MarkSeidenberg
Dec 17, 2011, 11:04 AM
I am a former leasee of a house in unincorporated San Diego County. At the time of signing
That lease with two persons claiming to be the "landlords" in the lease the real Landlords were long dead. The real owners, viz. two trustees, who were dead for nearly ten years (without a successor trustee named)to a trust agreement (not recorded and of unknown form)are still the recorded owners of the land at the San Diego County Recorder Office.
When I found out during the lease period that the persons I signed the lease with were not the Landlords, I sued for Fraud and have asked for my rent money returned as Plaintiff
(In Pro Per) in an unlimited action in the East County Superior. The Lessors also sued
As a Unlawful Detainer, because I stopped paying them rent. The UD case was lost, because
Of a five day rule, and title ownership is not an issue in a UD proceeding.
Now the fraud suit remains. Yesterday, I got the Leasors Cross Complaint rejected in a
Motion to strike by the Court. After that court hearing the Leasors attorney tells me
His claims have no money and that one of them now claims to be a grand son of one of the
Two dead trustee's to the 1999 purported real estate trust.
Yet, I have a birth certificate and marriage certificate of that purported "claimed Grand Son" and the father of that Leasor was a man that listed his father on his birth
Certificate and three marriage certificates as someone else, who died in Bakerfield in
1976.
When, I informed that attorney that his client was lying to the Count on claiming to be
Grand Son of one of the dead co-trustee's and I found that trustee's real next of kin, viz. a first cousin once removed, his reaction was that he will not be representing
His current client in the probate court and that he had only one meeting with his client.
Yet, he told me that his client still claims to be the Grand Son of that dead trustee.
Then that attorney informed me that I received "value" for the rent I paid his two clients, and that the Fraud Claim is based on "meritless allegations that the Defendants
Do not own the property Plaintiff leased from them."
In the Defendants's Settlement Conference Statement it went on to state that Plaintiff
"has no damages, and cannot show 1) that the property is not owned by the Defendants and
That 2) they had any reason to believe that they do not own the Property during any relevent period of time." The next statement in the Defendants' Settlement Conference
Statement was "The lawsuit [for Fraud by Plaintiff] is simply an extragant attempt to cause Defendants (or perhaps an insurer of some sort) to incur sufficiently high legal
Fees to the point that they pay [Plaintiff] some kind of windfall to go away--despite the
Metitless nature of his claims."
Therefore, has any one out there ever heard of an "insurer" for fraud in California or can cite California cases on point, I as the Plaintiff can use for undue enrichment by the Defendants at this "Settlement Conference"?
That lease with two persons claiming to be the "landlords" in the lease the real Landlords were long dead. The real owners, viz. two trustees, who were dead for nearly ten years (without a successor trustee named)to a trust agreement (not recorded and of unknown form)are still the recorded owners of the land at the San Diego County Recorder Office.
When I found out during the lease period that the persons I signed the lease with were not the Landlords, I sued for Fraud and have asked for my rent money returned as Plaintiff
(In Pro Per) in an unlimited action in the East County Superior. The Lessors also sued
As a Unlawful Detainer, because I stopped paying them rent. The UD case was lost, because
Of a five day rule, and title ownership is not an issue in a UD proceeding.
Now the fraud suit remains. Yesterday, I got the Leasors Cross Complaint rejected in a
Motion to strike by the Court. After that court hearing the Leasors attorney tells me
His claims have no money and that one of them now claims to be a grand son of one of the
Two dead trustee's to the 1999 purported real estate trust.
Yet, I have a birth certificate and marriage certificate of that purported "claimed Grand Son" and the father of that Leasor was a man that listed his father on his birth
Certificate and three marriage certificates as someone else, who died in Bakerfield in
1976.
When, I informed that attorney that his client was lying to the Count on claiming to be
Grand Son of one of the dead co-trustee's and I found that trustee's real next of kin, viz. a first cousin once removed, his reaction was that he will not be representing
His current client in the probate court and that he had only one meeting with his client.
Yet, he told me that his client still claims to be the Grand Son of that dead trustee.
Then that attorney informed me that I received "value" for the rent I paid his two clients, and that the Fraud Claim is based on "meritless allegations that the Defendants
Do not own the property Plaintiff leased from them."
In the Defendants's Settlement Conference Statement it went on to state that Plaintiff
"has no damages, and cannot show 1) that the property is not owned by the Defendants and
That 2) they had any reason to believe that they do not own the Property during any relevent period of time." The next statement in the Defendants' Settlement Conference
Statement was "The lawsuit [for Fraud by Plaintiff] is simply an extragant attempt to cause Defendants (or perhaps an insurer of some sort) to incur sufficiently high legal
Fees to the point that they pay [Plaintiff] some kind of windfall to go away--despite the
Metitless nature of his claims."
Therefore, has any one out there ever heard of an "insurer" for fraud in California or can cite California cases on point, I as the Plaintiff can use for undue enrichment by the Defendants at this "Settlement Conference"?