Mark DeMucha | FORECLOSURE FRAUD | by DinSFLA

Tag Archive | "Mark DeMucha"

GAME CHANGER? | California Homeowner Challenges Wells Fargo, Could Set a Legal Precedent

GAME CHANGER? | California Homeowner Challenges Wells Fargo, Could Set a Legal Precedent


DEMUCHA v WELLS FARGO | California Appeals Court Reverses & Remands “QUIET TITLE, FRAUD & MISREPRESENTATION, SLANDER OF CREDIT”

A Bakersfield homeowner is taking on a bank, in a battle that could have sweeping implications for people facing foreclosure.

Mark Demucha wants Wells Fargo to prove it owns his home loan. And, if his lawsuit is successful, it could set a legal precedent that slows or even stops foreclosures across the state.

[KGET]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)

DEMUCHA v WELLS FARGO | California Appeals Court Reverses & Remands “QUIET TITLE, FRAUD & MISREPRESENTATION, SLANDER OF CREDIT”

DEMUCHA v WELLS FARGO | California Appeals Court Reverses & Remands “QUIET TITLE, FRAUD & MISREPRESENTATION, SLANDER OF CREDIT”


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

MARK DEMUCHA et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,

v.

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE INC.,
Defendant and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

This case presents a classic example of the longstanding rule that “in passing upon the question of the sufficiency or insufficiency of a complaint to state a cause of action, it is wholly beyond the scope of the inquiry to ascertain whether the facts stated are true or untrue” as “[t]hat is always the ultimate question to be determined by the evidence upon a trial of the questions of fact.” (Colm v. Francis (1916) 30 Cal.App. 742, 752.)

The trial court dismissed this civil action after sustaining the demurrer of respondent Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, a division of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Wells Fargo), to the first amended complaint of appellants Mark and Cheryl DeMucha. Appellants contended in the trial court, as they do on this appeal, that the allegations of their pleading were sufficient to survive demurrer. As we explain, we agree with appellants on all of their causes of action except the second (their attempt to state a cause of action for removal of a cloud on title) and the fourth (their attempt to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress). We reverse the judgment, remand the matter to the trial court, and direct that court to overrule respondent’s demurrer as to all causes of action except the second and fourth.

[…]

[ipaper docId=59760112 access_key=key-1a4f4tltiqhl16077q4f height=600 width=600 /]

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



Posted in STOP FORECLOSURE FRAUDComments (2)


GARY DUBIN LAW OFFICES FORECLOSURE DEFENSE HAWAII and CALIFORNIA
Advertise your business on StopForeclosureFraud.com
Kenneth Eric Trent, www.ForeclosureDestroyer.com

Archives