PAUL NGUYEN, et al. v. CHASE BANK USA, N.A., et al

[GlimDropper]

(I'm not sure if this topic was a better fit here, or in Mortgages, I apologize to any mod tasked with moving it.)

Case info from Justia.com

The mortgage elimination scammers are hailing this as proof, justification and just the first of many victories. It's been offered as "proof" from NESARA blogs, a sign that the Restore America plan is working and I'm sure the George Tran's of the world will claim some kind of credit. I can't find an official source of the most recent judgment, what I do have is (from here):

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ORDERED that the Promissory Note dated 12/12/2007 executed by Plaintiff Paul Nguyen in favor of Chase Bank USA, N.A. rescinded pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1635(i).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

Undoubtedly this is a case that will launch a thousand scam sales pitches so I'm throwing it out to the people who can recognize it's proper context. This isn't exactly my wheelhouse but I do see it's a TILA case and one of the early filings (pdf link) mentions the following:

B. Plaintiffs Have Stated a Claim for “Fraud by Forgery” [Count Two]
Plaintiffs’ second claim for “fraud by forgery” states that “[o]n or about December
7, 2007, Chase and/or its agents intentionally forged [the] signature of the Plaintiff Laura
Nguyen on the Deed of Trust and other documents related to the Mortgage Loan with the
intention of harming the Plaintiffs,” and that their forgery was “undertaken as a part of a
scheme to” prevent them from “knowing the true terms and conditions of the Mortgage
Loan” and to prevent them from rescinding the Loan. FAC ¶¶ 65-66. These allegations
sufficiently identify the fraudulent conduct and describe the circumstances surrounding
the conduct to permit Defendants to “prepare an adequate answer from the allegations.”
Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc. , 885 F.2d 531, 540 (9th Cir. 1989).
Additionally, in support of their claim, Plaintiffs have offered the affidavit of Laura
Nguyen in which she testifies that she did not ever sign the Deed of Trust. Notice of
Declaration of Plaintiff Laura Nguyen in Support of Preliminary Injunction ¶¶ 4-8.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss claim two is DENIED.

It seems that there may have been more procedural flaws in the loan than just difficulty in supplying the "wet ink" copy of the instrument. This case WILL be used by scammers to sell their wares, I'd appreciate the help of anyone with greater insight (pert near anyone here) and perhaps greater access to the relevant documents in an effort to learn what happened here and how that might be different than what the loan forgiveness scammers are selling.

[grixit]

Shouldn't forging a signature be the subject of criminal prosecution as well?

Yeah, agreed on the scammers. Finding a single instance where the bank was apparently in the wrong will be offered as proof that houses are actually free for the taking. A lot of judges will have disabuse a lot of plaintiffs.

[bmielke]

Shouldn't forging a signature be the subject of criminal prosecution as well?

I'm not sure, but I will say this, at least in Tennessee we have a hard time getting the police to take anything that can be handled in Civil Court.

Examples would be theft in a family.
Fraud by a car dealer.
Even Id theft in a Family.

[Judge Roy Bean]

This is an interesting TILA recission case where the signature of at least one person was repeatedly forged on the loan documents and the defendants (including Chase) failed to comply with a number of court orders. Without reading dozens and dozens of pages I suspect when the broker tried to put the loan Paul Nguyen signed through the system (without his wife's signature - she wasn't even there at the closing) someone at Chase said "no" and the broker decided to get creative to "getterdun." It could also be that someone at Chase was complicit - we won't find out about that until those Bozos start suing each other over this.

Had Chase and Loanstar Trustee Services (there were numerous other defendants dismissed along the way) handled the case properly they would have at least accepted the Nguyen's tender offer.* In fact, several times the defendants could have been held in contempt for violating orders and they escaped with warnings.

While the Nguyen's filed Pro Per and there were some procedural hiccups they had to work through, they prevailed with a well-drafted case and not even a hint of the legal mythologies.

*Another unusual factor in this case was that the Nguyen's had sufficient equity in the property to be able to prove to the court that they could tender an offer and thus didn't have to have a bond.

[fortinbras]

I will bet my bottom dollar that the "judgment" being touted on one blog and quoted in the first message was NOT signed or issued by the judge but was the very very optimistic (and amateurish) proposal of the plaintiffs, possibly included with their motion for judgment.

Why do I say this? Because the proffer of a promissory note, even a bona fide one, is NOT a tender of payment, it is merely the offer of a new debt to supplant the old debt. As it does not meet the definition of a tender of payment, the creditor is not obligated to recognize it and its refusal has no effect on the underlying debt.

Sovruns seems to have embraced the fantasy that offering a new IUO somehow satisfies the old OIU and cannot be refused and can be repeated forever without ever actually parting with money.

[Dezcad]

I will bet my bottom dollar that the "judgment" being touted on one blog and quoted in the first message was NOT signed or issued by the judge but was the very very optimistic (and amateurish) proposal of the plaintiffs, possibly included with their motion for judgment.

Hold on to that bottom dollar since I've checked PACER and this is indeed the judgment entered by the Court. There have been, however, Motions to Reconsider and to Alter and to Vacate that judgment which have not yet been ruled upon.

11/10/2010 168 MINUTES OF Motion Hearing held before Judge A. Howard Matz: As to Motions DE 129, DE 131, and DE 139, Court hears oral argument and takes the motions under submission. Court Reporter: Cindy Nirenberg. (se) (Entered: 11/10/2010)

Here's the full judgment retrieved from PACER.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
PAUL NGUYEN, et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHASE BANK USA, N.A., et al.,
Defendants.
)

CASE NO. CV09-4589-AHM (AJWx)
ORDER OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF AGAINST CHASE BANK USA, N.A.;
AND CHASE HOME FINANCE, LLC AND, JUDGMENT AGAINST FIRST AMERICAN LOANSTAR TRUSTEE
SERVICES, LLC.
_______________________________)
Plaintiffs PAUL NGUYEN (hereinafter “PAUL”) and LAURA NGUYEN (hereinafter “LAURA”) (hereinafter collectively “NGUYEN”), filed a Complaint and Second Amended Complaint [Docket #96] for rescission and damages, quiet title and unfair business practices. The lien is evidenced by the deed of trust recorded on December 12, 2007, in the Official Records of Orange County, as Document Number 2007000731120, against Plaintiffs’ real property commonly known as 16141Quartz Street, Westminster, California 94825 (“the Property”), and more fully described below:
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.

Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC (collectively “Chase”) failed to submit the required pre-trial documents and failed to comply with certain orders issued by this Court.
Therefore, for reasons and findings stated on the record, it is hereby ordered that default judgment is entered against Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services, LLC failed to file the mandated pretrial documents and did not even appear at the pretrial conference. However, it precisely “agree[d] to be bound by whatever non-monetary Order or Judgment
this Court issues with regard to the Deed of Trust.” Accordingly, Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services, LLC shall be and is bound by this Judgment.

Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED as follows:

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’ Second
Amended 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
United States District Judge

[Gregg]

It seems to me that judgement is in favor of the wife only, or if not it should be IMO. Yes, someone did something cute to get the loan processed, but the husband was definitely there and signed, why is he getting off scot free?

[ArthurWankspittle]

It seems to me that judgement is in favor of the wife only, or if not it should be IMO. Yes, someone did something cute to get the loan processed, but the husband was definitely there and signed, why is he getting off scot free?

You can only hope the loan company is either raising this point as part of the other motions or is being cute and waiting for all the current cases to finish before starting with a fraud and demand for return of the money against the husband and the broker. Especially if the husband's previous evidence says he and the broker did it and he didn't object at the time.

[Gregg]

Makes ya wonder, eh? Like, who goes to a closing without the spouse? Maybe they planned it, who knows....

[Dezcad]

It seems to me that judgement is in favor of the wife only, or if not it should be IMO. Yes, someone did something cute to get the loan processed, but the husband was definitely there and signed, why is he getting off scot free?

Keep in mind Gregg that the judgment wasn't entered as a result of a ruling on the merits of the Plaintiff's claims but as a result of a default judgment against the Defendants for:

Defendants Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC (collectively “Chase”) failed to submit the required pre-trial documents and failed to comply with certain orders issued by this Court.
Therefore, for reasons and findings stated on the record, it is hereby ordered that default judgment is entered against Chase Bank USA, N.A. and Chase Home Finance, LLC on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. Defendant First American Loanstar Trustee Services, LLC failed to file the mandated pretrial documents and did not even appear at the pretrial conference.

Post-judgment motions are pending so this is not finally resolved.