[MarkSeidenberg]

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"?

[Fr_Chuck]

I see you have failed your claim, since they really don't have to prove they are family and the landlord, it is your duty in your case to prove they are not. You have not provided any real evidence they are not the rightful heirs.

If you have found the rightful heir you needed to have brought them into court.

Also I will agree that you did received value for your money and don't really see the issue since you were living in the house.

You "assume" they are not the owners but have no real proff of it, that was available for court.

Next it is common state law that they can not profit from illegal activity, but you have yet to prove any illegal activity.

[ScottGem]

I agree with Chuck. This does not seem to be a case where someone rents an abandoned property. You entered Into a lease and received value for your rental. Now if you can show that thee rental had Maintenance issues and you didn't receive value for the rental that could be an issue.

[JudyKayTee]

I don't understand the reason for the lawsuit - what am I missing?

[AK lawyer]

... 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"?

What do you mean "'insurer' for fraud"?

I'm not going to search for case law for you. But I really doubt that you will get anywhere with "unjust enrichment". You got the benefit of your (lease) bargain. So how were they "unjustly" enriched? It might be a different story if the "real" owner came out of the woodwork and evicted you.

[ScottGem]

It might be a different story if the "real" owner came out of the woodwork and evicted you.

That's what I was thinking. The real owners would appear to have a valid lawsuit. But I don't see the OP having a cause of action unless there is something we aren't being told.

[Fr_Chuck]

First I am not sure the person who is the landlord is not the "real" owner. That is a matter of other issue. The renter did not file criminal charges of fraud, nor were they charged with tresspsss. If this was in fact a illegal rental, then the renter would be obligated to have moved out.

If they continued to stay and rent from someone then that contract is valid.

Again the civil law suit is between he estate and the real owner and this person if they are no the real owner.

BUT again and again, that was never proved, it was only shown you think there is someone else, who is a relation. You did not find them, you did not have them appear in court, you did not get a statement from them.