Balancing the Scales of Justice for Pro Se Homeowners

Pro Se Articles

These are articles that are specific for Pro Se homeowners fighting to keep their house.

Shalom Honorable Judge Arthur Schack

Posted by on May 4, 2016 | 0 comments

Shalom Honorable Judge Arthur Schack

The Honorable Judge Arthur Schack was one of the first judges in the country to recognize that something was afoot with the fraudulent foreclosure documents being created by the national banks. Often calling out how ludicrous it was that a MERS signer held high level positions with multiple national banks, who all had offices at the exact same location. Regardless to the alleged legality of it, he recognized it as indicia of something fraudulent and often refused a foreclosure; instead demanding the foreclosing bank show up and explain itself.

Judge Schack believed the Courtroom was to provide a “level playing field for all sides to present their case” and regardless of whether a homeowner showed up or not; or was/was not represented, didn’t mean the banks got a free pass to come in with fraudulent documents and foreclose. If they wanted to foreclose then the bank had to do it with clean, legal documents not fabricated assignments and affidavits. Eventually the banks stopped showing up by either peremptorily challenging him or just not bothering.

In 2012 he appeared before the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, describing in detail the abuses and fraud he was seeing being perpetrated against homeowners by the banks and their army of well financed attorneys. (See here for March 2012 blog) He held to one simple philosophy (described at page 2 of his testimony):

  • As a judge I am neutral
  • My role is to apply the law equally to all parties, on a level playing field
  • Due process of law must be followed
  • As a judge he took an oath to uphold the constitution – including “nor any state shall deprive any person of…property, without due process of law nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.”

   He took this seriously. He lived in the community that he represented on the bench. He understood the law and refused to step aside as the banks attempted to railroad homeowners in his community. He gave hope to us that were not so fortunate to have a judge like him in our community. Judge Schack leaves behind his wife of 41 years, Dilia, two children and a granddaughter; and a legacy of honor, faith, and trust. RIP dear Honorable Judge Schack. We shall always be grateful that you were a light of hope and voice of reason.



Read More

3rd Party has Major FAIL in Unlawful Detainer

Posted by on Mar 4, 2016 | 0 comments

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….

Read More

Forgot Password?

Join Us

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