Preview
Bruce
25 N.
C.
14m,
Williams
Street,
BCW
suite
Consulting
830 JUN 1 9 2019
D
Ix)
San Jose, CA. 951 12
408 702-7914
DJ Bcw()‘)()5g(L g mail.com
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNT OF SANTA CLARA
191 N. FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CA. 951 13
BRUCE C WILLIAMS, Case No.: 18cv328516
Plaintiff,
DECLARATION/RESPONSE OF BRUCE
C. WILLIAMS
vs.
Date: June, 20. ?,O\C\
Time: 9:00AM
BAYVIEW SERVICING LLC
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
LOAN, Dept.: 9
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AND
SERVCES. FNTERBAY FUNDING
DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICE
AND DOES 1-50
Defendants.
15
l6 Plaintiff. Plaintiff Bruce C. Williams was at all times mentioned herein an individual residing
within the State ofCalifomia, County of Santa Clara.
17
l8
Defendant. Fidelity National Title and Services is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation
l9
organized and existing under the laws 0f the State of California, authorized t0 transact the
20
business of insurance in the State of California, and transacting insurance business in the State of
California, County 0f Santa Clara.
l. It is my opinion that the note created by Bruce C. Williams with Katherine Brown his
daughter is only at most a promissory note and not a mortgage note, because no mortgage
note has ever been created in the manner that this note was created, at best a promissory
note at worst not a valid note at all. You cannot create a mortgage note and deed 0f trust
0n property owned by two people when only one of the parties signs the note and deed of
trust, no matter what rationale one uses to just it validity, itmust be based on facts not
DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS -
l
what was said 0r filed in other cases, n0 matter what those cases stated 0r published in
Ix.)
any court. In as much as the deed Oftrust was modified by someone and not the principle
Lu
without the principal’s consent 0r approval at worst its is invalid and at best from
Bayview’s point of view it is a debt created and makes the note a promissory note, with
all the limits and characteristics of such a note, one cannot make a promissory note
without a valid deed 0f trust and into something itis not n0 matter how much verbiage
one attaches to it. It is not a proper note and deed oftrust. In as much as itis a second
note, because the first loan from Yosemite Bank had never been re-conveyed so the note
purchased by Bayview Services isa second note (not a first note as incorrectly stated by
Bayview) and a promissory note of which no payments were made for over six years asis
required for a promissory note which allows the note to fall under the laws that apply to
the statue of limitations, then this note is void after six years and cannot be modified aften
that date legally as Bayview has tried to do. thru deception and sleight of hand with false
promises and illegal moves. The original note ispromissory note with a deed oftrust that
is not valid because the property is owned by two parties at the time of creation because
14
one of the recorded owners ofthe property did not sign the note or the deed of trust. So
15
Bayview can not under any circumstances do an non judicial foreclosure legally on this
16
property, a best they could try a non-judicial foreclosure but a non-judicial foreclosure is
17
not allowed. The attached Preliminary Title Report shows that the propeny is in the
18 S.Williams. ..which means Deed ofTrust
names of Bruce C. Williams and Jane . that the
19 put forward by Bayview is invalid...because Jane S. Williams did not sign itand was
always on the property. ....no what was stated by third parties and these statements cannot
be give the power of law because someone stated it in a prior court case. ....so the note on
the property held by Bayview is invalid and at most is a promissory note nota mortgage
note and hence Bayview cannot collect advanced funds as they do to make it so that the
owner can never pay off the debt before foreclosure ( a practice that Bayview does in
most of its case and should be illegal and invalid technique used by them)... and they
cannot do a non-judicial foreclosure.
DECLARATlON OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS - 2
2. As far as the Assignment of the deed of Trust, since the assignment 0f the Deed of Trust
is all marked up and done in Florida it isnot valid in the state ofCalifomia to do a non-
judicial foreclosure.
As far as the company 0f Bayview Servicing is concerned, because the company is not
registered in the State 0f California itcannot foreclose on a California property. We
don’t think that the foreclosure isvalid. And has incorrectly stated that the alleged note
and deed of trust is a first note and deed of trust which isincorrect as can be seen in the
attached preliminary title report which shows that the first note and deed 0f trust iswith
Yosemite Bank. Which is another instance of Bayview’s effort to twist the truth
incorrectly in their favor.
10 As far as Bayview’s requeSt for Judicial Notice in support of Demurrer, to all parties and
ll their counsels... please take note that we totally disagree with Bayview’s desire to
12
request for Judicial Notice. We declare that the Defendant desires to request Judicial
Notice is to confuse the Court with miscellaneous claims and erroneous facts from
DJ
.—
actions filed by various attorneys that were wrong and inconclusive that lacked facts.
The defendant is using these years of filing which are in general incorrect as a means to
confusing the Court. Bayview is trying to convert these mistakes and bad practices into
an argument to over whelm the Court with erroneous and volumes of data to win when
they are wrong. A review ofthe preliminary Title Report shows the vesting which is in
two parties and Bayview never notified the other party even though they knew about this
party. They are simply trying to confuse and overwhelm the Court with prior errors,
which they present as facts.
As far as Bayview’s and all other parties request for a change of Venue, to all parties and
their counsels... please take note that we totally disagree with their desire to change
venue. The primary reason for this desire to keep the venue in Santa Clara County isthat
all the actions associated with this complaint originated in Santa Clara County from the
origination of the Note to the illegal modification of the deed of trust, further the
possession to the illegally altered deed oftrust was constantly located at the titlecompany
in Santa Clara County which included all the personal associated with the original and
modification of the note and deed of trust. no one in Tuolumne County are or were ever
associate with these changes. Tuolumne would be the wrong venue forth is type 0f
DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS - 3
liability and the Title Company there has done nothing and knows nothing about this
[\J
transaction, thus all the witnesses would need to take a three-hour trip just to testify one
b.»
way or the other. Itcan be clearly seen that the Lawyers of Fidelity and others are just
trying to play a trick on the Court and the Plaintiff. It should be noted that this note never
left the Title/escrow company in Santa Clara County and was not in Tuolumne County at
n0 time, ithad nothing to do with the location of the property but only with the location
of the note, which was Santa Clara County. What they are bring up has nothing t0 do
with their Liability or property venue, they are trying to side step these issues, see the
conclusion of the World Renowned Writing expert and his opinion. He said the
modification did not occur in Tuolumne County but in Santa Clara County, where the
title/escrow company is located in Santa Clara County. All personnel and witnesses
associated with the escrow / modification live in Santa Clara County. What’s the use of
trying the case in Tuolumne County when all our witnesses and responsible personnel
associated the escrow/title modification live in Santa Clara County? The original
challenge and mistakes with the transaction all occurred in Santa Clara County, nothing
associated with this action alleged for the title company occurred in Tuolumne County.
Another factor isthat the clearance by Fidelity National Title gave to Bayview itsTitld
Insurance came from actions that occurred in Santa Clara County. There were years of
time between the original origin ofthe note and the transfer ofthe note that involved only
Santa Clara County.
The proposed motion and points and authorities are totally wrong and based o n defective
thinking and are proposed by Bayview and others in order to put the Plaintiff at a grave
disadvantage. This case cannot revolve around trickery and legal maneuvers to put the
Plaintiff at a disadvantage and cause injury.
When we purchased the subjection subject property (12892 Green Valley Circle,
Groveland, Ca. 95321, APN#:092-050-14-00), l obtained a title insurance policy. This
policy is issued by a company that searches the public records for matters that affect a
specific piece of subject property. lt was Fidelity National Title Insurance Company’s
(hereinafter called “Fidelity”) responsibility is to deliver a full and accurate accounting of
the titleissues and title problems affecting the home that lmight be purchasing.
DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS -4
8. Most ofthe time, titleinsurance companies d0 a greatjob at disclosing issues or problems
Ix)
that affect title, but they sometimes make mistakes. Prior t0 closing on my home, I should
Lu
have received a title insurance commitment or title report. That report should have
itemized the name of the current owner of the home Iwas buying. the status of real estate
taxes for the home, and then listed a whole number 0f items that affect the titleto the
home 1was purchasing. When 1 receive the titleinsurance commitment 0r title opinion, I
did not know or realize the issues that were not shown in that report. Some items
disclosed seemed to be normal and of no consequence, but others latter became real
issues and problems after Ipurchased the subject property and those issues and problems
were not attended to prior t0 handing over the money to close on the subject property.
Some ofthe items that might have been listed on my title commitment or repon include
had sole possession of the note between signature date and recording date‘ original note
was mailed by the recording office, the note was modified without the approval and
knowledge 0f principal, nullifies is connection to the deed oftrust, the note and deed of
trust is second lien which attaches a six (6) year statute of limitation. They did include
14
infomtation on easements, specific ordinances or laws, land restrictions, encroachments
15
ofbuildings or parts ofbuildings on — or other improvements t0 — the home I was buying.
16
10. Fidelity or the closing agent clearly have made a mistake in my transaction which is not
17
hard to tell from my recorded documents. Our research has shown that the title report 0r
18 and
titlecommitment failed to disclose these defects. If itfailed to disclose it the Fidelity
19 should have disclosed it, Ithen have a right under my title insurance policy to file a claim
for liability against the title insurance company.
ll. 1f the titlecommitment or title report failed to disclosed the titledefects and the closing
agent failed to provide document indicating that agent’s responsibilities in the
transaction. I attempted several time contacting my lender and having them force the
closing agent to honor itsresponsibilities regarding the defective closing documents
12. For the many buyers and sellers who go into a real estate closing thinking that there is
someone 0n their side to protect them, they should know that Closing agents and title
companies hired t0 close residential transactions normally only try to protect the lender in
the transaction.
DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS - 5
13. It was Fidelity’s responsibility is to deliver buyers and sellers an accurate title insurance
commitment or titlereport for me to review.
14. In this case if the title commitment 0r title report failed t0 disclosed the title defects, I
could have objected at that time that I didn’t know about its existence and inquired as t0
the monthly costs and other fees. The purpose 0f the title insurance commitment was to
give me notice 0f items that affect the title t0 the subject property I purchased. It’s their
responsibility to avoid future problems and issues and if an items isn’t disclosed to me in
the title insurance commitment 0r title insurance opinion, I would have a claim for that
subsequently found problem or issue against the titleinsurance company.
15. For further details and options, I might want to talk to a real estate attorney in my area
who has experience in dealing with title insurance claims.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays forjudgment as follows:
1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof;
2. For punitive and exemplary damages.
Dated this 15‘“ day ofJune, 2019
I
Bruée C. Williams
Plaintiff
DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS -6
PROOF OF SERVICE
Ix)
State ofCalifomia )
DJ ) ss.
County 0f Santa Clara )
I
a
On
am employed
party
June.
to the
in the
within
15th 2019, I
County 0f Santa
action. My
Clara,
business
State of California.
address, 525M
served the foregoing document described
I
as:
am
MKQTeZ‘Sfio
/
n
over the age 0f l8
gcge
and not
('4
‘45, I
Z
DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS
SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST
[X] (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine 1 used complied with Rule
2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the
machine to print a record of the transaction.
[X] (BY MAIL, 1013a. 2015.5 C.C.P.)
[X] I deposited such envelope in the mail at Santa Clara, California. The
envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid.
[X] 1 am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing
correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document will be deposited with the U.S.
Postal Service on this date with postage therefore fully prepaid at Santa Clara, California in the
16 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed
invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit
l7
for mailing in affidavit.
18
[ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused the foregoing envelope to be
19 delivered by hand to the addressee on the attached Service List.
20
delivered by
M
xxxx
(BY
FEDEX
FEDERAL EXPRESS ) I caused the foregoing envelope to be
‘
[X] (STATE) Ideclare under penalty 0f perjury under t e State ofi
California that the above is true and correct.
5-47 *
l
207/7 '
Name ofDeclarant 3
L
Hm» kmt’fit‘?!’
_.
’w
DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS - 7
SERVICE LIST
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY
By serving CT Corporation, Agent for Service
Gabriela Sanchez, Intake Specialist, Authorized to Accept Service
7‘“
818 West Street
Los Angeles, CA. 90017
MATTHEW S. VESTERDAHL, ATTORNEY AT LAW
WOLFE & WYMAN LLP
2301 Dupont Drive. Suite 300 -
Irvine. CA 92612
Tel. (949) 475-9200 -
Fax (949) 475-9203
Email: msvesterdah1@w01fewyman.com
Attorney for: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
ZIEVE, BRODNAX & STEELE, LLP
John C. Steele, Bar No. 179875
Samantha MacLeod, Bar No. 270770
30 Corporate Park, Suite 450
Irvine, CA 92606
Phone: (714) 848-7920
Fax: (714) 908-2615
Attorney for: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
16
EDWARD G. SCHLOSS
17 Lior Katz
3637 Motor Avenue, Suite 220
l8
Los Angeles, California 90034
19 Tel: 310-733-4488 Fax: 310-836-4888
Attorney for: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC
DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS —8
EXHIBITS
l7
l8
l9
20
21
22
23
DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS -9
Fidelity National Title Company'
PRELIMINARY REPORT
In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Fidelity National Title Company
hereby repons that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title
insurance descn’bing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forfh,insuring against loss which
may be sustained by reason of any defect, lienor encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein
or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions of
said policy forms.
The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from (he coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or
policies are set forth inAttachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitrationclause. When the
Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrab/e matters shall be arbitrated at
the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered
Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of TitleInsurance which establish a Deductible
Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liabilityfor certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One.
Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.
This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of the
facilitating
issuance of a policy of titleinsurance and no liability is assumed hereby. assumed
lf it is desired that liability be
a Binder or Commitment should be requested.
prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance,
The policy(ies) insurance
of title to be issued hereunder will be policy(ies) of Fidelity National TitleInsurance
Company, a California corporation.
Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in
Attachment One of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with
notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be
carefully considered.
lt isimportant to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of
titleand may not defects
list all liens, and encumbrances affecting title tothe land.
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company
By:
I
/ 2
A
.1
President
Countersigned By: Attest:
/([
Authorized Officer or Agent Secretary
CLTA Form - Modified (11.1706)
Preliminary Report 0515,18
Printed: @ 10:30 AM by
SCA0002402.doc
/Updated.0129.18 1 CA—FT-FSST-01510.083051-SPS—1-18-FSST—TO15000386
VisitUs on our Website: www.fnh‘ccom
Fidelity National Title Company'
ISSUING OFFICE: 3127 Transworld Drive, #130,Stockton, CA 95206
FOR SETTLEMENTINQUIRIES, CONTACT:
Company
Fidelity National Title
2315 South Bascom Ave., Suite100 -
Campbell, CA 95008
(408)371-8040 ° FAX (408)371-9174
Another Prompt Delivery From Fidelity National Title Company TitleDepartment
Where Local Experience And Expertise Make A Difference
PRELIMINARY REPORT
Amendment D
Title Officer:Erica Madrigal Escrow Officer: Juliet Belyeu
Email: eamadrigal@fnf.com Email: Juliet.Bereu@fnf.com
TitleNo.: FSST-TO15000386-EM Escrow No.: FSBC4031500230A
TO: Bruce Williams
Attn:
PROPERTY ADDRESS(ES): 12892 Green Valley Circle, Groveland, CA
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2018 at 07:30 AM
The form of policy or policiesof insurance contemplated by
title this reportis:
ALTA Loan Policy 2006
1. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED
BY THIS REPORT IS:
A Fee
2. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN:
Bruce C. Williams and Jane S. Williams, his wife, as joint tenants,subject to items 11 and 17
3. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF
CLTA Rapofl Form
Preliminary -Modified (11.17.06) 0515.18
Printed, @ 10:30 AM by
SCA0002402.doc
lUpdated.
01.29.18 2 CA-FT-FSST-O1510.083051-SPS—1-18-FSST-TO15000386
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
For APN/Parcel |D(s): 092-050-014-000
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA IN COUNTY
OF TUOLUMNE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
LOT 407, of PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE UNIT NO. 3, as shown and delineated on the Official Map thereof, filedin
the Office of the County Recorder, Tuolumne County, California on July 9, 1969 in Volume 5 of Subdivisions, at
Page 1.
CLTA Form
Preliminary Report-Modified (11.17‘06) Pn’nted: @
05.15.18 AM
10:30 by
SCA0002402.doc
/Updated:01129118 3 CA—FT-FSST-01510.083051—SPS-1-18-FSST-TO15000386
Title No.:FSST-TO1 5000386-EM
Amendment: D
AT THE DATE HEREOF, EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS
AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:
1. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes
to be levied for the fiscal year 2018-2019.
The lienof supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any,made pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2,Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4,
respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of
title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction
occurring prior to Date of Policy.
The property iswithin the boundaries and
of the following district issubject to annual assessments levied
by said district.Said District should be contacted or determination of balance of charges due, ifany.
District: Groveland Community Services District
Easement for the purpose of roadway maintenance extends to five feet back of the top of cuts and
bottom of fills 0n all
roads within subdivision where not covered by dedicated right of way, as endorsed
on the map herein referred to.
Recitals as shown on that certainmap recorded July 9, 1969, Book 5. Page 1, of Subdivisions, which,
among other things states:
"(a)Easements for public utilities and drainage pipes, conduits and ditches are located 5 feet on each
side of each side lot lineand over the rear 5 feetof said lot.
(b)There is a minimum building setback of 5 feet from all side and rear lot linesand 20 feet from all
street right-of-way lines.
(c) No septic tanks or septic tank leach fields may be constructed within those areas designated as
"Drainage Protections Areas" or "D.P.A.", as shown on map within said subdivision".
Reference is made to said map particulars.
for full
Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rightsincidental thereto as delineated or as offered for
dedication, on the map of said tract.
Purpose: 50 foot wide Drainage Protection Area
Affects: A portion of the Northwesterly corner of said Lot,as shown on the map
CLTA Form
Preliminary Report-Modified (11,17,06) Printed: @ 10:30 AM by
05515.18
SCA0002402,doc
l 01,29,18
Updated: 4 CA-FT-FSST-01510.083051-SPS-1-18-FSST-TO15000386
Title No.3FSST-TO15000386-EM
Amendment: D
EXCEPTIONS
(continued)
7. Notice of Encumbrance executed by BOISE CASCADE PROPERTIES, |NC., a Nevada corporation
Recorded: August 12. 1969, inVolume 281 of OfficialRecords, Page 547, Tuolumne
County Records.
Said Encumbrance contains among other things, membership in the PINE MOUNTAIN ASSOClATION is
appurtenant to the lots described on the Map. Said mem berships are transferable only upon the
conveyance of the lot giving rise to such membership The payment of a transfer fee of $180.00 and all
other indebtedness to the Association, ifany, of the transferringmember.
8. FIRST RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS: Covenants, conditions and restrictions in the
declaration of restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, ifany, including, but not limited to
those based upon race, color, religion,sex, sexual orientation, familialstatus, marital status,disability,
handicap, national origin,ancestry, or source ofincome, as setforth inapplicable state or federal laws,
except to the extentthat said covenant or restriction
is permitted by applicable law.
Recorded: November 02, 1990, in Book 1031, atPage 311, of OfficialRecords
Contains no reversionary c|ause.
Contains no mortgagee protection c|ause.
Liens and charges for upkeep and maintenance as set forthin theabove mentioned declaration, payable
to Pine Mountain Lake Association.
9. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any otherobligations secured
thereby
Amount: $13,000.00
Dated: November 19, 1982
Trustor: Bruce C. Williams and Jane S. Williams, husband and wife as jointtenants
Trustee: Yosemite Title Company
Beneficiary: Yosemite Bank, a California Corporation
Recorded: November 22, 1982, Instrument No. 13894, Book 695, Page 13, of OfficialRecords
The effect of afullreconveyance recorded October 9, 2017 at 201701 1542 of OfficialRecords, which
purports to reconvey the above-mentioned Deed of Trust.
No statement ismade hereto as to the effect or validity of said reconveyance.
The requirement that thisCompany be furnished with confirmation from the lender that the Deed of Trust
has been released prior toissuance of a policy oftitleinsurance.
CLTA Form - Modified (11.17.06)
Preliminary Report @ 10:30 AM by
05.15118
Printed:
SCA0002402.doc
/ 01.29.18
Updated: 5 CA-FT-FSST—01510.083051-SPS-1-18-FSST—TO15000386
Title No.:FSST-TO15000386-EM
Amendment: D
EXCEPTIONS
(continued)
10. A deed of trust to securean indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations secured
thereby
Amount: $50,000.00
Dated: May 2, 2003
Trustor: Bruce C. Williams, an unmarried man
Trustee: Alliance TitleCompany
Beneficiary: Katherine Brown
Recorded: May 27, 2003, Instrument No. 2003012612, of OfficialRecords
By various assignments, the beneficial interest thereunder is now held of record in:
Assignee: Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. a Delaware Limited LiabilityCompany
Loan No.2 271258
Recording Date: November 14, 2011
Recording No.2 2011013455, of OfficialRecords
A substitution o
Preview
Bruce 25 N. C. 14m, Williams Street, BCW suite Consulting 830 JUN 1 9 2019 D Ix) San Jose, CA. 951 12 408 702-7914 DJ Bcw()‘)()5g(L g mail.com SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNT OF SANTA CLARA 191 N. FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CA. 951 13 BRUCE C WILLIAMS, Case No.: 18cv328516 Plaintiff, DECLARATION/RESPONSE OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS vs. Date: June, 20. ?,O\C\ Time: 9:00AM BAYVIEW SERVICING LLC VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV LOAN, Dept.: 9 FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE AND SERVCES. FNTERBAY FUNDING DIVERSIFIED INVESTMENT SERVICE AND DOES 1-50 Defendants. 15 l6 Plaintiff. Plaintiff Bruce C. Williams was at all times mentioned herein an individual residing within the State ofCalifomia, County of Santa Clara. 17 l8 Defendant. Fidelity National Title and Services is, and at all relevant times was, a corporation l9 organized and existing under the laws 0f the State of California, authorized t0 transact the 20 business of insurance in the State of California, and transacting insurance business in the State of California, County 0f Santa Clara. l. It is my opinion that the note created by Bruce C. Williams with Katherine Brown his daughter is only at most a promissory note and not a mortgage note, because no mortgage note has ever been created in the manner that this note was created, at best a promissory note at worst not a valid note at all. You cannot create a mortgage note and deed 0f trust 0n property owned by two people when only one of the parties signs the note and deed of trust, no matter what rationale one uses to just it validity, itmust be based on facts not DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS - l what was said 0r filed in other cases, n0 matter what those cases stated 0r published in Ix.) any court. In as much as the deed Oftrust was modified by someone and not the principle Lu without the principal’s consent 0r approval at worst its is invalid and at best from Bayview’s point of view it is a debt created and makes the note a promissory note, with all the limits and characteristics of such a note, one cannot make a promissory note without a valid deed 0f trust and into something itis not n0 matter how much verbiage one attaches to it. It is not a proper note and deed oftrust. In as much as itis a second note, because the first loan from Yosemite Bank had never been re-conveyed so the note purchased by Bayview Services isa second note (not a first note as incorrectly stated by Bayview) and a promissory note of which no payments were made for over six years asis required for a promissory note which allows the note to fall under the laws that apply to the statue of limitations, then this note is void after six years and cannot be modified aften that date legally as Bayview has tried to do. thru deception and sleight of hand with false promises and illegal moves. The original note ispromissory note with a deed oftrust that is not valid because the property is owned by two parties at the time of creation because 14 one of the recorded owners ofthe property did not sign the note or the deed of trust. So 15 Bayview can not under any circumstances do an non judicial foreclosure legally on this 16 property, a best they could try a non-judicial foreclosure but a non-judicial foreclosure is 17 not allowed. The attached Preliminary Title Report shows that the propeny is in the 18 S.Williams. ..which means Deed ofTrust names of Bruce C. Williams and Jane . that the 19 put forward by Bayview is invalid...because Jane S. Williams did not sign itand was always on the property. ....no what was stated by third parties and these statements cannot be give the power of law because someone stated it in a prior court case. ....so the note on the property held by Bayview is invalid and at most is a promissory note nota mortgage note and hence Bayview cannot collect advanced funds as they do to make it so that the owner can never pay off the debt before foreclosure ( a practice that Bayview does in most of its case and should be illegal and invalid technique used by them)... and they cannot do a non-judicial foreclosure. DECLARATlON OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS - 2 2. As far as the Assignment of the deed of Trust, since the assignment 0f the Deed of Trust is all marked up and done in Florida it isnot valid in the state ofCalifomia to do a non- judicial foreclosure. As far as the company 0f Bayview Servicing is concerned, because the company is not registered in the State 0f California itcannot foreclose on a California property. We don’t think that the foreclosure isvalid. And has incorrectly stated that the alleged note and deed of trust is a first note and deed of trust which isincorrect as can be seen in the attached preliminary title report which shows that the first note and deed 0f trust iswith Yosemite Bank. Which is another instance of Bayview’s effort to twist the truth incorrectly in their favor. 10 As far as Bayview’s requeSt for Judicial Notice in support of Demurrer, to all parties and ll their counsels... please take note that we totally disagree with Bayview’s desire to 12 request for Judicial Notice. We declare that the Defendant desires to request Judicial Notice is to confuse the Court with miscellaneous claims and erroneous facts from DJ .— actions filed by various attorneys that were wrong and inconclusive that lacked facts. The defendant is using these years of filing which are in general incorrect as a means to confusing the Court. Bayview is trying to convert these mistakes and bad practices into an argument to over whelm the Court with erroneous and volumes of data to win when they are wrong. A review ofthe preliminary Title Report shows the vesting which is in two parties and Bayview never notified the other party even though they knew about this party. They are simply trying to confuse and overwhelm the Court with prior errors, which they present as facts. As far as Bayview’s and all other parties request for a change of Venue, to all parties and their counsels... please take note that we totally disagree with their desire to change venue. The primary reason for this desire to keep the venue in Santa Clara County isthat all the actions associated with this complaint originated in Santa Clara County from the origination of the Note to the illegal modification of the deed of trust, further the possession to the illegally altered deed oftrust was constantly located at the titlecompany in Santa Clara County which included all the personal associated with the original and modification of the note and deed of trust. no one in Tuolumne County are or were ever associate with these changes. Tuolumne would be the wrong venue forth is type 0f DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS - 3 liability and the Title Company there has done nothing and knows nothing about this [\J transaction, thus all the witnesses would need to take a three-hour trip just to testify one b.» way or the other. Itcan be clearly seen that the Lawyers of Fidelity and others are just trying to play a trick on the Court and the Plaintiff. It should be noted that this note never left the Title/escrow company in Santa Clara County and was not in Tuolumne County at n0 time, ithad nothing to do with the location of the property but only with the location of the note, which was Santa Clara County. What they are bring up has nothing t0 do with their Liability or property venue, they are trying to side step these issues, see the conclusion of the World Renowned Writing expert and his opinion. He said the modification did not occur in Tuolumne County but in Santa Clara County, where the title/escrow company is located in Santa Clara County. All personnel and witnesses associated with the escrow / modification live in Santa Clara County. What’s the use of trying the case in Tuolumne County when all our witnesses and responsible personnel associated the escrow/title modification live in Santa Clara County? The original challenge and mistakes with the transaction all occurred in Santa Clara County, nothing associated with this action alleged for the title company occurred in Tuolumne County. Another factor isthat the clearance by Fidelity National Title gave to Bayview itsTitld Insurance came from actions that occurred in Santa Clara County. There were years of time between the original origin ofthe note and the transfer ofthe note that involved only Santa Clara County. The proposed motion and points and authorities are totally wrong and based o n defective thinking and are proposed by Bayview and others in order to put the Plaintiff at a grave disadvantage. This case cannot revolve around trickery and legal maneuvers to put the Plaintiff at a disadvantage and cause injury. When we purchased the subjection subject property (12892 Green Valley Circle, Groveland, Ca. 95321, APN#:092-050-14-00), l obtained a title insurance policy. This policy is issued by a company that searches the public records for matters that affect a specific piece of subject property. lt was Fidelity National Title Insurance Company’s (hereinafter called “Fidelity”) responsibility is to deliver a full and accurate accounting of the titleissues and title problems affecting the home that lmight be purchasing. DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS -4 8. Most ofthe time, titleinsurance companies d0 a greatjob at disclosing issues or problems Ix) that affect title, but they sometimes make mistakes. Prior t0 closing on my home, I should Lu have received a title insurance commitment or title report. That report should have itemized the name of the current owner of the home Iwas buying. the status of real estate taxes for the home, and then listed a whole number 0f items that affect the titleto the home 1was purchasing. When 1 receive the titleinsurance commitment 0r title opinion, I did not know or realize the issues that were not shown in that report. Some items disclosed seemed to be normal and of no consequence, but others latter became real issues and problems after Ipurchased the subject property and those issues and problems were not attended to prior t0 handing over the money to close on the subject property. Some ofthe items that might have been listed on my title commitment or repon include had sole possession of the note between signature date and recording date‘ original note was mailed by the recording office, the note was modified without the approval and knowledge 0f principal, nullifies is connection to the deed oftrust, the note and deed of trust is second lien which attaches a six (6) year statute of limitation. They did include 14 infomtation on easements, specific ordinances or laws, land restrictions, encroachments 15 ofbuildings or parts ofbuildings on — or other improvements t0 — the home I was buying. 16 10. Fidelity or the closing agent clearly have made a mistake in my transaction which is not 17 hard to tell from my recorded documents. Our research has shown that the title report 0r 18 and titlecommitment failed to disclose these defects. If itfailed to disclose it the Fidelity 19 should have disclosed it, Ithen have a right under my title insurance policy to file a claim for liability against the title insurance company. ll. 1f the titlecommitment or title report failed to disclosed the titledefects and the closing agent failed to provide document indicating that agent’s responsibilities in the transaction. I attempted several time contacting my lender and having them force the closing agent to honor itsresponsibilities regarding the defective closing documents 12. For the many buyers and sellers who go into a real estate closing thinking that there is someone 0n their side to protect them, they should know that Closing agents and title companies hired t0 close residential transactions normally only try to protect the lender in the transaction. DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS - 5 13. It was Fidelity’s responsibility is to deliver buyers and sellers an accurate title insurance commitment or titlereport for me to review. 14. In this case if the title commitment 0r title report failed t0 disclosed the title defects, I could have objected at that time that I didn’t know about its existence and inquired as t0 the monthly costs and other fees. The purpose 0f the title insurance commitment was to give me notice 0f items that affect the title t0 the subject property I purchased. It’s their responsibility to avoid future problems and issues and if an items isn’t disclosed to me in the title insurance commitment 0r title insurance opinion, I would have a claim for that subsequently found problem or issue against the titleinsurance company. 15. For further details and options, I might want to talk to a real estate attorney in my area who has experience in dealing with title insurance claims. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays forjudgment as follows: 1. For general, special and consequential damages according to proof; 2. For punitive and exemplary damages. Dated this 15‘“ day ofJune, 2019 I Bruée C. Williams Plaintiff DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS -6 PROOF OF SERVICE Ix) State ofCalifomia ) DJ ) ss. County 0f Santa Clara ) I a On am employed party June. to the in the within 15th 2019, I County 0f Santa action. My Clara, business State of California. address, 525M served the foregoing document described I as: am MKQTeZ‘Sfio / n over the age 0f l8 gcge and not ('4 ‘45, I Z DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST [X] (BY FACSIMILE) The facsimile machine 1 used complied with Rule 2003(3) and no error was reported by the machine. Pursuant to Rule 2008(e)(4), I caused the machine to print a record of the transaction. [X] (BY MAIL, 1013a. 2015.5 C.C.P.) [X] I deposited such envelope in the mail at Santa Clara, California. The envelope was mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. [X] 1 am readily familiar with the firm’s practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, this document will be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on this date with postage therefore fully prepaid at Santa Clara, California in the 16 ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit l7 for mailing in affidavit. 18 [ ] (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused the foregoing envelope to be 19 delivered by hand to the addressee on the attached Service List. 20 delivered by M xxxx (BY FEDEX FEDERAL EXPRESS ) I caused the foregoing envelope to be ‘ [X] (STATE) Ideclare under penalty 0f perjury under t e State ofi California that the above is true and correct. 5-47 * l 207/7 ' Name ofDeclarant 3 L Hm» kmt’fit‘?!’ _. ’w DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS - 7 SERVICE LIST FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY By serving CT Corporation, Agent for Service Gabriela Sanchez, Intake Specialist, Authorized to Accept Service 7‘“ 818 West Street Los Angeles, CA. 90017 MATTHEW S. VESTERDAHL, ATTORNEY AT LAW WOLFE & WYMAN LLP 2301 Dupont Drive. Suite 300 - Irvine. CA 92612 Tel. (949) 475-9200 - Fax (949) 475-9203 Email: msvesterdah1@w01fewyman.com Attorney for: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC ZIEVE, BRODNAX & STEELE, LLP John C. Steele, Bar No. 179875 Samantha MacLeod, Bar No. 270770 30 Corporate Park, Suite 450 Irvine, CA 92606 Phone: (714) 848-7920 Fax: (714) 908-2615 Attorney for: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC 16 EDWARD G. SCHLOSS 17 Lior Katz 3637 Motor Avenue, Suite 220 l8 Los Angeles, California 90034 19 Tel: 310-733-4488 Fax: 310-836-4888 Attorney for: BAYVIEW LOAN SERVICING, LLC DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS —8 EXHIBITS l7 l8 l9 20 21 22 23 DECLARATION OF BRUCE C. WILLIAMS -9 Fidelity National Title Company' PRELIMINARY REPORT In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Fidelity National Title Company hereby repons that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance descn’bing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forfh,insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lienor encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions of said policy forms. The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from (he coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth inAttachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitrationclause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrab/e matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of TitleInsurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liabilityfor certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One. Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report. This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of the facilitating issuance of a policy of titleinsurance and no liability is assumed hereby. assumed lf it is desired that liability be a Binder or Commitment should be requested. prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, The policy(ies) insurance of title to be issued hereunder will be policy(ies) of Fidelity National TitleInsurance Company, a California corporation. Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Attachment One of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered. lt isimportant to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of titleand may not defects list all liens, and encumbrances affecting title tothe land. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company By: I / 2 A .1 President Countersigned By: Attest: /([ Authorized Officer or Agent Secretary CLTA Form - Modified (11.1706) Preliminary Report 0515,18 Printed: @ 10:30 AM by SCA0002402.doc /Updated.0129.18 1 CA—FT-FSST-01510.083051-SPS—1-18-FSST—TO15000386 VisitUs on our Website: www.fnh‘ccom Fidelity National Title Company' ISSUING OFFICE: 3127 Transworld Drive, #130,Stockton, CA 95206 FOR SETTLEMENTINQUIRIES, CONTACT: Company Fidelity National Title 2315 South Bascom Ave., Suite100 - Campbell, CA 95008 (408)371-8040 ° FAX (408)371-9174 Another Prompt Delivery From Fidelity National Title Company TitleDepartment Where Local Experience And Expertise Make A Difference PRELIMINARY REPORT Amendment D Title Officer:Erica Madrigal Escrow Officer: Juliet Belyeu Email: eamadrigal@fnf.com Email: Juliet.Bereu@fnf.com TitleNo.: FSST-TO15000386-EM Escrow No.: FSBC4031500230A TO: Bruce Williams Attn: PROPERTY ADDRESS(ES): 12892 Green Valley Circle, Groveland, CA EFFECTIVE DATE: May 4, 2018 at 07:30 AM The form of policy or policiesof insurance contemplated by title this reportis: ALTA Loan Policy 2006 1. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS: A Fee 2. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN: Bruce C. Williams and Jane S. Williams, his wife, as joint tenants,subject to items 11 and 17 3. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: SEE EXHIBIT "A" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF CLTA Rapofl Form Preliminary -Modified (11.17.06) 0515.18 Printed, @ 10:30 AM by SCA0002402.doc lUpdated. 01.29.18 2 CA-FT-FSST-O1510.083051-SPS—1-18-FSST-TO15000386 EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description For APN/Parcel |D(s): 092-050-014-000 THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA IN COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: LOT 407, of PINE MOUNTAIN LAKE UNIT NO. 3, as shown and delineated on the Official Map thereof, filedin the Office of the County Recorder, Tuolumne County, California on July 9, 1969 in Volume 5 of Subdivisions, at Page 1. CLTA Form Preliminary Report-Modified (11.17‘06) Pn’nted: @ 05.15.18 AM 10:30 by SCA0002402.doc /Updated:01129118 3 CA—FT-FSST-01510.083051—SPS-1-18-FSST-TO15000386 Title No.:FSST-TO1 5000386-EM Amendment: D AT THE DATE HEREOF, EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2018-2019. The lienof supplemental or escaped assessments of property taxes, if any,made pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 75) or Part 2,Chapter 3, Articles 3 and 4, respectively, of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California as a result of the transfer of title to the vestee named in Schedule A or as a result of changes in ownership or new construction occurring prior to Date of Policy. The property iswithin the boundaries and of the following district issubject to annual assessments levied by said district.Said District should be contacted or determination of balance of charges due, ifany. District: Groveland Community Services District Easement for the purpose of roadway maintenance extends to five feet back of the top of cuts and bottom of fills 0n all roads within subdivision where not covered by dedicated right of way, as endorsed on the map herein referred to. Recitals as shown on that certainmap recorded July 9, 1969, Book 5. Page 1, of Subdivisions, which, among other things states: "(a)Easements for public utilities and drainage pipes, conduits and ditches are located 5 feet on each side of each side lot lineand over the rear 5 feetof said lot. (b)There is a minimum building setback of 5 feet from all side and rear lot linesand 20 feet from all street right-of-way lines. (c) No septic tanks or septic tank leach fields may be constructed within those areas designated as "Drainage Protections Areas" or "D.P.A.", as shown on map within said subdivision". Reference is made to said map particulars. for full Easement(s) for the purpose(s) shown below and rightsincidental thereto as delineated or as offered for dedication, on the map of said tract. Purpose: 50 foot wide Drainage Protection Area Affects: A portion of the Northwesterly corner of said Lot,as shown on the map CLTA Form Preliminary Report-Modified (11,17,06) Printed: @ 10:30 AM by 05515.18 SCA0002402,doc l 01,29,18 Updated: 4 CA-FT-FSST-01510.083051-SPS-1-18-FSST-TO15000386 Title No.3FSST-TO15000386-EM Amendment: D EXCEPTIONS (continued) 7. Notice of Encumbrance executed by BOISE CASCADE PROPERTIES, |NC., a Nevada corporation Recorded: August 12. 1969, inVolume 281 of OfficialRecords, Page 547, Tuolumne County Records. Said Encumbrance contains among other things, membership in the PINE MOUNTAIN ASSOClATION is appurtenant to the lots described on the Map. Said mem berships are transferable only upon the conveyance of the lot giving rise to such membership The payment of a transfer fee of $180.00 and all other indebtedness to the Association, ifany, of the transferringmember. 8. FIRST RESTATED DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS: Covenants, conditions and restrictions in the declaration of restrictions but omitting any covenants or restrictions, ifany, including, but not limited to those based upon race, color, religion,sex, sexual orientation, familialstatus, marital status,disability, handicap, national origin,ancestry, or source ofincome, as setforth inapplicable state or federal laws, except to the extentthat said covenant or restriction is permitted by applicable law. Recorded: November 02, 1990, in Book 1031, atPage 311, of OfficialRecords Contains no reversionary c|ause. Contains no mortgagee protection c|ause. Liens and charges for upkeep and maintenance as set forthin theabove mentioned declaration, payable to Pine Mountain Lake Association. 9. A deed of trust to secure an indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any otherobligations secured thereby Amount: $13,000.00 Dated: November 19, 1982 Trustor: Bruce C. Williams and Jane S. Williams, husband and wife as jointtenants Trustee: Yosemite Title Company Beneficiary: Yosemite Bank, a California Corporation Recorded: November 22, 1982, Instrument No. 13894, Book 695, Page 13, of OfficialRecords The effect of afullreconveyance recorded October 9, 2017 at 201701 1542 of OfficialRecords, which purports to reconvey the above-mentioned Deed of Trust. No statement ismade hereto as to the effect or validity of said reconveyance. The requirement that thisCompany be furnished with confirmation from the lender that the Deed of Trust has been released prior toissuance of a policy oftitleinsurance. CLTA Form - Modified (11.17.06) Preliminary Report @ 10:30 AM by 05.15118 Printed: SCA0002402.doc / 01.29.18 Updated: 5 CA-FT-FSST—01510.083051-SPS-1-18-FSST—TO15000386 Title No.:FSST-TO15000386-EM Amendment: D EXCEPTIONS (continued) 10. A deed of trust to securean indebtedness in the amount shown below, and any other obligations secured thereby Amount: $50,000.00 Dated: May 2, 2003 Trustor: Bruce C. Williams, an unmarried man Trustee: Alliance TitleCompany Beneficiary: Katherine Brown Recorded: May 27, 2003, Instrument No. 2003012612, of OfficialRecords By various assignments, the beneficial interest thereunder is now held of record in: Assignee: Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC. a Delaware Limited LiabilityCompany Loan No.2 271258 Recording Date: November 14, 2011 Recording No.2 2011013455, of OfficialRecords A substitution o