CITY OF RIALTO CITY CLERK'S DATE STAMP
LIABILITY CITY OFRIALTO
CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
2024 MAR -4 PM12: 44
TO PERSON OR PROPERTY
KECEIVED
1. Claims for death, injury to person, or to personal property must be filed not later than six (6) months after the occurrence (Gov. Code §911.2). CITY CLER
2. Claims for damages to real property must be filed not later than one (1) year after the occurrence (Gov. Code 5911.2). RETURN TO:
3. READ ENTIRE CLAIM FOR BEFORE FILING
Rialto City Clerk's Office
4.ATTACH SEPARATE SHEETS, IF NECESSARY, TO GIVE FULL DETAILS Mail: 150 S. Palm Ave., Rialto, CA 92376 Address: 290 W. Rialto Ave., Rialto, CA 92376
CLAIMANT INFORMATION:
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
FULL NAME -
DATE OF BIRTH
1173 S. Cactus Ave APARTMENT # 3 1909) 285-2261
HOME ADDRESS INCLUDING CITY, STATE & ZIP HOME TELEPHONE NO.
Mailing Address: PO. Box 1562 Rialto, CA. 92377
BUSINESS ADDRESS INCLUDING CITY, STATE & ZIP BUSINESS TELEPHONE NO.
ADDRESS AT WHICH CLAIMANT DESIRES TO RECEIVE PO. Box 1562 Rialto, CA 92377
NOTICES OR COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS CLAIM
(if different from home address provided above):
Please Der Minare
1. WHEN DID DAMAGE OR INJURY OCCUR? DATE:
2. PLACE OF ACCIDENT (OCCURRENCE) BE SPECIFIC - Describe Tuly and (if applicable) locale on diagram on reverse side of this sheet. _card.
Where appropriate, give street names and addresses, measurements and landmarks.
This is not a car accident claim
3. HOW DID DAMAGE OR INJURY OCCUR?
4. WERE POLICE AT THE SCENE? •YES • NO WERE PARAMEDICS AT THE SCENE? •YES •NO
5. WHAT PARTICULAR ACT OR OMISSION DO YOU CLAIM CAUSED THE INJURY OR DAMAGES? Give the name of the city/town employee causing the injury or damage, if known.
6. GIVE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CLAIM Include estimate of amount of any prospective injury or damage $.
HOW WAS THE ABOVE AMOUNT COMPUTED? Be specific list doctor bills, repair estimates, etc. Please attach 2 estimates.
DAMAGES INCURRED TO DATE:
Amount: $_
Amount: $
TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED Mó OF PRESENTATION OF THIS CLAIM:
ESTIMATED PROSPECTIVE DAMAGES, AS FAR AS KNOWN:
Item/Date: Amount: $
Item/Date: Amount: $
TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT PROSPECTIVE DAMAGES: $
7. WITNESSES TO DAMAGE OR INJURY List all persons known to have information (attach additional pages, if necessary) NAME: NAME:
ADDRESS: ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE: |) TELEPHONE: | )
8. IF INJURED, PROVIDE NAME, CONTACT INFORMATION AND DATE/TIME DOCTORS) OR HOSPITALS) VISITED:
NAME: NAME:
ADDRESS: ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE: L TELEPHONE: | )
DATE: TIME: • AM PM DATE: TIME: • Ам OPM
9. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY:
For all vehicle accident claims, place on the following diagram, the names of streets, including NORTH, EAST, SOUTH AND WEST directions. Indicate place of accident by "X" and by showing house numbers or distances to street comers. accident by "B-1" and the point of impact by "X".
→ NOTE: IF THE DIAGRAM BELOW DOES NOT FIT THE SITUATION, PLEASE ATTACH A PROPER DIAGRAM SIGNED BY THE CLAIMANT.
CURB
PARKWAY
7 SIDEWALK
I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING CLAIM AND KNOW THE CONTENTS THEREOF; AND CERTIFY THAT THE SAME IS TRUE OF MY OWN KNOWLEDGE EXCEPT AS TO THOSE MATTERS WHICH ARE HEREIN STATED UPON MY INFORMATION AND BELIEF; AND AS TO THOSE MATTERS I BELIEVE THEM TO BE TRUE I CERTIFY (OR DECLARE) UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
SIGNATURE OF CLAIMANT OR AGENT
TYPE OR PRINT NAME DATE
RELATIONSHIP TO CLAIMANT
NOTE: PRESENTATION OF A FALSE CLAIM IS A FELONY (CA PENAL CODE 72) RETURN CLAIM TO: RIALTO CITY CLERK'S OFFICE - 150 S. PALM AVE., RIALTO, CA 92376 1 STEPHANIE CANE
2 P.O. BOX 1562
Rialto, CA 92377
3 Home Tel: (909) 258-2261
mail: Victoria.quesenberry@ wilsonelse
4 tephanie and Victorias in Pro Se, Stephanie Cane ar
Victoria Quesenberry 2024 MAR - 4
5 CITY OF
6 PM
* Г
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - 8 EASTERN DIVISION (GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. U.S. COURTHOUSE) 9 10
= Plaintiffs
12 STEPHANIE CANE, an individual, AND
VICTORIA QUESENBERRY an individual
13 Stephanie and Victoria,
14 15 VS.
16 THE CITY OF RIALTO; of a Municipality VERIFIED CLAIM authorized agents' manager, employee, FOR DAMAGES".
= supervisor CORY CLARK,
VINCE MARFE,
18 MARY GOZDECKI, COLONY CLUB
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
AND SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING Concurrently executed and attached with 19 LLC; authorized agents/employee Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry's 20 CASSANDRA. Declarations and Administrative duties ana as DOES 1 through 50 inclusive: Presentment of Claim.
21 Case: Unlimited.
22 Defendants
23 24
25 26
27 28
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. 'Verified Complaint".] 1 ''!. A public interest "does" exist members of the public maybe, enjoined, to enforce public rights or allege legal liability that 2 3 1. COMES NOW, Stephanie Cane [Stephanie] and Victoria Quesenberry, 4 [Victoria.] hereby submits again, their "meritorious claim" made in Good Faith and Clean 5 Hands.
6 2. Respectfully the object is to promote Justice.
7 3. At all due respect, Stephanie and Victoria are entitled to relief at the hands 8 of the City Council Members, and or the Court against the authorized managing agents and the 9 managing agent's employees that has fiduciary status of defendants. 10 CAL. CIV. CODE $ 1558 SECTION 1558 - IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES. 11 4. Moving party/ Plaintiff's: Victoria Quesenberry and Stephanie Cane 12 Mailing Address: PO. Box 1562 Rialto, CA 92377. AND Physical address 1173 South Cactus 13 Av APT 3 Rialto, CA. NON-MOVING PARTY:
14 5. (g). The CITY OF RIALTO, MUNICIPALITY. Address 150 Palm Ave 15 Rialto, CA 92376. THE CITY OF RIALTO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE COLONY CLUB 16 PATIO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, and the City of Rialto authorized employees, 17 managing agents and in a direct principle fiduciary capacity, and Chief Executive Officer, 18 fiduciary of the "purported" board association, and had and have the authorized authority over 19 decisions that ultimately determined corporate policy ["Vince Marfe", I mailing and physical 20 address: 1173 South Cactus Ave "APTARTMENT" # 34 Rialto, CA. AND authorized 21 manager, agent ["Mary Gozdecki",] Chief Financial Officer, of the "purported" board 22 association employee, in a fiduciary capacity, had and have authority over decisions that 23 ultimately determined corporate policy: "her" mailing and physical address1173 South Cactus 24 Ave APTARTMENT # 2 Rialto, CA. AND ["Cory Clark"], address 150 Palm Ave Rialto, CA 25 92376, managing agent, supervisor in the city of Rialto Planning Department, authorized 26 employee had and have authority over decision making that ultimately determined corporate 27 policy.
28 2
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 [COLONY CLUB PATIO HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION; "Nonprofit" principal place 2 of business in the City of Rialto, State of California all are authorized managers, supervisors 3 employees of defendant are all authorized to speak for their employer the city of Rialto. 4 Articles of incorporation represent that it is organized and will operate as a nonprofit 5 corporation. received ineligible tax-exempt benefit in a nonprofit capacity from the [Internal 6 Revenue Service. The dominant authorized managing employee named Vince Marfe signed 7 taxes for the purported Homeowners Association in the year 2022, and Mary Gozdecki signed 8 taxes in the year 2020]; In the name Colony Club Patio Homeowner's the purported address 9 1173 South Cactus Avenue Rialto, CA. SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING LLC of 10 authorized employee manager Cassandra has the authority to make decisions and write 11 threatening letters to purported borrowers attempt the borrower to file a lawsuit to be made 12 whole.
13 ALLEGE AND INCORPORATE THE
14 ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN ALL PRECEDING OF THE CLAIM AND PARAGRAPHS 15 OF THE FORGOING AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN
16 6. Vince Marfe At all times relevant, (Vince) compensated and wrote checks 17 out to himself from Stephanie and Victoria's paid mortgage and association fees and the publics 18 association fees as the purported board president and the Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki 19 Mary Gozdecki, (MARY), also, profited and benefitted financially, and both owed fiduciary 20 duties of care and loyalty to the purported association and owed a duty of Care to Stephanie and 21 Victoria. Individually and in concert with Specialized Loan Servicing, Cory Clark and 22 Cassandra, formulated, directed, controlled, or participated in the acts as set forth herein. The 23 City of Rialto at all relevant times had the authority to control, but haven't controlled, the o 24 conduct of Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki and the Colony Club Association. Among other 25 things. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki hired an unlicensed contractor, and an unlicensed. 26 management company to hide behind. Vine Marfe signed contracts, and Mary Gozdecki were 27 purportedly the Executive Chief of the financial affairs of the purported association. Stephanie 28 and Victoria discovered there are NO RESERVE AND THERE'S NO RESERVE Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 ACCOUNT for the "purported" association. VINCE MARFE AND MARY GOZDECKI 2 LIVE FREE OFF THE BACKS OF STEPHANIE AND VICTORIA AND THE PUBLIC 3 DUE's whom are being extorted to pay purported association dues and insurance for Mary 4 Gozdecki and Vince Marfe to be covered from the exterior and outside of their APARTMENT 5 and extorted Stephanie and Victoria to pay for their legal fees for their omission and errors, for 6 nonjudicial foreclosures. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki have specific knowledge of what we 7 had to discover on our own that the subdivision are APARTMENTS on unpermitted 8 contaminated land. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki corruption Stephanie and Victoria and the 9 publics purported association fees $195,000.00 that was purportedly held at the Provident Bank 10 address .4001 Main St, Riverside, CA 92501. All defendants have personally profited from the 11 unlawful and deceptive acts alleged herein. Vince Marfe, and Mary Gozdecki doesn't pay 12 any purported association or mortgage for over 30 years. Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki and 13 Colony Club Patio Homeowners are liable of Common interest subdivisions. Pursuant to the 14 Subdivided Lands Law, the Commissioner has adopted regulations that require reasonable 15 arrangements in purported CC&Rs and the other governing instruments for a purported 16 common interest subdivision. The purported CC&Rs are invalid. 17 7. Stephanie and Victoria discovered through their immediate investigation 18 the Colony Club Patio Homeowners never had an article or a published articles with the 19 California Secretary of State. An article purportedly in the name Colony Club Patio 20 Homeowners Association "appeared" on the California Secretary of State website ["SOS"] 21 discovered in the month of December in the year 2023 and created wrongfully and published. 22 8. Moreover, the following "alleged "acts were performed on the 23 California Secretary of State website the purported articles show an individual's name that we 24 discovered doesn't have a "license as a management" but, the individual name is placed on the 25 portal of the California Secretary of State website portal "SOS". Stephanie and Victoria have 26 been and are being extorted, and the public to pay the purported association dues to an 27 unlicensed management company, and an unlicensed individual at "Vince Marfe's direction". 28 Vince Marfe had specific knowledge of the act and chose a purported management company to Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" ] 1 manage the purported association without a license manager, and without a licensed 2 management company.
3 9. Further, Vince Marfe ratified the conduct and colluded and 4 published an article purportedly for the subdivision development without that certain person's 5 name or purported management company acting as manager or listed on the printed version on 6 the articles. But that person is listed as an agent on the front page of the California Secretary of 7 State ["SOS"] website. The article was purported created by fraud and published in the event if 8 an individual of the public prints the articles from the California Secretary of State ["SOS"] 9 website. But without the manager that Vince Marfe chose and had specific knowledge that 10 same certain individual was only [2 years old] on the date listed on articles [May 31, 1984]. 11 Stephanie and Victoria are in possession of evidence of proof the purported articles were "not 12 "recorded on the published date of [May 31, 1984].
13 10. The name Bernita Basbas purportedly shows on the May 31, 14 1984, purported "articles": for the subdivision development. Stephanie and Victoria are in 15 possession of Prima facia evidence that shows the individual Bernita Basbas:
16 CERTIFICATION FOR NO RECORDS. [ NO RECORD OF OATH].
17 11. The individual named Bernita Basbas allegedly perpetrated as a notary, and 18 stamped the "Final Track Map" for the subdivision development purportedly dated 19 November 14, 1983, "without," a notary commission number. Stephanie and Victoria are in 20 Possession of Prima Facia evidence shows that same individual Bernita Basbas:
21 CERTIFICATION FOR NO RECORDS [ NO RECORD OF OATH].
22 12. The individual named Bernita Basbas signed purportedly a "Right of Way" 23 dated May 16, 1984, for the subdivision development and that same individual named Bernita 24 Basas signed as a Notary, and again without a Notary Commission number: Stephanie and 25 Victoria are in possession of Prima Facia evidence shows Bernita BasBas: [®r MAR -4
26 CERTIFICATION FOR NO RECORDS]. [ NO RECORD OF OATH]. 2! 27 28
5 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint". 1 13. The individual named Bernita Basbas signed the alleged Declaration of 2 Restrictions as a notary without a commission number purportedly recorded June 12, 1984, 3 which is NOT shown or displayed at the San Bernadino County Recorder's office under either 4 of the correct names of the following: Declaration and Restriction of Covenants, and neither 5 is it shown under or published under CC&Rs. These documents were intentionally disguised 6 under the number 11264 with the San Bernardino County Recorder's office. Stephanie and 7 Victoria are in possession of Prima Facia evidence shows Bernita BasBas:
8 [ CERTIFICATION FOR NO RECORDS]. [ NO RECORD OF OATH]. 9 penalties may be imposed by law for the submission of a materially false or fraudulent 10 instruments.
11 14. The purported articles states as follows: This Corporation is a non-profit 12 mutual benefit corporation organized under the non-profit mutual benefit Corporations Law. 13 The General purpose of this Corporation is to "engage in any lawful act or activity" for 14 which a corporation maybe organized under the non-profit mutual benefit Corporation Law. 15 15. The Specific purpose for which this Corporation is formed is to act as a 16 homeowners association within the meaning of the section 528 of the Internal Tax Revenue 17 Code 1954 as amended and of Section 23701 (t) of the California Revenue and Tax action 18 Code as amended for that certain section residential planned development in the city of Rialto, 19 County of San Bernardino State of California commonly known as Colony Club Patio 20 Homeowners Association. Notwithstanding any of the above statements of purposes and 21 powers, this Corporation shall not except to an insubstantial degree, engage in any activities, 22 or exercise any powers that are not in furtherance of the specific purpose of this 23 Corporations.
24 /// 2024 MAR - 4
25 /// CITY OF RIALTO
26 ///
PM 12: 46
27 ///
28 6
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ['Verified Complaint" J 1 ALLEGE AND INCORPORATE THE
2 ALLEGATIONS CONTAINED IN ALL PRECEDING OF THE CLAIM AND 3 PARAGRAPHS OF THE FORGOING AS THOUGH FULLY SET FORTH HEREIN
16. No claim requirement for the following type of claims: Revenue and 5 Taxation. Further, any claims or future claims under the Revenue and Taxation Code and 6 related statutes; regarding property tax: (b) For purposes of this section, "qualified 7 organization" means an organization that qualifies as an exempt organization under Section 8 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The subdivision development doesn't qualify for 9 exemption. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki have claimed and are claiming the subdivision as 10 "being exempt". The articles contradict the Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code 11 and the purported articles are invalid.
12 17. Vince Marfe allegedly had corrupt intent, and but then bribed Cory Clark 13 influenced her to assist in the recording a purported final track map in his manager, fiduciary, 14 capacity as a purported president of the board of Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki in that 15 public capacity. Vince Marfe and Cory Clark had the specific knowledge the subdivision is 16 "NOT" a planned development under CIV CODE 1351, and only recorded "one sheet" to the 17 purported tract map but knew it was "two sheets". The purported final tract map was not 18 recorded on the date that it was marked on the final tract map, and by review of the document 19 the purported final tract map the corner lower right hand corner there's a box it was created 20 with a sharpie which has fraudulent date November 14, 1983. Stephanie and Victoria obtained 21 a map from the San Bernardino County Tax Assessors office that states the subdivision 22 development tract Map year 2004, with a different tract number listed. Stephanie and Victoria 23 exercised due diligence and discovered there wasn't a true or correct map recorded for the 24 subdivision development the tract map recorded is alleged and recorded by actual fraud, tract 25 number 11264.
5.0 26 /I/ PM 12: 46 RIALTO
27 /11
28 /I/
7 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 18. THE RIALTO TRACT NUMBER IS THE SAME NUMBER 11264 FOR 2 A "DIFFERENT" SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF LA HABRA IN 3 ORANGE COUNTY. SEE: CIV CODE 66428.11. PLEASE SEE ATTACHED EXHIBITS. 4 A building cannot be converted into condominiums until a subdivider has complied with 5 local conversion regulations, including those adopted after all the necessary approvals 6 which were not granted under the state regulatory scheme. There's "no" preliminary 7 report, tentative tract map emphasis, i.e. added. And cannot be converted on unpermitted 8 contaminated land.
9 19. Further, to accomplish a condominium conversion, an apartment building 10 owner must comply with numerous government regulations. 11 20. The owner must conform the conversion to the requirements of the 12 Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code, § 66410 et seq.) (Map Act), fn. 2 which regulates the design, 13 improvement and sale of subdivisions and authorizes conditions for approval of subdivision 14 maps, and the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act (Civ. Code, § 1350 et seq.), 15 which establishes a uniform set of laws applicable to common interest developments. 16 21. In addition, the sale of five or more condominiums requires a TRUE AND 17 CORRECT CERTIFIED PUBLIC REPORT from the Department of Real Estate pursuant to 18 the Subdivided Lands Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 11000-11200). fin. 3. Further, as this court 19 recognized in Griffin, supra, 39 Cal.3d at page 256. Civil Code section 1352 defines a 20 condominium as the conveyance of a separate interest coupled with an interest in the common 21 area or membership in the association created to manage the development, and the recording of 22 (a) a declaration (id., § 1353), (b) a condominium plan (id., § 1351, subd. (e)) if any exists, 'and 23 (c) a final map or parcel map is required by the Map Act. [3] Under the statutory definition 24 of a condominium, therefore, an apartment building is not converted into a condominium 25 project until at least one unit has been conveyed.
26 //I
27 //I
28 8
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. [Verified Complaint" ] 1 22. Stephanie and Victoria exercised due diligence and hired experts and 2 discovered THERE'S NOT ONE" PROMISSARY NOTE" RECORDED 3 ON ANY ONE OF THE UNITS IN THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT. ALL 4 THE DEEDS OF TRUST RECORDED WERE RECORDED ARE ACTUAL FRAUD. 5 WHICH THE PUBLIC WERE UNAWARE THAT THE SUBDIVISION ARE 6 APARTMENTS. AND NEVER WERE CONVERTED DUE TO THE ADDRESS ON 7 CONTAMINATION OF THE LAND.
8 23. The subdivision was not supposed to have been built. Further, even if the 9 owner has obtained all the governmental approvals and recorded all the documents necessary to 10 subdivide and sell individual apartments as condominiums. (See County of Los Angeles v. 11 Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. (1970) 3 Cal.App. 3d 809, 814 [83 Cal. Rptr. 740] ["There can be 12 "no" undivided interest in common (and thus by statutory definition there can be "no" 13 condominium) until at least one condominium unit has been conveyed by the subdivider."].) 14 And in this case the units in the subdivision development cannot be conveyed [2b] on 15 contaminated and unpermitted land
16 Stephanie and Victoria are entitled to relief.
17 24. Moreover, Vince Marfe, bribes were paid in cash in local currency to 18 Middlemen to the "aider and abettor" Mary Gozdecki who distributed the 19 proceeds to the corrupt hacker. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki bribed the hacker, therefore, 20 altered created, removed, redacted, manipulated records on the San Bernardino County Tax 21 Assessors Office on the "developer's system data" by actual fraud as if the subdivision 22 development are condominiums and, placed the word "CONDO" on all Counties reports for the 23 public to view for the subdivision development with the specific knowledge the units are 24 "APARTMENTS".
25 25. And changed the address of the purported association on the California 26 Secretary of State "Developers data system", and placed on the report acted as if the 27 purported association is located at the hacker/ purported management company address 28 at 13701 Calimesa Blvd, Yucaipa, CA 92399 Phone: (909) 795-4085 9 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 26. Vince Marfe acted in furtherance and placed domestic partnership onto 2 Assessors' and Victoria purported tax record and published the paper with the County Tax 3 Assessors website. Vince Marfe claimed exempt on the taxes and filed exemption on the 4 Subdivision development and recorded a subordination lien on the subdivision development. 5 27. Vince Marfe placed the subdivision development as if the development is 6 located at the Inland Light House Church, in reality, the subdivision is in a different parcel of 7 land but claimed exempt. Stephanie and Victoria and the public are EXTORTED AND 8 THRATENED to and have PAID Dues every month, and the total that is received which is 9 supposed to be the proceeds for the subdivision development the Amount Paid Per Month 10 [$8,740.00.] the yearly, Amount Paid Per Year [$104,880.00]. Vince Marfe and 11 Mary Gozdecki and Vince Marfe's next door neighbor who worked for the City of Rialto 12 himself, and his wife doesn't pay any purported Mortgage, Rent, Association Fees or 13 Insurance. These fees are all Paid off the backs of hard-working women Stephanie and 14 Victoria, and the public in the subdivision.
15 28. But let's not forget about the APARTMENT that Vince Marfe "RENTS 16 ouf" to one of the Inland House Church members, and pockets $1,500 per month a year that 17 Vince Marfe reaps in $18000,00 ALL UNREPORTED INCOME. More money for Vince 18 Marfe individually to benefit in financial gain on the Apartment # 23. More unreported income 19 of a windfall for Vince Marfe.
20 29. Colony Club Patio Homeowners are not supposed to claim exempt and 21 doesn't qualify as a non-profit Code 501 (c) 23701t (IRC 528) an association that makes more 22 than $75,000.00 cannot claim exempt. But Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki signed taxes for 23 the purported association every year for the time that we have resided in the unit which is 24 21 years they have signed and claimed exempt. Someone placed inaccurate language onto the 25 alleged articles in violation. The REQUIRED FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: A homeowners' 26 association is organized and operated to provide for the acquisition, construction, management, 27 maintenance, and care of residential association property if: 60% or more of the gross income 28 10
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 of the organization for the taxable year consists solely of amounts received as membership 2 dues, fees, and assessments.
3 30. The subdivision development has NO precise plan under Chapter 18.65 4 Notice of Intention which is NOT filed with the Department of Real Estate with the 5 commissioner Notice of Intention CAL. CODE 115. The defendants' conduct was undertaken 6 with a conscious and knowing disregard of the interests and rights of Stephanie and Victoria 7 and defendants were individually benefitted and profited financially. 8 31. Vince Marfe has shown an abuse of power with intent to corrupt and bribe 9 individuals for his personal benefit AND Mary Gozdecki individually and privately have been 10 enriched of the back of Stephanie and Victoria as well as the public at interest. DOES 1-50, 11 inclusive, are the fictitious names of defendants who have acted as Vince Marfe and Mary 12 Gozdecki s, officers, trustees, agents, or employees of defendants, or who have participated or 13 acted in concert with one or more of the defendants, or who have acted on behalf of or as agent, 14 servant, employee or co-conspirator, aider and abettor of one or more of the defendants, but 15 whose true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate or otherwise, are presently 16 unknown to Stephanie and Victoria is informed and believes that defendants DOES 1 - 50 have 17 directly or indirectly participated in and are responsible for the acts and omissions that are more 18 specifically described in this complaint. Stephanie and Victoria are presently uninformed as to 19 the true names and capacities of these defendants, Stephanie and Victoria claim them by their 20 fictitious names but will seek leave to amend the Claim when their true names are discovered. 21 32. Vince Marfe, allegedly has specific knowledge, and engaged approved, 2 22 ratified, bribed, and Mary Gozdecki engaged, assisted, aiding, and abetting and ratified, 23 conceded in bad conduct in their capacity as fiduciary and employees managers agents of t 24 defendants.
25 33. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki participated ratified with an individual that 26 we discovered is a CYBER HACKER. And all defendants have participated and interfered 27 with Stephanie and Victoria's claim in some way or another to keep us from filing our 28 meritorious claim. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki engaged with the hacker to have Stephanie 11 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. [Verified Complaint" ] 1 and Victoria's devices hacked, in pursuit of the claim from being filed. The alleged and same 2 individual removed his software business name from the Department of Real Estate website. 3 The hacker's business name was First Genisis. Vince Marfe engaged and bribed the 4 individual to hack into the Department of Real Estate developers' data system and place a 5 "public report" on the public website with specific knowledge Stephanie previously requested a 6 public report from the Sacramento Department of Real Estate and hack into Stephanie and 7 Victoria's devices and as well as tapping into their phones. AND placed false information on 8 the public report and listed the papers on the "Sacramento" Archive. In addition, the DRE 9 website states the public report is out of State, and the public report is not stamped with a 10 DRE date or time stamp, neither is it certified. Which shows the Departments Data System was 11 hacked.
12 34. Vince Marfe engaged with the hacker to hack into Stephanie and Victoria's 13 network and tap our phones and has placed viruses on our network and phished our network. 14 Stephanie nor Victoria doesn't make statement, we always back up each and every 15 statement with clear and convincing evidence.
16 35. Moreover, the forgoing being SAID of the alleged published articles, 17 were published to cook the books for litigation purposes. In furtherance, on page two of the 18 purported articles states the agent for service of process; Max Morgan 2727 West Newport 19 Blvd Suite 104 Newport Beach, CA. Evidence of proof there was never a "Suite 104" at 2727 20 West Newport Blvd. The alleged information Suite 104 was conjured up to act as if the Colony 21 Club Homeowners Association was formed when it was "not formed" at any time. 22 CA 92376 (h). [SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING] LLC 6200 S Quebec St Greenwood 23 Village, CO 80111-4720 managing agent, employee, # 13395["Cassandra",] 6200 S Quebec 24 St Greenwood Village, CO 80111-4720.At All times relevant was an officer and/or Vince. 25 Marfe and Mary Gozdecki and/or compensated executive, and as such owed fiduciary duties of 26 care and loyalty to Stephanie and Victoria. Individually and in concert with others, and each 27 have individually profited financially and has formulated, directed, controlled, approved and/or 28 participated in the acts as set forth herein. The unlawful and deceptive acts alleged herein. 12 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" J
36. Stephanie and Victoria presentment of claim on its face is timely and 2 contains sufficient information for the City of Rialto of the public entity to investigate. The 3 information included in a claim are sufficient which includes the following information: " 4 (a). The names and addresses of claimant are Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry. 5 (b). The individuals to be sent notices: Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry:
6 (c) Address to be mailed to: [Mail Delivery Only]: PO. BOX 1562 Rialto, CA 92377. 7 (d) A statement of the date: Stephanie and Victoria previously mailed to the city of Rialto, 8 by certified mail and emailed on September 5, 2023, and again on August 23, 2023. A claim to 9 recoup their payments made for the "purported" mortgage and association fees. 10 37. Stephanie and Victoria are in possession of proof of certified delivery. 11 Public requests were made and were "not" acknowledged, or any information was never mailed 12 or served which was delivered by certified mail on December 19, 2023, and October 16, 2023. 13 (e). The Physical Delivery Only: 1173 S. Cactus Ave "unit" # 3 Rialto, CA. 14 15 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OCCURRENCE IS AS FOLLOWS.
16 38. (i) The successive violations and conduct are part of the same "occurrence," 17 even simultaneous violations, and conduct of different primary rights or by either the same or 18 different defendants) will give rise to dual or multiple causes of action an 'enactment' imposes a 19 mandatory duty upon the defendant entity; performance of the duty was intended to protect 20 against the kind of injury suffered by Stephanie and Victoria and the defendant public entity's 21 failure to use reasonable diligence to "discharge" the mandatory duty proximately caused 22 Stephanie and Victoria's injury. An investigation of the claim and a financial settlement can be 23 made with a claimants) that is beneficial to both parties and its employees that it employes. 24 When it is advantageous for the entity to settle such claims), to make restitution /settlement 25 should be done in a timely and expeditious manner. It is a valuable tool to accept a claim when 26 there is clear liability.
27 /I/
28 13
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 CAL. CONST. ART. I $ 1 SECTION 1
2 39. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. 3 Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and 4 protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. 5 6 JURISDICATION REQUIREMENTS
7 40. [Stephanie Cane] and [Victoria Quesenberry] PO. Box 1562 Rialto, CA 8 92377 are citizens of the U.S. In addition, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 - U.S. Code -Unannotated Title 28. 9 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure § 1332. Diversity of citizenship; amount in controversy; costs 10 [Statutory Text & Notes of Decisions subdivisions I to V] (a) The district courts shall have 11 original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 12 value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between (1) citizens of different States; 13 (c) For the purposes of this section and section 1441 of this title. (1) a corporation shall be 14 deemed to be a citizen of every State and foreign state by which it has been incorporated and of 15 the State or foreign state where it has its principal place of business, ["The City of Rialto"], 16 ["Vince Marfe"]: [Cory Clark,] ["Mary Gozdecki"]. COLONY CLUB PATIO 17 HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION. AND ["Specialized Loan Servicing,"| ["SLS"]:
18 Cassandra with ID 13395: Address: 6200 S Quebec St Greenwood Village, CO, 80111-4720. 19 A dispute among residents of different states with an amount in controversy of more than 20 $75,000 jurisdictional minimum thereby satisfying the matter in controversy requirements. 21 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
22 23 41. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRICT OF 24 CALIFORNIA - EASTERN DIVISION (GEORGE E. BROWN, JR. U.S. COURTHOUSE) 25 A dispute among residents of different states with an amount in controversy of more than 26 $75,000
/II
28 //I
14 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. "Verified Complaint".] 1 DUTY TO AVOID UNNECESSARY EXPENSES
2 OF SERVING A SUMMONS
3 42. Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants 4 to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons and complaint. A defendant 5 who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested 6 by a moving party located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service. 7 8 EXHAUSTION DOCTRINE
9 43. Stephanie and Victoria are aware even where the administrative remedy 10 | may not resolve all issues or provide the precise relief requested by an individual's claim. 11 Balanced against the common good advanced by effective collective measures the exhaustion 12 doctrine is still viewed with favor and reasonability and gives heavy weight to decide facts on 13 the claims side precedent interpreting the statute's contours. 14 15 44. 'Because it facilitates the development of this complete record that draws 16 on administrative expertise and to help promote judicial efficiency. 17 45. At all times, Stephanie and Victoria complied with a series of procedural 18 requirements, such as providing the legislators of the City of Rialto an initial opportunity to 19 evaluate. See (Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Commission (1999) 21 20 Cal.4th 489, 501.) Respectfully, a public entity is liable for restitution. Stephanie and 21 Victoria are not seeking to circumvent the statutory "mode of contracting. 22 46. The State of Emergency enacted in California for the pandemic ended n 23 on February 28, 2023. It was in place on March 4, 2020. The last purported recording was 24 July 19, 2018, CLAIM MAY BE AMENDED
25 The claim liberality should be exercised in permitting the moving party to amend the 26 claim if there is a reasonable possibility that the defect can be cured by amendment. (Scott v. 27 City of Indian Wells (1972) 6 Cal.3d 541, 549.
28 15
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" ] 1 NOTICE:
2 "Victoria Quesenberry filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in April 2012 and received a 3 discharge on ------ The bankruptcy which has nothing to do with the purported condo, no 4 direct relation to matters at issue it was not included into the bankruptcy, and the monthly 5 mortgage payments continued, as well as the monthly HOA payments. 6 7 INTRODUCTION:
8 47. This claim concerns the servicing of the purported condominium loan and 9 in an action for the alleged breach of an obligation not arising from contract. On May 14, 2003, 10 as it turned out, Vince Marfe did not own the purported property as alleged the purported recorded 11 trustee's deed upon a purported sale to convey title on a fraud document to the alleged seller was forged 12 Vince Marfe had specific knowledge the subdivision are "UNCONVERTED APARTMENTS". 13 THE CITY OF RIALTO OF THE COLONY CLUB HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION of the 14 authorized managing agent's employees Cory Clark, Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki and are the 15 alleged fiduciary of the purported Colony Club Homeowners Association. And are inactive 16 agents. Stephanie and Victoria assert the claim "arising out of the same occurrences". 17 SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING, LLC, managing agent Cassandra furtherance of the 18 alleged conduct. All managers played a part in some way shape or form, and individually 19 profited. Specialized Loan Servicing breach of an obligation as a purported servicer under 20 Section 1024.41(f) prohibits the alleged servicer recording an assignment knowing it was 21 forged and fraudulent. Vince Marfe engaged and had specific knowledge of the alleged sham 22 transaction and solicited Specialized Loan Servicing in the act, with intent to corrupt, with 23 anticipation of a non-judicial foreclosure. Vince Marfe and Specialized Loan Servicing had 24 specific knowledge Stephanie and Victoria's payments were PAID for the purported mortgage 25 and association dues. Stephanie and Victoria made "continuous" payments for the 26 purported mortgage and the association payments for 21 years. 27 LERK VEL OF RIALTO
28 PM12:46
/I
16 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" ] 1 48. Stephanie and Victoria loss of interest in banking accounts, businesses, and 2 such other assets to which we were rightfully entitled by way of our legal rights and causes of 3 action involved in the underlying personal property. Employee, agents' managers, association 4 [SLS] engaged in a systemic scheme to defraud the "purported" homeowners. In an continuous 5 effort to extort Stephanie and Victoria out of their money in the form of purported mortgage 6 payments, and association dues.
7 49. These employees' agents' managers and the purported association had and 8 have no legal right or servicer authority to be demanding money from Stephanie and 9 Victoria.
10 50. On May 14, 2003, Vince Marfe's represented he was going to take care of = Stephanie and Victoria and that they had nothing to worry about. As a further direct and 12 proximate result of the representations and course of conduct. Vince Marfe was the realtor and 13 the owner, and the purported board of director president Vince Marfe to the purported property, 14 and licensed owner of a construction business over speaker phone. Vince Marfe represented to 15 Stephanie and Victoria they were in good hands and that he would make sure that we were 16 taken care of. Stephanie was caused to suffer and continues to suffer emotional Distress. On 17 May 14, 2003, Stephanie and Victoria declare, Vince Marfe fraudulently concealed the true 18 nature of his representation being afforded to them. On May 14, 2003, over speaker phone 19 signing of the mortgage papers with our realtor. In furtherance Vince Marfe assured Stephanie 20 and Victoria that we were tendering to the purchase for a purported real property and that we 21 would own at the address: 1173 S. Cactus Ave condo # 3 in the City of Rialto, CA. 22 Vince Marfe never stated that the unit was an Apartment. - 44 CITY OF RIALTO 23 /1I
PMI2: 47
24 //I
25 ///
26 27
28 17
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. "Verified Complaint".] 1 WHENEVER REFERENCE IS MADE IN THIS CLAIM TO ANY ACT OF ANY 2 AUTHORIZED EMPLOYEE AGENT SUPERVISOR FIDUCIARY, SUCH
3 ALLEGATION WITH ACTUAL OR OSTENSIBLE AUTHORITY TO PERFORM 4 THE ACTS SO ALLEGED.
5 OVERVIEW OF ALLEGATIONS:
6 51. On May 14, 2003, Vince Marfe related to Stephanie and Victoria and their 7 realtor that we could only be approved through the associations Bank which was called 8 financial Empire, and said", that was the lender because he was the board president of the 9 association, and stated over speaker phone this was the only way that we would be able to 10 purchase the condo through the Bank to finance the Loan. On May 14, 2003, on speaker phone our realtor stated to Vince Marfe advertisement we see that the listing price is [$116, 509.00]. 12 Vince Marfe represented the price had increased due to multiple offers, and that he wanted 13 [$7,000.00] dollars over the asking price [$116,509.00]. Vince Marfe represented the new 14 listing price to be [$129,509.00]. Their realtor stated if the listing price was [$116,509.00] and 15 the listing price increased to [$129,509.00] this would mean Vince Marfe that you want 16 [$13,000.00] over the listing price. Stephanie and Victoria didn't think anything of the act 17 because all the homes were in the high 4's, and detrimentally entrusted Vince Marfe. 18 52. Vince Marfe informed Stephanie and Victoria that we could finance only if 19 we would agree with two payments a BALLOON PAYMENT in the amount ['$7,050.00"), 20 and the balance of the listing price [$116,509.00].
21 53. Vince Marfe related he would be the only person that could record Stephanie 22 and Victoria's purported mortgage papers show deceptive methods, and stated he would need 23 all copies with our driver's license. Vince Marfe wasted no time and wanted Stephanie and 24 Victoria's papers faxed the same day we signed on May 14, 2003. Stephanie and Victoria 25 determinately relied on Vince Marfe's reliance and gave no reason not to emphasis added i.e. 26 Vince Marfe was an expert and experienced in real estate were as Stephanie and Victoria were 27 young and new to real estate therefore, had no experience but knew they wanted to purchase a 28 property, and advised Vince Marfe as such. Stephanie and Victoria entrusted Vince Marfe with 18 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint". J our personal private information and honesty. Stephanie and Victoria agreed and signed 2 mortgage papers and were faxed the same day over to Vince Marfe and gave confirmation and 3 confirmed receipt of the papers. Vince Marfe has personally profited from the unlawful and 4 deceptive acts alleged herein.
5 54. Stephanie and Victoria had great credit in high 770's our realtor stated the 6 APR is high for their credit. Vince Marfe said because we were new buyers and as long as we 7 paid the purported loan down the payments would Decrease. Vince Marfe concealment of a 8 material fact; the condo was not a real property and had a duty owed to disclose the fact to 9 Stephanie and Victoria. Vince Marfe intended to defraud by suppressing the fact; that 10 Stephanie and Victoria would not own the purported property. Stephanie and Victoria were unaware of the fact and would not have acted as they did if we had known of the concealed 12 suppressed fact. Stephanie and Victoria sustained damage as a result of the concealment of the 13 fact." (Graham v. Bank of America, N.A. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 594, 606, internal citation 14 omitted.)
15 55. On May 14, 2003, Vince Marfe read over speaker phone the purported Loan 16 terms APR 6.75% monthly payments [$1,300.00] with, 20-year fix rate: alleged Lender:
17 Empire Financial. The "paid" title insurance $1000 dollars for Chicago Title on May 14, 18 2003. Vince Marfe stated the money for the purported title insurance was going to Chicago 19 Title. Vince Marfe stated the escrow won't take long our realtor said it would take 20 approximately two to three weeks to hear something back. 21 56. Vince Marfe called our realtor the next day on Stephanie's Birthday May 15, 22 2003, and said", for us to pick up the keys which was on May 15, 2003. Vince Marfe informed 23 Stephanie and Victoria we would own the purported condominium after all the payments 24 were made of [$129,509.00]. Stephanie and Victoria paid Vince Marfe the entire BALLOON 25 PAYMENT [$7,050.00] the next day we moved in on [May 15, 2003,) and discovered the 26 purported association fees were not only [ $72.00] but, were [$172.00] Stephanie and 27 Victoria sufficiently alleged the material terms of the purported Agreement by their legal 28 effect, which is all that is required to allege the existence of a purported agreement. Stephanie 19 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 and Victoria alleged these facts the parties to the contract, the subject matter of the papers, the 2 execution date, the purchase price, the closing date for escrow, and the basic duties of the 3 parties under the contract. On May 14, 2003, Vince Marfe assured he was protecting Stephanie 4 and Victoria's rights but "discovered he in fact, did not protect us at all". 5 57. Stephanie and Victoria exercised due diligence and discovered Vince Marfe 6 recorded and re-recorded an enormous amount of purported deeds of trust and forged our 7 names on the purported deeds of trust Vince Marfe made sure to record these deeds of trust on 8 the same day Stephanie and Victoria signed their purported mortgage papers on May 14, 2003. 9 AND dated a certain purported deed of trust May 6, 2003, which we "did not", sign, or had "no 10 "knowledge regarding such papers being recorded behind our backs. Vince Marfe apparently 11 recorded that certain deed of trust with the San Bernardino County Recorder's office. 12 58. Stephanie and Victoria never signed or had any knowledge of a purported 13 Planned Development Rider, covenants and restrictions, lease or leasehold, or a rental 14 agreement. Stephanie and Victoria "DID NOT "sign a promissory note, at any time in the 21 15 years they resided in their personal property and neither did we sign a "Note for a principle 16 sum [$7,050.00".]
17 59. Stephanie and Victoria did not sign any papers that state principle or, 18 interest with balance of the indebtedness if not sooner paid dues payable on June 1, 2023. 19 Stephanie and Victoria DID" not" signed documents under CA CIV 2924.15. Stephanie and 20 Victoria did not sign a purported deed of trust dated May 6, 2003, to secure a lender. 21 The purported personal property was nonexistence to Stephanie and Victoria on 22 May 6, 2003.
23 60. Stephanie and Victoria did not sign any papers that states the following:
24 Regional Council of Rural Counties Trustee Home Mortgage Finance Authority a public 25 and Joint Powers Agency Organized and Operated whose address is 801 12'h Street Suite 26 600 Sacramento California 95814 herein "Lender".
27 28
20 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. "Verified Complaint" ] 1 61. Intra alia of fact, of the ultimate fact of the following alleged acts. Vince Marfe solicited Specialized Loan Servicing in the act as if Stephanie and Victoria had a loan 3 with Bank of America when we did "NOT". Vince Marfe enlisted Specialized Loan Servicing 4 to develop three different fraudulent and forged modification agreements and assisted in the 5 purported servicer to mail the documents to Stephanie and Victoria. But unbeknown to Vince 6 Marfe and SLS. Stephanie and Victoria would request a payoff statement. By review of 7 Cassandra's response to the complaint Stephanie and Victoria made with the Consumer 8 Financial Protection Bureau "CFPB" on September 12, 2023, their request for the payoff 9 statement requested on July 29, 2023, which was not received and did not respond to the payoff 10 request.
11 62. This positioned SLS and Vince Marfe in a situation to rush and create false 12 modification agreements and forge their names because Vince Marfe and SLS and defendants 13 specifically had knowledge and concealed the ultimate fact the condominium was not a real 14 property. But were APARTMENTS PREVIOUSLY NAMED CASA RIALTO 15 APARTMENTS. By way of Stephanie and Victoria requesting a payoff statement this 16 triggered Vince Marfe and Specialized Loan Servicing to act quickly and develop and send 17 those fraudulent and purported forged and fraudulent Modification agreements. 18 The fraudulent modification agreements were "never" mailed "BEFORE" we made the 19 request for a payoff statement.
20 63. Moreover, respectfully, 1086. A writ must be issued in all cases where there 21 is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy, in the ordinary course of law. Stephanie and 22 Victoria suffer a financial loss that we incurred, and will continue to incur, substantial 23 expenses,
24 64. Stephanie and Victoria discovered Vince Marfe has a Carrier Code with a 25 code number ("CO34") That number is VINCE MARFE's APT # 34. THE CARRIER CODE 26 IS FOR TRACKING loans more likely than not Vince Marfe is wrongfully, being sent 27 information regarding Stephanie and Victoria's public personal information this alerts Vince 28 Marfe to funds on each unit. This act PINGS Vince Marfe which is an alert on funds traveling 21 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. "Verified Complaint".] 1 from destination to destination. Therefore, Vince Marfe can alert purported Specialized Loan 2 Servicing and STOP the process from happening and stop anyone requesting or asking about 3 the subdivision development. Vince Marfe doesn't want anyone in the Subdivision 4 development to know their unit is an APARTMENT AND ARE NOT CONDO'S especially 5 between a real bank. Therefore, defendants continue the vicious cycle, of non-judicial 6 foreclosures to individually profit for financial gain even when an individual has paid 7 continually for 21 years.
8 65. Specialized loan Servicing, Vince Marfe and Cassandra cannot claim or act on a purported assignment when it's not signed by anyone. And cannot claim an assignment 10 on an APARTMENT. Furthermore, the purported assignment is not signed under the required 11 acknowledgment that must state the following: I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY 12 under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct, 13 WITNESS my hand and official seal. ERROR RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS (81024.35) 14 Forgery is defined as [t]he act of fraudulently making a false document or altering a real one to 15 be used as if genuine.
16 66. Victoria AND Stephanie are in possession with Prima Facia evidence the 17 notary was "not" a licensed" notary at the time of the purported assignment was apparently 18 electronically recorded on July 19, 2018. [CERTIFICATION FOR NO RECORDS] 19 I NO OATHI OBTAINED ON THE NOTARY PAMELA L. WOOD ON THE FORGED 20 PURPORTED ASSIGNMENT.
21 67. Stephanie and Victoria are in possession from the COUNTY OF 22 ALLEGHENY IN THE STATE OF PHILADELPHIA of the Notary Commission. The 23 notary was "NOT A NOTARY on July 19, 2018". On purported date of the electronically 24 recording of the purported assignment which Specialized Loan Servicing recorded under Vince 25 Marfe's direction. The purported notary stamp a second page instead of the purported 26 assignment which is following the alleged assignment, WITHOUT A NOTARY 27 COMMISSION NUMBER.
28 22
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. 'Verified Complaint" J 1 68. The Notary Stamp is conjured up and by review it was created on a program 2 the stamp is not an official stamp and acting under a different State. A notary must be in the 3 Jurisdiction the Notary commission.
4 69. Specialized Loan Servicing knew and should have known the notary stamp 5 is not an official notary stamp but is claim that the purported assignment is an accurate 6 document. "SLS" and Cassandra specifically knew and should have known by recording a 7 fraudulent document errors and omission under RESPA ACT. 8 70. Specialized Loan Servicing the authorized employee Cassandra states in 9 their response letter dated October 19, 2023, the purported loan identification Number [MIN] 10 in the Mortgage Electronic Registration System, Inc [ MERS] reflexes inactive it doesn't not = for this loan show that the prior to July 13, 2006, relates to a loan other than the one serviced 12 by SLS. A copy of the 2018 Assignment of mortgage recorded by SLS is included for your 13 review. The ultimate facts Stephanie and Victoria are entitled to relief. 14 71. Stephanie and Victoria purchased the purported assignment before 15 Cassandra responded to Our Claim Made with The California Financial Protection Bureau 16 "CFPB" as an attachment we mailed certified mail that same 'purported" assignment to 17 Specialized Loan Servicing. which means Cassandra already knew we were in possession of 18 the FORGED assignment of Deed of Trust. Specialized
19 Loan Servicing distinctively SHOWS ['INACTIVE"] on MERS dated JULY 13, 2006. 20 Specialized Loan Servicing RECORDED THE purported assignment with the specific 21 knowledge "SLS" was not licensed with MERS. when SLS recorded the purported assignment 22 and (SLS) is not licensed with NMLS. "SLS" have, specific knowledge Stephanie and Victoria 23 was not behind with the purported mortgage payments because the payments were paid every 24 month like clockwork.
25 72. Specialized Loan Servicing has specific knowledge it should not have 26 purportedly serviced the purported loan but are under Vince Marfe direction. "SLS" has 27 specific knowledge the entire subdivision are all APARTMENTS AND ARE NOT CONDO's 28 23
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 this is actual fraud. But continue to extort Stephanie and Victoria to make purported mortgage 2 payments and paid kickbacks and bribes under Vince Marfe's direction. 3 73. Vince Marfe committed and continue to commit the breaches of fiduciary 4 duty, violations of law, the authorized agents of defendants continue in wrongful acts and 5 omissions as alleged. Stephanie and Victoria are in possession of clear and convincing 6 evidence Specialized Loan Servicing is not who they say they are and has no mortgage 7 servicing license in California.
8 74. The same date of the forged and ported assignment of deed of trust. The July 9 13, 2006, doesn't relate to any other purported deed of trust than the one purported serviced by 10 SLS with a purported same MIN NUMBER # 100015700070182957 that is fraud. 11 Furthermore, we have no clue why Cassandra wants to challenge us because we will WIN, 12 AND Vince Marfe and either of the defendant will get away with their reprehensible conduct 13 that caused us to endure Furthermore, every servicer must be licensed when recording with 14 MERS and Specialized Loan Servicing is not licensed with MERS OR with the NMLS 15 Vince Marfe, has a duty to pay monies back of disgorgement for monies received which has 16 been taken from Stephanie and Victoria and respectfully, must be paid back for our loss of 17 harm and injury done. All defendants benefitted financially and profited individually and 18 "continues" to be unjustly enriched. Stephanie and Victoria concluded that the matter is 19 important and of continuing public interest, warranting review of the city council members. See 20 (Burch v. George (1994) 7 Cal.4th 246, 253, fn. 4.)
21 22 COUNT 1: Fraud
23 On May 14, 2003, which was prephanie and Victoria's
24 I first and anly loan).
25 26 (Action against all Defendants Authorized managing Agents, employees AND Fiduciary 27 Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, Cory Clark and Cassandra and Specialized Loan Servicing)
28 75. Stephanie and Victoria re-allege and incorporate the "allegations." Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. [Verified Complaint".] 1 contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. Vince 2 Marfe alleged had corrupt intent. At all times' Vince Marfe was bribing Cory Clark in the city 3 of Rialto's planning department to record and re-record documents to cook the books for 4 litigation.
5 76. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki. Cassandra and Specialized Loan 6 Servicing herein caused Stephanie and Victoria to pay and "to make continuous payments for a 7 purported mortgage on an "apartment". SLS and Cassandra have specific knowledge the 8 subdivision are all apartments. Stephanie and Victoria never signed any such documents. For a 9 rental agreement, loans, modification agreements, planned unit development rider or a 10 | leasehold agreement. Or assignment, subprime loan and neither did we sign deeds of trust for 11 an individual to turn around in an anticipation to foreclose by nonjudicial foreclosure, when 12 we have made continuous payments as the purported mortgage payments. Vince Marfe, Mary 13 Gozdecki, Specialized Loan Servicing, Cassandra, and Cory Clark were setting up the corrupt 14 plan against Stephanie and Victoria which we would never sign any such documents. 15 77. The defendants forged our names on the following: Cassandra forged our 16 names on two NOTES that are the same but one was stamped by SLS and the other was 17 stamped by Country-wide, the papers are dated for the same date, and the same amount of 18 $250,000.00 neither document were originals, under Vince Marfe's direction. 19 78. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki tangible benefit given or received with 20 corrupt intent to bribe which shows that Stephanie and Victoria never signed any Notes. And 21 the Notes are not certified. Therefore, invalid and void. Cory Clark Vince Marfe conjured up a 22 final tract map by actual fraud, and recorded as if the subdivision is a planned development 23 with specific knowledge the subdivision are all Apartments. Vince Marfe, Cassandra, 24 Specialized Loan Servicing by mail provided hidden interests and forged our names on deeds 25 of trust and three different modification agreements, assignment perpetrated in anticipation to 26 proceed on a non-judicial foreclosure in fact Stephanie and Victoria paid payments continually 27 for 21 years and continuously.
28 79. Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, Specialized Loan Servicing, Cassandra and 25 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. [Verified Complaint". ] 1 Cory Clark acting under (false financial statements, inflated sales amounts and account 2 balances,
3 80. On May 14, 2003, over speaker phone Vince Marfe sold Stephanie and 4 Victoria a false dream. And they cannot get back 21 years, that they resided in the 5 APARTMENT of what they were sold and told what they tendered a purchase a real property 6 condominium this what Vince Marfe stated he was a realtor and owned a construction business 7 and he was the president of the purported association but we discovered all the while Vince 8 Marfe conjured up shell companies' set-up shortly before or during our move in on May 15, 9 2003. Vince Marfe receives bogus contracts and execute the kickback scheme. 10 81. Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, Cory Clark and Cassandra and Specialized 11 Loan Servicing had the specific knowledge of all stated acts of omission. 12 82. Stephanie and Victoria paid in full on the purported loan for 21 years as 13 mortgage payments and did not ever receive a correct payoff statement and the aggravation 14 and emotional distress continues. Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, Cory Clark, Cassandra and 15 Specialized Loan Servicing had
16 83. Specific knowledge Stephanie and Victoria are being extorted and threaten 17 to pay purported association fees for 21 years on an Apartment, which was concealed. 18 84. All the defendants conduct was committed in the course of a series of acts. 19 Further, all defendants had specific knowledge the Subdivision were apartments. And MONEY 20 that were not owed to Specialized Loan Servicing ACTING AS A SERVICER, "without" a 21 license to service the purported loan actual fraud is continuously being committed against 22 Stephanie and Victoria.
23 85. Vince Marfe actual fraud Improper Selection of a contractor, e.g., through 24 the use of bid rigging measures. The payment of unreasonably high Prices an unlicensed 25 contractor, and Purchase of an excess Quantity of goods, works or services from an unlicensed 26 contractor.
27 28
26 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint". ] 1 86. Vince Marfe Acceptance of low-Quality goods, works or services from an 2 unlicensed contractor, and Delivery of goods, works or services that do not meet contract 3 specifications, and Failure to adequately advertise the request for bids or proposals 4 87. Vince Marfe unreasonable pre-qualification procedures that exclude 5 qualified bidders, or which allow unqualified bidders to compete. 6 88. Vince Marfe unreasonably narrow contract specifications that favor the 7 winning bidder and exclude others all were unlicensed contractors. See Exhibit E-0082E0011 8 OF unlicensed contractors on the roofs in the subdivision without any safety material on 9 subjects' body under Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki direction. 10 89. Vince Marfe Leaking of bid information to favor a certain bidder, without a 11 license and while withholding critical information from other bidders, and discarding or 12 changing bids after receipt, or improperly manipulating the scoring of bids hired unlicensed 13 roofers and received bids, and committed bid rigging, collusive bidding and fraud, organized 14 transaction of errors and omission. Which resulted in in the entire subdivision development' 15 ROOF leaks Vince Marfe himself has no license and purchased cheap shingles for the roofs, 16 and building has rotten wood siding. The building has never had a tarp over for Fumigation 17 which costs between $1 and $4 per square foot. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki rather have 18 rodents inside the attics. Vince Marfe, Mary Gosdecki, Cory Clark, SLS, Cassandra are 19 financially enriched off the backs of Stephanie and Victoria and the public who are extorted 20 and threaten to pay puported association fees, and purported mortgages that we were not 21 advised or noticed in any way shape or form that the entire subdivision are all apartment's 22 built in the 70's.
23 90. The development is highly unsafe which creates a health hazard not only for 24 Stephanie and Victoria but for the public at large. This resulting intent of corruption is 25 between all individual defendants. That has profited by financial gain Vince Marfe, Mary 26 Gozdecki, Cory Clark, Cassandra and Specialized Loan Servicing, that caused damages and 27 injury to Stephanie and Victoria that resulted from these acts errors and omissions. 28 27
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" .] 1 91. Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, Cory Clark, and Cassandra and Specialized 2 Loan Servicing in furtherance of the actual fraud Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, Cory Clark, 3 Cassandra and Specialized Loan Servicing each Defendant participated in the actual fraud, 4 had and have specific knowledge of the fraud described acts of omission. 5 92. Each must be held accountable and responsible for all damages ensuing. 6 from the fraud and conduct irrespective of whether or not he was a direct actor and regardless 7 of the degree of his activity. Herein, ratified and adopted and are being exposed to the 8 heightened criteria of "actual fraud, corruption or actual malice committed on Stephanie and 9 Victoria and the public.
10 93. Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, Cory Clark, Cassandra, and Specialized 11 Loan Servicing after its occurrence performance of such fraudulent acts or omissions, either 12 before, during or after the fact.
13 94. A fraudulent "act" included, an enormous amount of deeds of trust, and 14 assignment to anticipation of a nonjudicial foreclosure behind our backs. The purported 15 assignment recorded by SLS and Cassandra under Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki's 16 direction who are also, fiduciaries, proving all defendant are authorized to speak on behalf of 17 the employer and. in the course of a series of acts were committed by the [employees, manager 18 supervisors] during and in the scope of their employment time 9-5. That were authorized by the 19 [employer]." '' (Perez v. Van Groningen & Sons, Inc. (1986) 41 Cal. 3d 962, 970 who what 20 when and where are displayed to the heighten rules. On and apparently recorded on July 24, 21 2018, the assignment and the deed of trust apparently recorded July 13, 2006, that were forged 22 against Stephanie and Victoria and discovered documents forged of signature and were 23 altering and (backdated, etc.) documents of. An "omission" Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki, 24 Cory Clark, SLS, and Cassandra knowingly and willfully failing to disclose a material facts, 25 95. Vince Marfe hires unlicensed contractor and MARY Gozdecki approves and 26 ratifies the intent of corrupt, actual fraud. Vince Marfe have climb on the roofs himself, and 27 almost fell off the roofs. When we were not aware of the injury. But previously Stephanie 28 caught Vince Marfe in his fall and didn't even know he was on the roof until he fell. 28 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" .]
96. Moreover, Vince Marfe has created a sham transaction to obtain an 2 improper benefit of financial enrichment and avoided his obligation as an employee and a 3 fiduciary of honesty.
4 STATEMENTS MADE EITHER IN WRITING OR VERBAL.
5 97. All defendants' Acted with willful blindness as to the truth or falsity of the 6 statements, made to Stephanie and Victoria Mary Gozdecki said", when Stephanie and 7 Victoria stated that their Bank Account was defrauded by the purported manager which we 8 discovered was a hacker who they claim is a manager of the purported association Mary 9 Gozdecki stated I DON'T KNOW AND I DON'T CARE in front t of her apartment. VINCE 10 MARFE SAID WELL DON'T PAY THE MORTGAGE AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS THEN.. 11 AND, in their response dated October 19, 2023, Cassandra AND SLS stated UNTIL AND IF 12 SUCH TIME THE COURT DEEMS THIS LOAN TO BE INVALID SLS WILL CONTINUE TO 13 SERVICE THE LOAN. which is a threat for Stephanie and Victoria to sue to be made whole. 14 STEPHANIE requested many PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST AND CORY CLARK IN THE 15 PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN THE CITY OF RIALTO. SAID, " THAT'S ALL I HAVE I 16 DON'T HAVE ANY MORE. But hear eyes said it all Don't ask me for any more documents. 17 BUT GAVE STEPHANIE AND VICTORIA BUNDLES OF OTHER individuals LICENSES 18 AND PERSONAL RECORDS OF INDIVIDUALS. THAT WERE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY 19 WITH A BUNDLE OF BLANK PAPERS BETWEEN THE LICENSES. i.e., deliberately failed 20 to determine the correctness of the facts, or to put in place procedures that would enable 21 defendants reprehensible and unconscionable conduct". Stephanie and Victoria can prove 22 directly, for example, by the admission clear and convincing evidence. 23 98. Finally, each did knowingly derive and profit and benefit financially from 24 the acts and omissions described herein. based upon an agreement that was either written, oral 25 or implied by the conduct of the parties. Stephanie and Victoria, these defendants acts caused 26 injury to Stephanie and Victoria to suffer general and special damages as a direct and 27 proximate result of Defendants' conspiracy to commit the repeated and serial acts of fraud 28 against. ALLEGATIONS.
29 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ['Verified Complaint".] 1 99. In the furtherance, heightened criteria of "actual fraud, corruption or 2 actual malice. Only a licensed Lender securitize home loans in order to non-liquid purported 3 mortgage loans into relatively safe, immediately liquid securities (certificates, bonds, or stock) 4 that can be bought, sold, and traded on Wall Street. ONLY IF RECORDED WITH THE "SEC" Security and Exchange Commission and a real mortgage not an APARTMENT. A 6 licensed Lenders originate mortgage loans and pool them together to be sold into residential 7 mortgage-backed securities ("RMBS's"), which in turn create a constant wind fall, and a flow 8 of new money for the funding of purportedly new loans. 9 The RMBS's are divided into sections ("tranches") that can be bought and sold by bond 10 holders.
11 100. Vince Marfe Offering, giving, receiving or soliciting, directly or 12 indirectly,
13 and value to influence improperly the actions of another party bribery affected the special tax 14 benefit. Vince has damaged our credit to the ultimate when Stephanie and Victoria had top tier 15 credit rating before May 14, 2003, Vince Marfe has damaged our credit. Stephanie and 16 Victoria are entitled to relief. Vince Marfe and other defendants herein caused injury. by fraud." I1 U. S. C. §523(a) (2)(A). But Bradner, 114 U. S. 555, the Court held that the fraud of 18 one partner should be imputed to the other partners, who "received and appropriated the fruits 19 of the fraudulent conduct." Id., at 56. Vince Marfe gave an item of value in kickbacks), that 20 were given, offered, with corrupt intent, to the hired hacker to hack into the Counties data 21 base, and place documents that weren't in the Counties public websites into The Department of 22 Real Estate data system.
23 101. Vince Marfe ratified the conduct and create a public report, on the 24 Department of Real Estate publics website to act as if the document was archived in the system 25 when the public report was never created before Stephanie requested that document from the 26 Department of Real Estate. Stephanie and Victoria are in possession of prima facia evidence 27 that show that certain public report was not on the DEPARTMENT OF Real Estate publics 28 website previously when Stephanie made her request with the ("DRE") in November 2023, 30 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 with the agent Monique in Sacramento. Vince Marfe contributed assisted and unlawfully 2 influenced defendants and each other in their authorized employment public capacity at all 3 times mentioned. Vince Marfe Mary Gozdecki and Cory Clark, and Cassandra wrongfully gain 4 financial benefit. Mary Gozdecki and Vince Marfe also, gained other advantage of not paying 5 rent, or utilities or insurance or the purported association dues. 6 102. In furtherance Vince Marfe engaged and bribed the hacker to hack into 7 the San Bernardino County Tax Assessors Office data system and create documents as if the 8 subdivision development were developed on the INLAND EMPIRE CHURCH grounds, with 9 ONLY 14 units when there's 41, and claim exempt on the taxes, on the subdivision development 10 in order to keep the hacker at his beck and call. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki approved of 11 the hacker to open an out of state Bank account which shows the benefit of kickback or 12 gratuity), unlawfully influence the hacker to whom it was given which Vince Marfe and Mary 13 Gozdecki were in their authorized public employment management capacity. That money was 14 taken from Stephanie and Victoria and the publics dues. Therefore, Vince Marfe and Mary 15 could hide in the background to act as innocent bystanders, but all the while Vince Marfe is 16 writing large amounts of checks to himself from the association dues to individually benefit and 17 profit financially.
18 103. Vince MARFE Mary Gozdecki engaged in actual fraud, and ratified the 19 hacker in the act to cyber-hacked into the San Bernardino County Recorder's office 20 developer's "data base" as if Mary Gozdecki's APT was conveyed as a purported real 21 property to publish on the public website in the act as if the APARTMENT was paid off in full 22 in the year 2020, and the San Bernardino County website states (deed), 2020, acting as if a 23 real property having the specific knowledge it was and is an APARTMENT. 24 104. The published record with the Counties doesn't state the document is a 25 deed of trust on the public website is displayed and published as (deed) but the purported 26 document is a deed oftrust. NO NOTES RECORDED ON ANY UNITS IN THE SUBDIVISION 27 CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE are provided: Please See attached Exhibits. 28 /I/
31 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. "Verified Complaint" ] 1 ///
2 105. The malicious intent corrupt bribery continues the hacker hacked into 3 the counties data base and created documents to show on the counties public website to 4 perpetrate by actual fraud on the public website.
5 106. Vince Marfe, and Vince Marfe's best friend next door to him and Mary 6 Gozdecki APT were conveyed as purportedly real properties. In addition, defendants created a 7 document to show on the public County Recorders website to act as if Vince Marfe and his wife 8 moved into the subdivision in the year of 2008, when Vince Marfe did not, he moved in the 9 Subdivision in 1993 or 1994. These intent corrupt bribes were financed to cook the books for 10| litigation.
107. Vince Marfe and MARY Gozdecki paid by way of intent corrupt bribery 12 and the hacker Cyber hacked into Stephanie and Victoria's devices and computers. Which they 13 have paid over and above $20,000.00 for experts to estop the hacker from phishing into our 14 private and personal business to prevent Stephanie and Victoria from filing our lawsuit this 15 conduct is continuous.
16 108. Stephanie and Victoria discovered these acts have been in effect since 17 we resided in the APARTMENT for 21 years. Through the huge cell phone tower placed on the 18 Inland Empire Church grounds that was built between 2003-2010. Vince Marfe and the hacker 19 told Mary Gozdecki to drive around with the hacker's laptop in her Toyota and search for our 20 WIFI. constantly scanning for Wi-Fi. Mary Gozdecki was wardrivers use hardware and 21 software to find Wi-Fi signals in a particular area, to identify our Wi-Fi network that they can 22 exploit. From her moving vehicles (the 'driving' part of wardriving), they attempt to locate use 23 in attacks (the 'war' part of wardriving). Once found, wardrivers to submit our information to 24 to the hacker third-party websites and apps to create digital maps. Motivations, for wardriving 25 I to malign and benign. Malign motivations wardrivers seeking our Wi-Fi so they can steal more 26 of our personal and banking information, for their criminal activity that we the owner of the 27 network then becomes liable for, which is why we hired experts, and we are in possession of 28 32
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" J 1 clear and convincing evidence of this activity. Vince Marfe spies on Stephanie and Victoria and 2 tapped our phones and computer and our new vehicle and the public. 3 Stephanie and Victoria discovered these acts continued more than 21 years that we have 4 resided in the subdivision and continues for over centuries. The defendant MUST be estopped. 5 109. Stephanie and Victoria phones and cell phones, new vehicle and 6 new computer is all been tapped and phished. The defendant's acts are not just Civil penalties 7 these are criminal acts that are Federal offences.
8 110. Moreover, non-liquid purported mortgage or deed of trust (and note) is 9 transformed into a security, with that being said the deed of trust was forged and was created 10 | to injure Stephanie and Victoria when they were not served or mailed the documents before 11 their request for a payoff statement with intent to corrupt these RMBS's are subject to a series 12 of tax laws known as the Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC Act"). 3 The 13 REMIC Act articulated the tax benefits of the RMBS and protected the RMBS. Investment 14 banks observe the REMIC Act so that they may operate without the hindrance of banking 15 regulations, avoid liability and tax issues, and increase profits by pooling and reselling 16 purported borrowers' notes to investors of Real Estate Investment Trusts ("REITs") in the form 17 of securities.
18 111. The purported borrower's note might be sold ten or twenty times 19 resulting in millions (and eventually billions) of dollars in recording fees that the lenders 20 sought to avoid. MERS is an artifice embedded into a borrowers' deeds of trusts and mortgages 21 as on real property NOT AN APARTMENT "a separate corporation that is acting solely as a 22 nominee for the Lender and the Lender's successors and assigns, " but MERS actually functions 23 as the computer arm of every lender that uses the MERS system. Defendants and othremainers 24 have utilized MERS as a computer agent not subject to agency law since the identity of the 25 principal responsible for the acts of the agent remains hidden even when documents are 26 recorded. Specialized Loan Servicing is not Licensed with MERS In a nonjudicial foreclosure 27 states, such as California, where. the foreclosure scheme rests purely on only on a notice 28 received that we never received through recorded documents, this has made it impossible for 33 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 borrowers (or their attorneys) to know the Holder in Due Course ("HIDC") of a purported 2 borrower's note which Stephanie and Victoria never signed a Note and a note is not recorded 3 on any APARTMENT in the subdivision.
4 112. The Note Cassandra responded to the CFPB is not Stephanie or 5 Victoria's document it's a fraud piece of material she conjured up to to act as a Note which is 6 not an original document because we never signed a Note. Civil litigation and sometimes not 7 even then. The Trustee of a REIT (or SPV) has a valid and enforceable claim against a 8 borrower's property only if all requirements of the PSA are met. 113. These include A complete and unbroken chain of endorsements and 10 transfers of the note from and to each party to the securitization transaction prior to the = closing date of the REIT; and Actual physical possession of the ORIGINAL note by the Trustee 12 of the REIT at the point in time when all endorsements and assignments have been completed 13 AND recorded at the same time. A purported "true sale" also provides the SPV with Holder in 14 Due Course (I-IIDC) status and protections, but in order to claim HIDC status, the SPV must 15 satisfy the requirements of UCC § 3-302 (defining HIDC) and the HIDC (the SPV) must take 16 the instrument free from notice that another party has a defense or claim in recoupment. The 17 main benefit of HIDC status is that the HIDC may enforce the payment rights under the 18 negotiable instrument free from all but a limited number of defenses as outlined in UCC § 3- 19 305. In addition to the benefit of tax exemption, and the freedom to operate without the 20 hindrance of banking regulations, the HIDC takes the note or instrument free from competing 21 claims of ownership by third parties Because the PSA of a REIT requires that all 22 endorsements, transfers, and assignments of a note occur prior to the closing date of the REIT 23 or MBS, courts have held that allegations of improper timing of these events can give a 24 borrower a valid claim for challenging a purported servicer, (See, e.g., Vogan v. Wells Fargo 25 Bank, N.A. (E.D. Cal. 2011) WL5826016, LEXISI32944, pp. 17-18 ['assignment was executed 26 by fraud and when a servicer records an assignment knowing that assignment was false and 27 forged its void.
28 34
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 2 114. Stephanie and Victoria did not have a deed of trust recorded on the same 3 day they signed purported mortgage papers, or any day for that matter. An assignment cannot 4 be placed on an APARTMENT OR WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL HAS PAID. Stephanie and 5 Victoria never signed a promissory NOTE. Therefore, the assignment is unenforceable. 6 Stephanie and Victoria are simply alleged that, as a result of the improper and illegal 7 procedures of a purported servicer under Vince Marfe's direction as described elsewhere in 8 this Claim, and the mass chaos resulting in Specialized Loan Servicing and Vince Marfe's 9 conduct recorded and re-recorded a plethora of deeds of trust multiple times, there's no 10 purported chain of title,
11 115. These acts are completely irregular under the law, being the purported 12 servicer Specialized Loan Servicing did not follow the requirements of the relevant governing 13 PSA. Vince Marfe and Specialized Loan Servicing further violated New York trust law. Federal 14 Register, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), And attempted to accomplish 15 a nonjudicial foreclosure behind Stephanie and Victoria backs even though we paid all 16 payments for the purported mortgage payments continuously, for 21 years, and have done and 17 did everything Vince Marfe and the papers that we signed on May 14, 2024. Vince Marfe and 18 SLS, Cassandra, Mary Gozdecki, Cory Clark all acted and played a part in actual fraud and 19 corruption. And have taken money from Stephanie and Victoria working class individuals. 20 Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki and Specialized, Loan Servicing, and Cory Clark, Cassandra 21 anticipation of nonjudicial foreclosures having specific knowledge the subdivision are 22 APARTMENTS and discovered the subdivision was illegally developed on unpermitted, 23 contaminated, uninhabitable land that is hazardous to Stephanie and Victoria' health, which is 24 of public interest. Vince Marfe is not only a public agent manager, employee and a purported 25 board president he's also, in a fiduciary capacity as well as Mary Gozdecki, and is and were 26 motivated by actual fraud, intent to corrupt.
27 ///
28 ///
35 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint". ] 1 ///
2 116. VINCE MARFE WROTE CHECKS TO HIMSELF IN LARGE
3 AMOUNTS FROM STEPHANIE AND VICTORIA'S AND THE PUBLICS 4 ASSOCIATION DUES.
5 117. Stephanie and Victoria are in possession of Prima facia Evidence. 6 Stephanie and Victoria have copies of checks that we received from the purported manager 7 that Vince Marfe engaged and bribed who we did not know was a hacker. 8 118. Stephanie wanted to know what Bank their payments for association fees 9 we're being directed, and was emailed a plethora of copies of checks that Vince Marfe wrote to 10 himself that shows Vince Marfe extorted Stephanie and Victoria and the public to pay 11 association fees.
12 119. Vince Marfe engaged and bribed and assisted in the alleged acts to 13 commit actual fraud he went over to Stephanie and Victoria's unit and requested that we 14 change our name on our checks from what he told us before was Colony Club Patio 15 homeowners Association, and to add the name Titan Real Estate, at this time we entrusted 16 Vince Marfe we later noticed our bank account had checks which we did not make checks out 17 for any bills, we had the bank to investigate and discovered the checks were placed on our 18 account and money was being siphoned from our account actual malice, i.e., a conscious intent 19 to deceive, vex, annoy.
20 120. Moreover, On December 16, 2023, Vince Marfe went over to harass 21 Stephanie and Victoria and told them why we were upset but only to taught us. But we let him 22 know we weren't upset that he was a fraudster, and he was mailed the demand by certified 23 delivery and turned it down to be delivered to him and said go away and don't speak to us. 24 Vince Marfe came over on our side of the subdivision to yell at Stephanie and broke their 25 sprinklers and pointed his hand at Stephanie.
26 121. . Vince Marfe engaged and bribed SLS to record a purported an 27 28
36 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. [Verified Complaint". ] 1 assignment of deed of trust that looks as if a fifth grader created the purported document. In a 2 scheme with intent to corrupt a windfall in the continuous non-judicial foreclosures that have 3 been acted upon when individuals paid payments of the purported mortgage. 4 122. Moreover, Stephanie and Victoria discovered Vince Marfe is prejudice 5 but acted in front of Stephanie and Victoria like he wasn't but all the while Vince Marfe acted 6 with anticipation to foreclose from the very start against Stephanie and Victoria behind their 7 backs. Vince Marfe stated that he wanted our realtor to fax the paper on the same day 8 Stephanie and Victoria's personal information and signature immediately when we signed the 9 purported mortgage papers on May 14, 2003, which is why he wanted the papers faxed the 10 same day to create a securitization through mortgage fraud. IN acts of omission, and errors the 11 act of
12 123. common law deceit, motivation by corruption or actual malice. 13 The allege such corruption and actual malice As a result, Stephanie and Victoria paid 14 payments for a purported mortgage that was never a mortgage to Specialized Loan Servicing, 15 for 21 years. first was acting as Bank of America but really weren't Bank of America or 16 Specialized Loan Servicing under Vince Marfe's direction without a payment book, and made 17 fraudulent and forged modification agreements, and were mailed AFTER Stephanie and 18 Victoria requested a payoff statement. Because we have made continuous payments for 21 19 years in the amount of $1,300 and the paid monthly payments for association fees and 20 noticed we were charged USUARY interest of 20%. These defendants are not legally or 21 contractually entitled or authorized to be demanding or accepting MONEY from Stephanie and 22 Victoria. AND informed and believe and thereon allege that Specialized Loan Servicing is not 23 who they claim to be, UNDER Vince Marfe's direction with intent to corrupt. "In addition, to 24 common deceit, the authorized public employee was motivated by GREED, actual malice, i.e., 25 a conscious intent to deceive, vex, annoy and harm Stephanie and Victoria. All defendant 26 herein at all times relevant was and are authorized managing agents' employees herein, and 27 acted under such course and scope, of employment with knowledge and consent. 28 37
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 124. ALL defendants counts and total damages causes and omissions caused 2 Stephanie and Victoria' injury. These defendants violated under The Dodd-Frank Wall Street 3 Reform and Consumer Protection Act.
4 AND was signed into law on July 21, 2010, by President Barack Obama. The defendant counts 5 and total damages proximately caused by defendants' actions and omissions caused Stephanie 6 and Victoria's injury.
7 125. Stephanie and Victoria are entitled to relief and to recover from all 8 causes of disgorgement and under the complaint.
9 COUNT 2
10 VIOLATION OF ROSENTHAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTION PRACTICES ACT (CIV. 11 CODE, S$ 1788, ET SEO.)
12 Defendants: Specialized Loan Servicing, Cassandra)
13 126. Stephanie Cane and Victoria re-allege and incorporate the allegations 14 contained in all preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein. The 15 California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Civ. Code, § 1788, et seq.) 16 ['Rosenthal Act") serves "to prohibit debt collectors from engaging in unfair or deceptive acts 17 or practices in the collection of consumer debts and to require debtors to act fairly in entering 18 into and honoring such debts." (Civ. Code § 1788.1(b).) 19 127. The Rosenthal Act protects consumers from unfair or deceptive debt 20 collection acts and practices for "consumer debts" created through transactions in which 21 "property, services or money is acquired on credit...primarily for personal, family, or household 22 purposes." (Civ. Code, §§ 1788.1, 1788.2, subds. (e)-(f).) Further, pursuant to Civil Code 23 section 1788,17, the Rosenthal Act compels debt collectors to comply with the provisions of 24 Sections 1692b to 1692j and be subject to the remedies of Section 1692k of Title of the United 25 States Code, which is part of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Under the 26 Rosenthal Act, a "debt collector" is defined as "any person who, in the ordinary course of 27 business, regularly, on behalf of himself or herself or others, engages in debt collection." (Civ. 28 Code, § 1788.2(c).)
38 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" ] 1 2
3 ///
4 128. Thus, Specialized Loan Servicing, acting as servicers for a purported 5 home loan at issue herein, were and are "debt collectors" within the meaning of the Rosenthal 6 Act in that they regularly, in the course of their business engaged and engage in the collection 7 of debt, i.e., the regular and monthly payments made as purported mortgage payments made by 8 Stephanie and Victoria FOR 21 YEARS. Specialized Loan Servicing were made to respond to 9 our complaint with the "CFPB" because "SLS" did not respond to our request for a payoff 10 statement when requested which was never mailed or served at our request. After Cassandra 11 mailed the fraudulent modification agreements that were forged and are fraud and she didn't 12 want to listen to Stephanie's demand which were for the defendants to make restitution for all 13 payments that were made AS MORTGAGE PAYMENTS. Therefore, Stephanie and Victoria 14 are entitled to Civil Code Section 3289 (b) which equals to the USUARY INTEREST 15 [$101,000.00]. And association fees [$60,108.00].and Mortgage payments [$327,000.00] AND 16 were defrauded, and did not know we were being charged, and discovered it's not a real 17 property mortgage. Specialized Loan Servicing is an "UNLICENSED" servicer and or lender. 18 Stephanie and Victoria entrusted Vince Marfe and entrusted SLS until we requested a payoff 19 statement. When Stephanie created an online account with SLS that's when she saw the payoff 20 statement that stated VA/CONVENTIONAL LOAN. Neither have served in the military and 21 the payoff statement doesn't have Stephanie's name as a co-owner or borrower, but Stephanie's 22 name is on the forged deed of trust July13, 2006, and other forged deeds of trust. 23 129. Stephanie and Victoria made an account on the SLS website on July 29, 24 2023, and exercised due diligence and printed from the SLS website tax statements and 25 mortgage statements, and couldn't believe what was happening which the documents were and 26 are fraudulent and incorrect having a false origination date and owed purported mortgage of 27 $129, 000.00 and $ 250.000.00 very much are errors and omission on Specialized Loan 28 Servicing, Cassandra and Vince Marfe at his direction, as if Stephanie and Victoria obtained a 39 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" J 1 loan from SLS in July 13, 2006 which is false. AND caused Stephanie and Victoria to call all 2 BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN OUR CONTINUED INVESTIGATION.
3 //I
4 130. Stephanie and Victoria are in possession of prima facia evidence. Under 5 Vince Marfe direction SLS committed fraud and forged Stephanie and Victoria' name of errors 6 of omission. AND of course, Stephanie and Victoria exercised due diligence and obtained 7 Prima Facia evidence a [CERTIFICATION FOR NO RECORDS] [CERTIFICATE OF 8 NO RECORD OF OFFICE] to protect their good names and due to this purported individual 9 claiming as if we signed a deed of trust dated July 13, 2006, and assignment which we have 10 Prima Facia evidence as described for both documents. 11 131. Cassandra's threatening response dated October 19, 2023, and dated 12 another letter with the same date that she sent on different days and of course without a date 13 stamped envelopes which one of the letters has a scan code at the bottom when the other one 14 doesn't Specialized Loan Servicing has "NOT" taken the correct measures: Not timely paying 15 taxes, insurance, or other charges servicer agreed to collect and pay per §1024.34(a) or 16 refunding an escrow account balance per §1024.34(b) 5. Imposing a fee the servicer lacks a 17 reasonable basis to impose. Not providing an accurate purported payoff statement under 18 §1026.36(c)(3) when requested. When a purported borrower has pad each and every month's 19 (i) 11. Any other error relating to the servicing of a borrower's purported mortgage loan. 20 A purported servicer must Investigate and response requirements. 21 132. A servicer has two options in responding to a written notice of a covered 22 error. It can (1) correct the errors). (2) the borrower identified and notify the borrower of the 23 corrections made in conduct a reasonable investigation. But stated in there October 19, 2023, 24 response is much of a threat that states the following:
25 133. UNTIL AND IF SUCH TIME THE COOURT DEEMS THIS LOAN 26 TO BE INVALID SLS WILL CONTINUE TO SERVICE IT BY ITS CONTRACTUAL 27 OBLIGATION TO THE INVESTOR AND APPLICABLE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, SLS IS 28 UNABLE TO REFUND ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE TOWARD THE LOAN. But wait 40 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".] 1 right their SPECIALIZED LOAN SERVICING HAS NOT REFUNDED ANY PAYMENT 2 THAT WAS EXTORTED FROM STEPHANIE AND VICTORIA. CASSANDRA IS 3 ACTING AS IF SLA PAID US BACK WHICH THEIR LETTER IS A THREAT FOR US TO 4 FILE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PURPORTED SERVICER BUT ARE ONLY ACTING 5 AS A SERVICER UNDER VINCE MARFE'S DIRECTION.
6 134. Specialized Loan Servicing has profited financially from Stephanie and 7 Victoria for a purported mortgage SLS have no authority to have taken our payments. 8 Stephanie and Victoria are entitled to relief. We discovered through our immediate 9 investigation ever since we moved into the subdivision our mail was being diverted and we 10 only started receiving statements at the end of 2023, Stephanie and Victoria knew what the 11 payments were because we never had a different purported loan or modification agreements. 12 135. Therefore, we already knew what our payments were and was paid 13 online. On May 14, 2003, was the only purported loan that we signed purported mortgage 14 papers on May 14, 2003. Specialized Loan Servicing stating incorrectly and falsely that money 15 was owed for payment for mortgage in their response October 19, 2023, to the California 16 Financial Protection Bureau CFPB to the complaint.
17 136. Stephanie and Victoria were caused to file. Stephanie and Victoria have 18 been making such payments to Defendants for many years continuously. USC § 1692e, subds. 19 (2)(A) and (10), and 1692f (I), all as incorporated into the Rosenthal Act. As a direct and 20 proximate result of the conversion committed by Specialized Loan Servicing and Cassandra, 21 Stephanie and Victoria has suffered general and special damages and causes of action AND are 22 entitled to restitution of those amounts that were wrongfully converted inclusive, each 23 compensation or disgorgement Specialized Loan Servicing and their authorized employee and 24 managing agent benefited and financially profited (This amount also includes the monetary 25 value of any non-monetary items sought or awarded.) The defendant counts and total damages 26 proximately caused by Specialized Loan Servicing and its authorized employee actions and 27 omissions caused Stephanie and Victoria' injury.
28 //I
41 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" J 1 2 /I/
3 4 COUNT 3
5 FAILURE TO USE REASONABLE CARE
6 Defendant Vince Marfe
7 137. Stephanie and Victoria] claims that [we] was harmed by [Vince Marfe]'s 8 breach of the fiduciary duty to use reasonable care and [Vince Marfe] was [Stephanie and 9 Victoria]'s [friend and handyman and owed a fiduciary duty to Stephanie and Victoria of care 10 and was the purported board president in a fiduciary relationship, and authorized employee and 11 manager while in a]]. That [Vince Marfe] acted on [Stephanie and Victoria]'s [acted as a seller 12 and a realtor in the subdivision development"]; That [Vince Marfe] failed to act as a reasonably 13 careful purported realtor, and friend and owed Stephanie and Victoria as a fiduciary trust and 14 honesty]. Stephanie and Victoria would have acted under the same or similar circumstances 15 That [Stephanie and Victoria] was harmed; by Vince Marfe. That [Vince Marfe]'s conduct and 16 counts and caused was a substantial factor in causing [Stephanie and Victoria]'s harm. 17 18 COUNT 4
19 ESTOPPEL ALL DEFENDANTS
20 ALL DEFENDANTS
21 138. Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, and SLS and Cassandra received the 22 benefits from Stephanie and Victoria's performance were allowed to rely upon AMOUNT 23 [$327,000.00] AND were defraud and did not know we were being charged USUARY 24 INTEREST of 20% for over 2 years and discovered it's not a real property mortgage. 25 Therefore, the Stephanie and Victoria are entitled to Civil Code Section 3289 (b) which equals 26 to [$101,000.00]. And association fees [$60,108.00]. AMOUNT [$327,000.00] to Stephanie 27 and Victoria's detriment." (K.J. v. Arcadia Unified School Dist. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4* 1229, 28 1239-1240 [92 Cal.Rptr.3d 1], internal citation omitted.) deterred the filing of a timely claim 42 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. "Verified Complaint" ] 1 by the affirmative acts of all the causes and counts stated and described in this claim. "Vince 2 Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, SLS and Cassandra who has not created a peril are failure to take 3 affirmative action to assist or protect Stephanie and Victoria, and there is the fiduciary duty 4 relationship between Stephanie and Victoria and Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki which gives 5 rise to a duty to act. SLS and Cassandra requirement under Regulation X requires servicers to 6 timely and properly respond to a written error notice and/or requests for information, pertaining 7 to a servicing issue. A servicer's failure to comply can lead to examination issues and legal risk 8 because of the potential for consumer harm. A servicer's obligations in responding to error 9 notices under §1024.35"Stephanie and Victoria cannot get back twenty years is a cause of the 10 injury, and counts of defendant conduct caused Stephanie and injury. Victoria and Stephanie 11 would have acted so as to avoid injury had Stephanie and Victoria known the concealed facts. 12 Stephanie and Victoria's reliance was reasonable Stephanie and Victoria's failure to discover 13 the formality of obtaining a signed writing. And entrusted Vince Marfe because he was like a 14 dad at a certain point before Stephanie and Victoria discovered the injury. Vince Marfe's and 15 Mary Gozdecki's AND ALL other defendant's conduct and counts a substantial factor in 16 causing [Stephanie and Victoria]'s harm.
17 18 COUNT 5
19 UNJUST ENRICHMENT
20 139. Vince Marfe, Mary Gozdecki, and SLS, Cassandra, and Cory Clark 21 " (Lectrodryer v. Seoulbank (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 723, 726, 91 Cal.Rptr.2d 881 ; accord, 22 First Nationwide, at pp. 1662-1663, 15 Cal.Rptr.2d 173.). Courts do not defer to a board's 23 interpretation of the CC&Rs. Interpretation is a legal question to be decided by the courts, not 24 the board. (Eith v. Ketelhut (2018).) Deference does not apply where a board [fails to 25 investigate] and make a repair decision. (Affan v. Portofino Cove (2010).) Deference does not 26 apply where a board makes decisions contrary to the governing documents. (Ekstrom v. 27 Marquesa (2008).) THE BUSINESS JUDGMENT RULE Notwithstanding the deference to 28 Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki 's business judgment. The rule does not immunize Vince 43 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint". ] 1 Marfe and Mary Gozdecki from liability in the case of his or her abdication of corporate 2 responsibilities. When courts say that they will not interfere in matters of business judgment, it 3 is presupposed that judgment reasonable diligence has in fact, been exercised. 4 Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki s did not exercise the Business Judgment Rule. Obtaining 5 funds to which Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki, Cory Clark, SLS, and Cassandr are not 6 entitled. The defendant received the claim herein of benefit; and profited At Stephanie and 7 Victoria expense; the Under claim of counts and causes of these circumstances that would 8 make it unjust for the Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki, Cory Clark, SLS, and Cassandr to 9 retain the benefit without commensurate compensation. Stephanie and Victoria made PAID 10 [$129,509.00]. Stephanie and Victoria paid the entire BALLOON PAYMENT PAID 11 [$7,050.00] the next day we moved in on [May 15, 2003,) and discovered the purported 12 association fees were not only [ $72.00] but, were PAID [$172.00] and increased $250.00 13 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE under a duty of restitution all defendants had knowledge. pertinent 14 facts, unfairly or unduly take advantage Stephanie and Victoria asserting among other counts in 15 the claim of errors and omission against all defendants of all are alleged allegations. Mary and 16 Gozdecki and Vince Marfe breach of [Fiduciary Duty.] Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki s of 17 the association Mary Gozdecki, Vince Marfe, committed gamesmanship, and mismanagement 18 of assets and breach of CCRs, interference with prospective contractual relations, interference 19 with contractual relations, and negligent. failed to appropriately manage the association funds 20 and caused negligent and wrongful acts. THERE CANNOT BE AN ASSOCIATION ON AN 21 APARTMENT. Mary Gozdecki, Mary Gozdecki abused their positions of authority and 22 breached their fiduciary duties by all defendants engaging in arbitrary oppression of Stephanie 23 and Victoria money and the Association members' rights and self-dealing in breach of 24 California's Non-Profit Mutual Benefit Corporation Law (CAL. CORP. CODE §7110 et seq.) 25 140. VINCE MARFE AND MARY GOZDECKI S FAILED TO MAINTAIN 26 A RESERVE FOR THE PURPORTED ASSOCIATION.
27 141. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki did not only breached their duties as a 28 44
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" ] 1 fiduciaries, but that such breach rise to the level of criminal activity, by all other counts are 2 related to enrichment fraud, self-dealing, unjust enrichment, and other improper personal 3 benefits. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki s failed to maintain a reserve account See landmark 4 decision of Ravens Cove Townhomes, Inc. v. Knuppe Development Co. (1981) 114 5 Cal.App.3d 783, which involved a lawsuit against the initial developer-controlled board of 6 Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki s for failure to establish and maintain adequate reserve funds. 7 The court initially noted that Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki s of nonprofit corporations are, 8 in fact, fiduciaries and that they are held to a high standard of conduct, the breach of which 9 may subject each or all of them to individual liability. Ultimately, the court concluded that the 10 failure to maintain and establish adequate reserve funds in a purported homeowner's 11 association constituted a breach of the fiduciary duties to act in good faith and exercise the 12 basic duties of good management. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki s are individually liable. It 13 is important to note that the court clearly indicated that such a breach may occur where a Vince 14 Marfe and Mary Gozdecki, either because of the exercise or failure to exercise supervision, 15 non-management of the association's affairs to occur. Vince Marfe and Mary Gozdecki s 16 negligently inaction, interested parties verbally hired A HACKER and each had a duty of care 17 and a duty to exercise due diligence as fiduciaries of the association for their employer Vince 18 Marfe and Mary Gozdecki s were cognizant of shared inaction. The Business Judgment will 19 not apply when there is fraud ALL defendants and employer is the agency has notice of all 20 claims stated facts. ALL defendant's and agency received notice of all stated causes in the 21 claim the person has received an effective notification of the fact; [9](including principles of 22 ALL other defendant's conduct and counts a substantial factor in causing [Stephanie and 23 Victoria]'s harm.
24 COUNT 6
25 CONVERSION - ESSENTIAL FACTUAL ELEMENTS
26 142. Conversion is any act of dominion wrongfully exerted over another's 27 personal property in denial of or inconsistent with his rights therein.' " (Fischer v. Machado 28 (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1069, 1072, 58 Cal.Rptr.2d 213.) There is no act of dominion by 45 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" ] 1 defendants alleged. According The existence of a lien can establish the immediate right to 2 possess needed for conversion. 'One who holds personal property by virtue of a lien upon it 3 may maintain an action for conversion the property was wrongfully disposed of per say by the 4 owner and without authority. On May 14, 2003, [Victoria and Stephanie] had a possession to 5 the personal property at 1173 S. Cactus Ave unit # 3 to do as they please and they remodeled 6 and placed new tile, fixtures in the kitchen and both bathroom and carpet, paint, placed a 7 vanity which made the bathroom larger, and placed a 12-shower head in the shower with 8 Carrera marble in the bathroom, and new flooring and a whole house water filtration system. 9 And a Tankless whole house water heater system. The personal property is approximately a 10 small 1,200 sq foot. [Vince Marfe] concealed he lacked title and the right to sell is liable for 11 conversion. Stephanie and Victoria had a right of interest in the personal property, Vince 12 Marfe intentionally interfered with Stephanie and Victoria's right to the personal property, and 13 Vince Marfes' acts are the legal cause of Stephanie and Victoria's loss of personal property. 14 Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338 D] amages for emotional distress growing out of a defendant's 15 conversion ofpersonal property are recoverable." (Hensley v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. 16 (2017) 7 Cal.App.5th.1337, 1358 [213 Cal.Rptr.3d 803].). Vince Marfe interfered by virtue of 17 its own disposition of non-real property. CAUSED AN ASSIGNMENT OF DEED OF TRUST 18 to be RECORDED This means that "[a] cause of action for conversion of money can be stated 19 Vince Marfe interferes with Stephanie and Victoria right of interest in a specific, identifiable 20 sum"; CIVIL CODE 3336. First-The value of the property at the time of the conversion, 21 with the interest and discovered "USUARY" Interest 20% paid to date: $101,694.85. and 22 from that time, conversion discovered of Mortgage paid to date: $327,600.00. 23 Second-A fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the 24 property is fair is HOA paid to date: $61,180.00. Vince Marfe the requisite specificity is 25 therefore the allegations are adequate and wrongfully exercised full dominion and control over 26 a fixed sum ($490,474.85.) for his own use and benefit. ALL defendant's conduct and counts in 27 this claim is a substantial factor in causing [Stephanie and Victoria]'s injury. 28 46
Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint" J 1 2
3 4 //I
5 COUNT 7
PRESUMED MEASURE OF DAMAGES FOR CONVERSION (CIV. CODE,
6 83336)
CIVIL CODE 3336. First-The value of the property at the time of the conversion, with 7 the interest and discovered "USUARY" Interest 20% paid to date: $101,694.85. and 8 from that time, conversion discovered of Mortgage paid to date: $327,600.00. 9 Second-A fair compensation for the time and money properly expended in pursuit of the 10 11 property is fair is HOA paid to date: $61,180.00. Vince Marfe the requisite specificity is 12 therefore the allegations are adequate and wrongfully exercised full dominion and control over 13 a fixed sum ($490,474.85.) for his own use and benefit. ALL defendant's conduct and counts in 14 this claim is a substantial factor in causing [Stephanie and Victoria]'s injury. 15 VERIFICATION:
16 I, Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry declare under penalty of perjury of the laws 17 of the state of California that the foregoing Verified ["CLAIM"] is true and correct to the best of 18 our knowledge, information and belief. The agents mentioned in the claim must be held 19 accountable for there acts that has caused this claim to be filed and we request for to be made 20 whole an effective.
21 ///
22 /'I/
23 24
25 26
27 //I
28 47
residents phane Cy of and Victoria one complain" |
1 /I/
2 //I
3 4 ///
5 PRAYER: FOR THE GRACE: Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry Certification 6 of application of verified claim. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, 7 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry certify to the best of our knowledge, information, and 8 belief that this claim: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause 9 unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing law 10 or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual 11 contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary 12 support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint 13 otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11. 14 15 AMOUNT --$101,694.85. and from that time, conversion discovered of Mortgage paid to 16 date: $327,600.00. Second-A fair compensation for the time and money properly 17 expended in pursuit of the property is fair is HOA paid to date: $61,180.00. 18 ALL defendant's conduct and counts in this claim is a substantial factor in causing 19 [Stephanie and Victoria]'s injury and are entitled to Restitution, Compensation. 20 VERIFIED CLAIM.
21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above 22 is true and correct.
23 Executed on February 28, 2024, at Los Angeles, California. 24 25
Victoria Quesenberry
26 Kephenue
27 28
48 Stephanie Cane and Victoria Quesenberry
residents of the City of Rialto. ["Verified Complaint".]