Below are thumbnail links or buttons linked to some but not all docketed pleadings and other papers, in reverse chronological order back to 2014 and as recently as 2019. Court documents from 2019 to present are under construction.
See also OUR STORY page for a more complete chronological summary of a long arduous attempt to resolve this and keep our home of four generations by an unwavering offer to pay in order to simply secure our humble home and cure any possible future controversy so it will not resurface to trouble our future generations.
April 25, 2019:
If you scroll to the bottom of this page, in reverse chronology are some of the pleadings for only 2018 case. Latest 2019 pleadings are very recent and linked thumbnails here.
Verified Complaint for Violation of California Homeowner Bill of Rights ("CalHBOR") and Unauthorized Foreclosure Due to Void Assignment filed April 19, 2019 ; and the concurrently pled Application for Temporary Restraining Order which was won recently on 4/23/2019 with a hearing on injunction coming up on May 14, 2019.
We attempted to settle by offering cash settlement of "short-payoff" to Nationstar Mortgage LLC, and called it "ransom." They immediately rejected it, and then rejected a higher offer. All offers are off the table and we filed the current complaint.
NOTE: Exhibits to both the Complaint and the TRO Application are in some instances duplicate exhibits and total many pages partly due to the extensive evidence before the court that Defendants acted in violation of both the Injunction ordered against them last year in a separate suit and for one main CalHBOR violation which remains uncorrected to date (linked at bottom of this page) and of the clear language of the statute "CalHBOR."
Ex Parte Application for
TRO / Injunction, filed with complaint
Hearing for Injunction on May 14, 2019. The facts pled for granting Injunction were won last year (see below)
Order granting TRO for Protection 4/23/2019
After voluntary dismissal without prejudice of 2018 case (see below), filed both these Declarations to record updates on the ongoing dispute.
Opponents played very dirty in order to evade defending what was indefensible, i.e. that they indeed violated CalHBOR (2923.5) due diligence conference required by phone prior to filing the Notoice of Default, so rather than correction and a motion to dissolve the injunction ordered against them for 2923.5 violation, they removed the case to federal court on false pretenses assuring me we would have court-ordered "ADR" which was a mockery.
Federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction -- I just didn't know what I was looking at completely nor how to properly plead for remand, so I got out of the line of fire and dismissed without prejudice, voluntarily, to be able to plead CalHBOR again without Res Judicata. Which has been pled this year and is active. Injunction this year is currently "under submission" by the court in the active 2019 case.
December 7, 2018 Renee Ramos Yamagishi
Still in between active lawsuits we're told an auction is still set for the "postponed" date of January 8, 2019 -- even though various letters and emails of our legal position have bantered back and forth. We are continuing to mount the upward climb started at the filing of the late May case built on the finger and toehold of "California Homeowners' Bill of Rights" legislation which renewed and retained some teeth in January 2018. But we are in between cases due to the strategic retreat from federal court after the state case was removed to federal by opponents. We now have studied and the law and rules and have emerged convinced that removal to federal was improper. So, as a major update to the November 13 post below, it appears clear now that federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction which is non-waivable and remand required by law. An order for remand would return to protection by injunction, the status quo. It will be up to the federal judge to hear my short and clear finding of the facts and to remand as proper: that is IF he or she also agrees on good and equitable cause to reopen case so the court can hear it. To deny a motion to reopen must force me to appeal; and surmount another way to achieve injunction. Let's hope that is unnecessary. Anyone following this case should know that upon remand we will immediately petition for an order in that state court case for Alternative Dispute Resolution to proceed in a lawful manner, i.e. IN PERSON and according to rule of law. So even though we'd rather be free of legalese thinking during the Christmas season -- we accept that no matter what, as always, nothing steals our deep joy. And if tasked, we meet it; trusting that we must be capable to surmount it -- because whatever has shown up has arrived on the table of a sacred warrior.
Meanwhile we continue to extend the invitation to DIALOGUE TOWARDS REASONABLE SETTLEMENT - which I have been vocal and transparent on to adverse parties: I had been clearly and repeatedly willing to offer a cash-out settlement through outside funding in a COMPROMISED amount. Recently in phone conference Nationstar and Aztec demanded the "full amount" they claim is owed WHICH INCLUDE MORE THAN FOUR YEARS OF "missed payments" DURING WHICH LOAN MODIFICATIONS WERE REPEATEDLY DENIED and Bank of America as servicer COULD HAVE accepted our hard-earned money and been paid all along. Now I should pay for that experience and to these entities making claim absent "legal standing?"
Why sadly, yet its standard practice --Defendants Nationstar and Aztec in a phone-mediation session demanded that "an offer for the full amount or very large almost full amount owed, be made to us by the plaintiff right here on today's phone call, or else we are not interested at all in negotiating and we want the court to hear our Motion to Dismiss as soon as possible." This followed by the federal court's own "mediator" on the same call saying "It seems I will recommend to the judge against mediation, because parties are too far apart in their positions -- and let the case proceed with these motions and then maybe later ... see where the parties are." We had NO in-person Mediation or ADR process yet none more was forthcoming. For these reasons I had to dismiss this federal-removal case without prejudice and renew study of what to do next. Now we are in between cases; exchanging communication out of court. Opposing attorneys have refused my invitation to voluntarily reopen our former state case -- when there is an opportunity for a more amicable course it should first be offered. A motion for remand back to state court must be pled in the federal court.
"Discussion is better than argument:
Argument is to find who is right,
Discussion is to find WHAT is right."
~ * ~ * ~ * ~
November 28, 2018 Even though we have it in writing that a next auction on our home is set for January 8, 2019; it only recently "postponed" from today, so we will be attending the lovely gathering known as a trustee sale where foreclosures occur at noon today on the County of Alameda Courthouse steps. [These "sales" can't occur inside the courthouse because the conduct resembles complete lawlessness and the courts know this.] This Notice of Intent to Sue will be handed out to the auctioneer and any bidders; emailed copies will be in the inbox of all adversaries. Often we learn helpful things and gain insight at these woeful events, and courteous conversation goes a long way, we like to elicit some insight if its at all possible amongst whoever attends -- though its not a good vibe for anyone really. POST-AUCTION: No one was there - I appreciated my two Berkeley police cars there for peace-keeping. Only peaceful objection is all we ever should bring to these; another auction date ending in relief. And renewed motivation for final remedy.
November 13, 2018 written this day by Renee S. R. Yamagishi for and by herself as Real Party in Interest
Federal law in 28 U.S. Code § 1446 should have caused a Federal District Court (FDC) for Northern California to automatically refuse removal from state to their federal court because they CANNOT TAKE JURISDICTION when removal is UNTIMELY, i.e. more than 30 days from the service of Summons & Complaint. Either and both parties are prohibited from joining in removal . FDC took jurisdiction anyway in a manner rogue: Nationstar was served on June 5, 2018 - their attorneys filed Notice of Removal October 3, 2018 after they lost on Preliminary Injunction duly ordered against them.
There was not any motion or amended complaint filed by plaintiff to warrant removal to federal subsequent to the initial complaint which was strictly CA state law; jurisdiction was proper in the state court, aztc ID veiled. Yet, clearly hoping to evade their indefensible opposition to the court-ordered Injunction by our state court judge, the practice of dishonorable word-magic and bait-and-switch was employed by attorneys. Plaintiff was caught off guard prior to discovering their improper execution. The FDC not only accepted the removal which was arguably improper, but the court directed a non-compliant ADR process which was NOT conducted with neutrality but was both activist and adverse advocacy prejudicial to plaintiff. Objections filed - more to come.
All together the veritable ambush forced us into strategic retreat and voluntary dismissal without prejudice, memorializing in writing the conduct of attorneys of defendant Nationstar AND of practices of the federal court itself. Adverse parties and all of them taken together apparently had no plans to actually negotiate in good faith, let alone in-person as federal statutes require. After a mockery of a telephone conversation it became apparent that my position should be memorialized in pleadings into Federal District Court, then in the most recent email uploaded here to the right. This is what we have come to term "guerrilla lawyering" which must be out of the box in creative problem-solving yet with strict adherence to lawful, reasonable, judicious and honorable conduct.
We have nothing but the truth to stand on, and to plead in court that truth in the clearest manner, aimed at a reasonable fair and just outcome. Only silence from opposing counsel for defendants to the email which was also FedExed overnight and delivered to their offices. So the next set of writings will continue appeal to reason from all interested parties; while it also must seek the judiciary anew and this time the jury; for a more studied way to ascertain the word and conduct of those with whom we invite logical debate with rules of engagement codified by long-standing law in a civil society of well-reasoned men and women.
Upcoming blog post on the federal court removal episode to come. New "postponed" auction date of Jan. 8, 2019: these "postponements" have continued every 30 days by online publication by defendant Aztec Foreclosure Corporation in defiance of court-ordered injunction barring any actions "to sell or cause to sell subject property." Aztec's and LOGS Network's official reason for routine violation of TRO's and injunctions in this manner, which constitutes illegal trespass is: "We don't consider it defying the injunction." Meanwhile the very Notice of Default publicly recorded on Feb. 13, 2018, upon which any such trustee sale could issue is THE document the court ruled was improperly executed hence void and the main basis for ordering Preliminary Injunction. State law invites defendants to bring the document "into compliance," which would be reasonable conduct and correction; but defendants refuse to take heed of the constraints placed upon them by court order governing law. Apparently all defendants persist in behaving as if the court's rendering it void means it is not actually void. This is sanctionable and certainly we object.
Preliminary injunction was never dissolved by hearing; it remained the active order of the court when the case was removed to federal court as described. Injunction issued in state court in plaintiff's favor has been rendered moot only by plaintiff's voluntary dismissal without prejudice and only recently, November 5, 2018. The breakdown of all logic by LOGS' justification of this harrassment upon us of public sale dates every 30 days outsizes even the level of defiance of law and order. [Aztec and I agreed that their email is confirmation of slated auction dates, shown on the right here.]
November 5, 2018
Forced retreat: After defendants removed the case to federal court,
we voluntarily dismissed without prejudice when it appeared we may have been heading into an ambush. Our courts are too broken... but I knew this coming in; and I wear the responsibility to actually help my court and judge ... to keep to the narrow rule of law. Almost five years into "guerrilla lawyering" we have learned that we are doubly-tasked: to win our case on the merits by the rules of the game and by standing on the truth (merits) AND we also must recognize the dire constraints of too many of our judges and courts! Constraints upon them by forces even they did not wield into existence. We are learning to point the court to a narrow 'Yes or No question,' and the next question. The beauty of this is TRUTH can be reduced to a simple Yes or No. Lies, on the other hand, rely on contrived confusion, pretzel logic, and practices that Natural Law abhors.
September 2018: ACTIVE LITIGATION CONTINUES in YAMAGISHI v NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, et al. , being heard in Hon. Judge Michael Markman's court, Dept. 16, Superior Court of CA for Alameda County [RG-18906713]
All filings are on Domainweb YAMAGISHI v NATIONSTAR,
RG-18906713; Alameda County Superior Court of Calif. Dept. 16
8/31/18 Order: DEMURRER HEARING CONTINUED BY STIPULATION. Both parties agree to allow extension of time for Plaintiff to post bond and for Defendants to amend demurrer.
8/21/2018: Court ordered preliminary injunction preventing any actions to sell our home by foreclosure while case is pending. Our
pleading for injunction as well as a filed Request for Continuance and Affidavit in Support of Equitable Bond exhibited evidence of material violations of Calif.Homeowners' Bill of Rights "CalHBOR" which calls for automatic injunction by statute until in compliance. Servicers must prove due diligence was performed. Nationstar could not evidence they performed their due diligence and could not overcome violations which were duly evidenced, which included my claim that the Declaration page attached to my publicly recorded Notice of Default is a perjured document. Most often and primarily, the mort-gage servicers in CA neglect to hold a phone conference with homeowner to explore ALL alternatives to foreclosure 30 days prior to filing Notice of Default. Calif.CodeCodeProc.§ 2923.5 or CalHBOR MANDATES Injunction when material violations of CalHBOR are evidenced. Tender is NOT required to plead for injunction nor have it granted. Our court did rule plaintiff post bond, so bond is being posted and injunction is won; to our great relief and restoration. Trial begins.
Denied: Tentative Ruling
Issued Ordering Injunction
May 29, 2018 "California Homeowners' Bill of Rights" Violations Complaint and Temporary Injunction Application, start page 19. See: LegalDocsPro for template, blog post - modified for case
based on "Fighting the Foreclosure Machine" book and "CA Passive Attack" by R.M. Janes, See www.esprouts.com
August 7, 2018
INJUNCTION ORDERED BY OUR COURT
- protection from trustee sale!
INJUNCTION WON TODAY by Tentative Ruling: It is most likely for Preliminary Injunction will issue: No sale of our home while the case is pending, Superior Court CA for Alameda County, civil unlimited case Yamagishi v Nationstar Mortgage, et al.
Injunction protecting against any trustee sale ordered due to my filing suit and pleading for "TRO" protection with evidence of material violations of California Homeowners' Bill of Rights committed by Nationstar the servicer - specifically these servicers in CA and especially the likes of Nationstar routinely record Notice of Defaults in our county recorders' office without first completing 30 days' prior to filing, their due diligence requirements in CalHBOR - they are supposed to call homeowner and discuss by phone all alternatives to foreclosure possible and these can include more than a loan modification - for example negotiating a settlement, outside funding, etc. We pled that Nationstar's Declaration page attached to the NOD they filed was a perjured document.
CA Civil Code of Procedure 2923.5 kept its teeth in after Jan. 1 2018 and WE homeowners in CA are the ones to hold servicers AND THE COURTS to comply with governing law. (Scroll down past the long header section to blog post on CalHBOR https://www.mathews-street-america.net/single-post/2018/05/30/California-Homeowner-Bill-of-Rights-retains-some-real-protections-after-all---I-shall-grab-that-stronghold-and-hoist-up-and-beyond-because-we-all-have-a-part-to-play
Our Judge is smart, appears fair. I used the opportunity in courtroom to speak to all present including judge and opposing counsel and for the record. ME: "Your honor, for clarity I must state: I am not in default. Not until or unless the injured party appears into this courtroom and gives sworn testimony, presents its Affidavit, proves its injury and its standing. Only the injured party gets to declare me in default. Attorney is not a fact witness and not a party to the transaction. Declaration needs to be from defendant and competent witness, not opposing counsel who candidly admitted that six weeks ago he didn't know this case existed!
I am and always have been forthcoming and willing to pay the person or institution entitled to payment, arising from a debt that issues from that June 26, 2006 Note I signed -- but Nationstar doesn't own the debt yet they're the only ones making claim. Neither Wilmington Trust nor M&T Bank have any idea if the trust owns the debt. Prior to this servicer Bank of America denied all my applications for a modified loan despite proof of ability to pay and no lawful grounds for denying me.
Its true I have never applied for a loan modification with Nationstar - but that's because of Nationstar's utter failure as a mortgage-servicer -- in 2013 in answer to my QWR Nationstar wrote to me four different contradictory names for alleged owner of my loan and note. They have continued to be fraught with error -- all my past actions have been to settle directly with the injured party who owns my debt.
I applaud the court's decision to issue injunction; but no, I object to the good judge's use of the word "damages" to defendants -- we don't know if any of these defendants owns the debt. Until we do I am NOT in default - I am in payment-stoppage .... and I hope to settle this soon."------
YES I actually got ALL that said in court today!! How? wow... grace and gratitude ...
People LISTENED. No one objected or interrupted .. I mean ... NOW, afterwards my jaw drops.
HON. JUDGE Michael Markman, who issued tentative ruling granting injunction on the pleadings prior to hearing (yes really OMG): "We're here on the injunction and all we're doing now is deciding the amount of bond." .... [ was that a wink?]
I say, THE GOOD ruled today .... and a part of me is healed in a big way -- the part that had been heartbroken about our courts and opposition bullying us, cutting us off, calling us liars. Today .... I spoke in open court, before a black-robed judge .... and people .... actually ... were HEARING IT
August 3, 2018
Pleading for Time Extension &
Offer to Compromise with opposing counsel brings new insight & revelations
(click on above image of Sybil Ludington, the 16 year old "female Paul Revere" for history of teenagers in the American Revolution}
Court didn't hear motion to continue the hearing for injunction ..... Judge GRANTED THE INJUNCTION instead ... in Hon. Michael Markman's tentative ruling yesterday prior to hearing! Bond required. Agreed. Thank you Your Honor: it is a wise and judicious ruling.
"God, please take this case!
I give it to you, its your case.
From now on, I work for you."
On the job training is whipping me into shape ... not easy. I'm not complainijng ... much! Its not easy but I agreed to show up so there's no giving up now; not after WE have come this far.