Balancing the Scales of Justice for Pro Se Homeowners

3rd Party has Major FAIL in Unlawful Detainer

Posted by on Mar 4, 2016

3rd Party has Major FAIL in Unlawful Detainer

Dumb Dumb…You were TOLD…You were WARNED….but no……YOU thought you were special and didn’t have to actually prove a clean chain of title. Shucks. Guess you have to follow the law like the rest of us.

This family has been battling Deutsche Bank, like millions of others. In this particular matter, while the case was pending appeal, Deutsche moved forward with the Trustee Sale, shortly thereafter selling it to a 3rd party. The 3rd party, a professional real estate firm, didn’t bother with validating the sale- you know checking the chain of title. Had they done that they would have seen that there was no Assignment to Deutsche, only to the servicers; and there is an active lis pendens. But no, they thought they would just dispense with the legalities of the fraudulent foreclosure by
claiming they were a bona fide purchaser and file an unlawful detainer.  Soon the tears will start.cryingvolin

In their initial complaint Royalty Investment attached a copy of their “Grant Deed” showing they had “title”; and didn’t even both with claiming any compliance with Civ. Code § 2924. So of course, the attorney for the Preciado’s demurred, judicially noticing the Deed of Trust and showing the Court that Deutsche is not the beneficiary of the Deed of Trust and therefore, had no authority to transfer title to Royalty. The Court agreed and sustained the Demurrer, giving Royalty an opportunity to amend the complaint.

Royalty’s response was to attach the Trustee Deed Upon Sale – along with the Grant Deed it had received. I mean really? So the Preciado’s demurred again. Once judicially noticing the Deed of Trust showing that Deutsche is not a party to the Deed of Trust, nor was Quality Loan the Trustee. Royalty’s response was these were issues of fact and could not be resolved at the demurrer stage. The only problem with that is they didn’t challenge the judicial notice (not that it would have worked since it is not at issue – the Trustee Deed Upon Sale references the dang document!). And once again the Court sustained the Demurrer, specifically stating:


Plaintiff alleges Deutsche Bank was trustee and foreclosing beneficiary.

The Deed of Trust indicates the trustee was Southland Title and the beneficiary was MERS.

The Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale indicates the trustee was Quality Loan Service Corporation and the beneficiary/grantee was Deutsche Bank.

Plaintiff’s legal conclusion that Deutsche Bank was the trustee is contrary to the Trustee’s Deed of Trust attached to the First Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff also has not alleged the chain of title to show that Deutsche Bank was assigned as the trustee and/or beneficiary.

As such, Plaintiff has not shown he has duly perfected title. (CCP § 1161a; Vella v. Hudgins (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255)


The problem Royalty now faces is that there is NO assignment stating Deutsche is the beneficiary (or trustee) – so there is no way for Royalty to prove the foreclosure was done in compliance with Civ. Code § 2924. Was this just sloppy paperwork? No. It was and is an illegal sale. Royalty was warned that they would not be successful with any unlawful detainer; that the sale had been done illegally and if they continued they would be named in the lawsuit. They ignored the homeowner to robbertheir own peril. They now have a useless Grant Deed from a party that illegally foreclosed on the property and no way to gain possession. Their beef is with the thief….Deutsche, not the Preciado’s. If they weren’t dumb dumbs they would work with the Preciado’s in holding the thief accountable…but they are after all, dumb dumbs. Not sure where they can go from here; they have been granted leave to amend but that pesky Deed of Trust is such a problem for them. We will let you know what happens next!


If you are a pro se member or unlawful detainer fighter, log into the Unlawful Detainer section and get the full pleading and court rulings!





[1] Dum Dum is a trademark for suckers. So appropriate….


Forgot Password?

Join Us

Password Reset
Please enter your e-mail address. You will receive a new password via e-mail.