Freitas

Freitas v. Bank Of America

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 11, 20193:19-cv-03347California1,880 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

18 In this foreclosure case, defendants move to dismiss. For the following reasons, the 19 20 motion is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

21 In 2004, pro se plaintiff, John Freitas obtained a loan for $333,700 from Countrywide 22 Bank N.A. secured by a deed of trust and assignment of rents on real property located in 23 Newark. On October 5, 2005, he obtained another loan for $349,840 from Countrywide secured 24 by a deed of trust and assignment of rents on the same property. A second version of the same 25 document was recorded on October 25, 2005. The only difference between the two documents 26 was that the first document contained a signature line for plaintiff’s wife, which he initialed, 27 whereas the later deed did not. In 2011, plaintiff defaulted on his loans and defendant Bank of 28 1 America, N.A. recorded a notice of default in April 2014. Bank of America is a successor in 2 interest of Countrywide. In 2016, the October 5 deed of trust was reconveyed to plaintiff. 3 Meanwhile, in February 2016, plaintiff filed an action in Alameda County Superior 4 Court alleging fraud and cancellation and rescission of written instruments stating that his 5 October…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.