LOCKETT vs BANK OF AMERICA | CA Sup. Court - Forged Assignment, Promissory note was invalidly assigned to one claiming a right to payments based
via Dave Krieger
Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles Department 51
Honorable Abraham Khan
LOCKETT, Plaintiff(s), v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant( s). EXCERPTS With regard to fraud, actionable representations of entitlement to enforce the deed of trust are no pled with sufficient particularity, including as to identities, times and methods, and knowledge the time of a forged assignment (e.g., First Amended Complaint, ~~61-66), and many allege nondisclosures are not supported by any case-recognized duty, such as the alleged duty t disclose splitting the note from the deed of trust that is merely legal conduct (id. at ~44), or t disclosure changes in loan character to an investment that are simply legal transactions (e.g., id. 11at ~~45-49, 67). Further, California law has never recognized a cause of action for fraud based upon a forge assignment or a scheme of conduct, but instead defines actionably fraud claims as bein misrepresentations, concealment, promissory fraud or fraudulent inducement of contracting. With respect to an accounting, the pleading sufficiently alleges unknown payments to one no entitled to the funds (e.g., First Amended Complaint, ~~22-23, 91-92). Regarding a tender, an exception applies, based on allegations that Defendant lacks any beneficial interest in order to conduct a future foreclosure sale-- here due to an alleged forgery. Concerning cancellation, the Plaintiff sufficiently alleges a void assignment of a deed of trust, based upon a forgery (e.g., First Amended Complaint, ~40). [...]