.jpeg)
MATHEWS
STREET
AMERICA
A Voice of
We the Posterity
Father Avelino "Abba" Ramos, Mother Kimiyo Yamagishi Ramos, and little sister.
Mathews Street house. 1968.
​"I paid off my mortgage loan in full just as we agreed by written contract -- but valid ample wire-transfer-ready funds delivered before foreclosure sale were deliberately refused and rogue entities breached contract, violated law and auctioned our house anyway. Attorney sabotaged wrongful foreclosure case I filed, then the court denied due process violating clear letter of the law and sheriffs evicted three of us from the home my family has owned for sixty years since 1965, allowing huge fix n' flip company who were amply warned before bidding I would be forced to bring this lawsuit, yet now they're listing our house on the open market for unjust profit, aiming to strip our multi-generational family of over $900,000 of our equity, destroy my retirement security and extended family's safety net I built, and throw a senior into homelessness and financial destruction."
The Law says NO. And so do I. Lawsuit is far from over." -- Renee Shizue Ramos Yamagishi, Berkeley CA
UNWAVERING OFFER TO PAY
- THE SYSTEM FAILED -
WHILE THIS AMERICAN HOMEOWNER HAS FOLLOWED THE LAW
[Factual background 2008-2025 below]
Civil Code of California, CIV 2924.11(b)(2): "If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing after the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale under either of the following circumstances:
.
(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder, and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer."
Higher price by $300k on 11/14.
Listed on October 10, 2025. Continuing to market despite active litigation.
Recorded docs in County misleading buyers and agents.
​
CORRECTING NOW
THE TRUTH:
Appellate court was never tasked with deciding if sale was void or valid.
The two orders appealed were just summary judgement orders --
meaning the only question for appellate court was
"Were there material facts in dispute?"
​​​
If yes (and there were a mountain of disputed 'facts') then summary judgement was improper and the case should proceed to TRIAL INSTEAD.
Dismissal of appeal was ONLY because Appellant's Opening Brief never got briefed so exactly NOTHING CAME UNDER REVIEW ON APPEAL. Remittitur back to trial court October 20, 2025 where the case lives now. New buyer, any realtors, agents, title insurers are exposed as possible additional defendants.
Case proceeds in trial court with pending motions and fully-preserved right to file First Amended Complaint to vacate summary judgements and proceed to merits trial. Orders granting summary judgements were recorded in the County recorders' office to mislead buyers and their agents.
​
Caveat Emptor - Buyer Beware - Case is active
Track: 23CV029813 - Ramos v. Wilmington - Alameda County Superior Court
Wrongful foreclosure action demands merits trial.
Summary judgement is denial of due process.
​
CASE IS ALIVE AND DUE PROCESS WAS DENIED - SO FAR. Homeowner's right preserved to file First Amended Complaint (FAC) to defeat those incorrect summary judgements that denied due process before dispossession of property.
​
Trial court ushered in eviction on wrongful denial of motion for stay pending appeal despite my offer and ability to post monthly rent-equivalent "undertaking" to keep three of us housed. Irreparable harm eviction next morning against any balance of the equities and against intent of the protective statute. Appeal perfected, no briefing yet. So, what did the statute actually compel upon court?
California Code of Civil Procedure CCP 917.4:
"The perfecting of an appeal shall not stay enforcement of the judgment or order in the trial court if the judgment or order appealed from directs the sale, conveyance or delivery of possession of real property which is in the possession or control of the appellant or the party ordered to sell, convey or deliver possession of the property, unless an undertaking in a sum fixed by the trial court is given that the appellant or party ordered to sell, convey or deliver possession of the property will not commit or suffer to be committed any waste thereon and that if the judgment or order appealed from is affirmed, or the appeal is withdrawn or dismissed, the appellant shall pay the damage suffered by the waste and the value of the use and occupancy of the property, or the part of it as to which the judgment or order is affirmed, from the time of the taking of the appeal until the delivery of the possession of the property. If the judgment or order directs the sale of mortgaged real property and the payment of any deficiency, the undertaking shall also provide for the payment of any deficiency."
Nov 1, 2025 Third attempt after void foreclosure and false claim of clear ownership of our home, and flip to next buyer during active litigation. Trespasser-agents of Wedgewood / Breckenridge / Champery living in our home since July 23, 2024.
​
Public warning lodged at county clerk and court docket by recorded Lis Pendens and Notice. Clouded Title - litigation has not even truly begun! No bona fide purchaser until final resolution. Trial by Jury. Our request to attempt good faith talks rejected, forcing escalated remedy by Rule of Law.
Factual Background (2008–2025)
June 2006: I refinanced childhood home to rehab it while ensuring life estate and care to elder father after mother passed away as we lived out of state - as promised both. House is safety-net for multi-generations in our family. Obtained interest-only adjustable-rate loan-strong-armed due to self-employment. Accepted in interim as rate was fixed for first three years, then subject to adjust June 2009. Payments affordable. No default. Anticipated 2009 Loan reset looming, applied for fixed-rate loan in light of financial crisis uncertainties and that we always wanted stable fixed-rate; MHA, HAMP federal leadership touting "Main Street" help after trillions $ bailout to "too big to fail."
​
Did what good citizen does -- shore up financials to weather the global crisis just as federal leadership encouraged, promising great relief for homeowners. No longer could consent to predatory ARM loan when crisis risked big rate hike or worse.
Dec. 2008: Loan current, never a missed payment, applied loan mod online and provided proof of income (two earners household). But Wilshire Credit Corp servicer (BofA acquisition) ghosted for over one year. Income docs repeatedly sent - hired attorney who found multiple loan origination federal TILA and RESPA violations, not to sue, just to leverage expedited loan mod to fix rate. Silence.
​
March 2010-2013: Bank of America servicer entitles' bounced my file between themselves, for YEARS, wrongly denied qualifying loan mods , applied for fixed-rate mod-no principal reduction requested. Bank of America servicers' elaborate scripted-denials including losing all paperwork forcing start over app: BAC, in-house mod app, BANA-each denying for fabricated reasons: wrong income, unreachable phone, no file... promises evaporated. Meanwhile I maximized income from creating rental studios in the very property to shore up income since learning the law became full-time hijack of my life, curtailing my business to half-time and eventually cost me thriving wellness practice.
All attempts to pay into new loan contract on record as evidence. No loan contract = no one to pay = which servicer BofA? where's the modified loan docs? You lost my papers and have chaos, and wrong income amounts, again?!
​
July 2013: Service-transferred from BANA to Nationstar Mortgage LLC. Upon formal request Nationstar sent three conflicting owners of the loan and denied a recorded Assignment of Deed of Trust and Note naming them as "assignee," a fourth contradiction in writing. QWR letter asking for correction / clarification ignored. No reply, evaded proof there was ever an injured party "mortgagee/beneficiary" authorizing them -- Illegal foreclosure 2019 six years later with help by court deflection and misdirection.
​
Then in February 2018 both Nationstar and Aztec managed to coordinate their agreed namefor mortgagee/beneficiary since the recorded Assignment since 2013 continued to assert Nationstar was mortgagee while Nationstar filed BK proofs of claim and answered lawsuits as mere agents for no known assignee. Both filed their "corrective assignment of deed of trust" recorded at County Clerk Recorder's (arguably causing more problems for them than it solved), then rescinded all prior docs with-mismatching names (SubTrustee, NOD, NOTS); then refiled new ones this time all matching their agreed-upon name for the mortgagee/beneficiary (Yvanova v New Century, 2016). Yet by written and verbal admission from management and in-house counsel at M&T Bank, they admit they had nothing to do with these recordation gymnastics. "What a tangled web we weave ..."
​
Jan 2015 (due to attorney abandonment in first ever suit 2014, looming foreclosure) Declared Chap. 13 Bankruptcy. Objected to Nationstar's proof-of-claim as to the named "creditor" who never entered the case or claim. Neither Nationstar nor M&T Bank (for its subsidiary placeholder name Wilmington Trust N.A. ever opposed my objection to Proof of Claim. But automatic stay lifted late 2016 after BK clerk mis-filed my proposed order for default on their silence, court took the mis-file as indexed "denial" to my objection to POC! No one ever opposed it, but my Chapter 13 automatic stay lifted anyway in late 2016. Judge delcared he "probably won't hear" the Adversarial complaint I had just filed. Clerks filed only the complaint and refused to docket its exhibits. BK 13 discharged in good standing 2018 with very few debts.
​
2014-2018: Nationstar Mortgage LLC and Aztec Foreclosure Corporation (neutral third-party trustee of Deed of Trust(!), recorded Notice of Default and Notice of Trustee Sale. Attempted judicial oversight to determine rights and responsibilities of all parties including borrower's right to know who owned the debt and pay that party (UCC 3 Negotiable Instrument Law, Calif. Tender of Debt Law, Fair Debt Collections Practices Act / CA Rosenthal Act, etc.)​
​
Past litigation to prevent foreclosure : I AM NOT A "VEXATIOUS LITIGANT" under California Law. ALL I EVER PLED WAS TO PAY THE OWNER OF THE LOAN i.e., Injured-Party-Beneficiary-In-Fact who would appear as summoned and prove it owns the debt (see QWR letter linked above). SCOTUS BINDING. I never lost a pre-foreclosure case and appeared at no more than 8 hearings or so ever for 15-20 minutes each- NEVER A MERITS TRIAL, and get this: Judge who granted Nationstar's fraud-filled motion to deem me VL ruled that when plaintiff dismisses complaint without prejudice it's counted as LOSING the entire complaint, even when a clerk "cancels" a hearing that was actually held and even if BK judge tosses out my AP saying "I won't hear it."
Why have I dismissed two pre-foreclosure cases without prejudice? #1 Attorney sabotage argued 180 degrees opposite original complaint and filed rogue FAC instead of defend OSC for preliminary injunction after I'd won a TRO barring sale, and #2 BK Judge simply said in open court "I probably won't hear your adversarial complaint, take it to state court." Another case was dismissed by court when clerk's docket said "hearing cancelled" but it was held and judge ruled "Case dismissed for failure to oppose demurrer."
​
CONCLUSION: Homeowners are to simply pay whoever shows up claiming to collect for someone else ... absent proof of agency nor proof from that alleged mortgagee of ANYTHING except that payments weren't collected for X months -- even when servicer misconduct obstructed those payments and denied obligation to prove a shred of STANDING for debt-owner nor for themselves as agent. We reach standing to object to ghost-mortgagees only AFTER title has been stripped from us and we face eviction in favor of an unproven entity. But we're summoned into a veritable "eviction kiosk" called unlawful detainer court that even CA Judicial Council's Judge's Benchguide admits "raises due process concerns" for the "former homeowner." That's an understatement for this Possession-only summary adjudication procedure with no cross complaint nor counterclaims of wrongful foreclosure allowed. Void sale? UD can't see that. Homeowners who've suffered wrongful foreclosure have mysteriously CONFESSED JUDGEMENT AGAINST OURSELVES SOMEHOW. We're of lesser status than a mere tenant when summoned into California eviction kiosks -- that UD plaintiff is presumed to already own our entire home AND any equity we have in it merely by waiving their TDUS recorded in the county clerk's office (Trustee's Deed Upon Sale). Plaintiff we must become -- at risk of eviction even while the real case is pending. Dual-tracking 2.0.
​
"No one should be allowed to invent a debt and then enforce it."-- Neil Garfield. Esq.
Trial courts in the county rule that pre-foreclosure homeowners have no standing to have judge help determine if there is an injured party in fact -- mortgage servicers and trustees can claim a ghost-mortgagee who is a trustee of a REMIC trust when that trustee formally writes it "has no knowledge of the loan nor authorizes anything the servicer or trustee claims against me -- it has no "loan-level data" with which to direct or authorize servicing. [Trustee of "my REMIC" is M&T Bank who owns the "Wilmington Trust N.A." placeholder name: Senior in-house counsel and M&T management: "Nationstar services your loan .... we have no data or knowledge about just your loan, we hire no attorneys opposite your claims and we direct all your inquiries to Nationstar." Paraphrased direct phone call M&T in-house counsel. Reply to my complaint and clarification letter - Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB 2016).
​​
​
2017 discovered by research: Despite federal mandates-MHA, HAMP-designed to stabilize homeowners post-crisis, every servicer denied mods. B of A later admitted your loan qualified under a $17 Billion DOJ settlement but withheld aid and never contacted this "formerly-serviced-borrower" for proprietary reasons. "No principle reduction requested, just a loan mod contract I can pay into." "No funds left, goodbye."
2018-2019: Lawsuit to have judge as referree compel servicer to comply with new california Homeowners' Bill of Rights (CalHBOR) mandate to entere WRITTEN FORECLOSURE PREVENTION ALTERNATIVE, waived my right to know who the debt-owner might be -- jus needed to be done with Nationstar and Aztec. Attorney walked out of Mandatory Settlement Conference after offering "Be out in 30 days and we have $5000 to offer you." (!?)
MADE UNCONDITONAL OFFER TO TENDER FULL PAYOFF, written acceptance by all pre-sale parties IN WRITING. Decided to interview hard money lenders, find a reputable experienced one and close before trustee sale. CalHBOR CIV 2924.11(b)(2) and (d) required written agreement + proof of financing delivered to servicer. chose lender, investor jumped at the high equity and LTV. Plan in place, title pulled, papers drafting.
September 12, 2019 secured a WRITTEN AGREEMENT between all pre-sale parties via their counsel and "on behalf of the trustee (Aztec)" acceptance of my UNCONDITIONAL OFFER TO PAYOFF THE FULL LOAN BALANCE. CIV 1624b(3)(A) Email from attorney on behalf of all pre-sale parpties -- electronic communication constitutes written contract if contains elements of a contract in California. Done.
Sept 12, 2019 Legal position: All parties agreed to CONDITIONALLY EXTINGUISH Deed of Trust security instrument in favor of full payoff on loan debt. Paraphrase: "Yes we accept your unconditional offer of full payoff of the full loan amount due (you waive demands about who we're collecting for, or the amount due - great), thus making foreclosure moot."
​
September 23-25, 2019: Secured valid more-than-ample refinance loan from veteran hard money lender and self-described "foreclosure bailout specialist" with eager investor $850,000 on full payoff balance of about $698,000, FMV of property (4-plex) about $1.4 Million. Delivered 7:45 AM hours before sale constituting REDEMPTION OF THE PROPERTY, wire-transfer ready funds in escrow (date/time email stamps). ​
​
Sept 25, 2019 7:45 AM Proof of financing sent by lender email, Wiring instructions requested for third time. Servicer and trustee had gone silent for the 13 days interim. (Single-Point-Of-Contact SPOC violation CIV 2923.7)
​
Sept 25, 2019 8:17 AM Title-escrow officer working closely with lender: "I have escrow open" (wire transfer instructions requested).
​
Sept 25, 2019 9:20 AM rejected redemption via email direct reply to proof of funds, " Reply to All" from attorneys for servicer: "Our clients have informed us they will proceed to sale." Failed any further communication w/ lender, waived all objections, obstructed payment.
Legal position: Deed of Trust security instrument CONTITIONALLY EXTINGUISHED on September 12, 2019 by written contract between all parties that Full Payoff shall satisfy the loan debt in full. Followed by Deed of Trust PERMANENTLY EXTINGUISHED at 9:20 AM 09/25/2019 (Law of Equitable Redemption exercised timely by contract, but deliberately obstructed -- CIV 1512, 2924.11(b)(2), (d); 2923.6, 2923.7, 1501, 1504, 1624(b)(3)(A); CCP 2074, 2076 . See below PDFs with links to emails - timely valid ample wire-ready proof of financing delivered to servicer's attorney and trustee. Contract breached. Redemption right preserved.
September 25, 2019 1:20 PM Trustee opened bidding on our home, Sale completed in favor of Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC. (Dual-tracking violation CIV 2923.6; CIV 2924.11)
​
Sept. 30, 2019 Emailed: Formal written Offer to Buyback for $800,000 sent to Wedgewood Corporate ($60,000 premium to them and over $100,000 higher than redemption full payoff) to retain home and avoid litigation against all parties. REJECTED BY SILENCE.
​
October 3, 2019 Trustees Deed Upon Sale Recorded County Clerk
Recorder's Office Alameda County.
​
Defended in Unlawful Detainer Court - raised jurisdictional challenge to the
possession-only determination by summary adjudication - California's veritable
"Eviction Kiosk." Pled Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Lack of Standing
for the UD Plaintiff in defense throughout. Jurisdictional challenge never
addressed nor overcome, but Writ of eviction by summary judgement
issued anyway. Eviction stayed by UD appeal , and stayed further by
May 15 / June 8 2023 Temporary Restraining Order / Preliminary Injunction
in action as forced to file as plaintiff in action for wrongful foreclosure -
Alameda County Superior Court RAMOS v WILMINGTON, 23CV029813.
​
CCP 917.4 stay pending appeal denied July 22, 2024 despite
on offer to post undertaking and post market-rent equivalent
into court escrow and stay eviction, having perfected appeal.
No CCP 533 noticed motion or hearing to dissolve a formerly-
granted PI.
​
July 23, 2024 Eviction by sheriff the next morning
​
November 2025 Wrongful foreclosure litigation live.
Not abandoned, no waiver. Summary judgements -- the
opposite of trial on the merits -- are ripe for vacatur and not
the end of the case.
September 23, 2019: Phone call to Reed Smith lawfirm representing Nationstar: "Hello, yes may I speak with _____? Oh, she hasn't returned my emails or calls for over a week .. could you then please ask one of the supervising attorneys if we can arrange me walking in cashier's check for the full payoff we agreed to in writing? Sure I'll wait .... What? Security guards won't let me off the elevator onto your 18th floor? Right ... So, can we arrange to meet in the lobby to sign off on the check? ..... Oh, that's not available either, I'd just need a signed receipt ... I see. So there's no way to ... Then I and my lender will just have to arrange wiring instructions for the full payoff. Please convey this call to Ms. ____ and her supervising attorneys___ and ___. I will be ready to wire it well before the sale, it really should be cancelled -- we're in contract -- two weeks ago almost, for this full payoff. Yes that's right. Ok Thank you for your help."
.jpeg)
vid
vid
The Yvanova opinion 2016 by Supreme Court of CA hardly seems controversial - but it didn't shift trial court's trend to allow nonjudicial foreclosure proceed for an unknown unproven mortgagee by its alleged agents, i.e. with the court's blessing I should lose my house to a "person or institution" of unproven standing having no evident authority, and that only AFTER the foreclosure do I have standing to seek court if my home was lost to an unproven ghost! Even by false claims of its unproven agents. So in 2019 I waived proof of standing and pled sole cause of action only CIV 2923.55 to have judge as referee enforce the rule that parties enter Written Agreement to avoid foreclosure, so I am not dual-tracked into foreclosure by breach of contract.
Mandatory Settlement Conference ordered June 2019, attended with adult daughter and opposing counsel representing Nationstar and M&T Bank and "the Trust." Opening offers wildly disparate pre-sale my name still on title: Reed Smith lawyer offered me five-thousand-dollars if I vacated our home in 30 days. (?!) I offered to have audience for Presentment under UCC 3-501 or else Nationstar admits they were demanding payment and relentlessly threatening foreclosure for a ghost for six years.
Before we could meet in the middle (my unconditional offer of full payoff on entire Note, waiving my right to know identity of mortgagee), counsel took a phone call, got up and walked out of the MSC, bolted out the building never looking back. SMH.
.jpeg)
"The Law" by Bastiat. 10 min. video
.jpeg)
Two past attempts to list on MLS during active litigation (2021 and 2024). Eviction court "unlawful detainer case" does not allow recording Lis Pendens -- People want to buy a house not a lawsuit! Eviction was necessary for them to evade our 3' x 8' vinyl banner Lis Pendens.
​
Second flip attempt after illegal eviction December 2024 with Lis Pendens active for current case. Listing pulled in 24 hours from my phone call warning.
​
​
​
​
​​
​
Voicemail listing agent 12/2024
screenshot Sept 2, 2025
2014, 2021, and 2024. All during active litigation exposed new buyer, insurer etc. to the lawsuit - ATTEMPTING AGAIN Oct 2025
System gone rogue: The mega equity-stripping fix n' flip foreclosure buyer (Wedgewood/Breckenridge/ Champery) gets Nationstar and Aztec Foreclosure to auction my house after illegally rejecting my redemption by full payoff refinance which extinguished Deed-of-Trust: SALE WAS VAPOR-VOID-THEATER. (CIV 2924.11(b)(2), (d), 1512; Walker v Houston, Law of Equitable Redemption)
"Wins bid" at $740,000 barely over MY rejected redemption price after my verbal Actual Notice warnings. Records the document delivered by foreclosing trustee (TDUS) and gets order for evicting homeowner at UD's Eviction Kiosk. Now attempting another flip since they twice-fail Bona Fide Purchaser status; exposing listing realtor, buyers agent, mortgage insurer and new buyer as additional defendants added to the ongoing lawsuit. Lis Pendens active.
​
All lawful claims preserved by California homeowner.
​
$1.3M? They expect bidding war. Too bad its not their property - it's our HOME since 1965 til now.
​
LAW OF EQUITABLE REDEMPTION, Civil Code of Calif. CIV 2924.11(b)(2),(d), CIV 1512​
Nov 1, 2025 Third attempt after void foreclosure and false claim of clear ownership of our home, and flip to next buyer during active litigation. Trespasser-agents of Wedgewood living in our home since July 23, 2024.
Public warning lodged at county clerk and court docket by recorded Lis Pendens and Notice. Clouded Title - litigation has not even truly begun! No bona fide purchaser until final resolution. Trial by Jury. Our request to attempt good faith talks rejected, forcing escalated remedy by Rule of Law.​
LITIGATION FOR SALE! Disguised as a "house."
NOT FOR SALE
"You forge, you forfeit" blog post August 2017
.jpeg)
CASE UPDATES
OPERATIVE
COMPLAINT
INCOMING
Foreclosure sale -- void or valid? That’s strictly trial court business. Appeal ended neutral: no brief, no ruling, just remitted back- exactly where we left off- because the trial judge misdirected me to chase appellate stays he could’ve granted this side of the Bay. Still no trial on the merits. No court ever ruled Void or Valid Sale - just said you don’t get to have any trial or discovery – go to appellate for anything else (wrong). And let the defendants evade proving one bit of their claims. Procedurally nullified. Rights preserved, never were abandoned. Misdirection survives laches. Whose house right now? Law decides.
Original complaint pled my Redemption was ilegaly blocked, but attorney reneged on The Law of the Case: CIV 2924.11(b)(2), (d), (g) and pled an 1872 redemption-from-lien statute before Calif. went nonjudicial on foreclosures, then utterly failed to oppose summary judgement motions -- all ripe for amended complaint.
​Lis Pendens active, recorded. Preserves trial court action. Homeowner has NOT abandoned her rights nor the case. How does wrongful foreclosure and blocked redemption get lawfully resolved by summary judgement? It doesn't - if Amendment 5, 14 still lives.
NOTICE OF INTENT TO PRESERVE INTEREST
(CIV 880.020 et seq.)
​
Claimant preserves due process rights by judicial resolution of competing claims affecting title and right to possession: Claimant is plaintiff in pending action for wrongful foreclosure of primary residence real property. Lis Pendens recorded, case is active. Notice serves to clarify post-appeal remittitur status and provide full disclosure that meets stated industry standards for title search inquiries, real estate and Multiple Listing Service (MLS) disclosures, and in service of the public interest.
​
Plaintiff/Claimant has not abandoned her case, nor did the appealed summary judgements decide the case as to whether the foreclosure sale was void or valid – which remains undecided until merits trial completes or if settlement is reached.
Illegal Eviction. FACT. Court will hear it.
Summary judgements signed 4/4/2024. Entered 5/16&17/2024. Appealed 5/31/24. Evicted 7/23/24. Temp. stay request to seek counsel DENIED
No briefing at Appellate. Justifiable reasons. Two summary judgement orders disposing of my wrongful foreclosure complaint appealed.
The question on appeal? Were there "triable issues in dispute? (yes obviously). "Were there competing inferences on undisputed facts?" (yes, such as emails w/ date-time-stamps, events, documents-- but different conclusions- never argued) If Appellate Court says case should go to trial not die without a merits trial (testimony, docs, jury, etc.) then summary judgement vacates, remands back, Court got nothing to vacate. Remitted back 10/20/25. NON-DECISION. Rights preserved.
The Federalist No. 78, [28 May 1788]
​
". ... The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is in fact, and must be, regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcileable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought of course to be preferred; or in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. ..."
.jpeg)
Article III, Section 1. California Constitution directly affirms federal constitution hierarchy. declaring:
"The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land".
State courts are bound: This means that if a provision of the California Constitution or state law conflicts with a valid federal law or the U.S. Constitution, the federal law prevails. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld this principle, even overriding attempts by states to nullify federal decisions.
​​2703 Mathews Street, Berkeley California is our family home for sixty years since 1965, and holds the life-energy of our five generations in its bones. Simple truth. We rebuilt it as a family from the STUDS OUT, room by room, interior, exterior, raised ceiling height to period retrofit, new flooring, windows, doors, moulding, cabinets, fixtures .. replaced EVERYTHING ourselves floor to ceiling. 2005-2012 & also 1971-1973 and 1977-1979 when our parents built the two-story addition. I then remodeled it into a 3-plex then 4-plex for financial security and rental income. Ask our old-time neighbors who put up with all the construction!
My childhood family home, and I, now a grandmother steward our house-- I paid it off in full in 2019 by hard-money loan. But property plunder profiteers had already decided to reject my wire-transfer of more than full payoff, and foreclosed illegally instead. My REDEMPTION BLOCKED. Fraud vitiates all contracts. For any new buyer, unknown legal headaches and damages lie through that entry door -- the court alone may compel additional "indispensable parties" be added to suit to resolve the case. I even offered the current "sellor" $100,000 over what I owed to just walk away post-fraudulent foreclosure auction. They choose lawsuit -- eyes wide open to the fatal defect of my blocked redemption - and now want to flip it to new buyer who INHERITS LITIGATION. Honestly? RUN. The fraud is deep. Buy a HAPPY home instead!
Our Ramos-Yamagishi home isn't for sale.
Code of Civil Procedure
​
Civil Code 2924 et seq
​
IIED, WIC, EVID, PEN
​
Calif. Homeowners' Bill of Rights 2924.12, .19 et seq
Joint Tortfeasors CCP 875 - 880
California Civil Code
Civil Code Section 2924 et seq.
DO YOUR DILIGENCE: AMENDED COMPLAINT AND VACATUR PENDING - MONITOR THROUGH REPUTABLE TITLE COMPANY, SEARCH ALAMEDA COUNTY CLERK RECORDER'S OFFICE, AND CHECK COURT DOCKET: Alameda County Superior Court Case# 23CV029813 | RAMOS v WILMINGTON, et al.
New buyer won't clear title - inherits a lawsuit.
Civil Code of California, CIV 2924.11(b)(2): "If a foreclosure prevention alternative is approved in writing after the recordation of a notice of default, a mortgage servicer, mortgagee, trustee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall not record a notice of sale or conduct a trustee’s sale under either of the following circumstances:
.
(2) A foreclosure prevention alternative has been approved in writing by all parties, including, for example, the first lien investor, junior lienholder, and mortgage insurer, as applicable, and proof of funds or financing has been provided to the servicer."
Civil Code of California, CIV 2924.11(d): "A mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent shall record a rescission of a notice of default or cancel a pending trustee’s sale, if applicable, upon the borrower executing a permanent foreclosure prevention alternative. In the case of a short sale, the cancellation of the pending trustee’s sale shall occur when the short sale has been approved by all parties and proof of funds or financing has been provided to the mortgagee, beneficiary, or authorized agent.
Civil Code of California, CIV 2924.11(g): "If a borrower has been approved in writing for a first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, and the servicing of that borrower’s loan is transferred or sold to another mortgage servicer, the subsequent mortgage servicer shall continue to honor any previously approved first lien loan modification or other foreclosure prevention alternative, in accordance with the provisions of the act that added this section."
2924.11(b)(2), (d), (g)
2924.12(b), (c), (d), (g), (h)
REDEMPTION BLOCKED valid, ample, wire-ready = Void Sale - civil tort damages
2924c(a)(2)
Beneficiary / Mortgagee's "declaration of default and demand for sale?" None = No authority, no standing to sell.
2924.19(2)(b)
2924(a)(1)(C), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(6)(b), (a)(6)(c)
2924f(b)(5)
2924c(a)(1), (b)(1))
2924(a)(1)(D)
2924g(c)(1) B, C, D
Trustee conducted illegal auction, breached contract, rejected redemption.
[Not an exhaustive list of state and federal violations, nor is binding case law included above]
"Equity of Redemption" (Cornell Law)
Nolo article: "Right of Redemption"
We made UNCONDITIONAL OFFER to pay loan off in full -- ACCEPTED IN WRITING -- and DELIVERED proof of financing as agreed, thus waived borrower's right to know WHO she owed a debt to, thus waived any objections to the AMOUNT of full payoff and to proof of STANDING for INJURY-IN-FACT owner of debt. "Hey Nationstar Mortgage and Aztec Foreclosure Corp.: what's the full payoff amount you agreed to accept two weeks ago in writing, and please send your wiring instructions - escrow open - wire transfer funds ready."
​
UNLAWFULLY REFUSED!
BUT now six years' of traumatizing litigation later plus 15 months after ILLEGAL EVICTION WHILE ON PERFECTED APPEAL OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENTS issued by trial court, no waiver: California law imposes strict compliance with Servicer & Trustee duties TO ACT WITH AUTHORITY. "So who was owed the payoff?" REDEMPTION RIGHTS PRESERVED ON VOID SALE.
Lis Pendens County of Alameda recorded 5/17/2023
.jpeg)
Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper, the largest mortgage debt collector in the nation admitted to fraudulent foreclosure servicing in 50-state AG Consent Order DOJ and regulators: $86.3 Million settlement (2020)
Page 2-3 from the Consent Order - Findings against Nationstar, Dec.7, 2020
Willful misconduct failed to cancel sale CIV 2924.11(b)(2), (d), Redemption Blocked= Void Sale
Ghosted SPOC duties after tender (offer) CIV 2923.7; Dual-tracked foreclosure CV 2923.6.
Repeated requests for wiring instructions to post full payoff "Proof of Financing delivered, funds in escrow, wire instructions ignored-refused: Sale held. MULTI-VIOLATIONS
DELIBERATELY VIOLATED LAW OF EQUITABLE REDEMPTION, California Homeowners' Bill of Rights, Breach of Contract, Lack of Standing for Authorized Mortgagee/Beneficiary as agents to demand payment or foreclose.
_edited.jpg)
​TENDER. "The offer of performance, not performance itself, and when unjustifiably refused, places other party in default and permits party making tender to exercise remedies for breach of contract". (Walker v. Houston, 215 Cal. 742, 12 P.2d 952, 953, 87 A.L.R. 937.) (Emphasis added)
- Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 1637.
Civil Code - CIV
DIVISION 3. OBLIGATIONS [1427 - 3273.69] (Division 3 amended by Stats. 1988)
PART 1. OBLIGATIONS IN GENERAL [1427 - 1543]
TITLE 4. EXTINCTION OF OBLIGATIONS [1473 - 1543]
CHAPTER 3. Prevention of Performance or Offer [1511 - 1515]
(Chapter 3 enacted 1872. )
[1512.] Section Fifteen Hundred and Twelve. If the performance of an obligation be prevented by the creditor, the debtor is entitled to all the benefits which he would have obtained if it had been performed by both parties. (Amended by Code Amendments 1873-74, Ch. 612.)
California codes and case law "Tender of Debt"
Active pre-sale suit was solely for Nationstar as mortgage servicer to comply with CIV 2923.55 requiring borrower-communication to agree on any viable affordable "alternatives to foreclosure," then enter the agreement in writing and process the alternative TO GET PAID - Nationstar? Routinely skips it, conveyor belt moves to auction anyway.
Reed Smith LLP appeared for Nationstar, M&T Bank and "the REMIC trust, i.e., "Wilmington Trust N.A., Successor Trustee to Citibank N.A. as Trustee of the Merrill Lynch Mortgage Investor's Trust, Mortgage Loan Asset-Backed Certificates, Series 2006 HE-5."
Transcript
SATIRE OFF THE CUFF: Reed Smith Laywers' Panic Room (not real voices, but reality in evidence. Hint: start 10 min. mark
.jpeg)
Under California law, active litigation and clouded title risks any subsequent buyer, realtor, insurer etc. be added as joint tortfeasors and added to litigation as a co-defendant. Constructive notice warning: Lis Pendens and documents recorded in clerk recorders' office as well as court documents; and public law.
(BFP)
