Certified Forensic Loan Auditors, LLC
  Upcoming Classes

Stay of Enforcement After Eviction

March 28, 2014

Plaintiffs In Propria Persona

and Does 1-X, Inclusive,



NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on _________, 2008, at ___ a.m. in Department ___ of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles located at _________, California 9, Defendant _________ will move the above-entitled court for an Order staying enforcement of the Judgment.
Good cause exists for making the application for two reasons, (1) Defendant has filed a meritorious appeal of the judgment for possession, (2) Defendant _________ has filed a civil action against Plaintiff____________. in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. _________, as well as, Defendants ______________________ challenging the legality of the non-judicial foreclosure by said Defendants. Additionally, Defendant _________ is prepared to pay a monthly rental value pending resolution.
The Ex Parte Application will be based upon this Application, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Certification of Notice of Ex Parte Application, the Declaration of _________ and other and further oral and documentary evidence to be adduced at the hearing of this Application.


By _____________________________


Defendant _________ seeks a stay of enforcement of judgment pending appeal of the judgment entered following Motion for Summary Judgment. Normally, unlawful detainer actions are quickly resolved, with little consideration given to whether the Plaintiff is actually the lawful owner of a given property.

This however is a different day … and these are different times. In California alone, approximately 20,000 homes have been foreclosed each month in the last six months and owners have been evicted, again, with little or no consideration of whether the title claimed by the Plaintiff has any legal validity.

Defendant ________ has filed a civil action to set aside the foreclosure of his home based on fraud in the execution of his loan. Additionally, other defenses exist having to do with the assignment and non-judicial foreclosure procedure. Traditionally, there is a tension following a non-judicial foreclosure which exists between the needs of Plaintiffs to perfect their possession of the property and the Defendant owners who are denied due process in a summary proceeding in which evidence is not taken on the issue of the validity of title.

Defendant believes that Plaintiff __________ will not be prejudiced by the delay in possession of yet another property in its ever growing non-performing portfolio. More particularly, in as much as Defendant is prepared to make reasonable monthly rental payments and post any required undertaking pending resolution of the appeal and civil action.


A strong factual showing supports the conclusion that Defendant will prevail as the Plaintiff in his civil action to set aside the foreclosure, either based upon fraud in the execution of the loan, or that there was a lack of consideration due to a failure to have a meeting of the minds.

In either event, the court may rest its discretion on the sworn Declaration of __________ in granting a stay. See the Declaration of ________.
Here, there are several considerations for the court to resolve. Initially, Defendant has filed Notice of Appeal, and requests a stay of execution of judgment pending the appeal. Defendant is prepared to pay-over the reasonable rental value to the court, and post any required undertaking. Defendant believes that he has a meritorious defense to the summary judgment.

Secondly, Defendant alleges that representatives of ________ committed a fraud in the execution of his loan, whereby, he had an existing first deed of trust which was a fixed loan at (____) percent amortized over thirty years with ________. Defendant sought a second trust deed from _________, which insisted that Defendant make a new fixed __ (___%) percent loan in order to receive the second loan he desired. The payment of the new first loan by _________ was virtually the same payment of $_______ per month. As it turns-out, _________ added a Adjustable Rate Mortgage Rider to his loan which caused the loan to recast after eighteen (18) months, whereupon the payment increased from $____ to $________.
The second loan for $________, had a payment of approximately $_____, and was an adjustable rate loan. Thus, while the first loan was agreed to be a fixed loan, __________ shifted Defendant from a fixed rate loan to an adjustable, without disclosing that the adjustable rate rider applied to the first loan, rather than only the second loan.
At the time of making the new loans, Defendant had been a commercial banker for more than thirty years, was making approximately $______ per month making commercial loans, and had a FICO score of about "_____". Thus, Defendant clearly had sufficient income for the six percent fixed loan which he had with __________, and could make the payments for what he believed was a fixed loan with _____. Additionally, the home appraised for $______, at the time of making the new first and second which together equaled $______________________, thus the loan for purposes of underwriting, was not excessive as related to the property value, with a loan to value ratio of about ________ ( __%) to value. This is not a case in which a borrower took on a loan which he simply could not afford. On the contrary, Defendant had a fixed rate loan with __________ when he sought secondary financing with __________. The new first which __________ made for Defendant simply paid-off __________, and a new second loan for $_________, was made. However, the conflict arises in that Defendant understood that only the second loan would be an adjustable rate mortgage, and that the first loan for $________ for be fixed, as his loan with __________ had been.

__________, however, was too clever for Defendant and massaged the loan documents and made representations that the first loan was fixed for thirty (30) years, just as his loan had been with __________. There was no reason to pay-off the fixed rate __________ except to incur additional commissions and fees for ____________ for an adjustable rate mortgage. Defendant agreed to make the first loan only because it would likewise be a fixed rate loan, amortized for thirty years as the __________. At some point in time, __________ either forged Defendant's signature to the adjustable rate rider of concealed the nature of the documents in such a manner that Defendant was not aware that he
signed the document. In an event, there was a fraud on the part of __________.

Defendant has filed a civil action in which he seeks to have the foreclosure set aside for several legal reasons including but, not limited to: fraud in the execution, (exchanging a 30 year fixed rate loan for an adjustable rate without disclosing the change), violation of Civil Code section 2932.5, by a failure to record the assignment of the original promissory note. The failure to record the assignment strips the power of sale from the promissory note. Lacking power of sale, the foreclosure could not have proceeded under any viable legal theory. Additionally, Defendant believes that the indorsement of the promissory note was defective and legally rendered the promissory note "non-negotiable" pursuant to the holding of Pribus v. Bush, (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 1003. Further, Defendant believes that the trustee was not even in possession of the original note and that such note was lost, as such any non-judicial foreclosure would be unfounded. Also, Defendant believes that the alleged beneficiary under the note during the non-judicial foreclosure, was not a holder in due course and had no actual secured interest in the Defendant's property. See the forged Adjustable Rate Rider which is attached as Exhibit "A" to the Declaration of David Adams III.


A procedural mechanism exists to stay execution of a judgment pending appeal pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 918.5 which provides as follows:
§ 918.5.

(a) The trial court may, in its discretion, stay the enforcement of a judgment or order if the judgment debtor has another action pending on a disputed claim against the judgment creditor.

(b) In exercising its discretion under this section, the court shall consider all of the following:

(1) The likelihood of the judgment debtor prevailing in the other action.

(2) The amount of the judgment of the judgment creditor as compared to the amount of the probable recovery of the judgment debtor in the action on the disputed claim.

(3) The financial ability of the judgment creditor to satisfy the judgment if a judgment is rendered against the judgment creditor in the action on the disputed claim.

Thus, the court may exercise its learned discretion whether to stay this action, order the posting of an adequate undertaking and payment of a reasonably monthly rental value. In the matter of Asuncion vs. Superior Court, (1981) 108 Cal.App.3d 141, 146, 166 Cal.Rptr. 306, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held in pertinent part, "A possibility, which we understand is frequently utilized in other counties, is for the superior court to stay the eviction proceedings until trial of the fraud action, based on the authority of Code of Civil Procedure section 526 which permits a preliminary injunction to preserve the status quo on such grounds as irreparable injury, multiplicity of legal actions, or unconscionable relative hardship. (See, e. g., Continental Baking Co. v. Katz, 68 Cal.2d 512, 528, 67 Cal.Rptr. 761 and see gen. discussion of subject in 2 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1970) Provisional Remedies, § 47, p. 1496; § 73, pp. 1511-1512.) Bond would be required to obtain such an injunction (Code Civ.Proc., § 529), which could be waived for an indigent litigant. Conover v. Hall, 11 Cal.3d 842, 851, 853, 114 Cal.Rptr. 642. It has been held where foreclosure of a trust deed would moot a claim of right under a deed, and the deed is attacked as a fraudulent conveyance, a preliminary injunction is permitted to prevent foreclosure pending trial. Weingand v. Atlantic Savings & Loan Assn., (1970) 1 Cal.3d 806, 83 Cal.Rptr. 650. Staying the eviction here is analogous."
In Gonzales v. Gem Properties, Inc., (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 1029, 1036, 112 Cal.Rptr. 884, 889, the Second Appellate District pointed out, "The summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings suggests that, as a practical matter, the likelihood of the defendant's being prepared to litigate the factual issues involved in a fraudulent scheme to deprive him of his property, no matter how diligent defendant is, is not great." Normally, the unlawful detainer action may encompass only a "narrow and sharply focused examination of title" directed at the formal validity of the trustee sale Vella v. Hudgins, (1977) 20 Cal.3d 251, 255, 142 Cal.Rptr. 414, 416.
Here, ___________ is not a bonified purchaser and had notice of the claims of Defendant. As such, there is no presumption that the trustee's deed after sale is valid.

Thus, it would appear that sufficient facts exist of the fraud committed in the execution of Defendant's loan which would support a stay pending the appeal and/or conclusion of the civil action.


Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice by the issuance of a stay pending resolution of the civil action and/or appeal, because Defendant is prepared to make monthly payments based upon the reasonable rental value and post an adequate undertaking as required.

In the event that the stay is not issued, the property will be lost forever, and cannot be easily replaced. On the other hand, the subject property will only sit in the non-performing portfolio waiting to be sold in a market in which homes are not selling at any price, even if, the lenders were able to make loans on the property. Thus, in a practical sense, if the stay is granted, Plaintiff will at least have the benefit of receiving regular payments from the defendant on the property pending the appeal and/or civil action.

"Prejudice is never presumed; rather it must be affirmatively demonstrated by the defendant in order to sustain his burdens of proof and the production of evidence on the issue." Miller v. Eisenhower Medical Center, (1980) 27 Cal.3d 614, 624, 166 Cal.Rptr. 826. In the absence of prejudice on the part of Plaintiff, the court would properly exercise

For all pleading filed in this matter, the Declaration of _________, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, Defendant ____________ respectfully requests that the court grant a stay pending appeal and/or resolution of the civil action pending by _________ against the Defendants in that action.

By _____________________________



I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action. My address is:______, California 9_____, which is located in the county where the mailing described took place.
On ____________, 2008, I served the foregoing document(s) described as: EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Addressed to:

Attorney for Plaintiff:

(By Personal Delivery)

XXX I personally delivered the foregoing documents to the addressee in the Superior Court, County of _______ Department __. Executed on ________, in ______, California.

(State) XXXX I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

(Federal) ____ I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made.


Nancy Duffy McCarron, CBN 164780
Attorney, Real Estate Broker, BBB Arbitrator, CA Notary Public
Certified Forensic Loan Auditor, Property Manager


Back to Letters from the Editor Archive

CFLA was founded by the Nation's Leading Foreclosure Defense Attorneys back in 2007 to serve the Foreclosure Defense Industry and fight pervasive Bank Fraud. Since opening our virtual doors, CFLA has rapidly expanded to become the premier online legal destination for small businesses and consumers. But as the company continues to grow, we're careful to hold true to our original vision. For us, putting the law within reach of millions of people is more than just a novel idea—it's the founding principle, just ask Andrew P. Lehman, J.D.. With convenient locations in Houston and Los Angeles, you can contact Our National Account Specialist and General Manager / Member Damion W. Emholtz at 888-758-2352 for a free Mortgage Fraud Analysis or to obtain samples of work product, including cutting edge Bloomberg Securitization Audits, Litigation Support, Quiet Title Packages, and for more information about our Nationally Accredited and U.S. Department of Education Approved "Mortgage Securitization Analyst Training Certification" Classes (3 days) 24 hours for approved CLE & MCLE Credit (Now Available Online).

SEE BELOW- http://www.certifiedforensicloanauditors.com

Call us toll free at 888-758-2352

Bookmark and Share
Facebook Like us on Facebook
Twitter Follow us on Twitter
YouTube View our YouTube Videos
LinkedIn Connect to us on Linkedin
BBB Logo


Contact us or view our Sample Documents & Audits by completing the form below.
  • Reload
  • Should be Empty:

International Bloomberg Securitization Audits


DVD Sets Only $99


FREE Mortgage Fraud Analysis


Order Cutting-Edge Services Now


Quiet Title Packages from Licensed Attorneys


Affiliate Services


CFLA Sponsored Attorney Links


Take-Home Education Package