Defendants Are Not Holders In Due Course Since Plaintiff Was Duped Into An Improper Loan And There Is No Effective Endorsement:
21. Plaintiff incurred a “debt” as that term is defined by California Civil 17 Code §1788(d) and 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(5), when he obtained a Loan on their Personal Residence.
22. The loan is memorialized via a Deed of Trust and Promissory Note, each of which contain an attorney fees provision for the lender should they prevail in the enforcement of their contractual rights.
23. Plaintiff has no experience beyond basic financial matters.
24. Plaintiff was never explained the full terms of their loan, including but not limited to the rate of interest how the interest rate would be calculated, what the payment schedule should be, the risks and disadvantages of the loan, the prepay penalties, the maximum amount the loan payment could arise to.
25. Certain fees in obtaining the loan, were also not explained to the Plaintiff, including but not limited to “underwriting fees,” “MERS registration fee,” “appraisal fees,” “broker fees”, “loan tie in fees,” etc.
26. A determination of whether Plaintiff would be able to make the payments as specified in the loan was never truly made.
27. Plaintiff’s income was never truly verified.
28. Plaintiff was rushed when signing the documents, the closing process provided no time for review and took minutes to accomplish.
29. Plaintiff could not understand any of the documents and signed them based on representations and the trust and confidence the Plaintiff placed in Defendants’ predecessors.
30. Plaintiff is informed and believe that Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors established and implemented the policy of failing to disclose material facts about the Loan, failing to verify Plaintiff’s income, falsifying Plaintiff’s income, agreeing to accept a Yield Spread Premium, and causing Plaintiff’s Loan to include a penalty for early payment.
31. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants and/or Defendants’ predecessors established such policy so as to profit, knowing that Plaintiff would be unable to perform future terms of the Loan.
32. Plaintiff was a victim of Fraud in the Factum since the forgoing misrepresentations caused them to obtain the home loan without accurately realizing, the risks, duties, or obligations incurred.
33. The Promissory Note contains sufficient space on the note itself for endorsement whereby any assignment by allonge is ineffective pursuant to Pribus v. Bush, 118 Cal. App. 3d 1003 (May 12, 1981).
34. Defendants are not holders in due course due to Fraud in Factum and ineffective endorsement.
The Hedge 