Preview
1 Ronald L. Richman (SBN 139189)
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
2 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104-4146
3
Telephone: 415.352.2700
4 Facsimile: 415.352.2701
E-mail: ron.richman@bullivant.com
5
Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants
6 ARNOLD WENYON and DESIREE A. WENYON,
7 as Incumbent Trustees of the Wenyon Living Trust
Under Declaration Dated July 26, 2004 (sued herein as
8 DOE 21 and DOE 22)
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF NAPA
12
13 GERALD L. NUNN and JUDITH L. NUNN, Case No.: 26-56767
14 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS AND
15
v. CROSS-COMPLAINANTS ARNOLD
16 WENYON AND DESIREE A. WENYON,
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, a New AS INCUMBENT TRUSTEES OF THE
17 York Corporation purported successor in WENYON LIVING TRUST UNDER
interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL DECLARATION DATED JULY 24, 2004
18 BANK F.A., a Washington Corporation; MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO
19 CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE FILE VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED
COMPANY, a California corporation; and CROSS-COMPLAINT
20 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and all persons
unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, DATE: April 23, 2024
21 title, estate, lien, or interest in the property TIME: 8:30 a.m.
described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' DEPT: B
22 title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto, Hon. Scott R.L. Young
23 named as DOES 21-100, inclusive, COMPLAINT: August 31, 2011
TRIAL: Not Set
24 Defendants.
25
ARNOLD WENYON and DESIREE A.
26
WENYON, as Incumbent Trustees of the
27 Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated
July 26, 2004
28
Cross-complainants,
4894-9991-0575.1 11068/00028 –1–
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-
COMPLAINT
1
v.
2
3 GERALD L. NUNN; JUDITH L. NUNN;
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and ROES
4 1 through 20, inclusive,
5 Cross-defendants.
6
7 Defendants and cross-complainants Arnold Wenyon and Desiree A. Wenyon, as
8 Incumbent Trustees of the Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated July 26, 2004
9 (“Cross-complainants”) Motion for Leave to File a Verified First Amended Cross-complaint
10 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(a)(1) came on regularly for hearing on this date.
11 Having read and considered the motion, all papers submitted by the parties in support or
12 opposition thereof, arguments of counsel and good cause appearing:
13 IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED:
14 1. Cross-complainants’ motion is granted, and a summons shall issue.
15 Cross-complainants shall file and serve their verified first amended cross complaint, attached
16 hereto as Exhibit A, by ______________________, 2024 with the clerk of the court issuing
17 summons on filing of the verified first amended cross-complaint; and
18 2. Cross-defendant 24 Asset Management Corp shall have thirty (30) days from the
19 date of service thereof to file its response to the verified first amended cross-complaint.
20 IT IS SO ORDERED.
21 DATED: April _____, 2024
22
HON. SCOTT R.L. YOUNG
23 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT
24
25 *****
26
27
28
4894-9991-0575.1 11068/00028 –2–
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-
COMPLAINT
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED
CROSS‐COMPLAINT
EXHIBIT A
1 Ronald L. Richman (SBN 139189)
BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC
2 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94104-4146
3
Telephone: 415.352.2700
4 Facsimile: 415.352.2701
E-mail: ron.richman@bullivant.com
5
Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants
6 ARNOLD WENYON and DESIREE A. WENYON,
7 as Incumbent Trustees of the Wenyon Living Trust
Under Declaration Dated July 26, 2004 (sued herein as
8 DOE 21 and DOE 22)
9
10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
11 COUNTY OF NAPA
12
13 GERALD L. NUNN and JUDITH L. NUNN, Case No.: 26-56767
14 Plaintiffs, VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ARNOLD
15
v. WENYON AND DESIREE A. WENYON,
16 AS INCUMBENT TRUSTEES OF THE
J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, a New WENYON LIVING TRUST UNDER
17 York Corporation purported successor in DECLARATION DATED JULY 26, 2004
interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL FOR:
18 BANK F.A., a Washington Corporation;
CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE 1. QUIET TITLE;
19
COMPANY, a California corporation; and 2. DECLARATORY RELIEF;
20 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and all persons 3. BREACH OF CONTRACT;
unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, 4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
21 title, estate, lien, or interest in the property 5. FRAUD;
described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' 6. NEGLIGENT
22 title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto, MISREPRESENTATION;
23 named as DOES 21-100, inclusive, 7. NEGLIGENCE; AND
8. TORT OF ANOTHER
24 Defendants.
25
ARNOLD WENYON and DESIREE A.
26 WENYON, as Incumbent Trustees of the
Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated
27
July 26, 2004
28
Cross-complainants,
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –1–
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1
v.
2
3 GERALD L. NUNN; JUDITH L. NUNN;
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; 24
4 ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP., a Florida
corporation licensed to do business in
5 California; and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive,
6 Cross-defendants.
7
8 For their Verified First Amended Cross-complaint for Declaratory Relief; To Quiet
9 Title; Breach of Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Fraud; and Negligent Misrepresentations,
10 Cross-complainants Arnold Wenyon and Desiree Wenyon, as Incumbent Trustees of the
11 Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated July 26, 2004 (“Wenyons”) allege as follows.
12 PARTIES
13 1. On or about October 28, 2020, the Wenyons entered into a California Residential
14 Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (“Residential Purchase Agreement”) with
15 defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, (“Chase”) for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary
16 Street, Napa, California, 94559, APN 003-198-001-000 (hereinafter referred to as the
17 “Property”), which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn and
18 Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of the
19 Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On November 25, 2020, a
20 Grant Deed was recorded in the Official Records, County of Napa, Doc. 2020-0031549, wherein
21 cross-defendant Chase conveyed the Property to the Wenyons. A true and correct copy of the
22 Grant Deed is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
23 2. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
24 that cross-defendants Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn claim a competing right, title, lien or
25 interest to the same Property owned by cross-complainants Wenyons, as more fully described
26 below.
27 3. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
28 that at all relevant times, that cross-defendant Chase is a National Association that conducts
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –2–
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 business in California, including the sale of real property and specifically, the Residential
2 Purchase Agreement with cross-complainants Wenyons for the Property which is the subject of
3 plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint
4 filed in this action.
5 4. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
6 that at all relevant times, cross-defendant 24 Asset Management Corp. is a Florida corporation
7 authorized and licensed to do business in California, with a California presence in San Diego,
8 California.
9 5. Defendants ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, are sued under fictitious names. Their
10 true names and capacities are unknown to cross-complainants. When their true names and
11 capacities are ascertained, cross-complainants will amend this cross-complaint to show such
12 true names and capacities. Cross-complainants are informed and believe, and on that basis
13 allege, that ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, were responsible in some manner for the events and
14 happenings set forth in this cross-complaint and caused, or were responsible, for the damages
15 proximately caused thereby or are otherwise liable therefore.
16 6. The true names and capacities of those cross-defendants named herein as any and
17 all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the
18 Property adverse to cross-complainants’ title or any cloud on cross-complainant’s title thereto,
19 named as ROES 1 through 20, inclusive (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “unknown cross-
20 defendants”) are unknown to cross-complainants and, therefore, cross-complainants sue said
21 cross-defendants by such fictitious names. Cross-complainants will seek leave of court to
22 amend this cross-complaint to include the true names and capacities of such unknown
23 cross-defendants when the same are ascertained. Cross-complainants are informed and believe
24 and thereupon alleges that each of these unknown cross-defendants claim some right, title,
25 estate, lien, or interest in the Property adverse to cross-complainant’s title and interest, that the
26 claims of all of these unknown cross-defendants are without any right whatsoever and, further,
27 that these unknown cross-defendants have no right, title, estate, lien, or interest whatsoever in
28 the Property, or any part thereof.
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –3–
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 BACKGROUND
2 7. On or about October 21, 2020, escrow was opened up between
3 cross-complainants Wenyons and Chase for the Property. Cross-complainants Wenyons are
4 informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Chase chose the company for the escrow,
5 Ticor Title Company of America (“Ticor”).
6 8. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
7 that at all relevant times, Chase opened escrow on the Property, by and through its agent or
8 affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp., a Florida corporation licensed to do
9 business in California, its type of business identified with the California Secretary of State as
10 “Asset Management/Real Estate”, with its principal office in the State of California located in
11 San Diego, California.
12 9. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
13 that on or about October 20, 2020, Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted
14 party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange, inquired to Ticor regarding the
15 anticipated title report, asking Ticor to confirm that title is clear and there was no pending
16 litigation, and asking for an updated title report.
17 10. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
18 that on or about October 22, 2020, Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted
19 party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange, inquired to Ticor regarding the
20 anticipated title report, asking when an updated title report would be provided.
21 11. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
22 that on or about October 22, 2020, Ticor, in response to the inquiry by Chase, by and through its
23 agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange,
24 provided Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management
25 Corp., a copy of the Amended Preliminary Report, Amendment No. 1, effective date October
26 16, 2020. The Amended Preliminary Report, Amendment No. 1, identifies the “Client Contact”
27 as 24 Asset Management Corp. Under Curative Items, the following was identified: “Item 7;
28
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –4–
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 Description: Notice of Lis Pendens”. Paragraph No. 7 to the Amended Preliminary Report,
2 Amendment No. 1, under “Exceptions”, identifies the following:
3 7. A pending Court Action as disclosed by a recorded notice:
4 EXCEPTIONS
5 (Continued)
6 CLTA Preliminary Title Report
7 lPrelm (DSI Rev. 8/15/16) Page 7 Order No.: 00733594-005-SM5-
CAB
8
Plaintiff: Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn
9
Defendant: J.P. Morgan Chase and Company, a New York
10 Corporation, purported successor in interest to Washington Mutual
Bank F. A., a Washington Corporation; Washington Mutual Bank,
11 F. A., a Washington Corporation; California Reconveyance
Company, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20,
12 inclusive, and all persons unknown, claim any legal or equitable
right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the
13 complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title
thereto, named as Does 21-100,inclusive
14
County: Napa
15
Court: Superior Court of the State of California County of Napa
16
Case No.: 26-56767
17
Nature of Action: Real Property
18
Recorded: April 4, 2017
19
20 Recording No.: 2017-0007969, of Official Records
21 A true and correct copy of the Amended Preliminary Report, Amendment No. 1, is
22 attached hereto as Exhibit C.
23 12. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
24 that on or about October 22, 2020, Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted
25 party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange, inquired to Ticor why the
26 Lis Pendens still appeared on the title report. In the e-mail, Chase, by and through its agent or
27 affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp., attached a copy of the
28 January 30, 2020, Judgment filed in this litigation, entering a judgment of dismissal in favor of
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –5–
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 Chase and against plaintiffs and cross-defendants Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn. A true
2 and correct copy of the October 22, 2020, e-mail exchange, including the attachment, is attached
3 hereto as Exhibit D.
4 13. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
5 that Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management
6 Corp, by questioning the Amended Preliminary Report, Amendment No. 1 and providing Ticor
7 with a copy of the January 30, 2020 Judgment, was directing Ticor to remove Exception 7, the
8 identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report, despite the fact that on or about
9 June 1, 2020 the Nunns appealed the January 30, 2020, Judgment, and on August 27, 2020, the
10 Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging the
11 Lis Pendens.
12 14. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
13 that on or about October 22, 2020, Ticor, in an e-mail exchange with Chase, by and through its
14 agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp., responded by stating the title
15 issue would be sent to the title officer for review.
16 15. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
17 that on or about October 27, 2020, Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted
18 party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange, again inquired to Ticor about the
19 title policy. In response, Ticor provided a Supplemental Report deleting Item 7, the reference to
20 the Lis Pendens, from the preliminary title report. A true and correct copy of the
21 October 27, 2020, e-mail and attachment is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
22 16. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
23 that 24 Asset Management Corp. was aware that the Wenyons were the purchasers of the
24 property at issue, 1042 Seminary Street, Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of
25 plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint
26 filed in this action.
27 17. On or about October 28, 2020, the Wenyons entered into the Residential
28 Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street, Napa,
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –6–
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn and
2 Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of the
3 Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
4 18. The Wenyons were looking for an investment property that was clear and free
5 from any clouds on the title and not the subject of any pending litigation.
6 19. In the Exempt Seller Disclosure, a form in the Residential Purchase Agreement,
7 Chase represented the following:
8 4. Are you (Seller) aware of any of the following? (Explain any
“yes” answers below:
9
I. Matters affecting title of the Property……..[x]No.
10
11 20. In the Seller Property Questionnaire, a form in the Residential Purchase
12 Agreement, Chase represented the following:
13 5. Statutorily or Contractually Required or Related: Are you
(Seller) aware of…
14
I. Matters affecting title of the Property…[x]No.
15
14. Title, Ownership Liens, and Legal Claims: Are you Seller)
16 aware of…
17 A. Any other person or entity on title other than Seller(s) signing
this form [x]No.
18
C. Past, present, pending or threatened lawsuits, settlements,
19 mediations, arbitration, tax liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of
default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government hearings
20 affecting or relating to the Property, Homeowner Association or
neighborhood…[x]No.
21
22 21. Cross-complainants Wenyons, relying upon the representations of Chase in the
23 Residential Purchase Agreement, and the Ticor amended title reports deleting the reference to
24 the Lis Pendens and underlying litigation between the Nunns and Chase as directed by Chase
25 and/or its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp, executed the
26 Residential Purchase Agreement.
27 22. On November 25, 2020, a Grant Deed was recorded in the Official Records,
28 County of Napa, Doc. 2020-0031549, wherein cross-defendant Chase conveyed the Property to
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –7–
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 cross-complainants Wenyons. A true and correct copy of the Grant Deed is attached hereto as
2 Exhibit B.
3 23. In mid-August 2021 cross-complainants Wenyons received a letter from Alan
4 Charles Dell’Ario, counsel for the Nunns, dated August 11, 2021. The letter advised the
5 Wenyons, for the first time, that: (a) the Nunns still had a claim of title to the Property; (b) there
6 was a continuing underlying litigation between the Nunns and Chase; (c) there was a Lis
7 Pendens still recorded on the Property; and (d) the Wenyons would be added as Doe Defendants
8 to the underlying litigation. A true and correct copy of the August 11, 2021, letter is attached
9 hereto as Exhibit F.
10 24. At the time of receipt of the August 11, 2021, letter, cross-complainants
11 Wenyons had already retained an Architect and other professionals, and incurred over $100,000
12 in fees regarding intended repairs, updating the Property to be code compliant, and remodeling
13 to the Property. In addition, cross-complainants retained a contractor to start necessary
14 foundation repairs, updating the Property to be code compliant, replacement, shoring, repair of
15 footings, foundation, porches, etc., all of which were necessary and a part of the Wenyons’ plan
16 to use the Property as an investment property. The repairs/remodeling have not commenced and
17 are now on hold pending resolution of this lawsuit.
18 25. Further, the Wenyons have incurred additional costs including interest on the
19 Home Equity Line of Credit established to pay the purchase price of the Property; payment of
20 property taxes; closing costs associated with the purchase; and other improvements made to the
21 Property prior to the August 11, 2021, letter from counsel Alan Charles Dell’Ario, counsel to
22 the Nunns. In addition, the costs of labor and materials continues to increase, in terms of
23 anticipated repairs, updating the Property to be code compliant, and remodeling to the Property.
24 26. In addition, the Wenyons are unable to use the Property as intended, rental units,
25 and are losing anticipated revenue because they are unable to lease any units in the Property due
26 to the pending litigation. If, as a result of this pending litigation it is determined that the Nunns
27 have a superior right of title to the Property, the Wenyons will suffer additional losses because
28
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –8–
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 the price of investment property continues to skyrocket in the SF Bay Area, including Napa,
2 California.
3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
4 (Quiet Title)
5 Against Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn and ROES 1-20
6 27. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though
7 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-26, inclusive, of this cross-complaint.
8 28. Cross-complainants Wenyons seek to quiet title to the Property against the claims
9 of cross-defendants Geral. L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn, and ROES 1-20, inclusive, in that the
10 Wenyons seek a judgment establishing that the Wenyons are the sole and exclusive owners of
11 the Property.
12 29. Cross-complainants Wenyon are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
13 that Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn claim an interest in the Property as alleged in their
14 Third Amended Complaint against the Wenyons, added as DOE 21 and DOE 22, in the instant
15 action. The claims of the cross-defendants, and each of them, adverse to cross-complainant’s
16 title, are without any right whatsoever and such cross-defendants have no right, title, estate, lien
17 or interest whatsoever in the Property, or any part thereof that is superior to cross-complainants
18 Wenyons’ title.
19 30. Cross-complainants Wenyons seek to quiet title to the Property, as of
20 November 25, 2020, the date that Chase deeded the Property to cross-complainants Wenyons.
21 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below.
22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
23 (Declaratory Relief)
24 Against Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn and ROES 1-20
25 31. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though
26 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-30, inclusive, of this cross-complaint.
27 32. A dispute has arisen between cross-complainants and cross-defendants, and each
28 of them, as to their respective rights and claims to title to and interest in the Property.
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –9–
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, cross-defendants,
2 and each of them, claim right, title or interest to the disputed portion of property on which a
3 portion of the planter box and irrigation system are situated.
4 34. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between cross-complainants
5 Wenyons and cross-defendants, in that cross-complainants Wenyons contend that
6 cross-complainants have a valid fee simple title interest in the Property, and that
7 cross-defendants have no right, title, estate, lien or interest whatsoever in the Property superior
8 to cross-complainants Wenyons’ fee simple title.
9 35. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under these
10 circumstances to resolve claims of cross-complainants Wenyons and cross-defendants, and each
11 of them, to the Property, in order that cross-complainants may ascertain their rights and duties
12 with respect to the Property.
13 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below.
14 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
15 (Breach of Contract)
16 Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
17 36. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though
18 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-35, inclusive, of this cross-complaint.
19 37. On or about October 28, 2020, cross-complainants Wenyons entered into the
20 Residential Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street,
21 Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn
22 and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of
23 the Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
24 38. Cross-complainants Wenyons performed all conditions on their part to be
25 performed including, but not limited to, closing escrow and paying Chase, in full, for the
26 Property as required under the Residential Purchase Agreement, property that Chase represented
27 in the Residential Purchase Agreement that: (a) there were no matters affecting title to the
28 Property; (b) there were no other persons on title to the Property other than Chase; and (c) there
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 10 –
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 were no past, present, pending or threatened lawsuits, settlements, mediations, arbitration, tax
2 liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government
3 hearings affecting or relating to the Property.
4 39. Within four years past, cross-defendant Chase breached and broke the
5 Residential Purchase Agreement by purporting to sell the Property to cross-complainants
6 Wenyons when Chase knew, or should have known, that: (a) there were matters affecting title to
7 the Property; (b) the Nunns claimed title to the Property; and (c) there was a present, pending
8 lawsuit, i.e., this pending litigation, affecting or relating to the Property.
9 40. Chase, by and through its affiliate or agent, or contracted party, 24 Asset
10 Management Corp, further breached the Residential Purchase Agreement by knowingly
11 directing Ticor to change the title report to remove Exception 7, the identification of the Lis
12 Pendens, from the title report, when on or about June 1, 2020, the Nunns appealed the January
13 30, 2020, Judgment, and on August 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of
14 Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging the Lis Pendens.
15 41. As a direct and proximate result of cross-defendant Chase’s conduct, and the
16 conduct of 24 Asset Management Corp, cross-complainants have sustained damages, in excess
17 of $25,000, such damages dependent on whether there is an adjudication in favor of the Nunns
18 or cross-complainants Wenyons, as to title and ownership of the Property, in an amount to be
19 proven at trial.
20 42. Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in
21 this action, recoverable to the prevailing party under the Residential Purchase Agreement.
22 Cross-complainants Wenyons request that the Court award cross-complainants their attorneys’
23 fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying litigation and prosecuting this
24 cross-complaint.
25 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below.
26 ///
27 ///
28 ///
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 11 –
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
2 (Unjust Enrichment)
3 Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
4 43. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though
5 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-42, inclusive, of this cross-complaint.
6 44. On or about October 28, 2020, cross-complainants Wenyons entered into the
7 Residential Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street,
8 Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn
9 and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of
10 the Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
11 45. Cross-complainants Wenyons performed all conditions on their part to be
12 performed including, but not limited to, closing escrow and paying Chase, in full, for the
13 Property as required under the Residential Purchase Agreement, property that Chase represented
14 in the Residential Purchase Agreement that: (a) there were no matters affecting title to the
15 Property; (b) there were no other persons on title to the Property other than Chase; and (c) there
16 were no past, present, pending or threatened lawsuits, settlements, mediations, arbitration, tax
17 liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government
18 hearings affecting or relating to the Property.
19 46. Chase knew, or should have known, that: (a) there were matters affecting title to
20 the Property; (b) the Nunns claimed title to the Property; and (c) there was a present, pending
21 lawsuit, i.e., this pending litigation, affecting or relating to the Property.
22 47. Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset
23 Management Corp, further knowingly directed Ticor to change the title report to remove
24 Exception 7, the identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report, when on or about
25 June 1, 2020 the Nunns appealed the January 30, 2020 Judgment, and on August 27, 2020 the
26 Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging the
27 Lis Pendens.
28
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 12 –
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 48. Should there be an adjudication in favor of the Nunns as to title and ownership of
2 the Property, cross-complainants Wenyons are entitled to full restitution of all monies paid to
3 Chase for the purported sale of the Property to the Wenyons, $801,999, plus any and all closing
4 costs, and associated damages should the Wenyons lose the Property, in an amount to be proven
5 at trial.
6 49. Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in
7 this action, recoverable to the prevailing party under the Residential Purchase Agreement.
8 Cross-complainants Wenyons request that the Court award cross-complainants their attorneys’
9 fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying litigation and prosecuting this
10 cross-complaint.
11 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below.
12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
13 (Fraud)
14 Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
15 50. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though
16 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-49, inclusive, of this cross-complaint.
17 51. On or about October 28, 2020, cross-complainants Wenyons entered into the
18 Residential Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street,
19 Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn
20 and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of
21 the Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
22 52. In the Residential Purchase Agreement, Chase falsely represented to the
23 Wenyons that: (a) there were no matters affecting title to the Property; (b) there were no other
24 persons on title to the Property other than Chase; and (c) there were no past, present, pending or
25 threatened lawsuits, settlements, mediations, arbitration, tax liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of
26 default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government hearings affecting or relating to the
27 Property.
28
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 13 –
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 53. When Chase made these representations, it knew them to be false and made these
2 representations with the intent to deceive the Wenyons and induce the Wenyons into executing
3 the Residential Purchase Agreement. These false representations were made with the intent that
4 the Wenyons would act in reliance upon these false representations and execute the Residential
5 Purchase Agreement.
6 54. Chase further knowingly and falsely, by and through its agent or affiliate, or
7 contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp, directed Ticor to change the title report to remove
8 Exception 7, the identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report when on or about
9 June 1, 2020, the Nunns appealed the January 30, 2020, Judgment, and on August 27, 2020 the
10 Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging the
11 Lis Pendens. When Chase directed Ticor to change the title report to remove Exception 7, the
12 identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report, it did so with the intent on inducing the
13 Wenyons to execute the Residential Purchase Agreement.
14 55. Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset
15 Management Corp, by its wrongful actions identified above, intended to induce, and did induce,
16 cross-complainants Wenyon to rely upon the false representations and execute the Residential
17 Purchase Agreement.
18 56. As a direct and proximate result of cross-defendant Chase’s conduct,
19 cross-complainants have sustained damages, in excess of $25,000, such damages dependent on
20 whether there is an adjudication in favor of the Nunns or cross-complainants Wenyons, as to
21 title and ownership of the Property, in an amount to be proven at trial.
22 57. Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in
23 this action, recoverable to the prevailing party under the Residential Purchase Agreement.
24 Cross-complainants Wenyons request that the Court award cross-complainants their attorneys’
25 fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying litigation and prosecuting this
26 cross-complaint.
27 58. The aforementioned conduct of cross-defendant Chase was an intentional
28 misrepresentation, deceit with the intention on the part of defendants of thereby depriving
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 14 –
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 plaintiffs of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury and was despicable conduct that
2 subject the plaintiffs to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the plaintiffs’
3 rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.
4 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below.
5 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
6 (Negligent Misrepresentation)
7 Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
8 59. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though
9 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-58, inclusive, of this cross-complaint.
10 60. On or about October 28, 2020, cross-complainants Wenyons entered into the
11 Residential Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street,
12 Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs’ and cross-defendants’ Gerald L.
13 Nunn and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct
14 copy of the Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
15 61. In the Residential Purchase Agreement, Chase falsely represented to the
16 Wenyons that: (a) there were no matters affecting title to the Property; (b) there were no other
17 persons on title to the Property other than Chase; and (c) there were no past, present, pending or
18 threatened lawsuits, settlements, mediations, arbitration, tax liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of
19 default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government hearings affecting or relating to the
20 Property.
21 62. When Chase made these representations, it had no reasonable ground for
22 believing the representations were true and made these representations with the intent to induce
23 the Wenyons into executing the Residential Purchase Agreement. These false representations
24 were made with the intent that the Wenyons would act in reliance upon these false
25 representations and execute the Residential Purchase Agreement.
26 63. Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset
27 Management Corp, further knowingly and falsely directed Ticor to change the title report to
28 remove Exception 7, the identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report when on or
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 15 –
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 about June 1, 2020 the Nunns appealed the January 30, 2020 Judgment, and on August 27, 2020
2 the Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging
3 the Lis Pendens. When Chase by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset
4 Management Corp, directed Ticor to change the title report to remove Exception 7, the
5 identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report, it had no reasonable ground to believe the
6 representation was true and made such representations with the intent on inducing the Wenyons
7 to execute the Residential Purchase Agreement.
8 64. Chase, by its wrongful actions identified above, intended to induce, and did
9 induce, cross-complainants Wenyon to rely upon the false representations and execute the
10 Residential Purchase Agreement.
11 65. As a direct and proximate result of cross-defendant Chase’s conduct,
12 cross-complainants have sustained damages, in excess of $25,000, such damages dependent on
13 whether there is an adjudication in favor of the Nunns or cross-complainants Wenyons, as to
14 title and ownership of the Property, in an amount to be proven at trial.
15 66. Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in
16 this action, recoverable to the prevailing party under the Residential Purchase Agreement.
17 Cross-complainants Wenyons request that the Court award cross-complainants their attorneys’
18 fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying litigation and prosecuting this cross-
19 complaint.
20 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below.
21 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
22 (Negligence)
23 Against 24 Asset Management Corp.
24 67. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though
25 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-66, inclusive, of this cross-complaint.
26 68. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege,
27 that at all relevant times during the sale, closing, escrow, 24 Asset Management Corp. was
28 aware, through e-mail correspondence and documents including, but not limited to, the Report
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 16 –
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 of New Sale, California Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions and
2 Addenda, Title Report from Ticor, including, but not limited to preliminary title reports and
3 Amended Preliminary Report from Ticor, that the Wenyons were the prospective purchasers of
4 the Property, that Chase was the seller, that Ticor was the title company, escrow company,
5 involved in the purchase of the Property, that there was a Notice of Lis Pendens recorded on the
6 Property, that there was a litigation between Chase and the prior owners of the Property,
7 Gerald L. Nunn and Judith, Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn v. J.P. Morgan Chase &
8 Company, et. al., Napa County Superior Court, Case No.: 26-56767 (“Nunn litigation”), and
9 that the law firm of Bryan Cave LLP, including Daniel T. Rockey, counsel of record today in
10 this continuing litigation, was (and is) representing JPMorgan Chase in the Nunn litigation.
11 69. Cross-complainants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that
12 24 Asset Management Corp., apparently and wrongfully relying on a Judgment entered on
13 January 30, 2020, in the Nunn litigation, once again, identifying Bryan Cave LLP and Daniel T.
14 Rockey, as counsel for JPMorgan Chase, on or about October 20-22, 2020, directed Ticor to
15 remove “Exception 7” to the Title Report issued by Ticor. On or about November 5, 2020, prior
16 to close of escrow on the Property, Ticor thereafter removed the Notice of Lis Pendens as an
17 exception to clear and free title to the Property, by issuing an Amended Preliminary Title
18 Report, with Exception 7, the Notice of Lis Pendens, removed as an exception to free and clear
19 title from the Title Report.
20 70. At the time that 24 Asset Management Corp. directed Ticor to remove Exception
21 7 to the Ticor Title Report, on or about October 20-22, 2020, and prior to the close of escrow of
22 the property, on August 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate,
23 staying this Court’s Order expunging the Lis Pendens. At the time of the close of escrow on the
24 Property, unknown to the Wenyons, the Notice of Lis Pendens was still recorded and still in
25 effect as an impediment to free and clear title to the Property. A true and correct copy of the
26 August 27, 2020, Court of Appeal order staying the expunging of the Lis Pendens is attached
27 hereto as Exhibit G.
28
4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 17 –
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT
1 71. The Wenyons relied on the amended title report, removing Exception 7, the
2 Notice of Lis Pendens, from the title report, believing that the Notice of Lis Pendens was
3 judicially removed and was no longer an impediment on obtaining free and clear title to the
4 Property.
5 72. 24 Asset Management Corp., with knowledge that the Wenyons were the
6 prospective purchasers of the Property, had a duty to the Wenyons regarding the sale, close of
7 escrow, and conditions affecting free and clear title to the Property including, but not limited to,
8 the Notice of Lis Pendens that was recorded on the Property.
9 73. 24 Asset Management Corp. breached that duty by directing Ticor to remove
10 Exception 7 to the Ticor Title Report, on or about October 20-22, 2020, prior to the close of
11 escrow of the property, based on the Judgment in the Nunn litigation when, in fact, on
12 August 27, 2020 the Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s
13 Order expunging the Lis Pendens. At the time of the close of escrow on the Property, the
14 Notice of Lis Pendens was still recorded and still in effect as an impediment to free and clear
15 title to the Property.
16 74. The Wenyons would not have purchased the Property and made this clear during
17 the course of the potential sale, if there was a Lis Pendens on the Property. The Wenyons
18 purchased the Property, relying on the amended title report issued that removed Exception 7, the
19 Notice of Lis Pendens, as an exception to free and clear title. The Wenyons have been harmed
20 in that after the purchase of the Property, and prior to being dragged into this 11+ year
21 continuing Nunn litigation, began spending monies to renovate the Property and turn the
22 Property into a commercial venture, including residential and commercial units.
23 Cross-complainants Wenyons have suffered damages including, but not limited to, not having
24 free and clear title to the Property, not being able to renovate the Property, increase in labor and
2
Preview
1 Ronald L. Richman (SBN 139189) BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC 2 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104-4146 3 Telephone: 415.352.2700 4 Facsimile: 415.352.2701 E-mail: ron.richman@bullivant.com 5 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants 6 ARNOLD WENYON and DESIREE A. WENYON, 7 as Incumbent Trustees of the Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated July 26, 2004 (sued herein as 8 DOE 21 and DOE 22) 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF NAPA 12 13 GERALD L. NUNN and JUDITH L. NUNN, Case No.: 26-56767 14 Plaintiffs, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS AND 15 v. CROSS-COMPLAINANTS ARNOLD 16 WENYON AND DESIREE A. WENYON, J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, a New AS INCUMBENT TRUSTEES OF THE 17 York Corporation purported successor in WENYON LIVING TRUST UNDER interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL DECLARATION DATED JULY 24, 2004 18 BANK F.A., a Washington Corporation; MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO 19 CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE FILE VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPANY, a California corporation; and CROSS-COMPLAINT 20 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, DATE: April 23, 2024 21 title, estate, lien, or interest in the property TIME: 8:30 a.m. described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' DEPT: B 22 title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto, Hon. Scott R.L. Young 23 named as DOES 21-100, inclusive, COMPLAINT: August 31, 2011 TRIAL: Not Set 24 Defendants. 25 ARNOLD WENYON and DESIREE A. 26 WENYON, as Incumbent Trustees of the 27 Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated July 26, 2004 28 Cross-complainants, 4894-9991-0575.1 11068/00028 –1– [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS- COMPLAINT 1 v. 2 3 GERALD L. NUNN; JUDITH L. NUNN; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and ROES 4 1 through 20, inclusive, 5 Cross-defendants. 6 7 Defendants and cross-complainants Arnold Wenyon and Desiree A. Wenyon, as 8 Incumbent Trustees of the Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated July 26, 2004 9 (“Cross-complainants”) Motion for Leave to File a Verified First Amended Cross-complaint 10 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §473(a)(1) came on regularly for hearing on this date. 11 Having read and considered the motion, all papers submitted by the parties in support or 12 opposition thereof, arguments of counsel and good cause appearing: 13 IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED: 14 1. Cross-complainants’ motion is granted, and a summons shall issue. 15 Cross-complainants shall file and serve their verified first amended cross complaint, attached 16 hereto as Exhibit A, by ______________________, 2024 with the clerk of the court issuing 17 summons on filing of the verified first amended cross-complaint; and 18 2. Cross-defendant 24 Asset Management Corp shall have thirty (30) days from the 19 date of service thereof to file its response to the verified first amended cross-complaint. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: April _____, 2024 22 HON. SCOTT R.L. YOUNG 23 JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT 24 25 ***** 26 27 28 4894-9991-0575.1 11068/00028 –2– [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS- COMPLAINT [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS‐COMPLAINT EXHIBIT A 1 Ronald L. Richman (SBN 139189) BULLIVANT HOUSER BAILEY PC 2 101 Montgomery Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94104-4146 3 Telephone: 415.352.2700 4 Facsimile: 415.352.2701 E-mail: ron.richman@bullivant.com 5 Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-complainants 6 ARNOLD WENYON and DESIREE A. WENYON, 7 as Incumbent Trustees of the Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated July 26, 2004 (sued herein as 8 DOE 21 and DOE 22) 9 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF NAPA 12 13 GERALD L. NUNN and JUDITH L. NUNN, Case No.: 26-56767 14 Plaintiffs, VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ARNOLD 15 v. WENYON AND DESIREE A. WENYON, 16 AS INCUMBENT TRUSTEES OF THE J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, a New WENYON LIVING TRUST UNDER 17 York Corporation purported successor in DECLARATION DATED JULY 26, 2004 interest to WASHINGTON MUTUAL FOR: 18 BANK F.A., a Washington Corporation; CALIFORNIA RECONVEYANCE 1. QUIET TITLE; 19 COMPANY, a California corporation; and 2. DECLARATORY RELIEF; 20 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, and all persons 3. BREACH OF CONTRACT; unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, 4. UNJUST ENRICHMENT 21 title, estate, lien, or interest in the property 5. FRAUD; described in the complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' 6. NEGLIGENT 22 title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto, MISREPRESENTATION; 23 named as DOES 21-100, inclusive, 7. NEGLIGENCE; AND 8. TORT OF ANOTHER 24 Defendants. 25 ARNOLD WENYON and DESIREE A. 26 WENYON, as Incumbent Trustees of the Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated 27 July 26, 2004 28 Cross-complainants, 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –1– VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 v. 2 3 GERALD L. NUNN; JUDITH L. NUNN; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; 24 4 ASSET MANAGEMENT CORP., a Florida corporation licensed to do business in 5 California; and ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, 6 Cross-defendants. 7 8 For their Verified First Amended Cross-complaint for Declaratory Relief; To Quiet 9 Title; Breach of Contract; Unjust Enrichment; Fraud; and Negligent Misrepresentations, 10 Cross-complainants Arnold Wenyon and Desiree Wenyon, as Incumbent Trustees of the 11 Wenyon Living Trust Under Declaration Dated July 26, 2004 (“Wenyons”) allege as follows. 12 PARTIES 13 1. On or about October 28, 2020, the Wenyons entered into a California Residential 14 Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions (“Residential Purchase Agreement”) with 15 defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, (“Chase”) for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary 16 Street, Napa, California, 94559, APN 003-198-001-000 (hereinafter referred to as the 17 “Property”), which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn and 18 Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of the 19 Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. On November 25, 2020, a 20 Grant Deed was recorded in the Official Records, County of Napa, Doc. 2020-0031549, wherein 21 cross-defendant Chase conveyed the Property to the Wenyons. A true and correct copy of the 22 Grant Deed is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 23 2. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 24 that cross-defendants Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn claim a competing right, title, lien or 25 interest to the same Property owned by cross-complainants Wenyons, as more fully described 26 below. 27 3. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 28 that at all relevant times, that cross-defendant Chase is a National Association that conducts 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –2– VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 business in California, including the sale of real property and specifically, the Residential 2 Purchase Agreement with cross-complainants Wenyons for the Property which is the subject of 3 plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint 4 filed in this action. 5 4. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 6 that at all relevant times, cross-defendant 24 Asset Management Corp. is a Florida corporation 7 authorized and licensed to do business in California, with a California presence in San Diego, 8 California. 9 5. Defendants ROES 1 through 20, inclusive, are sued under fictitious names. Their 10 true names and capacities are unknown to cross-complainants. When their true names and 11 capacities are ascertained, cross-complainants will amend this cross-complaint to show such 12 true names and capacities. Cross-complainants are informed and believe, and on that basis 13 allege, that ROES 1 through 10, inclusive, were responsible in some manner for the events and 14 happenings set forth in this cross-complaint and caused, or were responsible, for the damages 15 proximately caused thereby or are otherwise liable therefore. 16 6. The true names and capacities of those cross-defendants named herein as any and 17 all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the 18 Property adverse to cross-complainants’ title or any cloud on cross-complainant’s title thereto, 19 named as ROES 1 through 20, inclusive (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “unknown cross- 20 defendants”) are unknown to cross-complainants and, therefore, cross-complainants sue said 21 cross-defendants by such fictitious names. Cross-complainants will seek leave of court to 22 amend this cross-complaint to include the true names and capacities of such unknown 23 cross-defendants when the same are ascertained. Cross-complainants are informed and believe 24 and thereupon alleges that each of these unknown cross-defendants claim some right, title, 25 estate, lien, or interest in the Property adverse to cross-complainant’s title and interest, that the 26 claims of all of these unknown cross-defendants are without any right whatsoever and, further, 27 that these unknown cross-defendants have no right, title, estate, lien, or interest whatsoever in 28 the Property, or any part thereof. 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –3– VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 BACKGROUND 2 7. On or about October 21, 2020, escrow was opened up between 3 cross-complainants Wenyons and Chase for the Property. Cross-complainants Wenyons are 4 informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Chase chose the company for the escrow, 5 Ticor Title Company of America (“Ticor”). 6 8. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 7 that at all relevant times, Chase opened escrow on the Property, by and through its agent or 8 affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp., a Florida corporation licensed to do 9 business in California, its type of business identified with the California Secretary of State as 10 “Asset Management/Real Estate”, with its principal office in the State of California located in 11 San Diego, California. 12 9. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 13 that on or about October 20, 2020, Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted 14 party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange, inquired to Ticor regarding the 15 anticipated title report, asking Ticor to confirm that title is clear and there was no pending 16 litigation, and asking for an updated title report. 17 10. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 18 that on or about October 22, 2020, Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted 19 party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange, inquired to Ticor regarding the 20 anticipated title report, asking when an updated title report would be provided. 21 11. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 22 that on or about October 22, 2020, Ticor, in response to the inquiry by Chase, by and through its 23 agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange, 24 provided Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management 25 Corp., a copy of the Amended Preliminary Report, Amendment No. 1, effective date October 26 16, 2020. The Amended Preliminary Report, Amendment No. 1, identifies the “Client Contact” 27 as 24 Asset Management Corp. Under Curative Items, the following was identified: “Item 7; 28 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –4– VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 Description: Notice of Lis Pendens”. Paragraph No. 7 to the Amended Preliminary Report, 2 Amendment No. 1, under “Exceptions”, identifies the following: 3 7. A pending Court Action as disclosed by a recorded notice: 4 EXCEPTIONS 5 (Continued) 6 CLTA Preliminary Title Report 7 lPrelm (DSI Rev. 8/15/16) Page 7 Order No.: 00733594-005-SM5- CAB 8 Plaintiff: Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn 9 Defendant: J.P. Morgan Chase and Company, a New York 10 Corporation, purported successor in interest to Washington Mutual Bank F. A., a Washington Corporation; Washington Mutual Bank, 11 F. A., a Washington Corporation; California Reconveyance Company, a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, 12 inclusive, and all persons unknown, claim any legal or equitable right, title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the 13 complaint adverse to Plaintiffs' title, or any cloud on Plaintiffs' title thereto, named as Does 21-100,inclusive 14 County: Napa 15 Court: Superior Court of the State of California County of Napa 16 Case No.: 26-56767 17 Nature of Action: Real Property 18 Recorded: April 4, 2017 19 20 Recording No.: 2017-0007969, of Official Records 21 A true and correct copy of the Amended Preliminary Report, Amendment No. 1, is 22 attached hereto as Exhibit C. 23 12. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 24 that on or about October 22, 2020, Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted 25 party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange, inquired to Ticor why the 26 Lis Pendens still appeared on the title report. In the e-mail, Chase, by and through its agent or 27 affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp., attached a copy of the 28 January 30, 2020, Judgment filed in this litigation, entering a judgment of dismissal in favor of 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –5– VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 Chase and against plaintiffs and cross-defendants Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn. A true 2 and correct copy of the October 22, 2020, e-mail exchange, including the attachment, is attached 3 hereto as Exhibit D. 4 13. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 5 that Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management 6 Corp, by questioning the Amended Preliminary Report, Amendment No. 1 and providing Ticor 7 with a copy of the January 30, 2020 Judgment, was directing Ticor to remove Exception 7, the 8 identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report, despite the fact that on or about 9 June 1, 2020 the Nunns appealed the January 30, 2020, Judgment, and on August 27, 2020, the 10 Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging the 11 Lis Pendens. 12 14. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 13 that on or about October 22, 2020, Ticor, in an e-mail exchange with Chase, by and through its 14 agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp., responded by stating the title 15 issue would be sent to the title officer for review. 16 15. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 17 that on or about October 27, 2020, Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted 18 party, 24 Asset Management Corp., in an e-mail exchange, again inquired to Ticor about the 19 title policy. In response, Ticor provided a Supplemental Report deleting Item 7, the reference to 20 the Lis Pendens, from the preliminary title report. A true and correct copy of the 21 October 27, 2020, e-mail and attachment is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 22 16. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 23 that 24 Asset Management Corp. was aware that the Wenyons were the purchasers of the 24 property at issue, 1042 Seminary Street, Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of 25 plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint 26 filed in this action. 27 17. On or about October 28, 2020, the Wenyons entered into the Residential 28 Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street, Napa, 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –6– VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn and 2 Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of the 3 Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4 18. The Wenyons were looking for an investment property that was clear and free 5 from any clouds on the title and not the subject of any pending litigation. 6 19. In the Exempt Seller Disclosure, a form in the Residential Purchase Agreement, 7 Chase represented the following: 8 4. Are you (Seller) aware of any of the following? (Explain any “yes” answers below: 9 I. Matters affecting title of the Property……..[x]No. 10 11 20. In the Seller Property Questionnaire, a form in the Residential Purchase 12 Agreement, Chase represented the following: 13 5. Statutorily or Contractually Required or Related: Are you (Seller) aware of… 14 I. Matters affecting title of the Property…[x]No. 15 14. Title, Ownership Liens, and Legal Claims: Are you Seller) 16 aware of… 17 A. Any other person or entity on title other than Seller(s) signing this form [x]No. 18 C. Past, present, pending or threatened lawsuits, settlements, 19 mediations, arbitration, tax liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government hearings 20 affecting or relating to the Property, Homeowner Association or neighborhood…[x]No. 21 22 21. Cross-complainants Wenyons, relying upon the representations of Chase in the 23 Residential Purchase Agreement, and the Ticor amended title reports deleting the reference to 24 the Lis Pendens and underlying litigation between the Nunns and Chase as directed by Chase 25 and/or its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp, executed the 26 Residential Purchase Agreement. 27 22. On November 25, 2020, a Grant Deed was recorded in the Official Records, 28 County of Napa, Doc. 2020-0031549, wherein cross-defendant Chase conveyed the Property to 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –7– VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 cross-complainants Wenyons. A true and correct copy of the Grant Deed is attached hereto as 2 Exhibit B. 3 23. In mid-August 2021 cross-complainants Wenyons received a letter from Alan 4 Charles Dell’Ario, counsel for the Nunns, dated August 11, 2021. The letter advised the 5 Wenyons, for the first time, that: (a) the Nunns still had a claim of title to the Property; (b) there 6 was a continuing underlying litigation between the Nunns and Chase; (c) there was a Lis 7 Pendens still recorded on the Property; and (d) the Wenyons would be added as Doe Defendants 8 to the underlying litigation. A true and correct copy of the August 11, 2021, letter is attached 9 hereto as Exhibit F. 10 24. At the time of receipt of the August 11, 2021, letter, cross-complainants 11 Wenyons had already retained an Architect and other professionals, and incurred over $100,000 12 in fees regarding intended repairs, updating the Property to be code compliant, and remodeling 13 to the Property. In addition, cross-complainants retained a contractor to start necessary 14 foundation repairs, updating the Property to be code compliant, replacement, shoring, repair of 15 footings, foundation, porches, etc., all of which were necessary and a part of the Wenyons’ plan 16 to use the Property as an investment property. The repairs/remodeling have not commenced and 17 are now on hold pending resolution of this lawsuit. 18 25. Further, the Wenyons have incurred additional costs including interest on the 19 Home Equity Line of Credit established to pay the purchase price of the Property; payment of 20 property taxes; closing costs associated with the purchase; and other improvements made to the 21 Property prior to the August 11, 2021, letter from counsel Alan Charles Dell’Ario, counsel to 22 the Nunns. In addition, the costs of labor and materials continues to increase, in terms of 23 anticipated repairs, updating the Property to be code compliant, and remodeling to the Property. 24 26. In addition, the Wenyons are unable to use the Property as intended, rental units, 25 and are losing anticipated revenue because they are unable to lease any units in the Property due 26 to the pending litigation. If, as a result of this pending litigation it is determined that the Nunns 27 have a superior right of title to the Property, the Wenyons will suffer additional losses because 28 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –8– VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 the price of investment property continues to skyrocket in the SF Bay Area, including Napa, 2 California. 3 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (Quiet Title) 5 Against Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn and ROES 1-20 6 27. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though 7 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-26, inclusive, of this cross-complaint. 8 28. Cross-complainants Wenyons seek to quiet title to the Property against the claims 9 of cross-defendants Geral. L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn, and ROES 1-20, inclusive, in that the 10 Wenyons seek a judgment establishing that the Wenyons are the sole and exclusive owners of 11 the Property. 12 29. Cross-complainants Wenyon are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 13 that Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn claim an interest in the Property as alleged in their 14 Third Amended Complaint against the Wenyons, added as DOE 21 and DOE 22, in the instant 15 action. The claims of the cross-defendants, and each of them, adverse to cross-complainant’s 16 title, are without any right whatsoever and such cross-defendants have no right, title, estate, lien 17 or interest whatsoever in the Property, or any part thereof that is superior to cross-complainants 18 Wenyons’ title. 19 30. Cross-complainants Wenyons seek to quiet title to the Property, as of 20 November 25, 2020, the date that Chase deeded the Property to cross-complainants Wenyons. 21 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below. 22 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 23 (Declaratory Relief) 24 Against Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn and ROES 1-20 25 31. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though 26 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-30, inclusive, of this cross-complaint. 27 32. A dispute has arisen between cross-complainants and cross-defendants, and each 28 of them, as to their respective rights and claims to title to and interest in the Property. 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 –9– VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, cross-defendants, 2 and each of them, claim right, title or interest to the disputed portion of property on which a 3 portion of the planter box and irrigation system are situated. 4 34. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between cross-complainants 5 Wenyons and cross-defendants, in that cross-complainants Wenyons contend that 6 cross-complainants have a valid fee simple title interest in the Property, and that 7 cross-defendants have no right, title, estate, lien or interest whatsoever in the Property superior 8 to cross-complainants Wenyons’ fee simple title. 9 35. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under these 10 circumstances to resolve claims of cross-complainants Wenyons and cross-defendants, and each 11 of them, to the Property, in order that cross-complainants may ascertain their rights and duties 12 with respect to the Property. 13 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below. 14 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (Breach of Contract) 16 Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 17 36. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though 18 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-35, inclusive, of this cross-complaint. 19 37. On or about October 28, 2020, cross-complainants Wenyons entered into the 20 Residential Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street, 21 Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn 22 and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of 23 the Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 24 38. Cross-complainants Wenyons performed all conditions on their part to be 25 performed including, but not limited to, closing escrow and paying Chase, in full, for the 26 Property as required under the Residential Purchase Agreement, property that Chase represented 27 in the Residential Purchase Agreement that: (a) there were no matters affecting title to the 28 Property; (b) there were no other persons on title to the Property other than Chase; and (c) there 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 10 – VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 were no past, present, pending or threatened lawsuits, settlements, mediations, arbitration, tax 2 liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government 3 hearings affecting or relating to the Property. 4 39. Within four years past, cross-defendant Chase breached and broke the 5 Residential Purchase Agreement by purporting to sell the Property to cross-complainants 6 Wenyons when Chase knew, or should have known, that: (a) there were matters affecting title to 7 the Property; (b) the Nunns claimed title to the Property; and (c) there was a present, pending 8 lawsuit, i.e., this pending litigation, affecting or relating to the Property. 9 40. Chase, by and through its affiliate or agent, or contracted party, 24 Asset 10 Management Corp, further breached the Residential Purchase Agreement by knowingly 11 directing Ticor to change the title report to remove Exception 7, the identification of the Lis 12 Pendens, from the title report, when on or about June 1, 2020, the Nunns appealed the January 13 30, 2020, Judgment, and on August 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of 14 Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging the Lis Pendens. 15 41. As a direct and proximate result of cross-defendant Chase’s conduct, and the 16 conduct of 24 Asset Management Corp, cross-complainants have sustained damages, in excess 17 of $25,000, such damages dependent on whether there is an adjudication in favor of the Nunns 18 or cross-complainants Wenyons, as to title and ownership of the Property, in an amount to be 19 proven at trial. 20 42. Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in 21 this action, recoverable to the prevailing party under the Residential Purchase Agreement. 22 Cross-complainants Wenyons request that the Court award cross-complainants their attorneys’ 23 fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying litigation and prosecuting this 24 cross-complaint. 25 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 11 – VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Unjust Enrichment) 3 Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 4 43. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though 5 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-42, inclusive, of this cross-complaint. 6 44. On or about October 28, 2020, cross-complainants Wenyons entered into the 7 Residential Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street, 8 Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn 9 and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of 10 the Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 11 45. Cross-complainants Wenyons performed all conditions on their part to be 12 performed including, but not limited to, closing escrow and paying Chase, in full, for the 13 Property as required under the Residential Purchase Agreement, property that Chase represented 14 in the Residential Purchase Agreement that: (a) there were no matters affecting title to the 15 Property; (b) there were no other persons on title to the Property other than Chase; and (c) there 16 were no past, present, pending or threatened lawsuits, settlements, mediations, arbitration, tax 17 liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government 18 hearings affecting or relating to the Property. 19 46. Chase knew, or should have known, that: (a) there were matters affecting title to 20 the Property; (b) the Nunns claimed title to the Property; and (c) there was a present, pending 21 lawsuit, i.e., this pending litigation, affecting or relating to the Property. 22 47. Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset 23 Management Corp, further knowingly directed Ticor to change the title report to remove 24 Exception 7, the identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report, when on or about 25 June 1, 2020 the Nunns appealed the January 30, 2020 Judgment, and on August 27, 2020 the 26 Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging the 27 Lis Pendens. 28 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 12 – VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 48. Should there be an adjudication in favor of the Nunns as to title and ownership of 2 the Property, cross-complainants Wenyons are entitled to full restitution of all monies paid to 3 Chase for the purported sale of the Property to the Wenyons, $801,999, plus any and all closing 4 costs, and associated damages should the Wenyons lose the Property, in an amount to be proven 5 at trial. 6 49. Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in 7 this action, recoverable to the prevailing party under the Residential Purchase Agreement. 8 Cross-complainants Wenyons request that the Court award cross-complainants their attorneys’ 9 fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying litigation and prosecuting this 10 cross-complaint. 11 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below. 12 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 (Fraud) 14 Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 15 50. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though 16 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-49, inclusive, of this cross-complaint. 17 51. On or about October 28, 2020, cross-complainants Wenyons entered into the 18 Residential Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street, 19 Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. Nunn 20 and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct copy of 21 the Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 22 52. In the Residential Purchase Agreement, Chase falsely represented to the 23 Wenyons that: (a) there were no matters affecting title to the Property; (b) there were no other 24 persons on title to the Property other than Chase; and (c) there were no past, present, pending or 25 threatened lawsuits, settlements, mediations, arbitration, tax liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of 26 default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government hearings affecting or relating to the 27 Property. 28 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 13 – VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 53. When Chase made these representations, it knew them to be false and made these 2 representations with the intent to deceive the Wenyons and induce the Wenyons into executing 3 the Residential Purchase Agreement. These false representations were made with the intent that 4 the Wenyons would act in reliance upon these false representations and execute the Residential 5 Purchase Agreement. 6 54. Chase further knowingly and falsely, by and through its agent or affiliate, or 7 contracted party, 24 Asset Management Corp, directed Ticor to change the title report to remove 8 Exception 7, the identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report when on or about 9 June 1, 2020, the Nunns appealed the January 30, 2020, Judgment, and on August 27, 2020 the 10 Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging the 11 Lis Pendens. When Chase directed Ticor to change the title report to remove Exception 7, the 12 identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report, it did so with the intent on inducing the 13 Wenyons to execute the Residential Purchase Agreement. 14 55. Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset 15 Management Corp, by its wrongful actions identified above, intended to induce, and did induce, 16 cross-complainants Wenyon to rely upon the false representations and execute the Residential 17 Purchase Agreement. 18 56. As a direct and proximate result of cross-defendant Chase’s conduct, 19 cross-complainants have sustained damages, in excess of $25,000, such damages dependent on 20 whether there is an adjudication in favor of the Nunns or cross-complainants Wenyons, as to 21 title and ownership of the Property, in an amount to be proven at trial. 22 57. Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in 23 this action, recoverable to the prevailing party under the Residential Purchase Agreement. 24 Cross-complainants Wenyons request that the Court award cross-complainants their attorneys’ 25 fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying litigation and prosecuting this 26 cross-complaint. 27 58. The aforementioned conduct of cross-defendant Chase was an intentional 28 misrepresentation, deceit with the intention on the part of defendants of thereby depriving 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 14 – VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 plaintiffs of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury and was despicable conduct that 2 subject the plaintiffs to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the plaintiffs’ 3 rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages. 4 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below. 5 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (Negligent Misrepresentation) 7 Against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. 8 59. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though 9 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-58, inclusive, of this cross-complaint. 10 60. On or about October 28, 2020, cross-complainants Wenyons entered into the 11 Residential Purchase Agreement with Chase for the Property identified as 1042 Seminary Street, 12 Napa, California, 94559, which is the subject of plaintiffs’ and cross-defendants’ Gerald L. 13 Nunn and Judith L. Nunn Third Amended Complaint filed in this action. A true and correct 14 copy of the Residential Purchase Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 15 61. In the Residential Purchase Agreement, Chase falsely represented to the 16 Wenyons that: (a) there were no matters affecting title to the Property; (b) there were no other 17 persons on title to the Property other than Chase; and (c) there were no past, present, pending or 18 threatened lawsuits, settlements, mediations, arbitration, tax liens, mechanics’ liens, notice of 19 default, bankruptcy or other court filings, or government hearings affecting or relating to the 20 Property. 21 62. When Chase made these representations, it had no reasonable ground for 22 believing the representations were true and made these representations with the intent to induce 23 the Wenyons into executing the Residential Purchase Agreement. These false representations 24 were made with the intent that the Wenyons would act in reliance upon these false 25 representations and execute the Residential Purchase Agreement. 26 63. Chase, by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset 27 Management Corp, further knowingly and falsely directed Ticor to change the title report to 28 remove Exception 7, the identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report when on or 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 15 – VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 about June 1, 2020 the Nunns appealed the January 30, 2020 Judgment, and on August 27, 2020 2 the Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s Order expunging 3 the Lis Pendens. When Chase by and through its agent or affiliate, or contracted party, 24 Asset 4 Management Corp, directed Ticor to change the title report to remove Exception 7, the 5 identification of the Lis Pendens, from the title report, it had no reasonable ground to believe the 6 representation was true and made such representations with the intent on inducing the Wenyons 7 to execute the Residential Purchase Agreement. 8 64. Chase, by its wrongful actions identified above, intended to induce, and did 9 induce, cross-complainants Wenyon to rely upon the false representations and execute the 10 Residential Purchase Agreement. 11 65. As a direct and proximate result of cross-defendant Chase’s conduct, 12 cross-complainants have sustained damages, in excess of $25,000, such damages dependent on 13 whether there is an adjudication in favor of the Nunns or cross-complainants Wenyons, as to 14 title and ownership of the Property, in an amount to be proven at trial. 15 66. Cross-complainants have incurred, and will continue to incur, attorneys’ fees in 16 this action, recoverable to the prevailing party under the Residential Purchase Agreement. 17 Cross-complainants Wenyons request that the Court award cross-complainants their attorneys’ 18 fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying litigation and prosecuting this cross- 19 complaint. 20 WHEREFORE, cross-complainants pray for judgment as set forth below. 21 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 (Negligence) 23 Against 24 Asset Management Corp. 24 67. Cross-complainants Wenyons reallege and incorporate by reference, as though 25 fully set forth, each and every allegation in Paragraphs 1-66, inclusive, of this cross-complaint. 26 68. Cross-complainants Wenyons are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, 27 that at all relevant times during the sale, closing, escrow, 24 Asset Management Corp. was 28 aware, through e-mail correspondence and documents including, but not limited to, the Report 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 16 – VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 of New Sale, California Residential Purchase Agreement and Joint Escrow Instructions and 2 Addenda, Title Report from Ticor, including, but not limited to preliminary title reports and 3 Amended Preliminary Report from Ticor, that the Wenyons were the prospective purchasers of 4 the Property, that Chase was the seller, that Ticor was the title company, escrow company, 5 involved in the purchase of the Property, that there was a Notice of Lis Pendens recorded on the 6 Property, that there was a litigation between Chase and the prior owners of the Property, 7 Gerald L. Nunn and Judith, Gerald L. Nunn and Judith L. Nunn v. J.P. Morgan Chase & 8 Company, et. al., Napa County Superior Court, Case No.: 26-56767 (“Nunn litigation”), and 9 that the law firm of Bryan Cave LLP, including Daniel T. Rockey, counsel of record today in 10 this continuing litigation, was (and is) representing JPMorgan Chase in the Nunn litigation. 11 69. Cross-complainants are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that 12 24 Asset Management Corp., apparently and wrongfully relying on a Judgment entered on 13 January 30, 2020, in the Nunn litigation, once again, identifying Bryan Cave LLP and Daniel T. 14 Rockey, as counsel for JPMorgan Chase, on or about October 20-22, 2020, directed Ticor to 15 remove “Exception 7” to the Title Report issued by Ticor. On or about November 5, 2020, prior 16 to close of escrow on the Property, Ticor thereafter removed the Notice of Lis Pendens as an 17 exception to clear and free title to the Property, by issuing an Amended Preliminary Title 18 Report, with Exception 7, the Notice of Lis Pendens, removed as an exception to free and clear 19 title from the Title Report. 20 70. At the time that 24 Asset Management Corp. directed Ticor to remove Exception 21 7 to the Ticor Title Report, on or about October 20-22, 2020, and prior to the close of escrow of 22 the property, on August 27, 2020, the Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, 23 staying this Court’s Order expunging the Lis Pendens. At the time of the close of escrow on the 24 Property, unknown to the Wenyons, the Notice of Lis Pendens was still recorded and still in 25 effect as an impediment to free and clear title to the Property. A true and correct copy of the 26 August 27, 2020, Court of Appeal order staying the expunging of the Lis Pendens is attached 27 hereto as Exhibit G. 28 4857-6219-9212.1 11068/00028 – 17 – VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED CROSS-COMPLAINT 1 71. The Wenyons relied on the amended title report, removing Exception 7, the 2 Notice of Lis Pendens, from the title report, believing that the Notice of Lis Pendens was 3 judicially removed and was no longer an impediment on obtaining free and clear title to the 4 Property. 5 72. 24 Asset Management Corp., with knowledge that the Wenyons were the 6 prospective purchasers of the Property, had a duty to the Wenyons regarding the sale, close of 7 escrow, and conditions affecting free and clear title to the Property including, but not limited to, 8 the Notice of Lis Pendens that was recorded on the Property. 9 73. 24 Asset Management Corp. breached that duty by directing Ticor to remove 10 Exception 7 to the Ticor Title Report, on or about October 20-22, 2020, prior to the close of 11 escrow of the property, based on the Judgment in the Nunn litigation when, in fact, on 12 August 27, 2020 the Court of Appeal granted the Nunns’ Writ of Mandate, staying this Court’s 13 Order expunging the Lis Pendens. At the time of the close of escrow on the Property, the 14 Notice of Lis Pendens was still recorded and still in effect as an impediment to free and clear 15 title to the Property. 16 74. The Wenyons would not have purchased the Property and made this clear during 17 the course of the potential sale, if there was a Lis Pendens on the Property. The Wenyons 18 purchased the Property, relying on the amended title report issued that removed Exception 7, the 19 Notice of Lis Pendens, as an exception to free and clear title. The Wenyons have been harmed 20 in that after the purchase of the Property, and prior to being dragged into this 11+ year 21 continuing Nunn litigation, began spending monies to renovate the Property and turn the 22 Property into a commercial venture, including residential and commercial units. 23 Cross-complainants Wenyons have suffered damages including, but not limited to, not having 24 free and clear title to the Property, not being able to renovate the Property, increase in labor and 2