Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
VICTORVILLE JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,
its assignees and/or successors,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Scottie Morrow,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive.
Defendant(s).
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. UDVS1102213
NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND DECLARATION OF SCOTTIE MORROW
HEARING DATE:
TIME:
DEPT:
TO THE HONORABLE COURT AND TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF
RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on August ______, 2011, at ______________.M. or as soon after
that as the matter can be heard, in Department _______ of the above-entitled court, Defendant,
Scottie Morrow, (hereinafter referred to as “Moving Defendant”) will move this Court for an
order demurring the Complaint of Plaintiff, Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, its
assignees and/or successors (“Plaintiff” or “FHLMC”) on the following grounds:
The Complaint is uncertain in that it contains contrary and inconsistent allegations which make it
impossible to ascertain:
1. Where the property has been sold in accordance with Section §2924 of the Civil Code, under
a power of sale contained in a deed of trust executed by such person, or a person under whom
such person claims, and the title under the sale has been duly perfected.
2. Where the Unlawful Detainer fails under §430.10(b) the person who filed the pleading does
not have the legal capacity to sue.
3. Where the plaintiff has no standing to bring an unlawful detainer action against Defendant as
it fails the “real party in interest” requirement, “the pleading does not state facts sufficient to
constitute a cause of action” on behalf of the proper specific plaintiff pursuant to CCP
§430.10(e).
4. Where the pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision §430.10(f) “uncertain” includes
ambiguous and unintelligible.
5. This court is an improper venue when title is disputed. [California Benchguide 31.26(8)].
6. Under CCP 1170, a defendant in an unlawful detainer proceeding may answer or demur.
The
period for noticing the hearing on a demurrer is not set forth in the unlawful detainer statutes,
Sections 1159 through 1179a. However, Section 1177 provides that all provisions of law
contained in Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the ones applicable to regular civil actions)
are otherwise generally applicable to unlawful detainer actions, unless other procedures are
specified in the unlawful detainer statutes. Since the unlawful detainer statutes do not provide for
the timing of a hearing on a demurrer, the timing for demurrers is governed by CCP 1005, which
requires 16 court days of notice of the hearing on the demurrer, plus five calendar days for notice
by mailing. This demurrer is properly before the Court and notice is proper.
7. This Demurrer is made pursuant to the provisions of CCP §430.10(b), (e) and §430.10(f),
and §1161and Defendant will further move this Court for an order demurring the Complaint of
Plaintiff, on file herein. This Demurrer is based upon this Notice and Motion to Demurrer,
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, the complete court records on file in
this action and upon such other further written or oral evidence which may be presented at the
time of hearing of this motion.
Dated: July 21, 2011 __________________________________
Scottie Morrow, Defendant in Pro Per
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The party against whom a complaint has been filed may object and demurrer as provided
in California Code of Civil Procedure Section §430.30 to the complaint when any grounds for
objection appear on the face thereof.
California Code of Civil Procedure Section §430.10(f) provides that proper grounds for demur
include “The pleading is uncertain”, as used in this subdivision “uncertain” includes ambiguous
and unintelligible.
Plaintiff’s Complaint provides that Plaintiff is “entitled to possession and is the owner
of record of a parcel of real property located at 18737 Lemon Street, Hesperia, CA 92345” (the
“Property” or “Home”). Plaintiff claims to “own said land by virtue of a foreclosure sale duly
held pursuant to the power under the Deed of Trust and Promissory Note executed and delivered
by Defendant(s) or their predecessors.” (¶8). Plaintiff asserts that "the property was sold and a
corresponding Trustee's Deed was given to Plaintiff, thereby duly perfecting Plaintiff's title to the
Property. " (¶11). Further, "Plaintiff caused the Trustee's Deed Upon Sale to be recorded in
the SAN BERNARDINO County Recorder's Office, thereby duly perfecting Plaintiff's title to the
Property."
1. Defendant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Plaintiff has alleged to have
become a successor in interest to the Subject Mortgage by virtue of Plaintiff’s loan having been
made a part of a securitization process wherein certain residential mortgages and the promissory
notes based thereon were securitized by aggregating a large number of promissory notes into a
mortgage loan pool, then selling security interests in that pool of mortgages to investors by way
of items called “Secondary Vehicles.”
2. The mortgage-backed securities pool was formed under New York Trust laws as a common
law trust, which is governed by a Pooling and Servicing Agreement ("PSA"). Said PSA
mandates that Defendant's Note and Deed of Trust was required to have been assigned, delivered
and conveyed to the trust in 2007, and any transfer past the closing date of that trust is void ab
initio.
3. The Assignments of Deed of Trust recorded on behalf of Plaintiff by Quality Loan Service
Corp. were fabricated in order to facilitate the wrongful foreclosure and were void with no force
and effect.
4. Due to the fraudulent and fabricated assignments, Plaintiff had no beneficial interest in the
Deed of Trust recorded against the subject property as defined by California Civil Code 2932.5
and was not conveyed the private right to the power of sale clause.
5. Plaintiff violated California Civil Code §2924 and has not complied with the Deed of Trust.
Defendant’s Deed of Trust, paragraph 22, mandates that only the Lender can invoke the power of
sale to conduct non-judicial foreclosure. FHLMC was not the beneficiary with power of sale to
conduct foreclosure. FHLMC has blatantly failed to comply with California law and the Deed of
Trust. A non-judicial foreclosure under the power-of-sale in a deed of trust or mortgage must be
conducted in strict compliance with its provisions and applicable statutory law. The trustee,
Quality Loan Service, had no power of sale from the alleged beneficiary’s lack of power of sale,
accordingly. A trustee’s powers and rights are limited to those set forth in the deed of trust and
laws applicable thereto. (See, e.g., Fleisher v. Continental Auxiliary Co., (1963) 215 Cal.App.2d
136, 139, 30 Cal.Rptr. 137; Woodworth v. Redwood Empire Sav. & Loan Assn., (1971) 22
Cal.App.3d 347, 366, 99 Cal.Rptr. 373.). Plaintiff has violated CC 2924 having conducted a void
foreclosure by failing to adhere to the Deed of Trust provisions allowing a non-judicial
foreclosure, and Plaintiff is not a party to the Deed of Trust to which CC 2924 could apply.
6. Plaintiff was not a foreclosing beneficiary to Defendant’s Deed of Trust as declared in the
Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale recorded April 18, 2011 in the San Bernardino County Recorder’s
Office. Due to their lack of standing as beneficiary of the Note and Deed of Trust, they could
not purchase the subject property by credit bid. The Trustee’s Sale is void, the Notice of Default
is void and Plaintiff has no standing to evict Defendant from his home.
7. A recent California decision, In re: Salazar, Salazar v. U.S. Bank as Trustee, 10-17456-
MMB has confirmed that Salazar retained equitable title due to the invalid and void foreclosure
sale, due to the alleged foreclosing beneficiary having failed to comply with the Deed of Trust
and CC 2932.5. This issue is identical to that of Defendant’s and entitles Defendant to save his
home.
II.
STATEMENT OF LAW
The recitation that FHLMC is the owner of the subject property is hearsay and is disputed
and the court cannot take judicial notice of it because the information derives from the invalid
Trustee's Deed Upon Sale, which is a recorded document, and does not prove to be factual.
“Taking judicial notice of a document is not the same as accepting the truth of its contents or
accepting a particular interpretation of its meaning.” (Joslin v. H.A.S. Ins. Brokerage (1986) 184
Cal.App. 3d 369, 374.)
While courts take judicial notice of public records, they do not take notice of the truth of
the matters stated therein. (Love v. Wolf (1964) 226 Cal. App. 2d 378, 403.) In Herrera v.
Deutsche Cal Appeals 3rd District C065630, summary judgment was erroneously entered in
Defendant’s favor due to inadmissible hearsay, which consisted of the court erroneously taking
the recorded documents as fact and a declaration of which lacked competent fact firsthand
knowledge. “The recitation that JP Morgan Chase Bank is the successor in interest to Long
Beach Mortgage Company through Washington Mutual is hearsay.” Defendant offered no
evidence to establish that JP Morgan Chase Bank had the beneficial interest under the 2003 Deed
of Trust to assign to the Bank. The truthfulness of the contents of the Assignment of Deed of
Trust remains subject to dispute (Stormedia, supra 20 Cal. 4th at p. 457, fn 9) and Plaintiffs
dispute the truthfulness of the contents of all of the recorded documents.” In sum, the judge
erroneously took contents of the recorded documents as truth.
Judicial notice did not establish that the Bank was the beneficiary or that CRC was the
trustee under the 2003 Deed of Trust. Defendants failed to establish “facts justifying judgment in
[their] favor.” (Bono, supra, 103 Cal.App 4th at p. 1432).
THIS GENERAL DEMURRER TO THE COMPLAINT MUST BE SUSTAINED
BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF LACKS THE CAPACITY TO SUE PURSUANT TO CCP
430.10(b)
Plaintiff Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation filed this UD Complaint. The
foreclosing parties conducted an unlawful foreclosure sale and delivered defective title to
Defendant’s property by filing false and invalid documents against the property which facially
appeared to effectuate clear title to foreclose. The trustee that foreclosed did not have power of
sale as required by the deed of trust and California law. The entities alleging beneficial interest
in the note and deed of trust did not have beneficial interest as required by the deed of trust and
California law. No one had authority to foreclose and conduct the unlawful trustee’s
sale. FHLMC and their agents failed to comply with or misrepresented their compliance with
the requirements under Civil Code §2924 as they were not authorized to conduct a Trustee’s Sale
and unlawfully issued a Notice of Default and Election to Sell, a prerequisite thereto.
Since the underlying sale was unlawful, the Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale delivered to
FHLMC
is invalid and void and cannot be utilized as prima facie evidence for eviction. A plaintiff lacks
standing to sue if it is not a real party in interest. See, e.g., Washington Mutual Bank v.
Blechman (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 662, 669 [citing Color-Vue, Inc., v. Abrams (1996) 44
Cal.App.4th 1599, 1604]. Plaintiff’s lack of legal standing is pertinent to the question whether
Plaintiff’s UD Complaint sufficiently states a cause of action. Plaintiff is clouding Defendant’s
title, there is no valid title vested in Plaintiff to give the standing to move an unlawful detainer
action.
There is a difference between the capacity to sue, which is the right to come into court,
and the standing to sue, which is the right to relief in court (see Color-Vue, Inc. v. Abrams, id), in
the instant case Plaintiff also lacks the capacity to sue as the title is subject to any deficiencies in
the underlying Trustee’s Sale, due to the fact that fraud vitiates a contract. Defendant is
unaware of any California law that allows the recording of false documents to facilitate an
invalid foreclosure and subsequently transfer title by way of an invalid trustee’s deed upon sale,
falsely recite compliance with California Civil Code §2924 and move for an unlawful detainer
action. Therefore, Plaintiff falls squarely within the objectionable grounds stated in CCP
§430.10(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint cannot stand and must be dismissed.
Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Leave To Amend
Defendant relies on language in Payne v. United California Bank 23 Cal. App 3d 850
[100 Cal.Rptr. 672] and contends that the general rule of liberality in permitting amendment of
pleadings is not available where the originally named Plaintiff lacks standing to sue.
A. THE STANDARD FOR SUSTAINING A DEMURRER.
In considering a demurrer, a court treats “the demurrer as admitting all material facts
properly pleaded, but no contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.” (Blank v. Kirwan
(1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) The court also considers matters which may be judicially noticed.
(Id.) In sustaining a demurrer, the court determines “whether the complaint states facts sufficient
to constitute a cause of action.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends that concluding that the Trustee's Deed
Upon Sale is evidence that Plaintiff is the owner of the property is a conclusion of fact or law.
While it is true that a demurrer should not be sustained without leave to amend if there is a
reasonable possibility that a defect in the complaint can be cured by amendment, the burden is on
the plaintiff to show in what manner he can amend the complaint and how that amendment will
grant the legal effect of the pleading. (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)
III.
ARGUMENT
In the UD Complaint, Plaintiff explicitly held itself as an entity qualified to commence
this Unlawful Detainer action against Defendant. However, it appears on the face of the UD
Complaint, which is judicially noticeable to this Court, that:
Plaintiff is not a real party in interest; Title has not been perfected in Plaintiff since the title to the
Property was not conveyed to Plaintiff under the power of sale contained in the Deed of Trust,
was not conveyed in compliance with Civil Code §2924, there are fatal irregularities in the sale,
and ultimately fraudulent conveyance effectuated by a string of false documents placed to record
in the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office. Plaintiff lacks capacity and standing to sue,
and, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute cause of action on behalf of
the proper specific plaintiff, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §§430.10(b) and 430.10(e) and
(f).
Therefore, Defendant’s Demurrer must be sustained without leave to amend and Plaintiff’s
Complaint dismissed in its entirety.
A.
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION
1. CCP §430.10(d). There is a defect or misjoinder of parties. Plaintiff’s complaint is
defective for not including the real party in interest pursuant to CCP §367. Also, CCP §389
provides that if Plaintiff knows the names of other persons with an interest, it must bring them
into this action. Those names are known in the securitization trust that may or may not be
serviced by Plaintiff, which also proves Plaintiff is not the real party, and by the real party not
being named, Plaintiff is in violation of CCP §389.
2. CCP §430.10(e). The pleading does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
Plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety fails to state a cause of action because there is no legal
sufficiency if it is not the proper plaintiff or real party in interest. The Complaint appears
deficient on the face of the pleading. Hall vs. Chamberlin (1948) 31 Cal.2d 673, 679-680.
Therefore, the complaint is not cognizable and it is impossible to amend the complaint or to
construe it in any manner to correct this deficiency.
3. CCP §430.10(f). The pleading is uncertain. As used in this subdivision, "uncertain"
includes ambiguous and unintelligible. The complaint is so uncertain and unintelligible that
Defendant cannot reasonably respond; i.e., she cannot reasonably determine what issues must be
admitted or denied, or what counts or claims are directed against her [because Plaintiff is not the
real party in interest]. Khoury v. Maly’s of Calif., Inc. (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 612, 616, (citing
text).
B.
NO LANDLORD – TENANT ISSUE
COMPLAINT FILED IN UNSUITABLE FORUM
“No landlord/tenant relationship exists between Plaintiff and Defendant.” The existence
of a landlord/tenant relationship is a condition precedent to an unlawful detainer action, and it
must be stated in the complaint. Fredericken v. McCosker (1956) 143CA 2d 114, 299 P2d 908.
The complaint must allege (1) the existence of a lease or rental agreement (oral or written) and
(2) that the tenant entered into possession under it, no longer has the right to possession, and yet
remains in possession. Plaintiff clearly states there is no relationship between the Plaintiff and
Defendant.
Title is at issue. The litigation is between a plaintiff-lender and a defendant-homeowner, rather
than between landlord and tenant, and title is at issue. Mehr v Superior Court (1983) 139 CA3d
1044, 1049, 189 CR 138 (because of summary nature of unlawful detainer proceedings, it is
unsuitable forum to try complicated ownership issues); Asuncion v Superior Court (1980) 108
CA3d 141, 145–146, 166 CR 306 (eviction of homeowners following foreclosure raises due
process issues and must be heard in superior court). Per the Administrative Office of the Courts’
California Judges Benchguides Benchguide 31 Landlord-Tenant Litigation: Unlawful Detainer
[Revised 2011] the Plaintiff has brought this action in an unsuitable forum and this action must
be heard in an unlimited civil court, not an unlawful (civil limited) court due to the nature of the
disputed events.
C.
BREACH OF COVENANT
If the unlawful detainer is based on default of fulfilling a covenant, the complaint must
allege that tenant breached that covenant. The complaint states no breach of covenant. In fact
the complaint fails to state a real cause of action. Defendant has not failed to complete any
covenant with the Plaintiff.
D.
PLAINTIFF CANNOT BENEFIT FROM RECORDING OF FALSE DOCUMENTS
Generes v. Justice Court, 106 Cal. App. 3d 678, 165 Cal. Rptr. 222 (3rd Dist. 1980);
People v. Baender, 68 Cal. App. 49, 228 P. 536 (1st Dist. 1924): “knowingly recording spurious
documents for the record with intent to defraud.” Every person who files a false or forged
document with the County Recorder that affects title to, or places an encumbrance on, or places
an interest secured by a mortgage or deed of trust on, real property….with knowledge that the
document is false or forged is punishable by statute (Cal. Penal Code § 115.5 (a)(b)(c)(d)). The
word “knowingly” in the statute does not import intent, but merely refers to knowledge of the
essential facts. In the case of a deed, the crime is complete when the deed has been prepared so
that upon its face it will have the effect of defrauding one who acts upon it as genuine. FHLMC
claims to have acquired the property from entities that have knowingly filed documents within
the Riverside County Recorder’s Office that are unquestionably false and patently misleading to
those relying on them as being true and correct, thus damaging Defendant by the invalid trustee’s
deed upon sale that was directed by FHLMC and their agents that are clouding Defendant’s title.
The entire foreclosure proceeding is a baseless, invalid monstrosity and shall be the foundation
for Defendant’s superior action in Unlimited Civil Division of Superior Court. This is not a
standard Unlawful Detainer proceeding. Defendant is not aware of any California law that
allows fraudulent documents to facilitate theft of property, followed by an unlawful detainer
proceeding.
California Civil Code §3517: No one can take advantage of his own wrong. The
wrongful conveyance of SCOTTIE MORROW’s property is a direct result of FHLMC’s scheme
to defraud him. Defendant did not have a loan with FHLMC. The Deed of Trust was executed
with COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC. DBA AMERICA’S WHOLESALE LENDER as
“Lender” and valid assignments and endorsements of the Note per the provisions in the PSA
were not delivered, conveyed or recorded to FHLMC accordingly. FHLMC has/had no interest
in Defendant’s Note, Deed of Trust or title. FHLMC has caused to record void instruments in
order to facilitate a non-judicial foreclosure which would appear valid to the court, however it is
defective and void and has merely clouded Defendant’s title, and they have no legal title to the
property as a result, accordingly.
In the case of a transaction predicated on a void instrument California law is
settled.
The Court in Trout v. Trout (1934), 220 Cal. 652 at 656 made as much plain” “Numerous
authorities have established the rule that an instrument wholly void, such as an undelivered deed,
a forged instrument, or a deed in blank, cannot be made the foundation of a good title, even
under the equitable doctrine of bona fide purchase.”
This sentiment was clearly echoed in 6 Angels, Inc. v. Stuart-Wright Mortgage, Inc.
(2001) 85 Cal.App.4th 1279 at 1286 where the court stated: “It is the general rule that courts
have power to vacate a foreclosure sale where there has been fraud in the procurement of the
foreclosure decree or where the sale has been improperly, unfairly or unlawfully conducted, or is
tainted by fraud, or where there has been such a mistake that to allow it to stand would be
inequitable to purchaser and parties.”
IV.
CONCLUSION
The extent, to which a plaintiff's title may be a triable issue in an action brought pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, subdivision 3 was discussed by the California
Supreme Court in Cheney v. Trauzettel, 9 Cal. 2d 158, 160 [69 P.2d 832]: "In our opinion the
plaintiff need only prove a sale in compliance with the statute [Civ. Code, § 2924] and deed of
trust, followed by purchase at such sale, and the defendant may raise objections only on that
phase of the issue of title." (See also, Crummer v. Whitehead, 230 Cal. App. 2d 264 , 268 [40
Cal.Rptr. 826]; Kartheiser v. Superior Court, 174 Cal. App. 2d 617, 620 [345 P.2d 135]; and
Bliss v. Security-First Nat. Bank, 81 Cal. App. 2d 50, 58-59 [183 P.2d 312].)
"Irrespective of the merits of [other] defenses raised by the answer, the alleged equitable grounds
of attack on plaintiff's title have no place in the present summary proceeding, for if such issues
are permissible, the proceeding entirely loses its summary character. ... Matters affecting the
validity of the trust deed or primary obligation itself, or other basic defects in the plaintiff's title,
are neither properly raised in this summary proceeding for possession [Code Civ. Proc., § 1161a,
subd. 3], nor are they concluded by the judgment." (Cheney v. Trauzettel, supra, at p. 160; see
also, Higgins v. Coyne,75 Cal. App. 2d 69, 73 [170 P.2d 25]; Seidell v. Anglo-California Trust
Co., 55 Cal. App. 2d 913, 921 [132 P.2d 12]; Delpy v. Ono, 22 Cal. App. 2d 301, 303 [70 P.2d
960];
Cf. Union Oil Co. v. Chandler, 4 Cal. App. 3d 716, 721 [84 Cal.Rptr. 756].
Plaintiff cannot come to Court with clean hands. At this time it is impossible for any
party to prove it has standing unless it fabricates evidence. Defendant is not aware of any
California law that allows fraudulent documents to facilitate theft of property, followed by an
unlawful detainer proceeding.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court
sustain Defendant’s Demurrer without leave to amend.
Respectfully submitted this 21st day of July, 2011.
________________________________ SCOTTIE MORROW
DECLARATION OF SCOTTIE MORROW IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT’S DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT
I, SCOTTIE MORROW, hereby declare the following:
1. I am the Defendant in this matter. I have personal knowledge of the facts contained in this
declaration and if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to these matters
under oath.
2. I mailed a Dispute Letter/Request for Validation to McCarthy & Holthus on or about April
12, 2011. I have received no response to that request. Plaintiff, by and through counsel, has
violated California Rosenthal Act and Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and cannot file the
instant action until the debt has been validated.
3. I have superior title and interest in the property and have an inferior claim against Plaintiff
due to the fraudulent conveyance and failure to comply with my Deed of Trust which mandates
the provisions of non-judicial foreclosure.
4. Per the Administrative Office of the Courts Landlord-Tenant Litigaton: Unlawful Detainer
CALIFORNIA JUDGES BENCHGUIDES Benchguide 31 specifically at §31.26, (8) “Title is at
issue. The litigation is between a plaintiff-lender and a defendant-homeowner, rather than
between landlord and tenant, and title is at issue … It is an unsuitable forum to try complicated
ownership issues”, and I believe and therefore allege that the Unlawful Detainer Limited Civil
Division is an unsuitable forum for this action and the Court must move this action to Unlimited
Civil for proper venue.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on July 21, 2011 at Hesperia, California.
_____________________________________
SCOTTIE MORROW, Declarant
1 PROOF OF SERVICE
I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this action.
I am a resident of or employed in the county where the mailing occurred; my business/residence address is:
______________________________________________________________________________
On July 21, 2011 I served the foregoing document(s) described as:
NOTICE OF DEMURRER AND DEMURRER TO UNLAWFUL DETAINER COMPLAINT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF; AND DECLARATION OF SCOTTIE MORROW
to the following parties:
MCCARTHY & HOLTHUS, LLP
1770 FOURTH AVENUE
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
By U.S. Mail I deposited such envelope in the mail at ______________________ , California
with postage thereon fully prepaid.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
DATED: ______________ _________________________________________
- 16 -NOTICE OF DEMURRER
