Preview
WD em WD DN Wom wD
ee eee
23.
ELECTRONICALLY
Christopher D. 'N. Hanson (son 187954)
HANSON LAW FIRM, P FILED i
P.O: Box 988 Superior Court 7 California
San Leandro, California 94577 ee
Tel: (415)362-9181 ' 07/25/: 2017
Fax: (877) 733-3574 i . BY:ROSSALY DELAVEGA
: Deputy Cler!
Attormeys’for Plaintiff: | |
MARY GLASPIE FRANK i
i
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
MARY GLASPIE FRANK, ) CASE NO. CGE-12-527295
: )
, Plaintiff, )
: ) FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Vv. § )
}
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
‘MELVIN GLASPIE, and OES I through 10, )
‘inclusive, : )
i )
: Defendants )
: i )
: )
i
INTRODUCTION’
After serounging and saving all her life, plaintiff's mother purchased a modest family
home that she hoped to pass on to her children, Inher old age, the elder Ms. Glaspie made
plaintiff and her brother, Arnold Melvin! asp, co-trustees of a thst holding the family home.
After Ms. Glaspie'died, plaintiff dutifully ‘Went to a Bank’of America: branch, spoke witha
manager, and provided her mother’s death certificate, trust documents, and-the grant deed.
evidencing plaintiff's ownership ofthe family home. The bank manager assured plaintiff that she
had done all she'needed:for her and her brother to assume payments on'the loan and to
commiunicate with the bank regarding the Joan. The bank even gave plaintiff and her brother a
home equity line of credit secured by the family-home, in their names.
HANSON LAW FIRM; PC i PAGE 1.0F 13
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINToO YT DA HW F Ww Hoe
ei
oa Aa RO BP FS
All went welluntil plaints brother, Defendant. Amold Melvin Glaspie, without her
knowledge, stopped making the mortgage payments. Bank of America initiated foreclosure
proceedings with no notice to plaintiff, depriving her ofa chance to, redeem the loan. When
plaintiff leamedioftthe loan mere'11 days before the trustee's sale, she immediately-raised the
money to.redeem the loan, phoned the bank and spoke ‘with everyone she could, The bank
refised plaintiff's tender, but eventually she reached one Imelda Hernandez, Ms. Hernandez.
assured plaintiff that she would fix the bank’s error and enable plaintiff to. communicate with the
bank regarding the horteage, and explore-foreclosure alternatives with plaintiff. Ms. Hernandez
stalled plaintiff, but did not do the things she promised to do on the bank’s behalf: Plaintiff sent a
veritable barrage of infortnation conceming her ownership of the family home and ability to
rédeem the loan.. The foreclosure sale went ahead as scheduled despite plaintiff’s desperate pleas.
As aresult of the bank's actions and tefiisal to récognize the irtégularities in the
foreclosuré sale; a family is let ‘without their family home, the one significant thing theif mother
left them after a lifetime of thrifty living and prudent choices,
Defendant Amold Melvin Glaspie also bears financial responsibility for the'loss.of the
family home, as a result of his will behavior in suddenly ceasing to make the required monthly
payments on the first Hien against the Subject Property, without waming to plaintiff, and. at-a time
whei Plaintiff was hospitilized for a period of approximately three months. As a co-tnistee-of the
Trust, Arnold hada fiduciary duty to Plaintiff as a beneficiary of the Trust, to act-with loyalty in
the best interests of the beneficiaries. :
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff is and at all times relevant to this complaint Was a resident of ‘the Seattle in’
the State-of Washington, Plaintiff was formerly known as Mary Louise Glaspie.
2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendant Arnold
Melvin Glaspie was at all times relevant to this complaint a resident of the State-of California, and
resided at times relevant to this complaint at 1279 Revere Avenue in San Francisco (the “subject
property”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at some time after Arnold
HANSON LAW FIRM, PG PAGE2 OF 43
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTme
S
Il
CO 8 VA A kh & w
Melyin Glaspie was named. as Defendant in this action, he vacated. the Subject Property.
3. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is'a natioiial bank qualified 10:do business. in and
doing business in California is a residential mortgage lender and servicer.
4, Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants named as Does
i through-10, inchisive, but believes and thereon alleges that each was responsible in- sortie
‘manner for the harm alleged in this complaint, and will amend’the complaint to insert their true
names at such time that their names are known to plaintiff.
5. Plaintiff is informed and believes; and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant
herein, cach defendant, other than Arnold Melvin Glaspie, was:acting as the agent, servant,
employee, co-conspirator and/or joint venturer of each of the other defendants, aid was acting’in
concert with each other defendant in.doing the things herein alleged, and at'all times herein was
acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, partnership.and/or concert of
action, :
6. Plaintiff was at all relevant times herein the co-owner of the subject property with
defendant Amold Melvin. Glaspie, Plaintiff and Mr. Glaspie took title to the subject property in or
about August 2006 pursuant to a:grant deed from.their mother, Lucille M. Glaspig; as.co-trustees
of the Lucille M. Glaspie Revoéable Trust-wd/a September 21, 1996 (the “Trust”). Mr. Glaspie
and plaintiff were also beneficiaries of the Trust.
7. Defendant. BANA issued a promissory note on the subject property secured by-a,
deed of trait in or about 2005 (the “first lien”), before Lucille Glaspie transferred thie. subject
property to her children. i
8. _, In or about September 2006, Lucille Glaspie’ died,
9. Plaintiff visited a BANA branch in Seattle; Washington, in September 2006 and
asked to speak with a manager or other representative who could agsist her with transferring the
ability to make payment on the first lien to her and her siblings. Plaintiff was assisted by someone.
who, plaintiff is informed and believes, had authority to.:make such changes to the promissory
note and deed of trust constituting the first lien.
10. Plaintiff produced to.the BANA branch manager Lucille Glaspie’s death. certificate,
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE 3 OF 43
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT@ @
trust document's evidencing her authority to manage the subject property and the'deed evidencing
the transfer of the subject property plaintiff and Mr. Glaspié:as trustees.
lt. BANA’s branch manager assured plaintiff that, based upon the documentation
provided, plaintiff and Mr; Glaspie were now able to make payments'on the promissory note
secured by the deed of’ trust, and to communicate with BANA regarding the loan-and deed,of
trust constituting the first lien.
12. Plaintiff and Mr. Glaspie thereafter agreed to’ pay the promissory note and assumed
the obligation to do so;,and, BANA acknowledged their assumption of the note. Plaintiff and Mr,
Glaspie did not take further action to assume the note, other than making payments.and
communicating with BANA, because BANA’s branch manager had assured them that they had
done all that was needed to make payments under the note and cémmimnicaté with BANA
regarding the note and deed of trust. Plaintiffs reliance on BANA’s representations was
reasonable, and caused plaintiff not to:take further actionto assume the note.
13: In or about Api 2007, BANA approved plaintiff and. Mr. Glaspie to'réceive.a
home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) of $153,000 secured by a second deed of trust onthe
subject property. In approving plaintift and her brothér’s application; BANA necessarily.
acknowledged them as owners of the subject property, and’had actual notice of their ownership
through approval of the HELOG, plaintiff's communications with BANA, and Mr, Glaspie’s
payments on the first note. - :
14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that her brothers timely made
Mortgage payments-until: about August 2011.
15. Plaintiff was hospitalized for about three months around this time, and discovered
after her hospitalization on or about December 9, 2011 that'a trustee’s sale was scheduled for the
subject property for December 20, 2011. BANA’s agent and the trustee under the deed of trust,
ReconTrust Company, NA, was condictitig the trustee’s sale.
16. BANA had actual notice that plaintiff was an owner of the subject property and
successor to her mother’s interest in the property, and that plaintiff had assumed the note'secured
by the deed of trust under which BANA sought to foreclose. Despite this, BANA and its agents,
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE OF 13
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTbi
6 oO HN DA wh WN
including ReconTrust Company, failed to give plaintiff any notice of the sale.
17. Plaintiffis informed and believes and‘on that basis alleges that defendant BANA
failed to use due diligence to contact plaintiff and her brothers despite knowledge that they had
assumed the loa and. actual notice of their addresses and status:as suiosessors to-Lucille Glaspie in
ownership of the subject property.
18. When plaintePtearned of the impending foreclosure sale, she promptly tendered to
BANA the $4,935.96. due under the note after securing the funds.
19. In addition to. tendering the money needed to reinstate the note and avoid the
foreclosure sale, plaintiff contacted Imelda Hernandez at BANA. Plaintiffs informed and
believes and on that basis alleges that Ms, Hernandez was authorized to speak with plaintiff
regarding potential. altematives to:foreclosure and loan modification options;. Plaintiff again
informed BANA, through Ms. Hernandez, that she was an owsier of the subject property, and
further informed Ms. Henndsidae that plaintiff had not recéived notice of the trusted’s sale.
20. Acting within the course and scope of her employment by BANA, Ms. Hernatidez
induced plaintiff to continue communicating with her and assured. plaintiff that she would explore
alterhatives to the foreclosure and promptly handle communications with the relevant persons at
BANA regarding plaintiff's ownership of the subject property and lack of notice of the trustee’s
sale. Ms. Hernandez further represented that she would correct BANA's error toallow plaintiff
to communicate with BANA to.avoid further problems with the promissory note and:deed of
trust. Plaintiff is informed, believes and on that basis alleges that Ms, Hernandez fuiled to do so,
and that the aforesaid representations that Ms, Hernandez made to plaintiff were false when she
made them. Plaintiffis Amther informed, believes and on that basis alleges that Ms. Hernandez
made ‘these false representations at the directions of BANA, and within the coursé and scope of
her.employment there,
21, Ms, Hernandez also stated that she would work with plaintiff to avoid foreclosure
and discuss alternativés to foreclosure. In doing so, BANA exceeded its traditional role as lender
inits relationship with plaintiff.
22, Plaintiff reasonably relied on Ms. Hernandez’s representations and did not take
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE SOF 13
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
bos
Pow ow
| further action, other than continuing her‘comimunication with Ms, Hernandez and continuing. to
offer to pay the amounts due under the note,
23. Although. BANA knew that plaintiff was an owner of the subject property, it
refiised her timely tender of amounts due'to reinstate the loan.
24. In addition, when BANA refused plaintiff's timely tender of money to reinstate the:
| loan, plaintiff obtained finds to redleein the loan entirely. BANA refused plaintiff's tender of
redemption, The fedeiiption offer was made with immediately available funds.. Plaintiff either
timely tendered the amounts.néeded to'redeem the loan and deed of trust to avoid foreclosure,-or
her untimely tender was due solely to BANA’s failiire to give her itotiée of the foreclosure:
25. Despite plaintiff's efforts to avoid a foreclosure sale and BANA’s notice of
irregularities ini the sale, BANA sold the subject property at a trustee’s sale through its agent
‘ReconTrust Company for approximately $136,000, At the time of sale, the subject property was
‘worth approximately $600,000,
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION
(Against Defendant BANA and Does'1-10)
26. Plaintiffhereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set,
forth herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this cause of action.
27. Plaintiff is informed: and believes and'on that basis alleges that defendant BANA
intentionally misrépresented. to her, as set forth above, that by speaking with BANA’s branch :
manager she had done everything’ she-needed to do to assume the loan, that she would be able to
communicate with BANA as a borrower on the loan, and. that she would receive appropriate
notices of action conceming: the loan, BANA further misrepresented itself to Plaintiff through
Ms. Hemandez when Ms. Hernandez led plaintiff to believe that'she had done what she needed to
do to stop the foreclosure on the subject property, and that Ms. Hernandez would correct
BANA’s error to enable plaintiff to redeem the loan and avoid foreclosure. These representations
were false when made by BANA’s employees on BANA’s behalf, and the persons making them.
knew them to be false.
28. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the aforementioned. representations and did not take
HANSON LAW:FIRM, PC | PAGE 6 OF 13.
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT@ i @
farther‘action to asstimé the ‘note because of them.
29. Asia direct'and proximate result of BANA’s mistepresentations, plaintiff has
suffered general and special damages inan amount according to proof. Furthermore, BANA’s
actions were undertaken willfully and maliciously, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights,
subjecting her to cruel and unjust hardship: Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an.award of punitive
damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
(Against Defendant BANA and Does 1-10)
30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set
forth herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this-cause of action.
31. Plaintiff reposed her trust and confidence in Ms, Heindndez and BANA's branch,
manager when they:were acting as BANA’s agents, and BANA’s agents knew that plaintiff
Teposed her trust and: confidence in them.
32. BANA’s branch manager, as set forth above, represented to plaintiff that she ‘had
‘done all she needed to do in-order to communicate with BANA and to make payments concerning’
the'note and deed of trust. These Tepresentations were in fact false, and BANA’s branch manager’
didnot have a reasonable basis for believing them when he made them: Ms; Hernandez likewise.
represented that she would fix BANA’s eiror so that plaintiff could. redeem the loan-and avoid
foreclosure and explore. foreclosure altematives with plaintiff, Ms, Hernandez’s representations
were also-false, and neither. she nor. BANA. had.a reasonable basis for making the Tepresentations,
or believing them tote true.
33, Asa direct and proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered damages
general.and special daniaiges in ‘an amount according to proof.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
NEGLIGENCE
(Against Defendant BANA and Does 1-10)
34. Plaintiff. ‘hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fiilly set
forth herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this cause of action,
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGET-QF13:
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
i
:oOo Oe YN DH kw &
35. By directing foreclosure: alternative information to plaintiff and dealing with
plaintiff as a borrower, BANA both treated plaintiff as a’ borrower and exceeded its traditional
role as:lender.
36.. BANA: owed plaintiff a duty to inform her of foreclosuré events with respect to the
note and deed of trust, and:failed to do so. BANA. also owed plaintiff-a duty to. ensure that
plaintiff would be able to communicate with BANA regarding the loan, given BANA’s knowledge
that plaintiff's mother was deceased and that BANA had represented to plaintiff that she would be
able to.do so. BANA did not do this.
37. Asa direct and proximate result of BANA’s negligence, plaintiff has suffered
general and special damages in an-amount according to proof,
_ FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE (CIV. CODE § 2924, et seq.)
(Against Defendant BANA aiid Does 1-10)
38: Plaintiff’ hereby incorporates each of the preceding patagraphs'as though fully set
forth herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this cause of action,
39. BANA knew and had actual notice in its file; of should have ‘had information in its
file on the note and deed of trust that plaintiff was her mother’s successor-in-interest to thé
property and that plaintiff ad agreed to:assume the note and deed of trust, In addition; BANA
knew that plaintiff was.an: owner of record of the subject property.
40: Plaintiff. further informed BANA that she was.an owner of record and’her mother’s.
suecessor-in-interest when she leatnéd of foreclosure proceedings.
41, BANA failed to give any notice t’plaintiff of the impending trustee’s sale required.
by Jaw, and which would have allowed plaintiff to timely reinstate or redeem the loan and avoid
foreclosuré. BANA farther failed to review its file for competénit and reliable evidence that it
could foreclose on the stibject property with notice given only to plaintiff's deceased mother.
Furthermore, BANA refused plaintiff's timely offer to.reinstate the loan, BANA further refused
Plaintiff's offer to redeem the loan, despite its timeliness or lack of timeliness due solely to.
BANA’s failure to give plaintiff timely notice of the foreclosure,
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE 8 OF43:
FIFTH. AMENDED COMPLAINTCOD YD Nw FB Ww Bw
10
42. Asadirect and proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered general and
special damages in an-amount according to-proof: In addition, BANA’s actions were undertaken
willfully and with malice, and caused plaintiff oppression and subjected her to cruel and unjust
hardship, entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive damajes.
| FIFTH'CAUSE OF ACTION
» BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY.
(Against Defendant ARNOLD MELVIN GLASPIE and Does 1:10)
43. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs:as though. fully set forth
herein, with the exception of ‘any allegation’ inconsistent with this cause of action.
44, Plaintiff is a beneficiary of the Trust. Defendant Arnold Melvin Glaspie (hereinafter
“ARNOLD”), as-a.co-trustee-of the Trust,:at all times mentioned herein'owed a fiduciary duty to
Plaintiff, as a beneficiary of the Trust, with regard to Trust matters-and with regard to the Subject
Property.
45. Asa fiduciary, Defendant ARNOLD owed to Plaintiff a duty of individual loyalty,
including a duty not to act contrary to the best:interest of a beneficiary of the Trust such as.
Plaintiff: :
46. Defendant ARNOLD violated his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by failing and refusing-to
make monthly mortgage payments on the promissory note secured by the fist lien beginning in or
about August’2011, and conitimiing thereafter until the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property
mentioned hereinabove,
47. If Defendant ARNOLD had continued to make the monthly mortgage payments on the
Promissory note secured by: the first lien-as he was required to.do, the Subject Property would ‘not
have been foreclosed upon by Defendant BANA. The loss of the Trust’s interest in the Subject
Property through non-judicial foreclosure of the Subject Property by Defendant BANA was.a
direct result of the failure of Defendant ARNOLD to make the required monthly mortgage
payments on the promissory note secured by the first lien.
46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant ARNOLD had the
financial ability to make the monthly mortgage payments on the promissory note secured:by:the
fist lien in August 2011 and the succeeding months theredffer, but that Defendant ARNOLD
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE SOF 15
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTBow he
wilfully failed and refused to do so.
48.In failing and rei
ig to make the monthly mortgage payments, Arnold set out:to.
deliberately injuré Plaintiff. Arnold ‘was motivated by personal spite toward fee as well as by
| greed, as follows:
a. Arnold was envious of Plaintiff for a.long period of years, based on Plaintif’s superior
education and general suc
Plaintiff had been selected
mother’s later years.
in life, relative to Amnold’s. Arnold was especially annoyed that
ieir mother to be the mother’s attorney-in-fact during their
» 2
b, Amold also held spite toward Plaintiff because Arnold had previously wished to sell the
subject property, which was the family home, in order to get his hands on the equity that the
owners then held in the subject property. When Plaintiffreflised to agree to sell the family home,
Amold became enraged, Id a grudge against Plaintiff on this basis from then on.
c. Amold deliberately selected the period commencing August 2011 to stop making the
monthly mortgage payments, because Amold knew that Plaintiff was in the hospital.and would be
unable to learn of the arrearage in the payments. When Plaintiff asked Arnold why he deliberately
mortgage payments so-as to send the house into foreclosure, Arnold
ything; you know that.” This indicates that‘Arnold’s behavior was
ard Plaintiff, such that he would allow the housc to be foreclosed.
replied.“I won’t let you has
motivated by-extreme spite
on and equity lost just-to.s sty, his personal spite.
49. As a result of. Defendant ARNOLD’s breach of his fiduciary duty toward Plaintiffs,
Plaintiff was damaged, in that Plaintiff was deprived of her interest in the Subject Property, as a
beneficiary of the Trust, whea Defendant BANA caused the Subject Property to be:sold.at-a non-
judicial foreclosure sale,
50. The fair market value of the Subject Property at the time of the loss of the Subject
Propeity in foreclosure was $600,000.00; at that time Plaintiff held a 50% beneficial ownership
interest in the Subject Property through the Trust, with a value of $300,000.00. This value was
teduced by the balance of the first lien against the Subject Property, which was then
approximately $80,000.00; Plaintiffs Proportionate share of this reduction is $40,000.00. Thus,
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC * PAGE 10 OF 13
‘FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTSo 8 DW hw FB YW we
oe Pee tke
eaoU AAR EE HE S
19
Plaintiff suffered actual damages in the amount of $260,000.00 as an actual.and proximate:result.
of Defendant. ARNOLD'S breach of his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff,
31. Defendant ARNOLD’s acts and. omissions in breach of ARNOLD’ fiduciary duty
toward Plaintiff as alleged herein were done with oppression, fraud and malice, and with intent:to
vex, injuré and annoy Plaintiff, and were committed with a conscious disregard. of Plaintiff's
rights. As.a result, Plaintiff is etititled to an award of ‘exemplary and punitive damages toward
Defendant ARNOLD, in’an amount according to proof.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FIDUCIARY FRAUD - CONCEALMENT
(Against Defendant ARNOLD MELVIN GLASPIE. and Does 1-10)
52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set-forth
herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this cause of action.
53. Plaintiffisa beneficiary of the Trust. Defendant Amold Melvin Glaspie.(hereinafter
“ARNOED”), as a co-trustee of the Trust, at all times mentioned herein. owed'a fiduciary duty to
Plaintiff, as-a betieficiary of the Trust, with regard to Trust matters and with regard to the Subject
Property:
54, Defendant ARNOLD ‘had a duty to disclose to Plaintiff the fact that in or about
August 2011 ARNOLD had stopped making payments on the promissory note secured by the first
lien on the Subject Property. ‘This was an important and material fact in light of the fiduciary
telationship between Plaintiff ‘and ARNOLD and the Trust’s ownership of a:valuable interest in
the Subject Property,
55..Defendant ARNOLD concealed from Plaintiff the fact that in or about August'2011
ARNOLD had stopped making the required monthly payments onthe promissory note secured by
the first lien on the Subject Property.
56: Plaintiff did not know of the concealed fact, and shad no teasonable way of obtaining
information of this fact, because Plaintiff was in the hospital for a period of three months
commencing in or about August 2011.
57. By concealing the concealed fact, Defendant ARNOLD intended to deceive Plaintiff:
58. In.concealing the concealed fact, Arnold set.out to deliberately injure-Plaintiff, Amold
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE 41.0F13:
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT2 Oe SN WD YW KR ww wD ew
See ee ek
ot Dn AR OH SS
<=
Was motivated by personal spite toward Plaintiff, as well as by greed, as follows:
a. Amold was envious of Plaintiff for along period of. years, based on Plaintiff's superior
education and general suecéss in life, relative to Arnold’s. Arnold was especially annoyed that
Plaintiff had been selected by their mother to be the mother’s attomey-in-fact during their
mother’s later years.
b, Amold also held spite:toward Plaintiff because Amiold had previously wished to sell the
subject-property, which was the family home, in order to get his hands on the equity that the
owners then held in the subject property. When Plaintiff refused to agree to selll the family. homie,
Amnold became ‘enraged, and held a grudge against Plaintiff'on this basis from then on.
c. Amold deliberately selected the period commencing August 2011 to stop making the
monthly mortgage payments, because Arnold knew that Plaintiff was in the hospital anid: would be
unable to learn of the arrearage in the payments. When Plaintiff asked Amold why he deliberately.
stopped making the monthly Mortgage payments so as to send the house into foreclosure, Amold
teplicd “I Won’t let you have anything, you know that.” This indicates that Arnold’s behavior was
motivated by extreme spite toward Plaintiff, such that he would allow the iouse to:be foreclosed
on and equity lost just to satisfy his personal spite.
59, Plaintiff: reasonably relied on Defendant ARNOLD’s deception in that had no
reasonable way of obtaining information.of this fact, because Plaintiff was in the Ahospital-for a
period of three months commencing in or about August 2011, and Plaintiff had otherwise no
reason to believe that ARNOLD would stop making the required: monthly payments on the.
Promissory note secured by the first lien on the Subject Property.
60: As a-result of Defendant ARNOLD'’s concealment, Plaintiff was damaged, in that
Plaintiff was deprived of her i interest in the Subject Property, asa beneficiary of the Trust; when
Defendant BANA caused the ‘Subject Property to'be:sold at-a non-judicial foreclosure sale.
61. The fair market vahic of the Subject Property at'the time of the loss of the. Subject
Property in foreclosure was $600,000.00; at that time Plaintiff held a 50% beneficial ownership
interest in the Subject Property through the Ti Tust, with a value of $300,000.00. This value was
reduced by the balance of the first lien against the Subject Property, which was then
HANSON LAW FIRM, PG - PAGE 120F 13
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTOo Oo a A HW BF wb
10
Dated: Apaf 2017
approximately $80,000.00; Plaintiff's proportionate share of this reduction is $40,000.00. Thus,
Plaintiff suffered actual damages inthe amount of: $260,000.00-a8 an achial and proximate result,
of Defendant ARNOLD'S concealment.
62. Defendant ‘ARNOLD's acts and omissions in concealing material facts from Plaintiff'as
alleged herein were done with, oppression, fraud and:malice, arid with intént to ‘vex, injure and
annoy Plaintiff, and were committed with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. As:a result,
Plaintiff is entitled to-an award of exemplary and punitive damages toward Defendant ARNOLD,
in an amount according to proof.
; JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all causes of action so triable.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below:
1. That judgment be enteréd for plaintiff and against defendants;
For special damages according to proof
3. For general damages according to proof
4. For attorney’s fees as allowed by law;
5. For exemplary damages inan amount sufficient to punish defendants’ wrongful behavior
and deter future misconduct;
6. For costs as allowed by law; and
7. For such other relief as the Court.deems just and.proper.
sade, 224
Christopher D.N. Hatison, Esq,
Attorney for Plaintiff
MARY GLASPIE FRANK.
HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE 13 OF 43
FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT
Preview
WD em WD DN Wom wD ee eee 23. ELECTRONICALLY Christopher D. 'N. Hanson (son 187954) HANSON LAW FIRM, P FILED i P.O: Box 988 Superior Court 7 California San Leandro, California 94577 ee Tel: (415)362-9181 ' 07/25/: 2017 Fax: (877) 733-3574 i . BY:ROSSALY DELAVEGA : Deputy Cler! Attormeys’for Plaintiff: | | MARY GLASPIE FRANK i i IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, MARY GLASPIE FRANK, ) CASE NO. CGE-12-527295 : ) , Plaintiff, ) : ) FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT Vv. § ) } BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ‘MELVIN GLASPIE, and OES I through 10, ) ‘inclusive, : ) i ) : Defendants ) : i ) : ) i INTRODUCTION’ After serounging and saving all her life, plaintiff's mother purchased a modest family home that she hoped to pass on to her children, Inher old age, the elder Ms. Glaspie made plaintiff and her brother, Arnold Melvin! asp, co-trustees of a thst holding the family home. After Ms. Glaspie'died, plaintiff dutifully ‘Went to a Bank’of America: branch, spoke witha manager, and provided her mother’s death certificate, trust documents, and-the grant deed. evidencing plaintiff's ownership ofthe family home. The bank manager assured plaintiff that she had done all she'needed:for her and her brother to assume payments on'the loan and to commiunicate with the bank regarding the Joan. The bank even gave plaintiff and her brother a home equity line of credit secured by the family-home, in their names. HANSON LAW FIRM; PC i PAGE 1.0F 13 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINToO YT DA HW F Ww Hoe ei oa Aa RO BP FS All went welluntil plaints brother, Defendant. Amold Melvin Glaspie, without her knowledge, stopped making the mortgage payments. Bank of America initiated foreclosure proceedings with no notice to plaintiff, depriving her ofa chance to, redeem the loan. When plaintiff leamedioftthe loan mere'11 days before the trustee's sale, she immediately-raised the money to.redeem the loan, phoned the bank and spoke ‘with everyone she could, The bank refised plaintiff's tender, but eventually she reached one Imelda Hernandez, Ms. Hernandez. assured plaintiff that she would fix the bank’s error and enable plaintiff to. communicate with the bank regarding the horteage, and explore-foreclosure alternatives with plaintiff. Ms. Hernandez stalled plaintiff, but did not do the things she promised to do on the bank’s behalf: Plaintiff sent a veritable barrage of infortnation conceming her ownership of the family home and ability to rédeem the loan.. The foreclosure sale went ahead as scheduled despite plaintiff’s desperate pleas. As aresult of the bank's actions and tefiisal to récognize the irtégularities in the foreclosuré sale; a family is let ‘without their family home, the one significant thing theif mother left them after a lifetime of thrifty living and prudent choices, Defendant Amold Melvin Glaspie also bears financial responsibility for the'loss.of the family home, as a result of his will behavior in suddenly ceasing to make the required monthly payments on the first Hien against the Subject Property, without waming to plaintiff, and. at-a time whei Plaintiff was hospitilized for a period of approximately three months. As a co-tnistee-of the Trust, Arnold hada fiduciary duty to Plaintiff as a beneficiary of the Trust, to act-with loyalty in the best interests of the beneficiaries. : GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff alleges as follows: 1. Plaintiff is and at all times relevant to this complaint Was a resident of ‘the Seattle in’ the State-of Washington, Plaintiff was formerly known as Mary Louise Glaspie. 2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and on that basis alleges that defendant Arnold Melvin Glaspie was at all times relevant to this complaint a resident of the State-of California, and resided at times relevant to this complaint at 1279 Revere Avenue in San Francisco (the “subject property”). Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at some time after Arnold HANSON LAW FIRM, PG PAGE2 OF 43 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTme S Il CO 8 VA A kh & w Melyin Glaspie was named. as Defendant in this action, he vacated. the Subject Property. 3. Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is'a natioiial bank qualified 10:do business. in and doing business in California is a residential mortgage lender and servicer. 4, Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants named as Does i through-10, inchisive, but believes and thereon alleges that each was responsible in- sortie ‘manner for the harm alleged in this complaint, and will amend’the complaint to insert their true names at such time that their names are known to plaintiff. 5. Plaintiff is informed and believes; and on that basis alleges, that at all times relevant herein, cach defendant, other than Arnold Melvin Glaspie, was:acting as the agent, servant, employee, co-conspirator and/or joint venturer of each of the other defendants, aid was acting’in concert with each other defendant in.doing the things herein alleged, and at'all times herein was acting within the course and scope of such agency, employment, partnership.and/or concert of action, : 6. Plaintiff was at all relevant times herein the co-owner of the subject property with defendant Amold Melvin. Glaspie, Plaintiff and Mr. Glaspie took title to the subject property in or about August 2006 pursuant to a:grant deed from.their mother, Lucille M. Glaspig; as.co-trustees of the Lucille M. Glaspie Revoéable Trust-wd/a September 21, 1996 (the “Trust”). Mr. Glaspie and plaintiff were also beneficiaries of the Trust. 7. Defendant. BANA issued a promissory note on the subject property secured by-a, deed of trait in or about 2005 (the “first lien”), before Lucille Glaspie transferred thie. subject property to her children. i 8. _, In or about September 2006, Lucille Glaspie’ died, 9. Plaintiff visited a BANA branch in Seattle; Washington, in September 2006 and asked to speak with a manager or other representative who could agsist her with transferring the ability to make payment on the first lien to her and her siblings. Plaintiff was assisted by someone. who, plaintiff is informed and believes, had authority to.:make such changes to the promissory note and deed of trust constituting the first lien. 10. Plaintiff produced to.the BANA branch manager Lucille Glaspie’s death. certificate, HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE 3 OF 43 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT@ @ trust document's evidencing her authority to manage the subject property and the'deed evidencing the transfer of the subject property plaintiff and Mr. Glaspié:as trustees. lt. BANA’s branch manager assured plaintiff that, based upon the documentation provided, plaintiff and Mr; Glaspie were now able to make payments'on the promissory note secured by the deed of’ trust, and to communicate with BANA regarding the loan-and deed,of trust constituting the first lien. 12. Plaintiff and Mr. Glaspie thereafter agreed to’ pay the promissory note and assumed the obligation to do so;,and, BANA acknowledged their assumption of the note. Plaintiff and Mr, Glaspie did not take further action to assume the note, other than making payments.and communicating with BANA, because BANA’s branch manager had assured them that they had done all that was needed to make payments under the note and cémmimnicaté with BANA regarding the note and deed of trust. Plaintiffs reliance on BANA’s representations was reasonable, and caused plaintiff not to:take further actionto assume the note. 13: In or about Api 2007, BANA approved plaintiff and. Mr. Glaspie to'réceive.a home equity line of credit (“HELOC”) of $153,000 secured by a second deed of trust onthe subject property. In approving plaintift and her brothér’s application; BANA necessarily. acknowledged them as owners of the subject property, and’had actual notice of their ownership through approval of the HELOG, plaintiff's communications with BANA, and Mr, Glaspie’s payments on the first note. - : 14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that her brothers timely made Mortgage payments-until: about August 2011. 15. Plaintiff was hospitalized for about three months around this time, and discovered after her hospitalization on or about December 9, 2011 that'a trustee’s sale was scheduled for the subject property for December 20, 2011. BANA’s agent and the trustee under the deed of trust, ReconTrust Company, NA, was condictitig the trustee’s sale. 16. BANA had actual notice that plaintiff was an owner of the subject property and successor to her mother’s interest in the property, and that plaintiff had assumed the note'secured by the deed of trust under which BANA sought to foreclose. Despite this, BANA and its agents, HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE OF 13 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTbi 6 oO HN DA wh WN including ReconTrust Company, failed to give plaintiff any notice of the sale. 17. Plaintiffis informed and believes and‘on that basis alleges that defendant BANA failed to use due diligence to contact plaintiff and her brothers despite knowledge that they had assumed the loa and. actual notice of their addresses and status:as suiosessors to-Lucille Glaspie in ownership of the subject property. 18. When plaintePtearned of the impending foreclosure sale, she promptly tendered to BANA the $4,935.96. due under the note after securing the funds. 19. In addition to. tendering the money needed to reinstate the note and avoid the foreclosure sale, plaintiff contacted Imelda Hernandez at BANA. Plaintiffs informed and believes and on that basis alleges that Ms, Hernandez was authorized to speak with plaintiff regarding potential. altematives to:foreclosure and loan modification options;. Plaintiff again informed BANA, through Ms. Hernandez, that she was an owsier of the subject property, and further informed Ms. Henndsidae that plaintiff had not recéived notice of the trusted’s sale. 20. Acting within the course and scope of her employment by BANA, Ms. Hernatidez induced plaintiff to continue communicating with her and assured. plaintiff that she would explore alterhatives to the foreclosure and promptly handle communications with the relevant persons at BANA regarding plaintiff's ownership of the subject property and lack of notice of the trustee’s sale. Ms. Hernandez further represented that she would correct BANA's error toallow plaintiff to communicate with BANA to.avoid further problems with the promissory note and:deed of trust. Plaintiff is informed, believes and on that basis alleges that Ms, Hernandez fuiled to do so, and that the aforesaid representations that Ms, Hernandez made to plaintiff were false when she made them. Plaintiffis Amther informed, believes and on that basis alleges that Ms. Hernandez made ‘these false representations at the directions of BANA, and within the coursé and scope of her.employment there, 21, Ms, Hernandez also stated that she would work with plaintiff to avoid foreclosure and discuss alternativés to foreclosure. In doing so, BANA exceeded its traditional role as lender inits relationship with plaintiff. 22, Plaintiff reasonably relied on Ms. Hernandez’s representations and did not take HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE SOF 13 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT bos Pow ow | further action, other than continuing her‘comimunication with Ms, Hernandez and continuing. to offer to pay the amounts due under the note, 23. Although. BANA knew that plaintiff was an owner of the subject property, it refiised her timely tender of amounts due'to reinstate the loan. 24. In addition, when BANA refused plaintiff's timely tender of money to reinstate the: | loan, plaintiff obtained finds to redleein the loan entirely. BANA refused plaintiff's tender of redemption, The fedeiiption offer was made with immediately available funds.. Plaintiff either timely tendered the amounts.néeded to'redeem the loan and deed of trust to avoid foreclosure,-or her untimely tender was due solely to BANA’s failiire to give her itotiée of the foreclosure: 25. Despite plaintiff's efforts to avoid a foreclosure sale and BANA’s notice of irregularities ini the sale, BANA sold the subject property at a trustee’s sale through its agent ‘ReconTrust Company for approximately $136,000, At the time of sale, the subject property was ‘worth approximately $600,000, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION (Against Defendant BANA and Does'1-10) 26. Plaintiffhereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set, forth herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this cause of action. 27. Plaintiff is informed: and believes and'on that basis alleges that defendant BANA intentionally misrépresented. to her, as set forth above, that by speaking with BANA’s branch : manager she had done everything’ she-needed to do to assume the loan, that she would be able to communicate with BANA as a borrower on the loan, and. that she would receive appropriate notices of action conceming: the loan, BANA further misrepresented itself to Plaintiff through Ms. Hemandez when Ms. Hernandez led plaintiff to believe that'she had done what she needed to do to stop the foreclosure on the subject property, and that Ms. Hernandez would correct BANA’s error to enable plaintiff to redeem the loan and avoid foreclosure. These representations were false when made by BANA’s employees on BANA’s behalf, and the persons making them. knew them to be false. 28. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the aforementioned. representations and did not take HANSON LAW:FIRM, PC | PAGE 6 OF 13. FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT@ i @ farther‘action to asstimé the ‘note because of them. 29. Asia direct'and proximate result of BANA’s mistepresentations, plaintiff has suffered general and special damages inan amount according to proof. Furthermore, BANA’s actions were undertaken willfully and maliciously, and in conscious disregard of plaintiff's rights, subjecting her to cruel and unjust hardship: Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an.award of punitive damages. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION (Against Defendant BANA and Does 1-10) 30. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set forth herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this-cause of action. 31. Plaintiff reposed her trust and confidence in Ms, Heindndez and BANA's branch, manager when they:were acting as BANA’s agents, and BANA’s agents knew that plaintiff Teposed her trust and: confidence in them. 32. BANA’s branch manager, as set forth above, represented to plaintiff that she ‘had ‘done all she needed to do in-order to communicate with BANA and to make payments concerning’ the'note and deed of trust. These Tepresentations were in fact false, and BANA’s branch manager’ didnot have a reasonable basis for believing them when he made them: Ms; Hernandez likewise. represented that she would fix BANA’s eiror so that plaintiff could. redeem the loan-and avoid foreclosure and explore. foreclosure altematives with plaintiff, Ms, Hernandez’s representations were also-false, and neither. she nor. BANA. had.a reasonable basis for making the Tepresentations, or believing them tote true. 33, Asa direct and proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered damages general.and special daniaiges in ‘an amount according to proof. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (Against Defendant BANA and Does 1-10) 34. Plaintiff. ‘hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fiilly set forth herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this cause of action, HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGET-QF13: FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT i :oOo Oe YN DH kw & 35. By directing foreclosure: alternative information to plaintiff and dealing with plaintiff as a borrower, BANA both treated plaintiff as a’ borrower and exceeded its traditional role as:lender. 36.. BANA: owed plaintiff a duty to inform her of foreclosuré events with respect to the note and deed of trust, and:failed to do so. BANA. also owed plaintiff-a duty to. ensure that plaintiff would be able to communicate with BANA regarding the loan, given BANA’s knowledge that plaintiff's mother was deceased and that BANA had represented to plaintiff that she would be able to.do so. BANA did not do this. 37. Asa direct and proximate result of BANA’s negligence, plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in an-amount according to proof, _ FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION WRONGFUL FORECLOSURE (CIV. CODE § 2924, et seq.) (Against Defendant BANA aiid Does 1-10) 38: Plaintiff’ hereby incorporates each of the preceding patagraphs'as though fully set forth herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this cause of action, 39. BANA knew and had actual notice in its file; of should have ‘had information in its file on the note and deed of trust that plaintiff was her mother’s successor-in-interest to thé property and that plaintiff ad agreed to:assume the note and deed of trust, In addition; BANA knew that plaintiff was.an: owner of record of the subject property. 40: Plaintiff. further informed BANA that she was.an owner of record and’her mother’s. suecessor-in-interest when she leatnéd of foreclosure proceedings. 41, BANA failed to give any notice t’plaintiff of the impending trustee’s sale required. by Jaw, and which would have allowed plaintiff to timely reinstate or redeem the loan and avoid foreclosuré. BANA farther failed to review its file for competénit and reliable evidence that it could foreclose on the stibject property with notice given only to plaintiff's deceased mother. Furthermore, BANA refused plaintiff's timely offer to.reinstate the loan, BANA further refused Plaintiff's offer to redeem the loan, despite its timeliness or lack of timeliness due solely to. BANA’s failure to give plaintiff timely notice of the foreclosure, HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE 8 OF43: FIFTH. AMENDED COMPLAINTCOD YD Nw FB Ww Bw 10 42. Asadirect and proximate result of the foregoing, plaintiff has suffered general and special damages in an-amount according to-proof: In addition, BANA’s actions were undertaken willfully and with malice, and caused plaintiff oppression and subjected her to cruel and unjust hardship, entitling plaintiff to an award of punitive damajes. | FIFTH'CAUSE OF ACTION » BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. (Against Defendant ARNOLD MELVIN GLASPIE and Does 1:10) 43. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs:as though. fully set forth herein, with the exception of ‘any allegation’ inconsistent with this cause of action. 44, Plaintiff is a beneficiary of the Trust. Defendant Arnold Melvin Glaspie (hereinafter “ARNOLD”), as-a.co-trustee-of the Trust,:at all times mentioned herein'owed a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, as a beneficiary of the Trust, with regard to Trust matters-and with regard to the Subject Property. 45. Asa fiduciary, Defendant ARNOLD owed to Plaintiff a duty of individual loyalty, including a duty not to act contrary to the best:interest of a beneficiary of the Trust such as. Plaintiff: : 46. Defendant ARNOLD violated his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff by failing and refusing-to make monthly mortgage payments on the promissory note secured by the fist lien beginning in or about August’2011, and conitimiing thereafter until the foreclosure sale of the Subject Property mentioned hereinabove, 47. If Defendant ARNOLD had continued to make the monthly mortgage payments on the Promissory note secured by: the first lien-as he was required to.do, the Subject Property would ‘not have been foreclosed upon by Defendant BANA. The loss of the Trust’s interest in the Subject Property through non-judicial foreclosure of the Subject Property by Defendant BANA was.a direct result of the failure of Defendant ARNOLD to make the required monthly mortgage payments on the promissory note secured by the first lien. 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Defendant ARNOLD had the financial ability to make the monthly mortgage payments on the promissory note secured:by:the fist lien in August 2011 and the succeeding months theredffer, but that Defendant ARNOLD HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE SOF 15 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTBow he wilfully failed and refused to do so. 48.In failing and rei ig to make the monthly mortgage payments, Arnold set out:to. deliberately injuré Plaintiff. Arnold ‘was motivated by personal spite toward fee as well as by | greed, as follows: a. Arnold was envious of Plaintiff for a.long period of years, based on Plaintif’s superior education and general suc Plaintiff had been selected mother’s later years. in life, relative to Amnold’s. Arnold was especially annoyed that ieir mother to be the mother’s attorney-in-fact during their » 2 b, Amold also held spite toward Plaintiff because Arnold had previously wished to sell the subject property, which was the family home, in order to get his hands on the equity that the owners then held in the subject property. When Plaintiffreflised to agree to sell the family home, Amold became enraged, Id a grudge against Plaintiff on this basis from then on. c. Amold deliberately selected the period commencing August 2011 to stop making the monthly mortgage payments, because Amold knew that Plaintiff was in the hospital.and would be unable to learn of the arrearage in the payments. When Plaintiff asked Arnold why he deliberately mortgage payments so-as to send the house into foreclosure, Arnold ything; you know that.” This indicates that‘Arnold’s behavior was ard Plaintiff, such that he would allow the housc to be foreclosed. replied.“I won’t let you has motivated by-extreme spite on and equity lost just-to.s sty, his personal spite. 49. As a result of. Defendant ARNOLD’s breach of his fiduciary duty toward Plaintiffs, Plaintiff was damaged, in that Plaintiff was deprived of her interest in the Subject Property, as a beneficiary of the Trust, whea Defendant BANA caused the Subject Property to be:sold.at-a non- judicial foreclosure sale, 50. The fair market value of the Subject Property at the time of the loss of the Subject Propeity in foreclosure was $600,000.00; at that time Plaintiff held a 50% beneficial ownership interest in the Subject Property through the Trust, with a value of $300,000.00. This value was teduced by the balance of the first lien against the Subject Property, which was then approximately $80,000.00; Plaintiffs Proportionate share of this reduction is $40,000.00. Thus, HANSON LAW FIRM, PC * PAGE 10 OF 13 ‘FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTSo 8 DW hw FB YW we oe Pee tke eaoU AAR EE HE S 19 Plaintiff suffered actual damages in the amount of $260,000.00 as an actual.and proximate:result. of Defendant. ARNOLD'S breach of his fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, 31. Defendant ARNOLD’s acts and. omissions in breach of ARNOLD’ fiduciary duty toward Plaintiff as alleged herein were done with oppression, fraud and malice, and with intent:to vex, injuré and annoy Plaintiff, and were committed with a conscious disregard. of Plaintiff's rights. As.a result, Plaintiff is etititled to an award of ‘exemplary and punitive damages toward Defendant ARNOLD, in’an amount according to proof. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FIDUCIARY FRAUD - CONCEALMENT (Against Defendant ARNOLD MELVIN GLASPIE. and Does 1-10) 52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set-forth herein, with the exception of any allegation inconsistent with this cause of action. 53. Plaintiffisa beneficiary of the Trust. Defendant Amold Melvin Glaspie.(hereinafter “ARNOED”), as a co-trustee of the Trust, at all times mentioned herein. owed'a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff, as-a betieficiary of the Trust, with regard to Trust matters and with regard to the Subject Property: 54, Defendant ARNOLD ‘had a duty to disclose to Plaintiff the fact that in or about August 2011 ARNOLD had stopped making payments on the promissory note secured by the first lien on the Subject Property. ‘This was an important and material fact in light of the fiduciary telationship between Plaintiff ‘and ARNOLD and the Trust’s ownership of a:valuable interest in the Subject Property, 55..Defendant ARNOLD concealed from Plaintiff the fact that in or about August'2011 ARNOLD had stopped making the required monthly payments onthe promissory note secured by the first lien on the Subject Property. 56: Plaintiff did not know of the concealed fact, and shad no teasonable way of obtaining information of this fact, because Plaintiff was in the hospital for a period of three months commencing in or about August 2011. 57. By concealing the concealed fact, Defendant ARNOLD intended to deceive Plaintiff: 58. In.concealing the concealed fact, Arnold set.out to deliberately injure-Plaintiff, Amold HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE 41.0F13: FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT2 Oe SN WD YW KR ww wD ew See ee ek ot Dn AR OH SS <= Was motivated by personal spite toward Plaintiff, as well as by greed, as follows: a. Amold was envious of Plaintiff for along period of. years, based on Plaintiff's superior education and general suecéss in life, relative to Arnold’s. Arnold was especially annoyed that Plaintiff had been selected by their mother to be the mother’s attomey-in-fact during their mother’s later years. b, Amold also held spite:toward Plaintiff because Amiold had previously wished to sell the subject-property, which was the family home, in order to get his hands on the equity that the owners then held in the subject property. When Plaintiff refused to agree to selll the family. homie, Amnold became ‘enraged, and held a grudge against Plaintiff'on this basis from then on. c. Amold deliberately selected the period commencing August 2011 to stop making the monthly mortgage payments, because Arnold knew that Plaintiff was in the hospital anid: would be unable to learn of the arrearage in the payments. When Plaintiff asked Amold why he deliberately. stopped making the monthly Mortgage payments so as to send the house into foreclosure, Amold teplicd “I Won’t let you have anything, you know that.” This indicates that Arnold’s behavior was motivated by extreme spite toward Plaintiff, such that he would allow the iouse to:be foreclosed on and equity lost just to satisfy his personal spite. 59, Plaintiff: reasonably relied on Defendant ARNOLD’s deception in that had no reasonable way of obtaining information.of this fact, because Plaintiff was in the Ahospital-for a period of three months commencing in or about August 2011, and Plaintiff had otherwise no reason to believe that ARNOLD would stop making the required: monthly payments on the. Promissory note secured by the first lien on the Subject Property. 60: As a-result of Defendant ARNOLD'’s concealment, Plaintiff was damaged, in that Plaintiff was deprived of her i interest in the Subject Property, asa beneficiary of the Trust; when Defendant BANA caused the ‘Subject Property to'be:sold at-a non-judicial foreclosure sale. 61. The fair market vahic of the Subject Property at'the time of the loss of the. Subject Property in foreclosure was $600,000.00; at that time Plaintiff held a 50% beneficial ownership interest in the Subject Property through the Ti Tust, with a value of $300,000.00. This value was reduced by the balance of the first lien against the Subject Property, which was then HANSON LAW FIRM, PG - PAGE 120F 13 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINTOo Oo a A HW BF wb 10 Dated: Apaf 2017 approximately $80,000.00; Plaintiff's proportionate share of this reduction is $40,000.00. Thus, Plaintiff suffered actual damages inthe amount of: $260,000.00-a8 an achial and proximate result, of Defendant ARNOLD'S concealment. 62. Defendant ‘ARNOLD's acts and omissions in concealing material facts from Plaintiff'as alleged herein were done with, oppression, fraud and:malice, arid with intént to ‘vex, injure and annoy Plaintiff, and were committed with a conscious disregard of Plaintiff's rights. As:a result, Plaintiff is entitled to-an award of exemplary and punitive damages toward Defendant ARNOLD, in an amount according to proof. ; JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all causes of action so triable. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as set forth below: 1. That judgment be enteréd for plaintiff and against defendants; For special damages according to proof 3. For general damages according to proof 4. For attorney’s fees as allowed by law; 5. For exemplary damages inan amount sufficient to punish defendants’ wrongful behavior and deter future misconduct; 6. For costs as allowed by law; and 7. For such other relief as the Court.deems just and.proper. sade, 224 Christopher D.N. Hatison, Esq, Attorney for Plaintiff MARY GLASPIE FRANK. HANSON LAW FIRM, PC PAGE 13 OF 43 FIFTH AMENDED COMPLAINT