUL NGUYEN V. CHASE et al”

  1. brian davies says:

    The leak has started. The pressure is high and these criminals will have to pay.

  2. JamesM says:

    Now this one is a victory !!

    If Plaintiffs get to switch their plead standing from gaining standing from an assignment,
    TO
    Not needing an not needing any showing other than a freshly endorsed note and a claim under UCC holder law.

    THEN
    We get to pull this UCC §1635(b)trick.

    I think he sued them first. A cleaver and proactive move. UNFORTUNATELY I DON’T THINK THIS CAN BE USED AS A DIRECT FORECLOSURE DEFENSE. THIS IS AN ACTION WHERE HE SUED THEM.

    Also note, he probably had the income avalible to pay the promissory note offered to tender the loan, other wise he is back in the same position.

    I am sure we will all have to bone up on that section of the UCC but this is probably not going to be a magic silver bullet defense. It is not final, is not a may still be overturned on appeal.

  3. Charles Cox says:

    JamesM,

    California is generally a non-judicial foreclosure state and you HAVE to sue them to keep them from foreclosing on you.

    California also had the Cal.Comm.Code which parallels the UCC.

    The courts have discretion on Tender issues.

    The decision IS final UNLESS overturned on appeal or better yet, affirmed on appeal then they would really have a problem with stare decisis (precedent authority). They’ll think long and hard I’d guess before taking it to the appelate court…the risk may be too high for them. It will be interesting.

  4. tom says:

    Hi
    I’m wondering if the my loan filed with the california reconveyance company falls under these guidelines. It was originated with wamu. I live in california and bought my home in 2006.
    Any info would be appreciated.
    Thank you
    Tom

  5. Anon. says:

    For anyone who’s been paying off their loan, but where the servicers are not crediting the payments properly and claiming that the homeowner is in default, *this sort of quiet title action is the thing to do*.

  6. Nikki says:

    @Brian Davies are you an attorney? If not, do you know a good one?

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] as a result of Chase not showing up, Nguyen wins a default judgment.  The judge rescinds the promissory note between Nguyen and Chase, thereby giving Nguyen the home […]


Leave a Reply

GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com

Archives