16. EC067431
ANCELMO RAMOS VASQUEZ v MTC FINANCIAL, INC.
Demurrer
The Plaintiff alleges in his First Amended Complaint that Defendant, MTC Financial Inc., improperly commenced non-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the Plaintiff’s property without any right. The Defendant claims that it is the trustee, but it is a substituted trustee and not the original trustee. As a result, it is alleged that the sale of the Plaintiff’s property to Brekenridge Property Fund was wrongful. The Plaintiff seeks damages, cancellation of the documents recorded on his property, and a declaration that the Defendants have no legal rights in his property.
CAUSES OF ACTION IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
1) Wrongful Foreclosure
2) Cancellation of Instruments
3) Declaratory Relief
This hearing concerns the demurrer of the Defendant, MTC Financial Inc., to the First Amended Complaint.
An initial issue is that the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant did not comply with CCP section 430.41 by attempting to meet and c
Hearing Date
February 09, 2018
Type
Other Real Property Rights Case (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
16. EC067431
ANCELMO RAMOS VASQUEZ v MTC FINANCIAL, INC.
Demurrer
The Plaintiff alleges in his First Amended Complaint that Defendant, MTC Financial Inc., improperly commenced non-judicial foreclosure proceedings on the Plaintiff’s property without any right. The Defendant claims that it is the trustee, but it is a substituted trustee and not the original trustee. As a result, it is alleged that the sale of the Plaintiff’s property to Brekenridge Property Fund was wrongful. The Plaintiff seeks damages, cancellation of the documents recorded on his property, and a declaration that the Defendants have no legal rights in his property.
CAUSES OF ACTION IN FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT:
1) Wrongful Foreclosure
2) Cancellation of Instruments
3) Declaratory Relief
This hearing concerns the demurrer of the Defendant, MTC Financial Inc., to the First Amended Complaint.
An initial issue is that the Plaintiff argues that the Defendant did not comply with CCP section 430.41 by attempting to meet and c