1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Angela Trinh 7321 Arcadia Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 tel. 949-777-4008 fax. 949-777-4208 Email:getangela@hotmail.com

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER Angela Trinh, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) EXECUTIVE TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC ) dba ETS SERVICES; GREENPOINT ) MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.; LSI TITLE ) COMPANY, INC.; and Doe ) Defendants 1 through 100, ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. Complaint For Declaratory Relief And Request For Jury Trial For Damages Arising From: DECLARATORY RELIEF; FRAUD; QUITE TITLE; VIOLATION OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE 17200; VIOLATION OF CA CIV. CODE 1572; VIOLATION OF CA CIV. CODE 2924; VIOLATION OF CA CIV. CODE 3412; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; SLANDER OF TITLE; & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Comes now Plaintiff, Angela Trinh, acting upon information and belief, respectfully alleges and submits this Complaint for Damages and Declaratory Relief and Request for Jury Trial as follows:

1. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is an individual, who is, and at all times relevant to this

action, a resident of the County of Orange, in the State of California, and the lawful owner of a parcel of Real Property commonly known as 7321 Arcadia Drive, Huntington Beach, California 92648 (hereinafter Subject Property). -1COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2.

Defendant

EXECUTIVE

TRUSTEE

SERVICES,

LLC

dba

ETS

SERVICES, LLC (herein after ETS) is a Delaware corporation conducting business in the State of California by acting as a foreclosure trustee agent for GMAC Mortgage, LLC. Executive Trustee Services, LLC is the business entity who wrongly recorded a Notice of Trustees Sale under the pretense of power of sale for the Deed of Trust of Plaintiff Angela Trinh. A website for Executive Trustee Services, LLC indicates that is a subsidiary of GMAC Mortgage. Plaintiff, based on the recorded Notice of Trustees Sale, believes the mailing address of Executive Trustee Services, LLC is: 2255 North Ontario Street, Suite 400, Burbank, CA 91504-3120. The Agent for Service of Process is: Corporation Service Company dba CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service located at 2730 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95833. A true and correct copy of the results from an internet search are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1, Result of research for Executive Trustee Services, LLC from the internet and the California Secretary of States website. 3. GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC (hereinafter GMAC) is not a named

Defendant, however it is a Delaware corporation that is licensed to conduct business in the State of California, and which does conduct business by, among other things, engaging in mortgage lending activities and obtaining security interests in real property located in Orange County, California. Plaintiff believes the mailing address of GMAC Mortgage, LLC is: 1100 Virginia Drive, Fort Washington, PA 19034. The Agent for Service of Process is: Corporation Service Company dba CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service located at 2730 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95833. This information is based, in part, on the results of an internet search conducted on the California Secretary of States website. A true and correct copy of the internet search result is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit -2COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

2, Results of research for GMAC Mortgage, LLC from the California Secretary of States website. 4. Defendant GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC (hereinafter

GreenPoint) is a New York corporation that is licensed to conduct business in the State of California, and which does conduct business by, among other things, engaging in mortgage lending activities and obtaining security interests in real property located in Orange County, California. GreenPoint was the original lender who provided Miss. Trinh with a home loan in 2006 and obtained a security interest in her real property located in Huntington Beach, California. Plaintiff believes the mailing address of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, LLC is: 100 Wood Hollow Drive, Novato, CA 94945. The Agent for Service of Process is: Corporation Service Company dba CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service. This information is based, in part, on the results of an internet search conducted on GreenPoints website and the California Secretary of States website. A true and correct copy of the internet search results are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 3, Results of research for GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, LLC. 5. Defendant LSI TITLE COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter LSI) is a

California corporation who wrongly recorded a Notice of Trustees Sale on behalf of ETS Services, LLC and is engaged in the business of acting as a foreclosure trustee and in noticing and conducting foreclosures in the County of Orange and in the State of California. Plaintiff believes the mailing address of LSI Title Company, Inc is: 601 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL 32204. The Agent for Service of Process is: CT Corporation System located at 818 West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017. This information is based, in part, on the results of an internet search conducted on LSIs website and the California Secretary of States website. A true and correct copy of the internet search results is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit -3COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4, Results of research for LSI Title Company, Inc. from the internet and California Secretary of States website. 6. MARIN CONVEYANCING CORPORATION (hereinafter Marin) is

not a named Defendant, however it is a California corporation doing business in the County of Orange California. Marin Conveyancing Corporation was named as the Trustee under the Deed of Trust of Plaintiff. Plaintiff believes the mailing address for Marin Conveyancing Corporation is: 1100 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite, 360, Larkspur, CA 94939. The Agent for Service of Process is: Corporation Service Company dba CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service located at 2730 Gateway Oaks Drive, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95833. This information is based, in part, on the results of an internet search conducted on the California Secretary of States website. A true and correct copy of the internet search result is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 5, Results of research for Marin Conveyance Corporation from the California Secretary of States website. 7. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEM, INC.

(hereinafter MERS) is not a named Defendant, however it is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of California and it purports to have acquired an interest in Plaintiffs real property first as a nominee and also as a beneficiary under the terms of the Deed of Trust. The status of this corporation is Suspended from the State of California. Plaintiff believes the mailing address for Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. is: 1818 Library Street, Suite 300, Reston, VA 20190. This information is based, in part, on the results of an internet search conducted on the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. website and the California Secretary of States website. A true and correct copy of the internet search results are attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 6, Results of research for Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. -4COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8.

The true names and capacities of Does 1-100, inclusive, whether

individual, corporate, partnership, associate or otherwise, are presently unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that each Defendant is

responsible in some manner for the events described herein and is liable to Plaintiff for the damages she has incurred. Plaintiff will amend this

Complaint to show the true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants when they have been ascertained. 9. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any

Defendant(s), that allegation shall mean that each Defendant acted individually and jointly with the other Defendants. 10. Any allegation about acts of any corporate or other business

Defendant means that the corporation or other business did the acts alleged through its officers, directors, employees, agents, brokers and/or

representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their authority. 11. At all relevant times, each Defendant committed the acts,

caused or directed others to commit the acts, or permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this Complaint. Additionally, some or all of the Defendants acted as the agent or the assignee or the substitute of Defendants, and all of Defendants acted within the scope of their agency if acting as an agent the assignee or the substitute of another. 12. At all relevant times, each Defendant knew or realized that the

other Defendants were engaging in or planned to engage in the violations of law alleged in this Complaint. Knowing or realizing that other Defendants were engaging in or planning to engage in unlawful conduct, each Defendant nevertheless facilitated the commission of those unlawful acts. Each Defendant intended to and did encourage, facilitate, or assist in the -5COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

commission of the unlawful acts, and thereby aided and abetted the other Defendants in the unlawful conduct. 13. At all relevant times, Defendant has engaged in conspiracy,

common enterprise, and common course of conduct, the purpose of which is and was to engage in the violations of law alleged in this Complaint. This conspiracy, common enterprise, and common course of conduct continues to the present. 14. The violations of law alleged in this Complaint occurred in

Huntington Beach and elsewhere throughout Orange County of California. 15. At all times mentioned herein, the Defendants, and each of

them, were the agents, servants, representatives and/or employees of each of the remaining Defendants and were acting within the course and scope of such agency or employment. The exact terms and conditions of the agency, representation, or employment relationships are presently unknown to Plaintiff, but when the information is ascertained, leave of court will be sought to insert appropriate allegations. /// 2. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 16. Miss. Trinh has been a victim of the mortgage lending mess

created by Wall Street, mortgage lenders and servicers, Defendant ETS and various and assorted other vultures who are engaged in a pattern and

business practices intended to deceive and mislead homeowners regarding application of payments and amounts owing under notes and deeds of trust, and upon the courts and county recorders offices regarding their ownership interest in the notes and deeds of trust under which they are collecting fees and/or initiating foreclosures. 17. On or about July 18, 2006, Plaintiff applied for and obtained a

home loan from GreenPoint. Loan Number 0090093915 (hereafter Subject -6COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Loan). In connection with the making of that loan, Miss. Trinh signed a Deed of Trust for GreenPoint, which was recorded with the records of Orange County, California on July 19, 2006. The security interest for the Subject Loan is reflected in the Deed of Trust (hereinafter DOT) as follows: Angela Trinh as the Borrower; GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc. as the Lender; Marin Conveyancing Corp. as the Trustee; Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS) as the Beneficiary 18. That DOT contained a false representation on its face when it

represented that MERS was a beneficiary under the DOT. Paragraph (E) states that, MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as a Nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assign. MERS is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument. As will be demonstrated below, MERS is not the beneficiary under the DOT, it never had ownership or possession of the Promissory Note which is the obligation which is secured by the DOT, and MERS has never been entitled to receive one cent of remuneration from Miss. Trinhs loan proceeds. The statement that MERS is the Nominee is nonsensical language which means nothing in a real estate transaction and most certainly, MERS has never been nor is it now the beneficiary under the DOT. A true and correct copy of the Deed of Trust is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 7, Deed of Trust 19. After obtaining the loan in July 2006, Miss. Trinh made payments

on the loan to GreenPoint, which held itself out as the owner and/or servicer of the mortgage loan. On or about October 2006, Miss. Trinh received a notice that GMAC was the new owner or servicer or assignee of the mortgage loan and instructed Miss. Trinh to thereafter make her payments to GMAC as -7COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the servicer at an address in Waterloo, Iowa. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that her loan, after it was originated and funded, was transferred or assigned to GMAC, or that GMAC holds a legal interest in said loan and the security for said loan, including the DOT alleged above. 20. On or about May 29, 2007, Miss. Trinh received a letter from

GMAC containing information about the escrow balance on her loan. Due to an error by GMAC escrow analysis, Miss. Trinhs escrow account was negative $5,170.68. Miss. Trinh made supplemental payments along with the regular mortgage payment in order to bring the escrow account current. A true and correct copy of the GMAC Escrow Statement is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 8, GMAC Escrow Statement. 21. On or about February 24, 2009, ETS, acting in the guise of

ostensible trustee under the DOT of Plaintiff, illegally declared that it was the duly appointed Trustee or substitute Trustee under the Deed of Trust, and through its agent/assignee LSI, unlawfully recorded a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, claiming that Plaintiff was default in her monthly obligation under the Note and DOT provided as security for the loan alleged above. A true and correct copy of the unlawfully recorded Notice of Default is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 9, Notice of Default. 22. On or about May 26, 2009, ETS, acting in the guise of ostensible

trustee under the DOT of Plaintiff, illegally declared that is was the duly appointed Trustee or substitute Trustee under the Deed of Trust, and through its agent/assignee LSI, unlawfully recorded with the Orange County Recorders Office a Notice of Trustees Sale against Subject Property. A true and correct copy of the unlawfully recorded Notice of Trustees Sale is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit 10, Notice of Trustees Sale. -8COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

23.

The truth is that, ETS was not the Trustee of the DOT and it

never was a duly appointed trustee pursuant to the Deed of Trust executed by Angela Trinh as it wrongly claimed on the Notice of Trustees Sale. 24. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that none of

these alleged beneficiaries or representatives of the Beneficiary have the original note to prove that they are in fact the party authorized to conduct the foreclosure slated for June 18, 2009. 25. Plaintiff further alleges that the impending foreclosure sale of the

Subject Property was not executed in accordance with the requirements of California Civil Code Sections 1624, 2924 et seq. 26. That the Trustee who was acting as the agent of the principal

failed to have written authorization to act for the principal and under California Civil Code Sec 1624 the agency relationship must also be in written form. 27. Plaintiff further allege that California Civil Code section 2924 and

its subparts are being applied to Plaintiff in a manner that is unlawful, because at least in part the party acting as the Trustee proceeding with the foreclosure of Plaintiffs Subject Property notwithstanding the following facts and circumstance: a. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the Trustee was not

in possession of the original Note, that the Note when it was assigned to the current beneficiary did not covey the power of sale because it violated the terms of California Civil Code section 2932.5, that the assignment when it was made to the current beneficiary that the Note executed by Plaintiff was no longer a negotiable instrument because the assignment was not applied to the Note. 28. That the Trustee and the loan servicer are acting as agents of -9COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the Beneficiary and signing documents as the agent of the agent of the agent of the Beneficiary for Plaintiffs Note and the notices therein. 29. It is also true that MERS was not the legal beneficiary of the

Deed of Trust as fully described below in greater detail.

3. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 30. GreenPoint, which might well be the same as the original trustee

Marin, the false beneficiary MERS, the ostensible trustee ETS, and its agent/assignee LSI Title, will have total liability for this fraudulent transaction to the extent it had knowledge through its agents of the fraudulent scheme which lead to an unlawful Notice of Trustees Sale slated for June 18, 2009. 31. Regarding the issue of MERS alleged status as a beneficiary

under the DOT, its own records demonstrate the falsity of the information on the document. Documents taken from MERS own website reveal that MERS is not the beneficiary under any Deeds of Trust or mortgages. Rather, MERS was created to, streamline the mortgage process by using electronic commerce to eliminate paper. Our mission is to register every mortgage

loan in the United States on the MERS System. It also notes that, MERS remains the nominal mortgagee no matter how many times servicing is traded. The other documentation from MERS website demonstrates that it is nothing more than a computer system designed by the mortgage industry to protect them from having to pay recording fees so that the entity that owns any mortgage loan is available. MERS entire business operation is

premised on the wholesale and ever changing sale or transfer of servicing rights. The documentation demonstrates that MERS does not own the loan at any given time. A true and correct copy of excerpts from MERS Website is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 11, Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. (MERS) Website. -10COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

32.

Further, MERS admittedly does not hold any promissory notes. A

party must have possession of a Promissory Note in order to have standing to enforce and/or otherwise collect a debt that is owed to another party. Since MERS never obtains possession of the Promissory Note which secures the DOT, it cannot ever have the right to enforce the terms of the DOT, since that right is reserved for the owner and holder of the secured instrument, the Promissory Note. It follows that MERS had no right to sell afterward. 33. numerous The totality of the transaction of the Subject Loan violates state laws including deceptive business practice and

administrative standards for the practice of professions.

Plaintiff hereby

declares the Notice of Trustees Sale recorded by ETS Sercvices, LLC, and/or its agent/assignee LSI Title Company was invalid and in tort of Slander of Title and alleges as below:

4. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF DECLARATORY RELIEF (As Against All Defendants) 34. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above

paragraphs as set forth fully herein. 35. An actual controversy exists in which the parties must ascertain

their rights, duties and right to title in the Subject Property. 36. A judicial determination is necessary that the parties may

ascertain their rights, duties and right to title in the Subject Property. 37. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of Defendants rights,

obligations and duties, and a declaration as to who owns Plaintiffs Subject Property. /// /// -11COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/// 5. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF FRAUD (As Against All Defendants) 38. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above

paragraphs as set forth fully herein. 39. Plaintiff alleges that GreenPoint was engaged in an illegal

scheme the purpose of which was to execute loans secured by real property in order to make commissions, kick-backs, illegal undisclosed yield spread premiums, and undisclosed profits by the sale of any instruments arising out of the transaction. Plaintiff alleges that ETS represented to plaintiff and to third parties that they were the owner of the Trust Deed and Note as either the Trustee or the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiffs real property. Based on this representation they caused a Notice of Default to be issued and recorded without disclosing their true role, and thereafter a notice of intent to foreclose jeopardizing Plaintiffs right, title and interest in the Subject Property. In fact, Plaintiff alleges that the promissory note which was

executed by Plaintiff and which initially formed a basis of a security interest in the subject property, was assigned in violation of Civil Code section 2932.5 et seq., and as such the promissory note was rendered as non-negotiable and no power of sale was conveyed with the note at the time of the assignment, and therefore, ETS had no lawful security interest in the subject property. 40. Plaintiff alleges that based upon the foregoing representations of

GreenPoint, Plaintiff did in fact repose her trust in the representations of GreenPoint, and that such trust was reasonable. 41. Plaintiff alleges that GreenPoint presented a loan to Plaintiff

whereby it was represented that she did qualify for underwriting, and that -12COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the loan was within Plaintiffs personal financial needs and limitations given the confidential financial information that Plaintiff shared with them. 42. Plaintiff alleges that GreenPoint had a duty to disclose the true

cost of the loan which was made to Plaintiff, and the fact that Plaintiff could not afford the loan in the first instance. 43. Plaintiff acquired the foregoing property by virtue of the said

funding based on the representations of GreenPoint that the loan was the best they could obtain for her, and that the loan was well within Plaintiffs financial needs and limitations. 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that

GreenPoint represented to Plaintiff that they were working for the benefit of Plaintiff and in her particular best interest to obtain for her the best loan and at the best rates available. 45. That at the time GreenPoint made the foregoing false

representations to Plaintiff they knew that they were untrue and that these representations were material representations. 46. That the foregoing representations were made in order to induce

Plaintiff to act on and take the said loan in order for GreenPoint to make a substantial amount of money thereby and there from. 47. Plaintiff was induced to and did take this loan based on the said

representations. 48. That Plaintiff was induced to rely and did rely on the

representations of GreenPoint through deception and her reliance was justified as she believed that they were working for her and in her best interest. 49. That by virtue of Plaintiffs reliance and the increased interest

she was made to pay, she has been damaged in the loss of her good credit and a higher payment and is now being involved in litigation that she did not -13COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

bargain for, all to her damage and injury. 50. Plaintiffs reliance was justified based upon the false

representations of GreenPoint, and had no reason to believe that a party representing a bank would go to such lengths to deceive and to convert Plaintiffs property. 51. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants knew at the time they made

these representations to Plaintiff that they were untrue, and also knew at the time that ETS was attempting to foreclose on Plaintiffs Trust Deed and note that they had no right to do so. 52. Plaintiff alleges Defendants, and each of them, by said fraudulent

scheme intentionally and fraudulently intended to convert Plaintiffs right, title and interest to their property, and any equity therein. 53. Additionally, Plaintiff has been made to suffer deep and severe

emotional distress, mortification, anxiety and humiliation all to her damage and injury in an amount the totality of which has not yet been fully ascertained, but in no event less than the jurisdiction limitations of this court. 54. Plaintiff alleges that the loan was unconscionable in that the

repayment terms were unfair and unduly oppressive, because the payments exceeded Plaintiffs entire combined income and as such, Defendants, and each of them, cannot enforce the terms and conditions of the loan against Plaintiff, and any non-judicial foreclosure arising there from is void. 55. Plaintiff is informed and believes and therefore alleges that her

loan after it was originated and funded was sold on multiple occasions, bundled into a group of Trust Deeds and subsequently sold to investors as a Derivative, Mortgage Backed Security, and that therefore none of these Defendants, and each of them, owned this loan, or Note and can not be and are not the Beneficiary, or lawfully appointed trustee, and have no right to declare a default, to cause notices of default to issue or to be recorded, or to -14COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

foreclose on Plaintiffs interest in the subject property, Defendants, and each of them, were not the Note holder or the Note holder in due course or any Beneficiary at any time in regards to this loan. 56. That none of these Defendants, and each of them, were ever

disclosed as the beneficiary in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 2924 et seq. 57. Plaintiff further alleges on information and belief that none of

these alleged beneficiaries or representatives of the Beneficiary have the original note to prove that they are in fact the party authorized to conduct the foreclosure. 58. Plaintiff further alleges that the scheduled foreclosure sale of the

Subject Property is not in accordance with the requirements of California Civil Code Sections 1624, 2923.5, 2932.5 and Commercial Code section 3302 et seq. 59. That the Trustee who was acting as the agent of the Principal

failed to have written authorization to act for the principal and under California Civil Code Section 1624 the agency relationship must also be in written form. 60. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that

Defendants, and each of them, entered into a fraudulent scheme, the purpose of which was to make a loan to Plaintiff, which Defendants, and each of them, were keenly aware that Plaintiff could not afford, at a cost way above the then prevailing market rate, made loan to Plaintiff and falsely represented to Plaintiff that she could not qualify for any other financing, that Plaintiff could not qualify under any reasonable underwriting guidelines, that such scheme was devised to extract illegal and undisclosed

compensation from Plaintiff by virtue of an undisclosed yield spread premium and which Defendants, and each of them, shared in some presently unknown -15COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

percentage. 61. Circa 2008, GMAC alleged that Plaintiff became in default of the

loan. This default was occasioned by the high payments, the structure of the loan and interest rate of the Subject Property. However, Plaintiff was not in default because of the prior breach of the terms of the note by Defendants, and each of them, the performance of Plaintiff was excused. 62. Plaintiff did not discover the foregoing fraud until a date within

three (3) years of the date of filing this complaint. 63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants fraud, Plaintiff

closed on the loan and suffered damages in an amount which will be proven at the time of trial. Plaintiff alleges that due to Defendants

misrepresentations she will suffer additional costs if forced to move out of and then relocate back to the Subject Property. 64. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, are engaged

in and continue to engage in violations of California law including but, not limited to: California Civil Code section 2924 et seq. and 2932.5 et seq., and unless restrained will continue to engage in such misconduct, and that a public benefit necessitates that Defendants be restrained from such conduct in the future. 65. Plaintiff is informed and believes, that the actions of Defendants,

as alleged herein, were not due to inadvertence or excusable neglect, but rather were an intentional scheme by Defendants to deprive Plaintiff of property, legal rights or to otherwise cause injury to Plaintiff, such as to constitute malice, oppression or fraud under California Civil Code 3294, thereby, entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish or set an example of said Defendants. A. 66. California Legislature Findings Recently, the California Legislature found and declared the -16COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

following in enacting California Civil Code 2923.6 on July 8, 2008: (a) California is facing an unprecedented threat to its state because of skyrocketing residential property

economy

foreclosure rates in California. Residential property foreclosures increased sevenfold from 2006 to 2007, in 2007, more than 84,375 properties were lost to foreclosure in California, and 254,824 loans went into default, the first step in the foreclosure process.

(b)

High foreclosure rates have adversely affected property

values in California, and will have even greater adverse consequences as foreclosure rates continue to rise. According to statistics released by the HOPE NOW Alliance the number of completed California foreclosure sales in 2007 increased almost threefold from 1,902 in the first quarter to 5,574 in the fourth quarter of that year. Those same statistics report that 10,556 foreclosure sales, almost double the number for the prior quarter, were completed just in the month of January 2008. More foreclosures means less money for schools, public safety, and key services. (c) Under specified circumstances, mortgage lenders and

servicers are authorized under their pooling and servicing agreements to modify mortgage loans when the modification is in the best interest of investors. Generally, that modification may be deemed to be in the best interest of investors when the net present value of the income stream of the modified loan is greater than the amount that would be recovered through the disposition of the real property security through a foreclosure -17COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

sale.

(d)

It is essential to the economic health of California for the

state to ameliorate the deleterious effects on the state economy and local economies and the California housing market that will result from the continued foreclosures of residential properties in unprecedented numbers by modifying the foreclosure process to require mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents to contact borrowers and explore options that could avoid

foreclosure. These Changes in accessing the state's foreclosure process are essential to ensure that the process does not exacerbate the current crisis by adding more foreclosures to the glut of foreclosed properties already on the market when a foreclosure could have been avoided. Those additional

foreclosures will further destabilize the housing market with significant, corresponding deleterious effects on the local and state economy.

(e)

According to a survey released by the Federal Home Loan

Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) on January 31, 2008, 57 percent of the nations late-paying borrowers do not know their lenders may offer alternative to help them avoid foreclosure.

(f)

As reflected in recent government and industry-led efforts

to help troubled borrowers, the mortgage foreclosure crisis impacts borrowers not only in nontraditional loans, but also many borrowers in conventional loans. -18COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

(g)

This act is necessary to avoid unnecessary foreclosures of

residential properties and thereby provide stability to California's statewide and regional economies and housing market by requiring early contact and communications between

mortgagees, beneficiaries, or authorized agents and specified borrowers to explore options that could avoid foreclosure and by facilitating the modification or restructuring of loans in

appropriate circumstances.

67.

Operation

Malicious

Mortgage

is

nationwide

operation

coordinated by the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI to identify, arrest, and prosecute mortgage fraud violators. San Diego Union Tribune, June 19, 2008. As shown below, Plaintiff is a victim of such mortgage fraud. 68. "Home ownership is the foundation of the American Dream.

Dangerous mortgages have put millions of families in jeopardy of losing their homes. CNN Money, December 24, 2007. The Loan which is the subject of this action to Plaintiff is of such character. 69. "Finding ways to avoid preventable foreclosures is a legitimate

and important concern of public policy. High rates of delinquency and foreclosure can have substantial spillover effects on the housing market, the financial markets and the broader economy. Therefore, doing what we, can to avoid preventable foreclosures is not just in the interest of the lenders and borrowers. It's in everybody's best interest." Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman, May 9, 2008. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants had the duty to

prevent such foreclosure, but failed to so act. 70. "Most of these homeowners could avoid foreclosure if present

loan holders would modify the existing loans by lowering the interest rate -19COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and making it fixed, capitalizing the arrearages, and forgiving a portion of the loan. The result would benefit lenders, homeowners, and their

communities. CNN Money, id. 71. On behalf of President Bush, Secretary Paulson has encouraged

lenders to voluntarily freeze interest rates on adjustable-rate mortgages. Mark Zandl, chief economist for Moods commented, There is no stick in the plan. There are a significant number of investors who would rather see

homeowners default and go into foreclosure. San Diego Union Tribune, 72. Fewer than l% of homeowners have experienced any help Plaintiff is not

"from the Bush-Paulson plan. San Diego Union Tribune, id. of that sliver that has obtained help. 73.

The Gravamen of Plaintiff's complaint is that Defendants violated

State and Federal laws which were specifically enacted to protect such abusive, deceptive, and unfair conduct by Defendants, and that Defendants cannot legally enforce a non-judicial foreclosure. 74. Plaintiff is a "debtor" as defined by the Rosenthal Act, California

Civil Code 1788.2(h). 75. Defendants are engaged in the collection of debts from

consumers using the mail and telephone. 76. Defendants regularly attempt to collect consumer debts alleged

to be due to another. 77. Defendants are "debt collectors" as defined by the Rosenthal

Act, California Civil Code 1788.2(c). 78. The purported debt which Defendants attempted to collect from

Plaintiff was a "consumer debt" as defined by the Rosenthal Act, California Civil Code 1788.2(f). B. Defendants Are Not Holders In Due Course Since Plaintiff Was Duped Into An Improper Loan And There Is No -20COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Effective Endorsement: 79. Plaintiff incurred a "debt" as that term is defined by California

Civil 17 Code 1788(d) and 15 U.S.C. 1692a (5), when she obtained a Loan to purchase a home in July 18, 2006. 80. The loan is memorialized via a Deed of Trust and Promissory

Note, each of which contain an attorney fees provision for the lender should they prevail in the enforcement of their contractual rights. 81. 82. Plaintiff has no experience beyond basic financial matters. Plaintiff was never explained the full terms of her loan, including

but not limited to the rate of interest, how the interest rate would be calculated, what the payment schedule should be, the risks and

disadvantages of the loan, the prepay penalties, the maximum amount the loan payment could arise to. 83. Certain fees in obtaining the loan, were also not explained to the

Plaintiff, including but not limited to "underwriting fees," "MERS registration fee," "appraisal fees," "broker fees, loan tie in fees," etc. 84. A determination of whether Plaintiff would be able to make the

payments as specified in the loan was never truly made. 85. 86. Plaintiffs income was never truly verified. Plaintiff was rushed when signing the documents; the closing

process provided no time for review and took minutes to accomplish. 87. Plaintiff could not understand any of the documents and signed

them based on representations and the trust and confidence the Plaintiff placed in Defendants predecessors. 88. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants and/or

Defendants' predecessors established and implemented the policy of failing to disclose material facts about the Loan, failing to verify Plaintiff's income, falsifying Plaintiff's income, agreeing to accept a Yield Spread Premium, and -21COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

causing Plaintiff's Loan to include a penalty for early payment. 89. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants and/or

Defendants' predecessors established such policy so as to profit, knowing that Plaintiff would be unable to perform future terms of the Loan. 90. Plaintiff is a victim of Fraud in the Factum since the forgoing

misrepresentations caused her to obtain the home loan without accurately realizing, the risks, duties or obligations incurred. 91. Defendants are not holders in due course due to Fraud in Factum

and ineffective endorsement. /// C. Defendants Lack of Standing To Conduct A Non-Judicial Foreclosure Pursuant To California Civil Code 2932.5 92. foreclosure. 93. Defendants are strangers to this transaction, and have no Defendants have no standing to enforce a non-judicial

authority to go forward with the foreclosure and Trustee's Sale. 94. Plaintiff executed a Promissory Note (hereinafter the Note) and

a Deed of Trust to GreenPoint. 95. GreenPoint was the Lender and only partly entitled to enforce

the Note and any security interest with it. 96. California Civil Code 2932.5 governs the Power of sale under an

assigned mortgage, and provides that the power of sale can only vest in a person entitled to money payments: "Where a power to sell real property is given to a mortgagee, or other encumbrancer, in an instrument intended to secure the payment of money, the power is part of the security and vests in any person who by assignment becomes entitled to payment of the money secured by the instrument. The power of sale may be exercised by the assignee if the assignment is duly acknowledged and recorded. -22COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

97. Defendants

The power of sale may not be exercised by any of the since there was never an acknowledged and recorded

assignment pursuant to California Civil Code 2932.5. 98. Since the Defendants did not comply with California Civil Code

2932.5, the Notice of Default provisions of California Civil Code 2924 and Notice of Sale provisions of California Civil Code 2924(f) were likewise never complied with. D. Defendants Lack of Standing to Enforce A Non-Judicial

Foreclosure Pursuant To California Commercial Code 3301 99. A promissory note is person property and the deed of trust

securing a note is a mere incident of the debt it secures, with no separable ascertainable market value. California Civil Code 657, 663. Kirby v. Palos Verdes Escrow Co., 183 Cal. App. 3d 57, 62. 100. Any transfers of the notice and mortgage fundamentally flow back to the note: "The assignment of a mortgage without a transfer of the Indebtedness confers no right, since debt and security are inseparable and the mortgage alone is not a subject of transfer, " Hyde v. Mangan (1891) 88 Cal. 319, 26 P 180, 1891 Cal LEXIS 693; Johnson v, Razy (1919)181 Cal 342, 184 P 657; 1919 Cal LEXIS 358; Bowman v. Sears (1923, Cal App) 63 Cal App 235, 218 P 489, 1923 Cal App LEXIS 199; Treat v. Burns (1932) 216 Cal 216, 13 P2d, 724, 1932 Cal LEXIS 554. 101. ''A mortgagee's purported assignment of the mortgage without an assignment of the debt which is secured is a legal nullity. Kelley V. Upshaw (1952) 39 Cal 2d 179, 246 P2d 23, 1952 Cal. LEXIS 248. 102. ''A trust deed has no assignable quality independent of the debt; it may not be assigned or transferred apart from the debt; and an attempt to -23COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

assign the trust deed without a transfer of the debt is without effect. Domarad v. Fisher & Burke, Inc. (1969 Cal. App. 1st Dist) 270 Cal. App. 2d 543, 76 Cal. Rptr. 529, 1969 Cal. App. LEXIS 1556. 103. The Promissory Note is a negotiable instrument. 104. Transferring a Deed of Trust by itself does not allow enforcement of the instrument unless the Promissory Note is properly negotiated. 105. Where an instrument has been transferred, enforceability is determined based upon possession. 106. California Commercial Code 3301 limits a negotiable

instrument's enforcement to the following: "Person entitled. to enforce" an Instrument means (a) the holder of the instrument, (b) a non-holder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder, or (c) a person not in possession of the instrument who is entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to Section 3309 or subdivision (d) of Section 3418. A person may be a person entitled to enforce the

instrument even though the person is not the owner of the instrument or is in wrongful possession of the instrument. 107. None of the Defendants are present holders of the instrument. 108. None of the Defendants are non-holders in possession of the instrument who has rights of the holder. 109. None of the Defendants are entitled to enforce the instrument pursuant to section 3309 or subdivision (d) of Section 3418. 110. Defendants have no enforceable rights under California

Commercial Code 3301(a) to enforce the negotiable instrument. 111. Since there is no right to enforce the negotiable instrument, the Notice of Default provisions of California Civil Code 2924 and Notice of Sale provisions of California Civil Code 2924(f) were likewise never complied -24COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

with, and there is no subsequent incidental right to enforce any deed of trust and conduct a non-judicial foreclosure 112. That by virtue of the method and manner of Defendants carrying out California Civil Code section 2924 et seq., the foreclosure of the Subject Property is void ab initio as a matter of law. 113. Defendants conduct as set forth above was intentional,

oppressive fraudulent and malicious so as to justify an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient that such conduct will not be repeated.

I. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION DECLARATORY RELIEF (As Against All Defendants) 114. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above

paragraphs as set forth fully herein. 115. An actual controversy exists in which the parties must ascertain

their rights, duties and right to title in the Subject Property. 116. A judicial determination is necessary that the parties may

ascertain their rights, duties and right to title in the Subject Property. 117. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants, and each of them, concerning their respective rights, obligations and duties as it relates to the Subject Property, that the loan which was made by GreenPoint was unconscionable and unenforceable, in that the payments exceeded Plaintiffs income, that Defendants did not disclose to Plaintiff the terms and conditions of the loan, that subsequent holders of the note which was executed by Plaintiff, including, but not limited to GMAC, ETS, Marin, were not and are not lawful holders in due course of the Note and Deed of Trust executed by Plaintiff, that Defendants, and each -25COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

of them, had no right to foreclose on Plaintiff Trust Deed and Note, and that their application of California Civil Code section 2924 is unlawful, that Defendants utilized the electronic recording system known as the Mortgage Electronic Registration System (MERS), in order to further their scheme to defraud Plaintiff of her property by making it appear that the assignment of the Note and Deed of Trust were lawful and executed in accordance with California Civil Code section 2932.5 and Commercial Code section 3302 et seq., although in fact such transactions caused the Note to be rendered nonnegotiable, and when the Note was assigned, the power of sale was not conveyed because the assignment was not recorded, and the trustee ETS, cannot lawfully proceeded with the foreclosure sale which is void ab initio. 118. Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of Defendants rights, obligations and duties, and a declaration as to who owns Plaintiffs Subject Property. /// /// /// /// II. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD (As Against All Defendants) 119. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as set forth fully herein. 120. Plaintiff alleges Defendants, and each of them, were

engaged in an illegal scheme the purpose of which was to execute loans secured by real property in order to make commissions, kick-backs, illegal undisclosed yield spread premiums, and undisclosed profits by the sale of -26COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

any instruments arising out of the transaction and to make loans to borrowers that they could not afford to repay given their stated financial situation. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, have represented to Plaintiff and to third parties that they were the owner of the Trust Deed and Note as either the Trustee or the Beneficiary regarding Plaintiffs real property. Based on this representation they caused a Notice of Default to be issued and recorded without disclosing their true role, and thereafter a notice of intent to foreclose jeopardizing Plaintiffs right, title and interest in the Subject Property. In fact, Plaintiff alleges that the promissory note which was executed by Plaintiff and which initially formed a basis of a security interest in the Subject Property, was assigned in violation of California Civil Code section 2932.5 et seq. because the assignment was not recorded, and as such the promissory note was rendered as non-negotiable and no power of sale was conveyed with the note at the time of the assignment, and therefore, Defendants, and each of them, had no lawful security interest in the subject property. 121. On or about, July 10, 2006, representatives, agents and/or employees of Defendants, and each of them, made false representations to Plaintiff in order to fund a home loan, in which the Plaintiffs personal residence was to be security therefore. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, made certain representations regarding their honesty, that they were experts in obtaining loans which borrowers could afford and that they would only offer Plaintiff a loan which was in her best interests given her credit history and financial needs and limitations and that Plaintiff could trust the representations of Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff alleges that based upon the representations made by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff reasonably reposed her trust in Defendants representations and disclosed her private financial information to Defendants, in order that -27COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants could in keeping with their representations, find a loan which was in the best interests of Plaintiff given her financial needs and limitations. More particularly, Defendants, and each of them, represented that they would not make a loan to Plaintiff unless she could afford the loan, and that they would not make the loan unless and until she had passed the underwriting guidelines of the lender, which further assured that the loan being offered to Plaintiff was in fact in the Plaintiffs best interests, and that the loan was within Plaintiffs financial needs and limitations. 122. Plaintiff alleges that the loan provided by Defendants, and each of them, contained a repayment schedule which called upon Plaintiff to pay a minimum monthly sum of $2,721.28, whereas, Plaintiffs total spendable monthly income was approximately $6,400.00, and that the loan contained excessive financing was approved to allow closing costs to be financed, that Defendants failed to utilize adequate due diligence regarding Plaintiffs ability to repay the loan, Defendants as part of their continuing scheme intentionally placed Plaintiff in a sub-prime loan to the benefit of the Defendants with excessively high interest rates, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff mandated disclosures. 123. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant GreenPoint engaged in some degree in making the loan to Plaintiff including, but not limited to: made the loan to Plaintiff by "marketing and extending adjustable-rate mortgage ("ARM") products to Plaintiff in an unsafe and unsound manner that greatly increases the risk that Plaintiff would default on the loan, because the future payments on the loan exceeded Plaintiffs established income, and the loan terms offered to Plaintiff included ARM products with one or more of the following characteristics: failure to utilize an adequate analysis of the Plaintiff ability to repay the debt at the fully-indexed rate; approving Plaintiff without -28COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

considering appropriate documentation and/or verification of her income; including substantial prepayment penalties and/or prepayment penalties that extend beyond the initial interest rate adjustment period; providing Plaintiff with inadequate and/or confusing information relative to product choices, material loan terms and product risks, prepayment penalties, and the Plaintiffs obligations for property taxes and insurance; approving Plaintiff for a loan with inadequate debt-to-income analyses that did not properly consider the Plaintiffs ability to meet her overall level indebtedness and common housing expenses; and/or approving Plaintiff for loan arrangements with loan-to-value ratios approaching or exceeding 100 percent of the value of the collateral; and making Plaintiff a mortgage loan without adequately considering the Plaintiffs ability to repay the mortgage according to its terms. 124. Plaintiff alleges that based upon the foregoing representations of Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff did in fact repose her trust in the representations of Defendants, and each of them, and that such trust was reasonable. 125. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, presented a loan to Plaintiff whereby Defendants represented that she did qualify for ordinary underwriting, and that the loan was within Plaintiffs personal financial needs and limitations given the confidential financial information that Plaintiff shared with Defendants, however, the truth is that the loan payments exceeded Plaintiffs established income. 126. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, had a duty to disclose the true cost of the loan which was made to Plaintiff, and the fact that Plaintiff could not afford the loan in the first instance. Defendants, and each of them, provided Plaintiff a loan through Defendant GreenPoint, and Defendants, and each of them, were being secretly compensated, however, -29COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

they did not disclose for this loan that they were being paid for its services, and in a spread of the yield of an amount which has not yet been fully ascertained as a Yield Spread Premium paid-outside and after the close of escrow. 127. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that after the close of escrow Defendant GreenPoint paid the other Defendants herein fees above and beyond the value of the services actually performed and an illegal kickback and added that additional amount to the total amount being financed, however such amount was never disclosed to Plaintiff. 128. Plaintiff acquired the foregoing property by virtue of the said funding through GreenPoint based on the representations of Defendants, and each of them, that the loan was the best they could obtain for her, and that the loan was well within Plaintiffs financial needs and limitations. 129. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendants, and each of them, represented to Plaintiff that Defendants, and each of them, were working for the benefit of Plaintiff and in her particular best interest to obtain for her the best loan and at the best rates available. 130. That at the time Defendants, and each of them, made the

foregoing false representations to Plaintiff they knew that they were untrue and that these representations were material representations, and that no basis in fact existed to support such fraudulent representations. 131. That the foregoing representations were made in order to induce Plaintiff to act on and take the said loan in order for Defendants to make a substantial amount of money thereby and there from. 132. Plaintiff was in fact induced to and did take the loans based on the said fraudulent representations. 133. That Plaintiff was induced to rely and did rely on the

representations of these Defendants through deception and her reliance was -30COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

justified as she believed that Defendants, and each of them, were working for her and in her best interests. 134. That by virtue of Plaintiffs reasonable reliance and the increased interest she was made to pay, she has been damaged in the loss of her good credit and a higher payment and is now being involved in litigation that she did not bargain for, all to her damage and injury. 135. Plaintiff has relied on the representations of Defendant, and each of them, and because of this reliance has made various moves to avoid the foreclosure all to no avail, while Defendants knew all the time that they were deceiving Plaintiff. 136. Plaintiffs reliance was justified based upon the false

representations of Defendants, and each of them, and had no reason to believe that a party representing a bank would go to such lengths to deceive and to convert Plaintiffs property by utilizing such a fraud and artifice. 137. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants, and each of them, at the time of execution of the Deed of Trust and Note maintained an interest in the Subject Property, however at the time the Note and Deed of Trust were assigned to GMAC, the Note was no longer negotiable and the power of sale was not conveyed during the assignment, notwithstanding the foregoing, ETS has scheduled to foreclose on Plaintiffs Trust Deed, in concert with their scheme to defraud Plaintiff out of her property. 138. Plaintiff has recently learned that Defendants, and each of them,

are not the legal owners of the Note and Deed of Trust and was not at the time they issued the notices and commenced the foreclosure process, notwithstanding the fact that the note was not negotiable and did not contain a valid power of sale. 139. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, knew at the time they made these representations to Plaintiff that they were untrue, and -31COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Defendants knew at the time that they were attempting to foreclose on Plaintiffs Trust Deeds and Note that they had no right to do so. 140. Plaintiff alleges Defendants, and each of them, intends to

fraudulently convert Plaintiffs right, title and interest to her property, and any equity therein. 141. Plaintiff alleges that due to her reliance on Defendants

representations she will be damaged in an amount that currently exceeds $1,000,000 if foreclosed, plus additional costs of moving out of Plaintiffs property and the costs to relocate back to the Subject Property. 142. Additionally, Plaintiff has been made to suffer deep and severe emotional distress, mortification, anxiety and humiliation all to her damage and injury in an amount the totality of which has not yet been fully ascertained, but in no event less than the jurisdiction limitations of this court. 143. Defendants conduct as set forth above was intentional,

oppressive fraudulent and malicious so as to justify an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient that such conduct will not be repeated.

III. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION To Quiet Title and Set Aside Foreclosure (As Against All Defendants) 144. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as set forth fully herein. 145. On or about, July 12, 2006, representatives, agents and/or employees of GreenPoint made false representations to Plaintiff in order to fund a loan in which the Plaintiffs personal residence was to be security therefore. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, and each of them, made certain representations regarding their honesty, that they were experts in obtaining -32COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

loans which borrowers could afford and that they would only offer Plaintiff a loan which was in her best interests given her credit history and financial needs and limitations and that Plaintiff could trust the representations of Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiff alleges that based upon the

representations made by GreenPoint, Plaintiff reasonably reposed her trust in Defendants representations and disclosed her private financial information to Defendants, in order that Defendants could in keeping with their representations, find a loan which was in the best interest of Plaintiff given her financial needs and limitations. More particularly, Defendants, and each of them, represented that they would not make a loan to Plaintiff unless she could afford the loan, and that they would not make the loan unless and until she had passed the underwriting guidelines of the lender, which further assured that the loan being offered to Plaintiff was in fact in the Plaintiffs best interests, and that the loan was within Plaintiffs financial needs and limitations. 146. The loan contained excessive financing was approved to allow closing costs to be financed, that Defendants failed to utilize adequate due diligence regarding Plaintiffs ability to repay the loan, Defendants as part of their continuing scheme intentionally placed Plaintiff in a sub-prime loan to the benefit of the Defendants with excessively high interest rates, Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff mandated disclosures. 147. Plaintiff alleges that due to the fraud of Defendant GreenPoint, the title to the Subject Property has been rendered unmarketable in that GreenPoint, GMAC, ETS and LSI and their assigns, have caused to be recorded as against the Subject Property documents which have clouded Plaintiffs title thereto. 148. Defendant ETS claims estate of interest in adverse to that of Plaintiff, but Defendants claims are without any right; Defendant has no -33COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

estate, right or title in the Subject Property. 149. Defendant ETS, was an ostensible trustee of the Subject Loan. The claims of Defendant ETS, announced on its Notice of Trustees Sale, recorded on May 26, 2009 executed by LSI, was a false statement. ETS

never was nor is a duly appointed trustee pursuant to the Deed of Trust of Angela Trinh, dated July 18th, 2006 and Recorded on July 19th, 2006, as record of Orange County, California. 150. The interest in the described Subject Property claimed by ETS

based on the Notice of Trustees Sale is a cloud on Plaintiffs title to the Subject Property that restricts Plaintiffs full use and enjoyment and hinders Plaintiffs right to unrestricted alienation of it. 151. Plaintiff seeks to quiet title against all Parties involved in this action and against all persons unknown claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate or lien, or interest in the Subject Property described in this Complaint adverse to Plaintiffs title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs title to the Subject Property. The claims of each unknown person(s) or business

entity(ies) are without any right, and all these Parties have no right, title, estate, lien or interest in the Subject Property. 152. Plaintiff seeks an Order of the Court quieting Title to the Subject Property as of July 18th, 2006 IV. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Business and Professions Code 17200, et seq. (As Against All Defendants) 153. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as set forth fully herein. 154. Defendants committed acts of unfair competition as defined by Business and Professions Code 17200, by engaging in the following -34COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

practices: 1) Perpetrating a bait and switch on consumers by selling them on a very low interest rate loan and then changing the terms prior to closing to less favorable ones for the borrowers; 2) Selling borrowers on a very low interest rate without disclosing to borrowers that the loan is a negative amortization one which will cause the principal balance to increase monthly; 3) Artificially inflating appraisals in order to put borrowers into more expensive loans, thereby generating more money for the lenders and brokers. 155. Defendants practices described above has mislead the general public, and therefore, constitutes a fraudulent business act of practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code 17200. 156. The harm to Plaintiff and members of the general public outweighs the general utility of Defendants policy and practices,

consequently, constitute an unlawful business act of practice within the meaning of Business and Professions Code 17200. A. Plaintiff Suffered Damages As A Result of

Defendants Conduct: 157. As a direct result of Defendants acts, Plaintiff have incurred actual damages consisting of mental and emotional distress, nervousness, grief, embarrassment, loss of sleep, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation, indignity, pain and suffering, and other injuries. 158. Plaintiff incurred out of pocket monetary damages. 159. Plaintiff continues to incur monetary damages. 160. Plaintiff will incur the loss of her personal residence if a nonjudicial foreclosure is allowed to proceed. 161. Each of Defendants harassing acts were so willful, vexatious, -35COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

outrageous, oppressive, and maliciously calculated enough, so as to warrant statutory penalties and punitive damages. V. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violation Of Civil Code 1572 (As Against All Defendants) 162. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as though set forth fully herein. 163. The misrepresentations by Defendants and/or Defendants predecessors, failures to disclose, and failure to investigate as described above were made with the intent to induce Plaintiff to obligate herself on the Loan in reliance on the integrity of Defendants and/or Defendants predecessors. 164. Plaintiff is an unsophisticated customer whose reliance upon Defendants and/or Defendants predecessors was reasonable and consistent with the Congressional intent and purpose of California Civil Code 1572 designed to assist and protect consumers similarly situated as Plaintiff in this action. 165. As an unsophisticated customer, Plaintiff could not have

discovered the true nature of the material facts on her own. 166. The accuracy by Defendants and/or Defendants predecessors of representation is important in enabling consumers such as Plaintiff to compare market lenders in order to make informed decisions regarding lending transactions such as a loan. 167. Plaintiff was ignorant of the facts which Defendants and/or Defendants predecessors misrepresented and failed to disclose. 168. Plaintiffs reliance on Defendants and/or Defendants

predecessors was a substantial factor in causing her harm. -36COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

169. Had the terms of the Loan been accurately represented and disclosed by Defendants and/or Defendants predecessors, Plaintiff would not have accepted the Loan nor been harmed. 170. Had Defendants and/or Defendants predecessors investigated Plaintiffs financial capabilities, they would have been forced to deny Plaintiff on this particular loan. 171. Defendants and/or Defendants predecessors conspired and agreed to commit the above mentioned fraud. 172. As a proximate result of Defendants and or Defendants predecessors fraud, Plaintiff has suffered damage in an amount to be determined at trial. 173. The conduct of Defendants and/or Defendants predecessors as mentioned above was fraudulent within the meaning of California Civil Code 3294(c)(3), and by virtue thereof Plaintiff is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish and make an example of the Defendants. /// /// /// VI. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Violations Of California Civil Code 2924 No Power Of Sale (As Against All Defendants) 174. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation above as though fully set forth herein. 175. Plaintiff alleges that the Notice of Trustees Sale on May 26, 2009 was improperly recorded in that there were invalid procedures in violation of -37COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

California Civil Code 2924 governing trustees foreclosure sale. 176. Foreclosure is used when a power of sale clause exists in a mortgage or Promissory Note. A "power of sale" clause is the clause in a Promissory Note which grants the beneficiary (or trustee) the right to sell the property upon. 177. A power of sale in a Promissory Note is a creature of contract, arising from the parties' agreement. The power of sale only exists if it is expressly granted by the Trustor in the security documents. (4 Miller & Starr, Cal. Real Estate (3d ed. 2003) 10:123, p. 381.) The statutory scheme governing nonjudicial foreclosures does not expand the beneficiary's sale remedy beyond the parties' agreement, but instead provides additional protection to the Trustor: "Statutory provisions regarding the exercise of the power of sale provide substantive rights to the Trustor and limit the power of sale for the protection of the Trustor." (Ibid.) 178. Plaintiff alleges that there were further invalid foreclosure procedures, that Defendant ETS engaged in acts of conspiracy to wrongfully deprive Plaintiff of the beneficial use and enjoyment and legal title to her property by attempting invalid forfeiture and thereby unjustly enriching themselves. In sum, the Notice of Trustees Sale is invalid and voidable. /// /// VII. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Cancellation Of Deed Of Trust Based On Conspiracy Law And Violations Of California Civil Code 3412 (As Against All Defendants) 179. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation above as though fully set forth herein. -38COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

180. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, all the parties involved in the Deed of Trust, including but not limited to the Lender(s) GreenPoint, GMAC, the beneficiary MERS, the ostensible trustee ETS, and its agent/assignee LSI, knowingly and willfully conspired and agreed among themselves by acting in cooperation with a lending aid to induce Plaintiff into an unfair undisclosed chain of transactions of hiding or concealing the true lender and the true beneficiary and the true trustee of the Deed Of Trust which lead to the Notice of Trustees Sale. 181. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the existence of various agreements, including assignment and assumption, pooling and service, credit default swaps, insurance, and cross

collateralization agreements, causes the allocation of the payments made on the mortgage to be contractually altered from the terms of the original mortgage. 182. Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. purports to obtain security interest in Plaintiffs real property first as a nominee but also as a beneficiary under the terms of the Deed Of Trust. 183. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Deed Of Trust contained a false representation on its face when it represented that MERS was a beneficiary under the DOT. Paragraph (E)

states that MERS is a separate corporation that is acting solely as Nominee for Lender and Lenders successors and assigns. MERS is the beneficiary

under this Security Instrument. In fact, MERS is NOT the beneficiary under the DOT, it never had ownership or possession of the Promissory Note which is the obligation which is secured by the DOT, and MERS has never been entitled to receive one cent of remuneration from Plaintiffs loan proceeds. The statement that MERS is the Nominee is nonsensical language which -39COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

means nothing in a real estate transaction and most certainly, MERS has never been nor is it now the beneficiary under the DOT. The language is a sham. 184. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the authorities of Marin Conveyancing Corp. as original trustee has also been transferred to the trustee of the pool mortgages and/or notes on various properties, real and personal, that were included in an asset pool that was eventually securitized and sold to investors, who along with others in the chain of securitization acquired rights and obligations to the note, mortgage, and stream of revenue eventually due to the investor. 185. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendants do not own, possess or control the note or the mortgage. 186. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that neither of the parties involved in the Deed of Trust, including but not limited to the Lender GreenPoint, the Trustee Marin, the beneficiary MERS, the ostensible trustee ETS, and its agent/assignee LSI, can prove that they own the loan or can prove that they were assigned a particular mortgage, and can show that they even bought a legitimate security. 187. If there was or is a party that is a holder in due course of the Promissory Note and who has not been paid by reserves, over

collateralization, credit default swaps, insurance, or cross guarantees, then demand is herewith made from Plaintiff for the name(s) of such holder(s) in due course and their proof of holding the original Promissory Note of the Subject Loan. 188. Pursuant to California Civil Code 3412, a written instrument, in respect to which there is a reasonable apprehension that if left outstanding it may cause serious injury to a person against whom it is void or voidable, may, upon his application, be so adjudged, and ordered to be delivered up or -40COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

canceled. 189. Plaintiff is the fee owner of the Subject Property. 190. On or about July 18, 2006 Plaintiff as Trustor and/or Grantor executed the Deed of Trust of the Subject Loan. 191. The above Deed of Trust is void or voidable because Plaintiff was misrepresented, mislead, and fraudulently induced into entering and making payments called for in the Subject Loan by the false beneficiary MERS. 192. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to have the above Deed of Trust adjusted void or voidable and cancelled, pursuant to California Civil Code 3412.

VIII. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Infliction Of Emotional Distress (As Against All Defendants) 193. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation above as though fully set forth herein. 194. All the Defendants conduct with regard to Plaintiff constitutes the tort of outrage and entitles Plaintiff to damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. 195. In the alternative, all of the corporate Defendants conduct with regard to Plaintiff constitutes the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and/or reckless disregard for the infliction of emotional distress, which entitles Plaintiff to an award of damages in an amount to be proven at the time of trial. /// /// /// -41COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

/// /// /// IX. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Slander of Title (As Against All Defendants) 196. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every allegation above as though fully set forth herein. 197. The tort of Slander of Title involves the action of one who, without a privilege or without justification to do so, publishes matter which is untrue and disparaging to anothers property in land. 198. Defendant ETS and all the Parties related have caused to be recorded numerous false documents in the records of Orange County, State of California, including the original Deed of Trust containing false statements about MERS being the beneficiary under the DOT, and the Notice of Trustees Sale, which impaired Plaintiffs title and which constitutes Slander Of Title. 199. ETS purportedly acting as the ostensible trustee of the Subject Loan, caused or authorized the cause of its agent/assignee LSI, to record a Notice of Trustees Sale against the Subject Property. This act was an

violation of the U.S. Banking Code 12 U.S.C. Sec. 3754 (d)(1). 200. Further, the actions of Defendant ETS and all the Parties involved the recording of these documents, in contravention of the laws of the State of California, and the recording of these false documents, had a negative impact and impair the credit scores of Plaintiff such that it will prevent her from obtaining a new mortgage loan or other credit. 201. Since the Deed was, as set forth infra, void ab initio Defendants, -42COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

and each of them, knew or should have known none of them held a bona fide interest in the Subject Property and that recordation of a Notice of Trustees Sale would, therefore, constitute slander of title. 202. By doing the acts described, above, Defendant ETS slandered Plaintiffs title to the Subject Property. 203. In that conduct and acts of Defendant ETS was without basis in contract or law such conduct and acts were not privilege. 204. Because Plaintiffs damages were the result of the unlawful conduct and acts of Defendant ETS, Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in an amount to be determined at trial. X. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Injunctive Relief Against Defendants 205. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference the above paragraphs as though set forth fully herein. 206. Defendant ETS does not have standing or enforceable right to enforce the note and any incidental right to collateral so as to foreclose on Plaintiffs Home, including without limitation, conducting a trustees sale relative to that property. 207. Defendant ETS threatens to, and unless restrained, will foreclose upon Plaintiffs Home by conducting a trustees sale or causing a trustees sale to be conducted, or otherwise. 208. Any such action would result in a new cause of action for wrongful foreclosure, cause irreparable harm to Plaintiff, and will cause pecuniary compensation which will not afford adequate relief because Plaintiffs Home is unique. 209. Injunctive relief is necessary to enjoin Defendant ETS from foreclosing upon Plaintiffs home since they lack standing and any -43COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

enforceable rights under the Deed of Trust. /// /// /// /// /// For All Causes Of Action And Against All Defendants Plaintiff Prays For Enjoinment Through Temporary Restraining Order And/Or Preliminary Injunction 210. Today the nation and its consumers are experiencing the effect of this improper behavior. The economy has been badly beaten by the collapse of the real estate market and consumers are being foreclosed upon in numbers not seen since the Great Depression. 211. Like many other Californians, Plaintiff relies on the Courts mission to help rid the nation of the improper conduct of lenders which have led Plaintiff to face unfair and improper foreclosures. The justification for

Defendant's conduct, if any, is outweighed by the harm to Plaintiff. Such conduct is also contrary to public policy, immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous and/or substantially injurious to Plaintiff and other Californians. Such conduct is ongoing and continues to this date. 212. The outrageous conduct of Defendant ETS, committed the acts set forth above with complete, utter and reckless abuse have resulted in Plaintiff suffering severe or extreme emotional distress. Plaintiff is

threatened with immediate, irreparable harm if Defendant ETS is permitted to conduct their unlawful non-judicial foreclosure. Plaintiff would thereby

lose her home, a loss Plaintiff should not be permitted to suffer. 213. Plaintiff prays The Court make a finding and issue appropriate orders stating that none of the Defendants, their agents or employees, at the -44COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

time of the recordation of the Notice of Trustees Sale and subsequent foreclosing proceedings, had any right or interest in the Subject Property which authorized them, in fact or as a matter of law, to record such instruments. 214. Plaintiff prays for an order finding that Defendant ETS has no legally cognizable rights as to Plaintiff, the Subject Property or any matter based on contract or any of the documents prepared by Defendants, tendered to and executed by Plaintiff. /// /// /// WHEREFORE, having set forth numerous legally sufficient causes of actions against the Defendants, Plaintiff prays for the entry of Jury Trial Judgment against all Defendants jointly and severally for the following relief: 215. That the Court issues an Order so stating that the Deed of Trust of the Subject Loan was void or voidable at the time of their execution; 216. That the Court issues an Order so stating that Defendant ETS, has no authorization whatsoever over the right, title, and interest in Plaintiffs personal property by their unlawful Notice of Trustees Sale. 217. Plaintiff prays that the Courts judgment states, among other things, that the Notice of Trustees Sale was void and invalid, that Defendant ETS can not convey the property, or has any right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property, and ETS and/or its agent/assignee LSI, illegally recorded the Notice of Trustees Sale. 218. That the Court award triple times the amount of Plaintiffs earnest money with interest, including but not limited to, all the money, fees, mortgage payments and/or otherwise Defendants have taken from Plaintiff related to the Subject Loan; -45COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

219. That the Court award Plaintiff punitive damage for an amount to be proven at trial for any and all civil penalties for each unlawful violation, as determined by the Court; 220. For costs of suit incurred herein, and/or; 221. Reasonable attorneys fees as allowed by statute. 222. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated:

______________ ____________________________ Angela Trinh Plaintiff

-46COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 1 Results of research for: Executive Trustee Services, LLC dba ETS Services, LLC From Internet and Secretary of States Website

-47COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 2 Results of research for: GMAC Mortgage, LLC From the California Secretary of States Website

-48COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 3 Results of research for: GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, LLC From the Internet and Secretary of States Website

-49COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 4 Results of research for: LSI Title Company, Inc. From the Internet and Secretary of States Website

-50COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 5 Results of research for: Marin Conveyancing Corporation From the California Secretary of States Website

-51COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 6 Results of research for: Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc. From the Internet and Secretary of States Website

-52COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 7 Deed of Trust

-53COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 8 GMAC Escrow Statement

-54COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 9 Notice of Default

-55COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 10 Notice of Trustees Sale

-56COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Exhibit 11 Website Excerpts from: Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc.

-57COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL (Trinh v. ETS Services, et. al.)