Miscellaneous: COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC et al (PROVIDE ACCESS)

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

						
                                
Preview
                                IOUT

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Sep-08-2010 2:14 pm

Case Number: CGC-10-503332
Filing Date: Sep-08-2010 2:05
Juke Box: 001 Image: 02963891
COMPLAINT

INWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY VS. FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVIC

001002963891

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.SUMMONS SUM-400
(CITACION JUDICIAL) (S010 PARA USO DELACORTE)
NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES,
(AVISO AL DEMANDADO): INC. ; WINSTON LUM;
BRUNO AESCHBACHER; STEPHEN FELLMANN; KAUSHAL NIROULA;
JAY CHANDRAKANT SHAH; ELVIA PALIMINO; MORAD AFRAIMI;
MELVIN LEE EMERICH; MARTINI & CHNOOGLE; GRACHELLE
LANGUBAN, and DOES 1-25.

YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF: COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE): INSURANCE COMPANY

NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
below.

You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS aiter this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
served on the plaintiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
Online Self-Help Center (www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask
the court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property
may be taken without further warning from the court.

There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www.lawhelpcalifornia.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
(www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
JAVISO! Lo han demandado. Si no responde dentro de 30 dias, la corte puede decidir en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea la informacién a
continuacién

Tiene 30 DIAS DE CALENDARIO después de que le entreguen esta citacién y papeles legales para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
corte y hacer que se entregue una copia al demandante. Una carta o una llamada telefonica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene que estar
en formato legal correcto si desea que procesen su caso en la corte. Es posible que haya un formulario que usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
Puede encontrar estos formularios de la corte y mas informaci6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorte.ca.gov), en la
biblioteca de leyes de su condado o en la corte que le quede més cerca. Si no puede pagar la cuota de presentaci6n, pida al secretario de la corte
que le dé un formulario de exencién de pago de cuotas. Si no presenta su respuesta a tiempo, puede perder el caso por incumplimiento y la corte le
podra quitar su sueldo, dinero y bienes sin mas advertencia.

Hay otros requisitos legales. Es recomendable que Ilame a un abogado inmediatamente. Si no conoce a un abogado, puede Ilamar a un servicio de
remisién a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es posible que cumpla con los requisitos para obtener servicios legales gratuitos de un
programa de servicios legales sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sitio web de California Legal Services,

(www. lawhelpcalifornia.org), en e/ Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorte.ca.gov) 0 poniéndose en contacto con la corte o ef
colegio de abogados locales. AVISO: Por ley, la corte tiene derecho a reclamar las cuotas y los costos exentos por imponer un gravamen sobre
cualquier recuperacién de $10,000 6 mas de valor recibida mediante un acuerdo o una concesi6n de arbitraje en un caso de derecho civil. Tiene que
pagar el gravamen de la corte antes de que la corte pueda desechar el caso.

The name and address of the court is:

(El nombre y direcci6n de la corte es): ion Be 1 0 - 5 0 3 332
Superior Court of San Francisco se

400 McAllister Street

San Francisco, CA 94102

The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attorney, is:

(El nombre, la direccién y el nimero de teléfono del abogado de! demandante, o del demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
Edward A. Kunnes (SBN 160632) 925/930-9550 (925) 930-9588
Fidelity National Law Group

100 N. Wiget Lane, Suite 150

Walnut Creek, CA 94598 CLERK OF THE COURT sok

DATE: - Clerk, by Deputy
(Fecha) SEP 8 2010 (Secretario) : (Adjunto)
(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)

(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formulario Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010)).

NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served

1. |__| as an individual defendant.

2. as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):

3. on behalf of (specify):

under: CCP 416.10 (corporation) CCP 416.60 (minor)

CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) CCP 416.70 (conservatee)

CCP 416.40 (association or partnership) CCP 416.90 (authorized person)

other (specify):

4. by personal delivery on (date): Page 1 of 1

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use SUMMONS. Legal Code of Civil Procedure §§ 412.20, 465
Solution:

Judicial Council of California

is
SUM-100 [Rev. July 1, 2009] a Dus—CM-010

ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Sta number, and address): a FOR COURT USE ONLY
| Edward A. Kunnes (SBN 160842) :
Fidelity National Law Group
100 N. Wiget Lane, Suite 150
Walnut Creek, CA 94598 San Franciseo County Sunerior Court
TELEPHONENO: 925/930-9550 Faxno: (925) 930-9588 SEP ~ 29
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE INSURANCE COMP 8 2010
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF San Francisco
street aporess: 400 McAllister Street CLERK OF THE COURT
MAILING ADDRESS: By: é
crryanozipcove:San Francisco, CA 94102 Giark
BRANCH NAME:
CASE NAME: Commonwealth v. Fedex Office and Print
Services, Inc., et al.
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation CASE NUMBER .
imi {__] Limited Counter Joinder I GREeoi 0-503 3 32
(Amount is Filed with first appearance by defendant | suoce: 7
exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT:
Items 1-6 below must be completed (see instructions on Page 2).
1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case:
Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation
[__] Auto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.400-3.403)
{__J Uninsured motorist (46) |__] Rule 3.740 collections (09) Antitrust/Trade regulation (03)
Other PI/PDIWD (Personal Injury/Property Other collections (09) Construction defect (10)
Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage 8) Mass tort (40)
Asbestos (04) |__| Other contract (37) L__} Securities litigation (28)
[} Product liability (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort (30)
Medical malpractice (45) \___} Eminent domain/inverse Insurance coverage claims arising from the
Other PI/PD/WD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case
Non-PU/PDMWD (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) types (41)
(__] Business tort/unfair business practice (07) |! Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment
Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement of judgment (20)
Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint
(27 Fraud (16) Residential (32) [__] RIco (27)
{___] intellectual property (19) £1] Drugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42)
Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition
[_] Other non-P/PDWD tort (35) Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21)
Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) (J Other petition (not specified above) (43)
|__| Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02)
[__] Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39)
2. This case is aa; not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the
factors requiring exceptional judicial management:
a. |__| Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses
b. [__] Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel _e. [| Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts
issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court
c Substantial amount of documentary eyidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision
3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a. monetary b. ] nonmonetary; declaratory or injunctive relief _c. 1 punitive

a

. Number of causes of action (specify): Six (6)

5. Thiscase [_] is [XJ] isnot aclass action suit.
6. If thee eal nop related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You may use form CM-015.)
Date: 7 Bor
Edward A. Kunnes (SBN 160632) »
(TYPE OR PRINT NAME)

NOTICE

* Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed
under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result
in sanctions.

« File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule.

« If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all
other parties to the action or proceeding.

Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical Purposes only. a

age 1 of

Form Adopted for Mandatory Use CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET pega Cal, Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740;
Sol ut gos
iS

Judicial Council of California Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10
‘CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007}EDWARD A. KUNNES (SBN 160632) SUMAONS ISSUED
PETER K. WOLFF, JR. (SBN 142426)

FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP

100 North Wiget Lane, Suite 150 F L E D

Walnut Creek, CA 94598 San Francisce County Suinerior Court
Telephone: (925) 930-9550 ep

Facsimile: (925) 930-9588 SEP - 8 2010
Attorney for Commonwealth Land Title GLEAK OF THE COURT
Insurance Company Bt jepuly Clerk ~

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE CASE NO. eif- 33 zZ
INSURANCE COMPANY, ceo “ 0 . 503 ~
Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES: DECEIT;
CONVERSION; NEGLIGENCE PER SE;
NEGLIGENCE; RESPONDEAT
SUPERIOR; and MISREPRESENTATION

vs.

FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES,
INC.; WINSTON LUM; BRUNO
AESCHBACHER; STEPHEN
FELLMANN; KAUSHAL NIROULA; JAY ) .
CHANDRAKANT SHAH; ELVIA ) CASE MANAGEMENT CONPERENCE SE
PALIMINO; MORAD AFRAIMI; MELVIN)

mmm SSS

LEE EMERICH; MARTINI & )
CHNOOGLE; GRACHELLE LANGUBAN ) FEB 1 6 2011 ~ 9AM
and DOES 1-35. )
)
Defendants. ) DEPARTMENT 212

Plaintiff Commonwealth Land Title Company (hereinafter “Commonwealth” or
“Plaintiff’), for its Complaint against defendants FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES,
INC., WINSTON LUM, BRUNO AESCHBACHER, STEPHEN FELLMANN, KAUSHAL
NIROULA, JAY CHANDRAKANT SHAH, ELVIA PALIMINO, MORAD AFRAIMI,
MELVIN LEE EMERICH, and GRACHELLE LANGUBAN alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff Commonwealth is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a
corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Nebraska and authorized to do business in the State of California.

2. Defendant FedEx Office and Print Service, Inc. is, and at all times mentioned

-1- Complaint for Damagesana vn F Bw N

herein was, a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
State of Texas and authorized to do business in the State of California.

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant WINSTON
LUM (“LUM”) is, and at all time herein mentioned was, a resident of San Francisco
County, California.

4. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant BRUNO
AESCHBACHER (“AESCHBACHER?”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a
resident of San Francisco County, California.

5. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant STEPHEN
FELLMANN (“FELLMANN”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of
San Francisco County, California.

6. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant
KAUSHAL NIROULA (“NIROULA”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a
resident of San Francisco County, California.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant JAY
CHANDRAKANT SHAH (“SHAH”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident
of Santa Clara County, California.

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant ELVIA
PALIMINO (“PALIMINO”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of Santa
Clara County, California.

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant MORAD
AFRAIMI (“AFRAIMI”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of San
Francisco County, California.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant MELVIN
LEE EMERICH (“EMERICH”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was, a resident of
Santa Cruz County, California.

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant MARTINI

& CHNOOGLE is, and at all times herein mentioned was a Nevada corporation

-2- Complaint for Damagesestablished by EMERICH for the purpose of distributing wrongfully obtained loan
proceeds.

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendant
GRACHELLE LANGUBAN (“LANGUBAN?”) is, and at all times herein mentioned was,
a resident of San Francisco County, California. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that LANGUBAN was at all times relevant a notary employed by FedEx
Office and Print Service, Inc. at a retail office in San Francisco, CA.

13. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or
otherwise, of the defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and each of
them, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sues them by such fictitious names (“DOE
Defendants”). Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the DOE
Defendants is in some manner responsible for the actions and damages alleges in this
complaint. When Plaintiff ascertains the true names and capacities of the DOE
Defendants, it will seek leave of Court to amend this Complaint to identify them by their
true names and capacities.

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all times herein
mentioned, defendants were the agents, servants, or employees of each of the other
defendants and that all of the things alleged to have been done by each defendant were
done in that defendant’s capacity as agent of the other defendants, within the scope of
defendants’ authority as agent, servant, or employee, and with the permission and consent
of the other defendants.

15. Jurisdiction and venue are proper as the contracts, promissory notes, grant
deeds and deeds of trust at issue were executed in the City and County of San Francisco,
and the subject properties are located in the City and County of San Francisco.

First Cause of Action (Deceit)
(as against Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH and EMERICH)

16. Commonwealth hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation

contained in Paragraphs 1 through 15, herein above, as though each such allegation were set

-3- Complaint for Damagesforth herein in full.

17. On or about January 14, 2009, Defendants LUM, NIROULA, and SHAH caused
to be recorded forged grant deeds purporting to transfer title in the real properties commonly
known as Condominium Units 4802, 4902 and 5501 located at 425 First Street, San
Francisco, California (the “Properties”), from Shirley S. Hwang, Trustee of the Trust of
Shirley S. Hwang dated July 1, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “Hwang”), to Defendant
LUM. True and correct copies of said purported grant deeds are attached hereto as Exhibit
“1,” Exhibit “2,” and Exhibit “3.”

18. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Hwang had no knowledge of the forgeries,
did not consent to the transfer of the Properties to LUM and that Defendants LUM,
NIROULA and SHAH had no authority to transfer the Properties. Defendant LUM, at all
relevant times, had no ownership or any other interests in the Properties.

19. Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH and EMERICH opened an escrow account
for the financing of the Properties. Defendant EMERICH provided escrow instructions,
formed MARTINI & CHNOOGLE, and established a bank accounts in the name of
MARTINI & CHNOOGLE to receive loan proceeds.

20. Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH and EMERICH, and each of them,
represented to Plaintiff through its escrow agent that Defendant LUM was the true and
correct owner of the Properties. Defendants LUM, NIROULA, SHAH and EMERICH, and
each of them, were aware that Plaintiff's escrow agent believed that the grant deeds had been
signed by Hwang and were valid grant deeds, and by their words and conduct expressly and
impliedly represented that Defendant LUM was the owner of the Properties.

21. The representations and nondisclosures concerning the grant deeds and escrow
instructions were therefore misleading, or were rendered misleading in light of the
representations these defendants made. These misrepresentations and nondisclosures were
material, were likely to mislead the escrow agent and did in fact mislead the escrow agent
inducing it obtain policies of title insurance by Plaintiff in favor of the beneficial owners of

the deeds of trust. Furthermore, the lenders made it a condition of the loan to obtain policies

-4- Complaint for Damagesof title insurance, and therefore would not have loaned the money without the issuance of the
policies of title insurance.

22. Plaintiff is informed and believe and thereon allege that lenders without any
knowledge of the forgeries, agreed to loan money in the aggregate amount of
$2,2,000,000.00. True and correct copies of the deeds of trust recorded against Units 4802,
4902 and 5501 are attached hereto as Exhibit “4,”Exhibit “5,” and Exhibit “6,” respectively.

23. Plaintiff, at the time these misrepresentations and nondisclosures of material facts
occurred, were ignorant of the existence of the true facts that these defendants, and each of
them, failed to disclose. If Plaintiff had been aware of the fact that the signatures were
forgeries, obtained without consent or authority of Hwang, Plaintiff would not have issued
the policies of title insurance. Accordingly, Plaintiff relied on these defendants’
misrepresentations in issuing the policies of title insurance. True and correct copies of the
title policies for Units 4802, 4902 and 5501 are attached hereto as Exhibit “7,” Exhibit “8.”
and Exhibit “9,” respectively.

24. On March 20, 2009, Hwang filed two separate lawsuits to quiet title as to the
Properties in San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-09-486395 and Case No.
CGC-09-486391. True and correct copies of the complaints in these actions are attached
hereto as Exhibit “10” and Exhibit “11.”

25. Subsequent investigations by the San Francisco Police Department Economic
Crimes Unit has revealed that these defendants collectively conspired to forge the grant deeds
in an attempt to wrongfully convey legal title to the Properties to Defendant LUM so that
these defendants and other defendants could obtain money from loan proceeds. The police
investigation resulted in felony criminal complaints filed against against LUM, NIROULA,
SHAH and EMERICH in the Superior Court of the State of California City and County of
San Francisco Court Numbers 10009191, 10009193, and 10003838. A true and correct copy
of the first amended felony complaint in these actions is attached hereto as Exhibit “12.”

26. Asadirect result and consequence of these fraudulent and criminal actions by

these defendants, Commonwealth was compelled to pay $2,306,820.39 to the lenders

-5- Complaint for Damagespursuant to the policies of title insurance. A true and correct copy of the wires to the lenders
by Plaintiff in the aggregate amount of $2,306,820.39 is attached hereto as Exhibit “13.”

27. Asa proximate result of these defendants’ misrepresentations and nondisclosures,
Commonwealth has been damaged in the sum of $2,306,820.39, at the legal rate of 10% per
annum, or $632.00 per diem, from and after July 19, 2010.

28. The aforementioned conduct of these defendants was intentional
misrepresentations, acts of deceit, or concealment of material facts known to them with the
intention on their part of thereby depriving Commonwealth of property or legal rights or
otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Commonwealth to a
cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Commonwealth’s rights, so as to justify
an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against these defendants, and each of
them, as set forth below.

Second Cause of Action (Conversion)
(as against Defendants LUM; AESCHBACHER; FELLMANN; NIROULA; SHAH;
PALIMINO; AFRAIMI; EMERICH)

29. Commonwealth hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 28, herein above, as though each such allegation were set
forth herein in full.

30. Commonwealth is subrogated to the rights and remedies of the lenders in law and
by contract under the policies of title insurance by the payment it made to the lenders
pursuant to the policies of title insurance.

31. On or about March 6, 2009, escrow, having been instructed, disbursed the loan
proceeds as follows:

a) $868,845.00 to Defendant LUM in the name of a bogus corporation;

b) $250,000.00 to Defendant LUM in his name; and

c) $601,069.00 to MARTINI & CHNOOGLE.

32. Based on the investigation by the San Francisco Police Department Economic

Crimes Unit, and specifically the tracing of funds from the escrow to various parties, Plaintiff

-6- Complaint for Damageswn

om ND

is informed and believes and thereon allege that the loan proceeds that went to LUM in the
name of the bogus corporation were directed to AESCHBACHER and FELLMANN.

33. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the loan proceeds that went to MARTINI
& CHNOOGLE went to Defendant SHAH in the name of a bogus corporation in the amount
of $291,103.00; went to Defendant SHAH to directly pay a loan of an institutional lender in
the amount of $160,000.00; went to Defendant EMERICH in the amount of $62,750.00; went
to Defendant AFRAIMI in the amount of $15,000.00; and, went to Defendant PALIMINO in
the amount of $14,000.00.

34. The obtaining of these loan proceeds by these defendants was not acquired
lawfully and was a conversion of money from the date they were disbursed by escrow. Asa
proximate result of these defendants’ conversion Plaintiff suffered damages in the amount of
$1,719,914.00.

35. These amount obtained by these defendants, and each of them, are wrongfully
detained, and accordingly, each of these defendants are an involuntary trustee of the thing
gained for the benefit of Plaintiff.

36. The defendants’ acts alleged above were willful, wanton, malicious, and
oppressive, were undertaken with the intent to defraud, and justify the awarding of
exemplary and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against these defendants, and each of
them, as set forth below.

Third Cause of Action (Negligence Per Se)
(as Against Defendant LANGUBAN)

37. Commonwealth hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs | through 36, herein above, as though each such allegation were set
forth herein in full.

38. At all relevant times California Civil Code §§1185-1189 provided that the person
whose signature is acknowledged must personally appear before the Notary Public as part of

the acknowledgment process.

-7- Complaint for Damages39. Defendant LANGUBAN holds herself out as a California notary public with
commission number 1727582 registered in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff is informed and
believes and thereon allege that Defendant LANGUBAN does not have a notary bond as
required by Cal Government Code §8212. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon
allege that at all relevant times, LANGUBAN was employed by Defendant FEDEX OFFICE
AND PRINT SERVICES, INC., as a notary and performed the notarization of the purported
grant deeds at a retail store of her employer FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC.
located in San Francisco, California.

40. Defendant LANGUBAN violated California Civil Code §§1185-1189 when she
acknowledged the purported signatures of Hwang who did not appear before her.

41. Plaintiff is within the class of persons and entities sought to be protected by
California Civil Code §§1185-1189, which is intended to prevent the recording of fraudulent
documents.

42. Asa direct and proximate result of the statutory violation by LANGUBAN,
LANGUBAN attached a notary acknowledgment to fraudulent grant deeds. Plaintiff
reasonably relied on the notarized documents and as a direct result was damaged in the sum
of $2,306,820.39, at the legal rate of 10% per annum, or $632.00 per diem, from and after
July 19, 2010.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against this defendant as set forth below.

Fourth Cause of Action (Negligence)
(as against defendant LANGUBAN)

43. Commonwealth hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 42, herein above, as though each such allegation were set
forth herein in full.

44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant
LANGUBAN breached a duty of care by failing to fully and faithfully discharging the duties
required of a notary public, including a duty of due diligence, honest and integrity.

Specifically, Defendant LANGUBAN engage in the following negligent misconduct: (1)

-8- Complaint for Damagesobtain a notary bond; (3) negligently failing to identify the party executing the instruments;
(4) negligently misusing her official notary stamp and seal; (5) negligently notarizing a forged
signature; or alternatively, (6) negligently allowing her a third party to use her official notary
stamp and seal; and, (7) negligently allowing her official notary stamp and seal to placed in
an open, unlocked location so that it could improperly be used by others.

45, Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the above
actions were taken by LANGUBAN within a retail office of FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT
SERVICES, INC. under the supervision of FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC.
The oversight of LANGUBAN by FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC. was so
careless that it amounted to negligence, thereby allowing LANGUBAN to endanger the
public by allowing her notary stamp and seal to be affixed to forged instruments.

46. As a direct and proximate result of the above negligence by Defendant
LANGUBAN and FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC. have been damaged in
the sum of $2,306,820.39, at the legal rate of 10% per annum, or $632.00 per diem, from and
after July 19, 2010.

Fifth Cause of Action (Respondeat Superior)
(as against Defendant FEDEX OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC.)

47. Commonwealth hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs | through 46, herein above, as though each such allegation were set
forth herein in full.

48. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon allege that at all times herein
mentioned, defendant LANGUBAN was the agent and employee of defendant FEDEX
OFFICE AND PRINT SERVICES, INC. and , in doing the acts herein described and referred
to, was acting in the course and within the scope of her authority as agent and employee, and
in the transaction of the business of the employment or agency. Defendant FEDEX OFFICE
AND PRINT SERVICES, INC. is therefore, liable to Plaintiff for the acts of LANGUBAN as
heretofore alleged.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against this defendant as set forth below.

-9- Complaint for DamagesSixth Cause of Action (Misrepresentation)
(as against Defendant LANGUBAN)

49. Commonwealth hereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation
contained in Paragraphs 1 through 48, herein above, as though each such allegation were set
forth herein in full.

50. On or about January 14, 2009, LANGUBAN, expressly and impliedly
represented to Plaintiff and its agent that Hwang had present herself to LANGUBAN and
provided satisfactory evidence to LANGUBAN that Hwang was the person executing the
grant deeds to the Properties by notarizing the grant deeds which purportedly transferred the
Properties from Hwang to LUM. LANGUBAN either knew these facts not to be true or
perform the notarizations recklessly and in conscious disregard of her duties as a notary.

51. Plaintiff is informed and believes based on the police investigation, Plaintiffs
own investigation, the civil complaints by Hwang and the DA’s criminal complaint, and
thereon allege that the grant deeds were forgeries and Hwang did not give her authorization
for anyone to sign the grant deeds.

52. By LANGUBAN’s conduct through notarizing the grant deeds expressly and
impliedly represented that the grant deeds were valid. The representations concerning the
grant deeds were misleading. These misrepresentations were material, were likely to mislead
Plaintiff, its agent, or someone similarly situated, and did in fact mislead Plaintiff concerning
the validity of the purported grant deeds.

53. LANGUBAN was aware that Plaintiff, Plaintiff's agent, or someone similarly
situated, might reasonably believe that the grant deeds were valid instruments based on the
notarizations. The representations were made with the intent to induce those relying upon
title of the Properties to act as though the instruments transferring title to LUM were in fact
valid.

54. Plaintiff, at the time these misrepresentations occurred, was ignorant of the
existence of the true facts. Had Plaintiff been aware of the fact that the owner, Hwang, did

not sign the grant deeds and did not authorize the transfer of the Properties, Plaintiff would

-10- Complaint for Damagesnot have insured title to the lenders.

55. As a proximate result of each of LANGUBAN’s misrepresentations, Plaintiff has
been damaged in an amount of $2,306,820.39, at the legal rate of 10% per annum, or $632.00
per diem, from and after July 19, 2010.

56. The aforementioned conduct of LANGUBAN were intentional misrepresentations
of material facts known to her with the intention on her part of thereby depriving Plaintiff of
property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that
subjected Plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights,
so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Commonwealth prays judgment against the Defendants as follows:

For the All Causes of Action:

1. For general damages in an amount $2,306,820.39, at the legal rate of 10% per
annum, or $632.00 per diem, from and after July 19, 2010;

2. For costs of suit herein incurred;

3. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper;

For the First, Second and Sixth Causes of Action:

4. For punitive damages to deter and punish Defendants for their malicious and
intentional conduct; and

For the Second Cause of Action:

5. For a judgment declaring that the defendants who received loan proceeds hold

those proceeds as an involuntary trustee in constructive trust for the benefit of Plaintiff.

Dated: 9-7-2.0f0 an I KE

EDWARD A. KUNNES
Attorneys for Commonwealth Land Title
Insurance Company

-ll- Complaint for DamagesEXHIBITfous

RECORDING REQUESTED BY |
Winston Lum \ San Francisco Assessor-Recorder
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: | Phil Ting, Assessor-Recorder
WINSTON LUM DOC- 2609-1707976-00
1450 SUTTER STREET #308 Cheek Number 9169
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 Friday, JAN 16, 2009 09:27:26
Te Pd $4,923.00 _ Rept # 0083003564
REEL J809 IMAGE 0134
ojl/JL/i-3
— — "
7 f SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ——
ges It st aol CRanr pee
‘THE UNDERSIGNFD GRANTOR(s) DECLARF(s) Documentary Transfer Tax iss 4, & 772
O unincorporated arcu O computed on full valuc of interest or property conveyed. or
@ the city of San Francisco D1 fult value less value of liens ur encumbrances remaining at the
time of sale

Parce! No. Lots 00! ,009.015,019,020 & 021, Block 3765.

7% Lot 346 Block 3765,
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledyed,
Shirley S, Hwang, Trustee of the Trust of Shirley S. Hwang dated July 1, 1998
hereby GRANT(s) to
‘Winston Lum, » single man

the following real property inthe City of San Francisco County of San Francisca, State of Calif fornia: 4,

iegell Cesoiph om - gee Attach Exit A*and "RB"
Dated: January 14,2009 0

STATE OF CALIFORNI. } .
COUNTY OF SS:

Oo
on_Janu (a 7004

a Notary Public, persorially appeared yy

who proved to me on the basis of satis! i 10 be the Ta ee
person(s}whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and Goranson ¢ Oat 1
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the sume in his/her/their I wtny hagelen

authorized capacity(ics) and that by his/her/their signature(sjon the jE cee te ta zh
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.

1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal,

Signature __

EXHIBIT
Description: San Francisco,CA Document-Year.DocID 2009.707976 Page: 1 of 3
Order: lawyers Comment:EXHIBIT "A"
Aa that real propery stusted inthe Cry and COUR a Cah race, a or Cotforia, described as follows:
Pareat One:

‘Condominium Unit 4802 (Lot No. 346) of Parcel Map of One Rincon HIN, flied, December 14, 2005, in Book 92 of Condominium
Maps, Pages 133 and 134, Official Records, being @ merger and resubdivision of Lots 1, 9 and 15 of Assessor's Block 3765,
also being a portion of 100 Vara Block No, 344, 85 such Unit is shown on the Mixed-Lise Condominium Plan for One Rincon HIK
("Plan"), attached to the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions of One Rincon Hill (*Declaration"), recorded
June 13, 2006, Series No. 2006-1191869, Official Records, and as said Plan was amended by that certzin First Amendment to
Mbced-Use Condominium Plan for One Rincon Hill, recorded July 7, 2006, Series No. 2(.c-1209328-00 and any further
amendments and/or snnaxations recorded pursuant thereto,

Parcal Two:

An undivided 1/390th interest as Tenant In Common In and to the Phase I Buliding Common Area, lying within the above
{eferenced Parcel Map of One Rincon Hit, as shown on the Plan end defined inthe Declaration, exerting and reserving

SBE PREY Ae NEB MG

4.) ” All condominium units shown on the Plan and described in the Declaration.

B.) Exclusive Use Common Areas for possession, use and enjoyment of those areas designated on the
Pian and defined in the Dectaration.

C.) — Non-exclusiva easement for use, enjoyment, Ingress, egress and support in and to the Phase I Building
Common Area and the Protect Common Area as shown on the Plan and described In the Declaration.

0.) All easements as defined in the Declaration.

Parcel Thres:

Norrexclusive easernents for usa, enjoyment, Ingress, egress and support in and to the Phase 1 Buliding Common Area, Phase
1 Common Area and Master Common Area, as shown on the Plan and described in the Declaration, for the benefit of Parcel
One hereinabove.

Parcel Four:

A non-exclusive easement appurtenant to Parcel One hereinabove for support, repair and maintenance, and for ingress and
egress through the Common Area, in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1361(a).

Parcel Five:
Encroachment easements as defined in Section 8.5 of the Ouciaration.
Parcel Six:

Exclusive use easements, as shown and described on the Plan and also described in the Decisration, appurtenant to Parcel
One hereinabove for the possession, use and enjoyment of :

A) Deck D-4802

SAECORE ae WT TE AR Ee

Bee aE ie

Fe ee Be

SORES ITE pg OATES

Assessor's Lots 019, 020 & 021, Block 3765 (portion-Current Tax Year)
Assessor's Lot 346, Block 3765 (Future Tax Year)

POE MEE ge ra em,

+
Description: San Francisco,CA Document-Year.DocID 2009.707976 Page: 2 of 3
Order: lawyers Comment:EXHIBIT "B"

‘THIS GRANT DEED IS SUBJECT TO all of the rights granted and burdens imposed pursuant to the provisions of the following,
ait of which are incorporated herein by reference with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein:

A. The Deciaration; and
B. All easements, reservations, dedications and other Interests shown and defined on the Plan.

BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS GRANT DEED, Grantee accepts and agrees to be bound by the covenants containad herein, and
Further acknowledges receipt of and agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Declaration, which are hereby Incorporated
by reference into the body of this instrument, as though fully set for the at length herein, and by the provisions of the Bylaws
and the Artides of Incorporation of One Rincon Hil Association.

‘The property herein granted Is a condominium as defined in Section 1351(f) of the California Civil Code, and is subject to the
provistons of the Davis-Stirfing Common Interest Development Act, Titie VI, Part Four, Division Second of Said Code.

Grantee:

HE, ONAN SHRI E coy enec a BET

Sage i ms eee one

Description: San Francisco,CA Document-Year.DocID 2009.707976 Page: 3 of 3
Order: lawyers Comment:EXHIBIT a“A

” RECORDING REQUESTED BY j San Francisco Recorder
Winston Lum Phil | Ting Assessor-Recorder
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Doc~ Looe, 1707977-00
WINSTON LUM : Fenner, ese
1480 SUTTER STREET #308 riday, JAN 16, - a a 88
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 Tel Pad $4,923.00 # 0083563578
REEL J803 IMAGE 0135 _—
ofl/JL/1-3
yas” Ist st # 490 Zz ~ SPACE ABGVE THIS LINE FOR RE SE 7
GRANT DEED 9 oe
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) Documentary Transfer ‘Tax iss F, 877
DD unincorporated area O computed on full value of interest or property conveyed. or
@ the city of San Francisco 1 full value less value of liens or cncumbrances remaining at the
lime of sale

Parcel No, Lots 001,009.01 5.019,020 & 021. Block 3765,
fro 354 Block 3765,

FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledyed,
Shirley S. Hwang, Trustee of the Trust of Shirley S. Hwang dated July 1, 1998
hereby GRANT(s) to

Winston Lum, a single man

the fone reat property in the City of San Francisco County of San Wransisce. State of Bom:

Lagat descriphon | [See Atoeck CxhibirA"

Dated: January 4 2009

. Hwang

STATE OF CALIFORNI, }
COUNTY OF cia ahaa —_ ss:

FOR NOTARY SFAI. OR STAMP

who proved to me on the basis of satis atlory evidence to be the G. LANGUBAN
person(s)whosc name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and Kay bates Catorme
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their i Los Angele County {

authorized’ capacity(ics) and that by his/her/their signature(s)on the 1 Ny Comes. Expire Ma | wf
instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument,

1 certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the Statc of
California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my pay official seal.

er

GRANTIER

Description: San Francisco,CA Document-Year.DocID 2009.707977 Page: 1 of 3
Order: lawvers Comment:” Lect Heer

‘Ai that real property sttuated in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, described as follows:

; Pareet One:
+ Condominium Unit 4902 (Lot No, 354) of Paroal tap of One Rincon Hil, fled, December 14, 2005, in Book 92 of Condominksm
‘Maps, Pages 133 and 134, Official Records, being a merger and Jon of Lots 1, 9 and 15 of Assessor's Block 3765,

iso belng a portion of 100 Vare Biock No.344, as such Units show on the Mad-Use Condom Pian for One Rincon 4
(“Plan”), attached to the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions of One Rincon Hill ("Declaration"), to
June 13, 2006, Series No. 2006-1191B69, Oficial Records, and as sald Plan was amended by that certain First Amendment to
Mixed-Use Condominium Plan for One Rincon Hil, recorded July 7, 2006, Series No, 2006-1209328-00 and any fu
amendments and/or annexations recorded pursuant thereto,

Parcel Two:

sis

Pw ee

An undivided 1/390th Incerest as Tenant In Common in and to the Phisse 1 Bulding Common Area, ving within the above
referenced Parcel Map of One Rincon Hii, as shown on the Pisn and defined in the Declaration, excepting and reserving
‘therefrom the following:

A.) All condominium units shown on the Pian and described In the Declaration.

5.) Exclusive Use Common Areas for possession, use and enjoyment of those areas designated on the
Plan and defined in the Declaration.

: C.) — Nen-exclusive easement for use, enjoyment, ingress, egress and support in and to the Phase I Building
R Common Area and the Project Common Aras as shown on the Plan and described in the Declaration.

0.) Alf easements as defined In the Declaration.
Parcel Three:
& —_Non-exclusive easements for use, enjoyment, Ingress, egress and support in and to the Phase I Buiding Common Area, Phase
: 1 Common Area and Maser Carino Aree, how ee, te Pan ant desorbed inte Decaraion, fr the bereft of Parcel
One hereinabove.
Parcel Four: '
A non-exclusive ensement appurtenant to Parcel One hereinabove for siipport, repair and maineenance, and for ingress and
egress through the Common Area, in accordance with California CM Cide Section 1361(a).

Parcel Five:

wemtae

omy out

Encroachment easements 3s definad in Section 8.5 of the Deciaration.
Parcel Stx: 1

1

{Badusive use easements, as shown and described on the Plan snd also described In the Declaration, appurtenant to Parcel
i One hereinabove for the possession, use and enjoyment of : ;

rAd Deck D-4902

Someres

Assessor's Lots 019, 020 & 023, Block 3755 (portion-Current Tax Year)
t Assessor's Lot 354, Block 3765 (Future Tax Year)

Description: San Francisco,CA Document-Year.DocID 2009. 707977 Page: 2 of 3
Order: lawyers Comment:sete

‘THIS GRANT DEED IS SUBJECT TO alt of the rights granted and burdens imposed pursuant to the provisions of the following,
all of which are Incorporated herein by reference with the same force and effect a5 though fully set forth herein:

A. The Dedaration; and
B. All easements, reservations, dedications and other interests shown and defined on the Plan.

5 BY ACCEPTANCE OF THIS GRANT DEED, Grantee accepts and agrees to!be bound by the covenants contained hereln, and
further acknowledges receipt of and agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Declaration, which are hereby incorporated
by reference into the body of this Instrument, as though fully set for the at length herein, and by the provisions of the Bylaws
and the Arties of Incorporation of One Runcon Hill Association. .

“|The property herein granted is a condominium es defined in Section 1351:f) of the California Civil Code, and is subject tn the
: provisions of the Davis-Stirling Common interest Development, Act, Title VI, Part Four, Division Second of Said Code.

otra

*

2

. : 1
Description: San Francisco,CA Document-Year.DocID 2009.707977 Page: 3 of 3
Order: lawyers Comment:5

EXHIBITRECORDING REQUESTED BY fecorder
‘Winston Lum an

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Phil Ting, Assessor-Recorder
WINSTON LUM poc- ~'2008-1 1707975-00
1450 SUTTER STREET #308 Nunbe
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94109 Friday, JAN 18, a 29: TT aasenns 4
TL, Fees IHAGE 0133
| REEL J ogh/ Sb /2-2
5 st St #. 650 SPACE ABOVE THIS 1, RECORDEI
gas! ! GRANT DEED ce
THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(s) DECLARE(s) Documentary Transfer Tax is $ 6 Me _
O unincorporated area D computed on full value of interest or property conveyed, or
@ the city of San Francisco © full value fess value of liens or encumbrances remaining at the

i: lime of sale

¥ parcel No.Vol 25, Block 3765, Lot # 389 -

FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged,

Shirley S. Hwang, Trustee of thé 425 First Street #$80) Trust Dated September 17, 2008
hereby GRANT(s) to *

Winston Lum, a single man

the following real property in the City ofsan francisco County of San Francisco, State of California:
deseri phowi-see aHaci txlibit ee

Dated: Jaquary 14, 2009

STATE OF CALIFORNI. wee
COUNTY OF “NT cto } ss:

On OY U4, 00 before me, FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP

a Norary Public, h Wand ss t
who proved to me on the basis of satisfattory evidente’ to be the eee |
person(s)whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and Paty
acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their lm doe atl. wont
authorized capacity(ics) and that by his/her/their signature(s}on the JO eee

instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)

acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of
California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hang apd official seal.

Signature

exHigt_____

Description: San Francisco,CA Document-Year.DocID 2009.707975 Page: 1 of 2
Order: Hwang Comment:EXHIBIT “A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION

All that reat property sttuated in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California, described as follows:

Parcel One:

Condominium Unit 5501 (Lot No. 389) of Parcel Map of One Rincon Hil, fied, December 14, 2005, in Book 92 of Condominium

Maps, Pages 133 and 134, Cfficial Records, being a merger and resubdivision of Lots 1, 9 and 15 of Assessor's Block 3765,

also being a portion of 100 Vera Block No. 344, ss such Unit Is shown on the Mbced-Use Condominium Plan for One Rincon Hil

("Plan"), attached to the Declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions of One Rincon Hil (“Dedaration”), recorded

June 13, 2006, Series No. 2006-1191859, Official Records, and as said Plan was emended by thet certain First Amendment to
‘ Mbxed-Use Condominium Plan for One Rincon Hill, recorded July 7, 2006, Series No, 2006-1209328-00 and any further
3 amendments and/or annexations recorded pursuant thereto.

Parcel Two:

An undivided 1/390th interest as Tenant In Common in and to the Phase I Building Common Area, tying within the above
referenced Parcel Map of One Rincon Hil, as shown on the Plan and defined in the Declaration, excepting and reserving
therefrom the following:

A.) All Condominium units shown on the Piar: and described in the Declaration,

8.) Exclusive Use Common Areas for possession, use and enjoyment of those areas designated on the
Pian and defined in the Deciaration.

. C.) — Non-exclusive easement for use, enjoyment, ingress, egress and support in and to the Phase I Buliding
Common Ares and the Project Common Area #& shown on the Plan and described in the Declaration.

D.) Al easernents as defined in the Dectaration.

Parcel Three:

Non-exclusive easements for use, enjoyment, ingress, egress and support in and to the Phase I Buliding Common Ares, Phase
1. Common Ares and Master Common Area, as shown on the Plan and described in the Declaration, for the benefit of Parcel
One hereinabove.

Parcel Four:

Annon-exclusive easement appurtenant to Parcel One hereinabove for support, repair and maintenance, and for ingress and
egress through the Common Area, in accordance with California Cl Code Section 1361(2).

: Parcel Five:
z Encroachment essements as defined In Section 8.5 of the Declaration.
: Parcat Six:

Exclusive use easements, as shown and described on the Pian and also described in the Deciarstion, appurtenant to Parcel
One hereinabove for the possession, use and enjoyment of :

A) Deck 0-$501

Assessor's Lots 019, 020 & 021(portion}, Block 3765 (Current Tax Year)
3 ge Assessor's Lot 389, Block 3765 (Future Tax Year)
i.

Description: San Francisco,CA Document-Year.DocID 2009.707975 Page: 2 of 2
Order: Hwang Comment:EXHIBIT 4Recording fog. PY oo

Title °

RECORDING REQUESTED BY \

WHEN RECORDED MAILTO . | San Francie ses est

Pal lint Go9-1729402-00
srenpoumaos uc a i
ranaumesasa aaa a

REEL J841 IMAGE: 0263 |

ake/KC/2-

a4 Zz M\ J
“PN: 3He-3 o ~~ ~~~" SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDERS U:
as” ve
Sy elaneies Gs

A feanersee A DEED OF TRUST
AND ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS
DEFINITIONS

Words used in multipte sections of this document are defined below and other words are defined in Sections 3, 10, 12, 17, 19, 20 and
22. Certain rules regarding the usage of words used in this document are also provided in Section 15.

(A) “Security Instrument” means this document, which is dated February 26, 2009, together with all Riders to this document.

(B) “Borrower” is WINSTON LUM, A SINGLE MAN. ‘Borrower is the (rustor under this Sccurity Instrument, Borrower's mailing
address is: 188 MINNA STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105."

(c) “Lender” is DE WITTE MORTGAGE INVESTORS FUND, LLC. Lender is the beneficiary under this Security Instrument,
(D) “Trustee” is PLM LENDER SERVICES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,

(E) “Note” means the promissory note signed by Borrower and dated February 26, 2009, The Note states thut Borrower owes Lender
Five hundred Fifty thousand dollars exactly (U.S, $550,000.00) plus interest,

{F) “Property” means the property that is described below under the heading “Transfer of Rights in th