Second Appellate Court--Bookout v. Union Bank 

Second Appellate Court -News and Commentary Public issues   Second_Appellate_Court-Union_Bank__TWo_Loan_Accounting.wma
8.2 MB

----From the September 14, 2016 Appellate Court hearing-----Can Union Bank Steal SBA Loaned Money from Union Banks June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History (FAC Exhibit 10-4)?  At the September 14, 2016 Appellate Court hearing the Court learned of Union Banks June 27, 2013 email and June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History showing no Res Judicata!   The Appellate Court learned of Union Banks filing restraining orders for questioning the two Amortization Schedules that Union Banks Attorneys made Per (FAC Exhibit 9-5).  Union Bank acknowledged in an email June 27, 2013 that these two Amortization Schedules in which Union Bank obtained a restraining order for in 2011, where not accurate!  This is not Res Judicata! 
California Case Law now needs to be made with Union Bank having two sets of accounting books as explained to the Second Appellate Court by Union Bank and Appellate with Union Banks June 27, 2013 Email that is not Res Judicata.


The Appellate Court Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. made its Decision September 28, 2016 without paying attention to the Evidence (FAC Exhibit 9-5 and 10-4) and Case law showing no Res Judicata!  How could The Appellate Court ignore Union Banks June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History as pled below to Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. ???

How could The Appellate Court Judges 
GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. Not mention (FAC Exhibit 9-5 and 10-4) explained to Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. ??? In the Taped Appellate Court hearing thus Showing Union Bank accounting mistakes and Grand theft of SBA Loaned Money!!


This is the June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History showing no Res Judicata to Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.

 Bookout_Loan_History_6-25-13.pdf
70.3 KB

 CBS New, ABC News NBC News--Cal Coast News Karen Velie, San Luis Obispo Tribune and the San Luis Obispo New Times.  How could the Second Appellate Court Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J. ????????  Make this statement regarding Union Banks use of restraining orders as stated by Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.

"
The Bank obtained a restraining order against Bookout preventing him from contacting the Bank through anyone but the Bank’s counsel.

5

Discovery is ordinarily conducted through an opposing party’s counsel. In any event, if Bookout was prevented from conducting discovery by the restraining order, it is his own fault."

CBS New, ABC News NBC News--Cal Coast News Karen Velie, San Luis Obispo Tribune and the San Luis Obispo New Times.  This is Union Banks June 27, 2013 email talked about and argued before the Second Appellate Court showing no Res Judicata.  How could the Second Appellate Court Judges ignore this evidence as presented and pled to Judges GILBERT, P. J. YEGAN, J. PERREN, J.????????  Not once does the Second Appellate Court acknowledge Union Bank June 27, 2013 Email or Union Banks June 25th 2013 Loan Transaction History showing No Res Judicata!!! 

CBS New, ABC News NBC News--Cal Coast News Karen Velie, San Luis Obispo Tribune and the San Luis Obispo New Times. Union Bank admitted June 27th 2013 to its restraining order mistakes!  Union Bank in its June 25th 2013 Loan Transaction History has now committed Fraud to the IRS as Union Bank has never amended IRS 1098 Forms going back to 2007 as now claimed in its accounting.  The  Second Appellate Court Justices are wrong by claiming that this could have been tried during bankruptcy that was confirmed in 2012!  There has been no Res-Judicata and the Appellate Court Justices should have talked about the Statute of Limitations!
.


From:
Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:04 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Chris Gautschi (
sanschromo@yahoo.com); RichardRossi [richard@rossilegal.com] (richard@rossilegal.com)
Subject: RE: In re William Arthur Bookout USBC Cen. Dist.CA.CaseNo.9:11-bk-15818

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

As you requested, I am providing you with a complete transaction history of your loan current as of June 25, 2013.  As we have repeatedly told you, when you defaulted on the Forbearance Agreement it was rescinded and your loan was recalculated as though none of the benefits in the Forbearance Agreement had ever been provided.  As a result, this current history may vary from statements and other documents you may have received in the past which were calculated using the terms of the Forbearance Agreement.  Additionally, this document will not match the amortization schedules which were previously provided to you, because as I have repeatedly told you, amortization schedules set forth the schedule of future payments on a loan if the terms of the loan are adhered to i.e. they are forward looking.  Amortization schedules do not take into account missed payments, late payments, fees incurred etc.

 

Furthermore, as you will see, Union Bank, and its predecessors, although never obligated to do so, have waived $14,984.80 in various fees over the course of your loan which discredits your baseless claims of impropriety with regards to the handling of the loan. 

 

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

WILLIAM A. BOOKOUT,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

MUFG UNION BANK,

Defendant and Respondent.

2d Civil No. B269942

(Super. Ct. No. 15CV-0265)

(San Luis Obispo County)

William A. Bookout brought an action against a bank for breach of

contract, fraud, perjury, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. The trial court

sustained the bank’s demurrer on the grounds of res judicata and statute of limitations

without leave to amend. We affirm the ensuing judgment in favor of the bank.

FACTS

First Amended Complaint

Bookout’s first amended complaint alleges as follows: Bookout obtained a

loan from a predecessor in interest to MUFG Union Bank, N.A. (MUFG Union Bank and

its predecessors herein collectively “Bank”.) The loan was secured by Bookout’s

residential and business real properties. Bookout defaulted on the loan.

In June 2007, Bookout and the Bank entered into a forbearance agreement.

Bookout alleges that the Bank immediately breached the agreement by using an improper

amortization schedule to calculate monthly payments.

COURT OF APPEAL – SECOND DIST.

JOSEPH A. LANE, Clerk

�� Deputy Clerk

Sep 28, 2016

S. Claborn

2

Bookout further alleges: In 2011, the Bank recorded improper notices of

default against the properties that secured the loan. Also in 2011, the Bank improperly

added $45,171.20 to the loan and falsified loan documents. The Bank did not have the

right to add $57,676.17 for attorney fees to its proof of claim in Bookout’s bankruptcy.

The Bank did not have the right to set the minimum bid price for the trustee’s sale of the

Oceano property at $189,000. The Bank foreclosed on Bookout’s rock inventory without

giving credit for the sale proceeds.

Demurrer

The Bank demurred to Bookout’s first amended complaint based on res

judicata and statute of limitations. In support of its demurrer, the Bank requested that the

trial court take judicial notice of documents filed in Bookout’s bankruptcies. The court

granted the Bank’s motion for judicial notice.

Bookout filed for bankruptcy under chapter 13 on September 15, 2011.

The Bank filed a proof of claim arising out of the loan. On December 15, 2011, Bookout

filed an objection to the proof of claim. The objection alleged the Bank had: (1) not

properly amortized the loan and forbearance agreement; (2) changed the loan documents;

(3) filed fraudulent notices of default; and (4) breached the forbearance agreement. The

bankruptcy court dismissed the bankruptcy on December 20, 2011, due to Bookout’s

failure to make payments under the plan.

On December 27, 2011, Bookout again filed for bankruptcy under chapter

13. The Bank filed another proof of claim. The parties stipulated that the Bank could

foreclose on Bookout’s commercial property and apply the proceeds of the sale to the

outstanding loan balance. The Bank foreclosed and applied the proceeds to the loan

balance. The Bank filed an amended proof of claim to reflect the reduced balance.

Bookout again objected to the Bank’s proof of claim as follows: The Bank

improperly reduced the minimum bid price at the foreclosure sale and improperly

charged Bookout $57,676.17 for attorney fees and costs associated with his default on the

loan.

3

On June 21, 2012, the bankruptcy court denied Bookout’s objections and

approved the Bank’s claim in full.

Ruling on Demurrer

The trial court sustained the Bank’s demurrer without leave to amend. The

court concluded that the bankruptcy court’s denial of Bookout’s objections to the Bank’s

proof of claim and approval of the claim in full is res judicata. The court also concluded

that Bookout’s allegation of perjury does not state a civil cause of action and that all the

other causes of action are barred by statute of limitations. Bookout’s original complaint

was filed on May 18, 2015.

DISCUSSION

I

The function of a demurrer is to test whether, as a matter of law, the facts

alleged in the complaint state a cause of action under any legal theory. (Intengan v. BAC

Home Loans Servicing LP (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1047, 1052.) We assume the truth of

all facts properly pleaded, as well as facts of which the trial court properly took notice.

(Ibid.) But we do not assume the truth of contentions, deductions or conclusions of law.

(Ibid.) Our review of the trial court’s decision is de novo. (Ibid.)

We review the trial court’s decision to allow an amendment to the

complaint for abuse of discretion. (Fontenot v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (2011)

198 Cal.App.4th 256, 273.) Where there is no reasonable possibility that plaintiff can

cure the defect with an amendment, sustaining a demurrer without leave to amend is not

an abuse of discretion. (Id. at p. 274.)

II

Bookout’s first amended complaint is 112 pages long and has nearly 600

pages of exhibits. It is as incomprehensible as it is long. Bookout’s briefs on appeal are

equally opaque. We could dismiss the appeal as abandoned for failure to state any

intelligible legal argument in the opening brief. (Berger v. Godden (1985) 163

Cal.App.3d 1113, 1119.) We elect not to do so.

4

III.

Res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating an issue that

has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Nathanson v. Hecker

(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1158, 1162.) Res judicata bars the litigation not only of issues

that were actually litigated in a prior proceeding, but also issues that could have been

litigated in that proceeding. (Zevnik v. Superior Court (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 76, 82.)

Res judicata requires: (1) a final decision on the merits in a prior proceeding; (2) the

issue in the prior proceeding, which was or could have been decided in the prior

proceeding, is identical to the issue in the present proceeding; and (3) the issue was

asserted against the same party, or those in privity to the party, in the prior litigation.

(Nathanson at p. 1162.)

An order of a bankruptcy court approving or denying a claim is a final

judgment on the merits for the purposes of res judicata. (Nathanson v. Hecker, supra,

99 Cal.App.4th at p. 1163.)

Here it is uncontested that MUFG Union Bank, N.A. is a successor in

interest to the party who filed the proof of claim in Bookout’s bankruptcy. Thus, MUFG

Union Bank, N.A. is in privity with a party to the bankruptcy claim. (Eistrat v. Northern

Lumber Co. (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 267, 272. [a privy is one who has acquired an interest

in the subject matter affected by the judgment].)

The issues raised in Bookout’s objections to the Bank’s two proofs of claim

are the same issues raised in Bookout’s first amended complaint. Those issues were

finally decided against Bookout when the bankruptcy court denied his objections to the

Bank’s proofs of claim and approved the second claim in full.

It is possible Bookout is arguing he was precluded from discovering the full

extent of his claims against the Bank by a restraining order. Bookout was harassing the

Bank’s employees to the extent they became fearful for their safety. The Bank obtained a

restraining order against Bookout preventing him from contacting the Bank through

anyone but the Bank’s counsel.

5

Discovery is ordinarily conducted through an opposing party’s counsel. In

any event, if Bookout was prevented from conducting discovery by the restraining order,

it is his own fault.

Because Bookout’s claim is barred by res judicata, we need not consider

the Bank’s statute of limitations defense.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Costs are awarded to respondent.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P. J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

PERREN, J.

6


SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION SIX

                                                                                                                           

WILLIAM A. BOOKOUT,

PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

                        vs.

MUFG UNION BANK, N.A. SUCCESSOR TO SANTA  BARBARA  BANK & TRUST, N.A., fka PACIFIC CAPTIAL BANK; NOW KNOWN AS MUFG UNION BANK, N.A DOES 1-50,

 

DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Second Appellate No. B269942

 

Appeal from the Judgment of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County

Case No. 15CV-0265

 

Hon. Judge Barry T. LaBarbera, Presiding

 

1) BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT

2) FRAUD

3) PERJURY

4) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

5) NEGLIGENCE

 

 

__________________________

APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF

NOTICE OF INTENT TO RELY ON REPLY BREIF IN THE SUPREME COURT

 

                                                                        William A. Bookout

                                                                        470 Price St

                                                                        Pismo Beach, CA 93449

                                                                        Telephone (805) 773-2089

                                                                        pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net

                                                                        In Pro Per


 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.  INTRODUCTION   6

II.  LEGAL DISCUSSION                                                                                                                    8

A.  UNION BANK USE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS IN 2011 AND 2013                        9

B.  STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FRAUD AND RESCISSION                                            11

C.  BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY              13

D.  STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FRAUD AND RES JUDICATA                                       15

III.  CONCLUSION   25

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE                                                                                              26

PROOF OF SERVICE                                                                                                                       27                                                                                                  

 


 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Adams [181 Cal. App. 3d 597] v. Martin (1935) 3 Cal. 2d 246, 248 [44 P.2d 572]         23                                           

Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 155 15, 17, 19, 21

Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 158............. 21

Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 810-811 [122 P.2d 892]................ 24

Bollinger v National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 C2d 399, 411.......................................... 12, 25

Bonus-Built, Inc. v. United Grocers, Ltd. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 429, 442 [186 Cal.Rptr. 357]   16

Caldwell v. Taylor, supra, 218 Cal. 471, at page 479……………………………………24

California Bank & Trust v. DelPonti (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 162, 167........................... 15

Craney v. Low (1956) 46 Cal.2d 757 [298 P.2d 860],.......................................................... 25

Deist v. Wachholz (1984) 208 Mont. 207 [678 P.2d 188, 193-195]………………...16, 22

Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc. (7th Cir.1993) 985 F.2d 908....................................................... 15

Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Dintino (2008), 167 Cal.App.4th 333, 348 [84 Cal.Rptr.3d 38]……………………………………………………………………………………...22

First National Bank in Lenox v. Brown (Iowa 970) 181 N.W.2d 178, 182-183…….16, 23

Frommhagen v. Bd. of Supervisors (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 1292, 1299........................... 12

Himel v. Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust (1979) 596 F.2d 205, 210............................. 20

Kane v. Cook, 8 Cal. 449.......................................................................................................... 11

Kettelle v. Kettelle (1930) 110 Cal.App. 310, 312......................................................... 12, 20

Klein v. First Edina National Bank (1972) 243 Minn. 418 [196 N.W.2d 619, 622-623, 70 A.L.R.3d 1337]............................................................................................................................................. 16, 23

Mattson v. City of Costa Mesa, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 449....................................... 20

Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 598, 601 [177 Cal. Rptr. 520]…………..23

Morgan v. Asher (1920) 49 Cal. App. 172, 176-179 [193 P. 288]..................................... 23

 

Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 123, 131 [54 Cal.Rptr. 533] ………………………………………………………………………………...……….16

Olam v. Congress Mortgage Co. (N.D.Cal. 1999) 68 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1139-1142.......... 17

Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1526 [37 Cal.Rptr. 2d 810]…..…..12, 22

Pashley v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 226, 235 [153 P.2d 325]..................... 21

Powe v. Chrysler Financial Corporation, L.L.C. (In re Powe), 278 B.R. 539 (Bankr. S. D. Ala. 2002……………………………………………………………………………….23

Ripplin Shoals Land Co., LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, (8th Cir. 2006) 440 F.3d 1038, 1042         18

Safeco Insurance Co. v. Tholen (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 685, 696 [173 Cal. Rptr. 23]. 18

Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 14 [91 Cal.Rptr.2d 273, 989 P.2d 701]…………..22

Slick v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc. (2002) Bankr.Lexis 772 (Bankr.S.D.Ala. 2002)............ 23

Snow v. A. H. Robins Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 120, 127—128 [211 Cal.Rptr. 271], internal citation omitted……………………………………………………………12, 22

Stenderup v. Broadway State Bank (1933) 219 Cal. 593 [28 P.2d 14].............................. 24

Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank (1937) 49 Ariz. 34 [64 P.2d 101, 106]......................... 16, 23

Tate v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corporation (In re Tate), 253 B.R. 653 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2000…………………………………………………………………………………....23

United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337 [282 Cal.Rptr. 368           16

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (5th Cir. 2011) 439 Fed.Appx. 330................................ 19

Yager v. Yager (1936) 7 Cal.2d 213, 217............................................................................... 20

Statutes

3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleading, sections 586, 588, at pp. 2224-2227..11

4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, sections 547, 551, pp. 674-675, 679-680.        17

5 Witkin, California Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Attack on Judgment in Trial Court, section 183, page 3752.................................................................................................................................................... 23

7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, section 188, p. 621)                                                       25

Civil Code section 1572............................................................................................................ 25

Civil Code section 1689..................................................................................................... 11, 14

Civil Code section 1709............................................................................................................ 25

Civil Code section 1710............................................................................................................ 25

Civil Code section 337...................................................................................................... passim

Civil Code section 337(1)......................................................................................................... 25

Civil Code section 337(3)................................................................................................. passim

Civil Code section 338(d)................................................................................................. passim

Code of Civil Procedure section 352.1……………………………………………..…9, 14

Civil Code section 631.8........................................................................................................... 25

Evid. Code, section 452............................................................................................................ 18

 

Rules

Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1..................................................................................... passim

Title 11 United States Code section 502(j)............................................................................ 19


 

I.  INTRODUCTION

          Appellant presents this reply to Respondent Union Banks July 1, 2016 Breif.  Respondent did an undisclosed rescission on December 26, 2011and changed SBA loan documents during Bankruptcy using two Amortization Schedules created by Respondent’s Attorney’s (Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal (“CT”) 675-685.)  Respondent did not provide this rescission information until June 27, 2013 after the April 13, 2012 Bankrupty Conformation (“CT”) 746).  Respondents on December 26, 2011 changed actual Union Bank loan documents  (“CT”) 838)-(933-973).   (“CT”) 838) is a September 23, 2011 Monthly Payment Notice during bankruptcy,  showing an interest rate of 6% at $4,121.06 per month, (“CT”) 662-665) is a Certified August 29, 2011SBB&T Loan Transaction History prior to Bankrupty each showing that Respondent had not done a Rescission prior to December 26, 2011 and that the Four Year Statute of Limitations under Civil Code section 337 had not expired.  This is backed up in (“CT”) 839-841) Respondents November 7, 2011online accounting.  Respondents (“CT” 686-689 (FAC Exhibit 6-1 to 6-4) May 19, 2011 letter from Union Banks Attorneys does not claim a rescission with the two amortization schedules created by Respondend’s Attorneys. 

          Respondents, Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence and Perjury prior to May 19, 2011 going back to the 2007 Forbearance agreement was not argued before the San Luis Obispo Superior Court per Respondent’s (“CT” 686-689.) and (“CT” 675-685)  The Civil Code section 337four year Statute of limitations has not expired for Respondents actions after respondent changed their November 7, 2011 online accounting Loan Transaction History (“CT” FAC Exhibit 839- 841).

          Respondents Breif P. 7 refers to Respondents fraud prior to Bankruptcy and not the SBA Loan changes made after (“CT” 675-689)  (“CT” FAC Exhibit 839- 841) on June 27, 2013 by respondent.

          Respondent Breif P. 8 does not account for the June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History (“CT”) 785-789) and June 27, 2013 email (“CT”) 746) showing Respondents undisclosed December 26, 2013 Rescission not provided during Bankruptcy thus, showing no res judicata per the (“CT”) 1630-1633. 

          Respondent Breif P. 9-10 “STATMENT OF FACTS” A and B. Refers to actions prior to May 19, 2011 that are not being litigated.  Respondent refers to the two amortization schedules created by Robert B. Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee that are not bank records (“CT”) 753) Paragraph 2.  Respondent Breif P. 9-10  B “Harassment of Respondent by Appellant” Admits to the use of restraining orders only allowing communication with Respondents Attorneys.  

          Respondent Breif P. 10 “C.  Appellant’s Bankruptcy” ignores (“CT”) 14-1) dated November 7, 2011as argued and ignores the undisclosed December 26, 2011 Rescission (“CT”) 788.) with Respondents use of restraining orders. 

          Appellant was granted Augumentation of the April 13, 2012 Bankruptcy Conformation hearing by the Appellate Court on May 26, 2016 (FAC Opposition Exhibit # 27) showing no res judicata as the Bankruptcy Court was not made aware of Respondents December 26, 2011 Rescission that could not have been argued at conformation.  Augumtated (FAC OPP Exhibit # 27) shows that Respondent Breach of Written Contract had not occurred prior to May 18, 2012.

          Respondent “Summary of Claims Against Respondent in the FAC” are misguided P. 11-12.  (“CT”) 790-792  # 3) shows Appellants mistakes in accounting by adding $45,171.20 back into the SBA loan.  This is seen in the June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History (FAC (“CT”) 534-566 # 5) $57,676.17 was not put a Proof of Claim.

          Respondent “F  The Demurrer and the Judgment” P. 12-13 shows the Court December 3, 2015 findings coming from prior actions by Respondent per restraining order communication in June 24, 2011.  This has nothing to do with the undisclosed December 26, 2011 Rescission by Respondent (“CT”) FAC 545-546) provided by Respondent on June 27, 2013 after the Bankruptcy Conformation. 

          Respondent “V ARGUMENT” P. 15 Failed to provide its June 25, 2013 loan accounting prior in Bankruptcy showing no Res Judicata.  Respondent prior to Bankruptcy actions in the Forbearance Agreement are not at issue.  Respondents changing the Forbearance agreement on December 26, 2011 and providing this information on June 27, 2013 is at issue.  Respondent P.18 # 3  Respondent now shows on June 25, 2013 that it was not owed $45,171.20 added onto the SBA loan.  This Fraud was not litigated in Bankruptcy as respondent failed to provide this June 25, 2013 accounting using Restraining orders into 2013.  

          Respondent Breif P. 23 (“B.”) Breach of Contract, ignores the Four Year Statutute of Limitations from the December 26, 2011 Rescission provided by Respondent on June 27, 2013. 

          Respondent Breif P. 24 (“C.”) FRAUD, ignores the Three Year Statutute of Limitations from June 27, 2013; when respondent provided an accounting of the December 26, 2011 Rescission.

          Respondent Breif P. 24 (“D.”) Perjury, ignores the restraining orders stopping Appellants discovery and signed declarations by Respondents Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh. (“CT”) FAC 604-606.)

          Respondent Breif P. 25 (“E.”) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, ignores the Three Year Statutute of Limitations from June 27, 2013; when respondent provided an accounting of the December 26, 2011 Rescission/Deceit for the first time using restraining orders stopping Appellants discovery of the December 26, 2011 Rescission changing SBA Loan documents. (“CT”) FAC 606-614.) Respondent Breif P. 26 (“E.”) Negligence, ignores the (“CT” FAC 614-622.)  Respondent Breif P. 27 (“G.”).  Regarding the Court denying Appellant Leave to Amend his Complaint, is an Abuse of Discretion with the Court refusal of Appellants Augumented Oppossition Exhibit # 27 (“CT”) 1631.)  The Court acknowledged the June 27, 2013 Email (“CT”) 1631.)   Respondent Breif VI. Has not madeAppellant whole from its  December 26, 2011 rescission made known in 2013..

LEGAL DISCUSSION

                  In The December 3, 2015 decision by Hon. Judge Barry T. LaBarbera, he would not allow Judicially, noticed (Exhibits 26, 27, 28, 29-1 to 29-17 “CT” Vol. 6 P. 1629 to 1632) showing no adjudication or Res Judicata and that Respondent’s Breach of Written Contract/Rescission was not prior to May 19, 2011 pled in the (“CT”Vol. 2 P. 572 to 576 Paragraphs 101, 102 103, 104, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111).  This is an Abuse of Discretion.  Appellant November 30, 2015(Reply OPP (“CT”) Ex. 1621-1622) June 30, 2011 letter from the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks showed the Court that Respondent had not done a rescission prior to June 30, 2011.  The Courts Abuse of Discretion comes from believing two Amortization Schedules created by Respondents Attorneys are bank documents against the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks June 30, 2011 Accounting (“CT”) 1621-1622) Request for Judicial Notice (“CT” P. 1610-1620).

RESPONDENT”S BREACH OF WRITTEN CONTRACT-FRAUD-BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY-RESCISSION

          Respondent December 26, 2011 Rescission is within the Statute of Limitations for Civil Code section 337, Civil Code section 338(d) and Civil Code section 337(3)  that Respondent finally provided June 27, 2013 as pled in the (“CT” Vol 2 P. 572 to 576) after the May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 524 Paragraph 25).  (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 541 to 542 FAC P. 30 to 31 Paragraph 55 shows as pled Respondent’s Loan changes in June 2013 as Respondents have no claim for Res Judicata with their continued 2013 Loan changes.  This case has not been litigated prior and no res judicata has occurred with Respondents loan changes in their June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History. 

A.  UNION BANK USE OF RESTRAINING ORDERS IN 2011 AND 2013

         The Court talks about the restraining orders issued for asking SBA Loan Question (“CT” P. 1629)- 1 under (foot notes) and Paragraph 3, but ignores the fact (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 524) that Respondent used these restraining orders as a prison for stopping Appellant from finding the facts behind the December 26, 2011 Rescission until June 27, 2013 showing no res judicata.  This is an Abuse of Discretion under Civil Code section 352.1 as Respondent’s restraining order actions are the same as being imprisoned as Appellant could only ask SBA loan Questions of Respondent’s Attorneys (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 742 January 8, 2013 email FAC Exhibit # 9-1 to 9-3 Ex. 9-4 “CT’ P. 745) Email dated January 24, 2013 and (“CT” P 748 RESPA Email 9-7) dated May 23, 2013 per the arguments in the (“CT” P. 521 to 523 P. 10, 11 and 12 Paragraphs 19 to 23).  Appellant in the (FAC) Pled Civil Code section 337. ( “CT” Vol. 2 P. 518 to 526) that the Court ignored and did not discuss.  For the Court to ignore Civil Code section 337 is an Abuse of Discretion with Respondent restraining order actions.

            Appellant in the (FAC) with Respondent’s undisclosed December 26, 2011 Rescission per (“CT”) P. 785 to789 FAC Exhibit #10) June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History, Pled the facts under Civil Code section 337(3) . “CT” Vol. 2 and 3 Pages 522 to 613 (FAC) For the Court to ignore Civil Code section 337(3)  is an Abuse of Discretion.

            The Courts Abuse of Discretion in ignoring (FAC Exhibits 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 5-1, 10-4, 13 14-1, 20-1) to claim (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1630 Paragraph # 6) in his December 3, 2015 decision.  “Thus, Plaintiff was aware of Defendant’s calculation of the principal owed prior to the bankruptcy.” Is a full Abuse of Discretion as Respondent own records showed up to November 7, 2011; Respondent had not done a Rescission and the Principal Balance was $390,996.61 in (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 839 Ex. # 14-1) dated November 7, 2011!  The Courts December 3, 2015 Decision claims Respondent did their rescission on November 23, 2011 which is within the four year Statute of Limitations and is an Abuse of Discretion. Union Banks Monthly Payment notice (“CT” Vol. 3 P 838 Ex. 13) September 23, 2011 Shows that Respondent had not done a rescission prior and (“CT” P. 662 to 665 “CT Vol. 3 # 1-1, 1-3, 1-4) being the SBA Certified August 29, 2011 Loan Transaction History.  The Court failed to understand that Respondent never provided an accounting of their Rescission until June 27, 2013 Civil Code section 337(3).  This could not have been argued eariler showing no Res Judicata or adjudication.  

            For the Court to claim (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 December 3, 2015 paragraph 8), that two May 6, 2011Amortization Schedules (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 753 Paragraph 2) with an interest rate of 6% starts the Statute of Limitations is an Abuse of Discretion and makes this fully appealable.  The June 24, 2011 restraining order answer is not Res Judicata per the (FAC Exhibits (“CT”) 746) # 9-5) and (“CT”) 788) FAC EX. 10-4) acknowledged by the Court paragraph 6 December 3, 2015 decision.   In a Second Amended complaint this can be explained further as the two Amortization Schedules created by Union Bank’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh are not Bank documents (“CT” 977 FAC Exhibit 19-1) and should not have been used in the courts starting point for Statute of Limitations and Res Judicata with Respondent’s use of restraing orders in 2011, 2012 and 2013.  This is an Abuse of Discretion.

B.         STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FRAUD AND RESCISSION

            Appellant’s (“CT Vol. 3 P. 788 FAC Exhibit # 10-4) June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History shows that the Courts November 23, 2011 (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 783) email from Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 783Exhibit 9-43) Rescission did not occur until December 26, 2011 and was not provided until June 27, 2013.  Res judicata could not happen as it took Respondent until June 27, 2013 within the 3 year Statute of Limitations under Civil Code section 338(d)  Fraud and Civil Code section 337(3)  Rescission to provide their Concealment of their December 26, 2011 rescission.  An action for fraudulent misrepresentation lies when the defendant is charged with knowledge of falsity and an intent to deceive (3 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Pleading, sections 586, 588, at pp. 2224-2227).  Respondent December 26, 2011 Rescission was against Civil Code section 1689 under Rescission, as Respondent did not notify Appellant or make Appellant whole. ―When the defendant is guilty of fraudulent concealment of the cause of action the statute is deemed not to become operative until the aggrieved party discovers the existence of the cause of action. (Kane v. Cook, 8 Cal. 449; Kimball v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1934) 220 Cal. 203 [30 P.2d 39].”  Appellant in the (FAC) Pled Civil Code section 338(d)  --On Pages (“CT” 519- 614) pages 8-12, 14-17, 19-22, 24-25, 27-32, 34, 36-42, 44-45, 47-49, 53, 56, 57, 60, 62-63, 65, 67, 70, 74-79, 81, 83-85, 87-103.  The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion on December 3, 2015 decision (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 paragraph 9) ignored as Pled in the (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 593, 594, 595 # 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7) Civil Code section 338(d) and Civil Code section 337(3) .

3.  (“With respect to actions based on fraud, the statute of limitations is tolled when plaintiff is able to show the defendant fraudulently concealed facts which would have led him to discover his potential cause of action. ‘Technical rules as to when a cause of action accrues apply therefore only in those cases which are free from fraud committed by the defendant. Said section 338, subdivision 4, . . . recognizes the non-applicability of those technical rules where the fraud of the defendant may be so concealed that in the absence of circumstances imposing greater diligence on the plaintiff, the cause of action is deemed not to accrue until the fraud is discovered. Otherwise, in such cases, the defendant by concealing his fraud would effectively block recovery by the plaintiff because of the intervention of the statute of limitations.” (Snow v. A. H. Robins Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 120, 127—128 [211 Cal.Rptr. 271, internal citation omitted.).

4.  (“Courts have relied on the nature of the relationship between defendant and plaintiff to explain application of the delayed accrual rule. The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships. The fiduciary relationship carries a duty of full disclosure, and application of the discovery rule ‘prevents the fiduciary from obtaining immunity for an initial breach of duty by a subsequent breach of the obligation of disclosure.’” (Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1526 [37 Cal.Rptr. 2d 810, internal citations omitted.)“

            See (FAC) Appellant (Exhibits (“CT” 746) 9-5) and (“CT 788) FAC 10-4) dated June 25, 2013 and June 27, 2013 as Respondent withheld the December 26, 2011 Rescission from Appellant until June 27, 2013 by use of Restraining orders in 2012 and 2013, per the (FAC Exhibit # 8 “CT” 707-741 ).  Respondent’s Attorneys Robert B. Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee created the amortization schedules used in the Courts December 3, 2015 decision, contributing to the Appellants delay in filing suit. [Bollinger v National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 C2d 399, 411 equitably tolled (extended, suspended, put on hold).  See (“CT” Vol. 3 P.698 FAC Exhibit 6-13 Lines 9-13). 

            The Courts, Abuse of Discretion is seen in this December 3, 2015 Decision statement (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1629) Notes Stating:

“1 The Court grants Defendant’s request for judicial notice of various pleadings including, but not limited to, the restraining order and bankruptcy court proceedings that will be discussed infra. “If all of the facts necessary to show that an action is barred by res judicata are within the complaint or subject to judicial notice, a trial court may properly sustain a general demurrer. (Citation)” (Frommhagen v. Bd. of Supervisors (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d 1292, 1299) “In ruling on a demurrer based on res judicata, a court may take judicial notice of the official acts or records of any court in this state. (Citations.)” (Id.) Even so, most if not all of the documents, including the certain bankruptcy pleadings, are attached as exhibits to the FAC such that they are within the complaint and do not require judicial notice. Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice as to exhibits 26, 27 and 28 is denied, the request as to the other exhibits is unnecessary as those exhibits are attached to the FAC.”

            Appellant’s (“CT” Vol. 4 P. 978 FAC Ex. 20-1) is an email from Bankruptcy Attorney Chris Gautschi showing the Bankruptcy Courts Conformation, hearing was held “Without Prejudice” regarding Attorney Fees Etc.

C.     BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY

            It is an Abuse of Discretion for the Court (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 paragraph 9 December 3, 2015 decision to establish Union Bank’s Fraud and Breach of Fiduciary Duty from December 26, 2011 as Union Bank failed to comply with Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 per (FAC Ex. 20-1) and (Opposition Ex. # 27) not allowed by the Court filed on November 20, 2015 and refilled on December 21, 2015 as Augmented April 28, 2016 into this record.

            As pled in the (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 518 Paragraph 13lines 10 to 13) show the beginning of Respondent’s Breach of Contract as stated and pled in the (FAC): Defendant’s actions on December 26, 2011 are the basis for this Breach of Written Contract law suit. Plaintiffs discovery on June 27, 2013 falls under Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d) and Code of Civil Procedure section337(3).”. 

            The Courts statement (CT” Vol. 6 P. 1630 Paragraph 6). “Thus, Plaintiff was aware of Defendant’s calculation of the principal owed prior to the bankruptcy.” Is a full Abuse of Discretion as during Bankruptcy up to November 7, 2011 Respondent had not done a rescission per (Augumented Opposition Ex. # 27 (“CT” 839 Respondents own accounting). 

The Court in its Abuse of Discretion claims December 3, 2015 (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 and 1632 paragraph 11 that:

Contrary to Plaintiff’s allegation that the breach occurred on May 19, 2011, the FAC contains other allegations that affirm that Plaintiff was fully aware of his breach of contract claims prior to May 19, 2011, such that the first cause of action is barred by the four year statute of limitations.”

 

            This is not the case as pled in the (“CT”) 662 to 665-746, 787, 838, 839 FAC Exhibits 1-1, 1-3, 1-4, 5-1, 9-5, 10-4, 13 and 14-1(“CT” 839) along with Augumented (Opposition Ex. # 27) as on December 26, 2011 Respondent changed Appellant’s (FAC Exhibits without informing Appellant or the Bankruptcy Court using Restraining orders and Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 to withhold these loan Rescission changes against Civil Code section 338(d) Civil Code section 337(3)  pled throughout the (FAC).

            The Court in-properly accounts for on December 3, 2015 per (“CT” P. 1630 per FAC Ex. 9-5) the date of Respondent Rescission and the fact that Appellant’s (FAC Exhibits (“CT”) 662 to 665-746, 787, 838, 839) Show that Respondent had not done a rescission, prior to November 23, 2011 or make Appellant whole.  The (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1630 paragraph 6 States:

“Plaintiff alleges that he learned of Defendant’s rescission in a June 27, 2013 email from defense counsel which is attached as Exhibit 9-5 to the FAC. The alleged December 26, 2011 rescission appears to be related to Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant’s online records reflected a principal balance owing of $390,996.61, while the amount of the balance on statements provided to Plaintiff stated a balance of $400,962.89 owing. However, in a November 23, 2011 email, counsel informed Plaintiff that the difference in the online information was due to Defendant’s recalculation of the principal based on a rescission of the Agreement. Thus, Plaintiff was aware of Defendant’s calculation of the principal owed prior to the bankruptcy.”

 

            This is a full Abuse of Discretion under Civil Code section 1689 as the November 7, 2011 online accounting (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 839 Exhibit # 14-1) showed that Respondent had not done a Rescission prior to bankruptcy and that Appellant’s Breach of Written Contract claim is within the Four Year Statute of Limitations under California Civil Code section 337.  Respondent cannot claim Res Judicata with their withholding the December 26, 2011 Rescission through Restraining orders into 2013!  Code of Civil Procedure section 352.1 use of a California Court applies to respondent actions.  It took Respondent Attorneys till January 5, 2015 to admit to creating the two May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 753) as stated by Robert B. Forouzandeh:  “I stated that my office “in conjunction with Union Bank” created the amortization schedules.”  No Current California Case law allows Bank Attorneys to make their own Bank Records (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 753) against Certified Bank Records dated August 29, 2011 (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 1-1 to 1-4).  The Court abuse of Discretion is seen (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1631 to 1632) as stated by the Court.  “Contrary to plaintiff’s allegation that the breach occurred on May 19, 2011, the FAC contains other allegations that affirm that Plaintiff was fully aware of his breach of contract claims prior to May 19, 2011, such that the first cause of action is barred by the four year statute of limitations.”  The Court is incorrect with the Certified August 29, 2011 Proof of Claim (“CT” P. 662-665 Vol. 3 )!  The Court is incorrect in its Statute of Limitations in (“CT” Vol. 3 P 838 to 844) showing that Respondent had not done a Rescission prior to December 26, 2011.

D.   STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FRAUD AND RES JUDICATA

            As pled to the October 9, 2015 (Demurrer Opposition) on November 20th 2015 (“CT”) FAC 1552). “Res Judicata is not a bar to claims that arise after the initial complaint was filed.  (Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 155.)  Respondent’s 12/26/2011 Rescission could not have been argued in Bankruptcy as it arose after the Bankruptcy was filed and Respondent withheld this information until June 27, 2013. The Court is fully aware of Respondents’s May  23, 2013 RESPA Denial (“CT”) 748 FAC Exhibit 9-7 (“CT”) 524 P 13 Lines 12 to 24) (FAC (“CT”) 574-576) P. 63 to 65Arguments Paragraph 105 to 111) showing no Res Judicata. 

            If the plaintiff is unaware of facts when filing a complaint, res judicata will not bar subsequent litigation. (Id. At p. 914, original italics.) Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc. (7th Cir.1993) 985 F.2d 908, in which a second suit was filed after plaintiff discovered new facts.”  New facts per the (FAC) are the June 27, 2013 email and June 25, 2013 Proof of Claim (FAC Exhibits (“CT)746, 788 and 753) as pled in the (FAC).

            Respondent’s Fraudulent December 26, 2011 Rescission is within 3 years as provided for the first time and discovered on June 27, 2013 Civil Code section 337(3) and is not Res Judicata with Respondents use of restraining orders.  Respondent Counsel for the first time on June 27, 2013 providing a Loan Transaction History-(Proof of Claim) is within Civil Code section 338(d) under fraud.  Respondent’s claimed Rescission as acknowledged by the Court is an act of willful Misconduct Pled in the (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 514 Paragraph 6)  (California Bank & Trust v. DelPonti (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 162, 167).   “(In California Bank & Trust, there was substantial evidence in the form of an unambiguous e-mail from the bank that if the guarantors performed certain tasks the guarantor’s obligations would be mitigated.  As such, the trial court in California Bank & Trust found that the bank was guilty of willful misconduct.)”

As Pled in the (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 528 Paragraph 34) shows the Statute of Limitations under Civil Code section 338(d) fraud and Civil Code section 337(3) Rescission could not be discovered until June 27, 2013.  As a matter of law." (Bonus-Built, Inc. v. United Grocers, Ltd. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 429, 442 [186 Cal.Rptr. 357].)  Facts not contained in the separate statement do not exist. (United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337 [282 Cal.Rptr. 368.)  Respondent Rescission did not occur prior to December 26, 2011 as shown in the (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 529 Paragraphs 34 to 36)  See e.g. Klein v. First Edina National Bank (1972) 243 Minn. 418 [196 N.W.2d 619, 622-623, 70 A.L.R.3d 1337]; First National Bank in Lenox v. Brown (Iowa 970) 181 N.W.2d 178, 182-183; Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank (1937) 49 Ariz. 34 [64 P.2d 101, 106]; Deist v. Wachholz (1984) 208 Mont. 207 [678 P.2d 188, 193-195].  Union Bank’s Fiduciary Duty was created between a bank and a borrower.  The cases above in the (FAC) involved situations similar in which a bank allegedly withheld information from the borrower about relevant transactions or the borrower relied on advice of the bank.  In this case Union Bank withheld their December 26, 2011 Rescission against Appellant (FAC Exhibits 1, 13 and 14-1) and (FAC Exhibit 9-7 RESPA Refusal.  (“CT’ Vol. 6 P. 1631Paragraph 10) of the December 3, 2015 Superior Court Decision regarding Respondent’s claimed Rescission falls under the above case law (misconduct.)”

            As Pled in (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 529 to 530 Paragraph # 36). -- “36. The Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence lawsuit against Union Bank involves situations in which Union Bank has intentionally withheld information from the Appellant and the United States Bankruptcy Court about relevant transactions and loan changes made by Respondent on December 26, 2011 from the Appellant, Appellant’s Council and the United States Bankruptcy Court. ‘undue influence involves the use of excessive pressure to persuade one vulnerable to such pressure ....’  (Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist. (1966) 246 Cal.App.2d 123, 131 [54 Cal.Rptr. 533]; see Olam v. Congress Mortgage Co. (N.D.Cal. 1999) 68 F.Supp.2d 1110, 1139-1142.) Accordingly, to state a claim for rescission, the plaintiff must ordinarily allege that the party against whom rescission is sought took some advantage of the mental weakness or incapacity of the other party. (4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure (5th ed. 2008) Pleading, sections 547, 551, pp. 674-675, 679-680.)” 

            In September 2011 Appellant was forced to file Bankruptcy on his SBA Loan from Respondent, Attorneys emails from May 19, 2011 to September 7, 2011  Appellants (“CT” Vol. 3 P.742 to 783 Exhibits).  In Appellant (“CT” Vol. 3 and 4 P. 900 to 922) November 18, 2011 Bankruptcy CASE NO. ND11-14393RR Doc 31 Entered 11/8/2011--Respondent had not done a Rescission or changed Respondent’s Certified SBA Loan documents Per the FAC Bankruptcy, Attorney Richard Rossi in his arrears accounting of $107,186.12 included Defendants claimed legal fees, late charges etc. on top of actual Principal and interest at 6% owed Respondent per Respondents August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) Appellant (“CT” Vol. 4 P. 933Exhibit 17-2). 

         The San Luis Obispo Courts statement (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1629 Paragraph # 2)

“Thus, Plaintiff was aware of Defendant’s calculation of the principal owed prior to the bankruptcy.”

            Is a full Abuse of Discretion against the Statute of Limitations as during Bankruptcy up to November 7, 2011 Respondent had not Re-Calculated or done a Rescission.  Similar to (Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 155.)” Appellant’s fraud claim for Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission is not barred by res judicata because it did not accrue until after the Bankruptcy was filed and was withheld from Appellant and the Bankruptcy Court with Respondent’s Extrinsic fraud (Restraining Orders until June 27, 2013).  The Court has misunderstood the fact that Respondent’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh admitted June 27, 2013 in (FAC) Exhibit 9-5 (“CT” P. 746) that his Amortization Schedules are not accurate! This has not been litigated and there currently is no California Case law allowing Bank Attorneys to make up their own Bank loan documents!  This should be new Case Law Bookout V. MUFG Union Bank.  As the Court acknowledges the June 27,  2013 email from Respondent (“CT” 1630 Exhibit 9-5 (“CT” P. 746)) showing that Amortization Schedules are not official Bank SBA Loan documents.

            The purpose of res judicata is “to prevent repetitive suits involving the same cause of action.” (Ripplin Shoals Land Co., LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, (8th Cir. 2006) 440 F.3d 1038, 1042.)  To determine whether res judicata bars a party from asserting a claim, three elements must be considered: (1) whether the prior judgment was entered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) whether the prior decision was a final judgment on the merits; and (3) whether the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were involved in both cases.  All Three of these fail in the December 3, 2015 decision as seen in Appellants Judicially Noticed Augumented (Opposition Exhibit # 27).

            In ruling on a demurrer based on res judicata, a court may take judicial notice of the official acts or records of any court in this state. (Id. at p. 481; Safeco Insurance Co. v. Tholen (1981) 117 Cal. App. 3d 685, 696 [173 Cal. Rptr. 23]; Evid. Code, section 452.)  Appellants Judicially Noticed Augumented (Opp Exhibit # 27) records and testimony by Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet was not allowed by the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, showing no res judicata.

            Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet made her Bankruptcy Conformation “without Prejudice” under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 without having a hearing or deciding on a decision as to what has been pled in the September 4, 2015 (FAC).  Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet gave no ruling or decision on Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence with Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission withheld until June 27, 2013. 

Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet in (Augumentated Exhibit # 27) stated at the April 13, 2012 Conformation hearing “Are these attorney’s fees post-petition or pre-petition?” “Both.  To the extent they pre-petition, they should go on the claim. To the extent that they are post-petition, they sort of get shunted aside for a while.” 

Respondent’s October 9, 2015 (Opposition Exhibit (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1528 to 1532) shows that the prior (Proof of Claim) was not approved per Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1.  Respondents only claim Pre-Petition Attorney fees of $15,922.92 and not the $57,676.17 in Attorney Fees Post-Petition charged on February 22, 2012 per (FAC Exhibit # 10-4).  The February 22, 2012 $57,676.17 Attorney Fees from Robert B. Forouzandeh should be tried per the May 18, 2015 Civil Complaint.  Respondent under bankruptcy rule 3002.1 failed to account for 2012 Post-Petition charges of $26,500.00 and $39,750.00 charged on February 21, 2012 which is within Civil Code section 337 and has not been litigated, showing no Res Judicata.

            Title 11 United States Code section 502(j) states in relevant part, "A claim that has been allowed or disallowed may be reconsidered for cause. A reconsidered claim may be allowed or disallowed according to the equities of the case . . . ."

            Honorable Judge Barry T. LaBarbera issued his ruling on December 3, 2011 refusing Judicial Notice of Plaintiff October 20th 2015 Augumented (Opposition Ex. # 27) under Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 showing no Res Judicata.  He allowed Respondent on November 24, 2015 to give testimony (“CT” Vol. 6 P. 1594 to 1595 Exhibit # 27).  The Court Acknowledged Respondent’s June 27, 2013 Email Appellant’s (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 746 Ex. 9-5) in his December 3, 2015 decision showing, that the Courts Amortization Schedule accounting prior to May 19, 2011 did not start the 4 year Statute of Limitation under Civil Code section 337 which is an Abuse of Discretion.   (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 746-FAC Ex. 9-5) acknowledged by the Court dated June 27, 2013 states.  (“Additionally this document will not match the amortization schedules which were previously provided to you, because as I have repeatedly told you, amortization schedules set forth the schedule of future payments on a loan if the terms of the loan are adhered to i.e. they are forward looking.  Amortization schedules do not take into account missed payments, late payments, fees incurred etc.”

            The Court has misunderstood the amortization schedules created by Union Banks Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 753) January 5, 2015.  This is an Abuse of Discretion.

            Respondent’s actions fall under Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (5th Cir. 2011) 439 Fed.Appx. 330  as explained in the (“CT” Vol. 2 and 3 Pages 585, 603, 611, 616, 622) showing no Res judicata as explained in Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 155.)”  “Res judicata is not a bar to claims that arise after the initial complaint is filed.  These rights may be asserted in a supplemental pleading, but if such a pleading is not filed a plaintiff is not foreclosed from asserting the rights in a subsequent action. (Yager v. Yager (1936) 7 Cal.2d 213, 217) The general rule that a judgment is conclusive as to matters that could have been litigated "does not apply to new rights acquired pending the action which might have been, but which were not, required to be litigated [Citation]." (Kettelle v. Kettelle (1930) 110 Cal.App. 310, 312.)”

            Respondent’s misrepresentation, Extrinsic fraud  per Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 and May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial is similar to (Kettelle v. Kettelle (1930) 110 Cal.App. 310, 312.)” and (Yager v. Yager (1936) 7 Cal.2d 213, 217. ) as Respondent was required to Amend their Proof of Claim as explained in Judicially Noticed (Opposition Ex. # 27) denied by the Court.  (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 569 Paragraph 97) Exhibit 20-1 explains the Bankruptcy Courts ruling “without prejudice”.  The Court failed to acknowledge (“CT” P. 978 Ex. # 20-1) Bankruptcy Conformation hearing ruling “without prejudice”.

“Where the plaintiff is unaware of the facts giving rise to a claim due to defendant's fraud, there is no question of successive litigation by design, the only concern is negligence. A claim should be barred if with diligence it could have been brought earlier. (Himel v. Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust (1979) 596 F.2d 205, 210 [summary judgment based on res judicata reversed where no showing plaintiffs should have known of alleged misconduct of defendant prior to first suit].) But where it cannot be said that plaintiff knew or should have known of the claim when the first action was filed, res judicata should not bar the second action. (Id. at pp. 210-211.)”

            Union Bank’s misrepresentation, RESPA Denial, fraud per Federal Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 can be explained in:

“Comment j of section 26 of Restatement Second of Judgments provides in pertinent part: "A defendant cannot justly object to being sued on a part or phase of a claim that the plaintiff failed to include in an earlier action because of the defendant's own fraud .... [¶] The result is the same when the defendant was not fraudulent, but by an innocent misrepresentation prevented the plaintiff from including the entire claim in the original action." This rule has been adopted in California. (See Mattson v. City of Costa Mesa, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at p. 449.)”

            As stated in (Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 150, 155.)”  The trial court erred in granting summary judgment. [Allied Fire Protection v. Diede Construction, Inc. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 158]  Union Bank was to amend their January 6, 2012 (Proof of Claim) per Judicially Noticed (Augumented Opposition Ex. # 27) denied by the Superior Court from the April 13, 2012 Bankruptcy Conformation hearing.  As pled in the November 20, 2015 (“CT” Vol. 6 Opposition P. 1558 lines 12-16).  “―Where there is a duty to disclose, the disclosure must be full and complete, and any material concealment or misrepresentation will amount to fraud. ― (Pashley v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co. (1944) 25 Cal.2d 226, 235 [153 P.2d 325].) fn. 25 [11]  The Bankruptcy Court has not made a Final judgment with the April 13, 2012 Bankruptcy Conformation Hearing conformed “Without Prejudice” (per Augumented Opp Ex. # 27).  The Bankruptcy Court could not make a final judgment with Respondent withholding Post-Petition Attorney Fees as stated by Honorable Judge Robin L. Riblet in Augumented (OPP Ex. # 27) April 13, 2012 Bankruptcy Conformation hearing:  “Oh yes, you didn’t comply with Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1. Excuse me it hasn’t been 180 days.”

            The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion ignored as Pled in the (“CT” Vol. 2 P. P. 593, 594, 595 # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7) Regarding Respondent’s Fraud, Breach of Written Contract, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence.  The Trial Court instead (“CT” 1630) believes that Amortization Schedules created by Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh are Bank documents as Appellant Stated before the Court in the (FAC).

“2.  Defendant Union Bank and Union Bank’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh does not deny Union Bank’s Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence with defendants changing Certified SBA loan documents on December 26, 2011 during bankruptcy; without informing Plaintiff, Plaintiffs Bankruptcy Cancel or the United States Bankruptcy Court until June 27, 2013. Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d)-- Code of Civil Procedure section 337(3).”

 

“3.  (“With respect to actions based on fraud, the statute of limitations is tolled when plaintiff is able to show the defendant fraudulently concealed facts which would have led him to discover his potential cause of action. ‘Technical rules as to when a cause of action accrues apply therefore only in those cases which are free from fraud committed by the defendant. Said section 338, subdivision 4, . . . recognizes the non-applicability of those technical rules where the fraud of the defendant may be so concealed that in the absence of circumstances imposing greater diligence on the plaintiff, the cause of action is deemed not to accrue until the fraud is discovered. Otherwise, in such cases, the defendant by concealing his fraud would effectively block recovery by the plaintiff because of the intervention of the statute of limitations.” (Snow v. A. H. Robins Co. (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 120, 127—128 [211 Cal.Rptr. 271], internal citation omitted.)  See (FAC) Exhibit # 10-4 dated June 25, 2013.”

 

“4.  (“Courts have relied on the nature of the relationship between defendant and plaintiff to explain application of the delayed accrual rule. The rule is generally applicable to confidential or fiduciary relationships. The fiduciary relationship carries a duty of full disclosure, and application of the discovery rule ‘prevents the fiduciary from obtaining immunity for an initial breach of duty by a subsequent breach of the obligation of disclosure.’” (Parsons v. Tickner (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1513, 1526 [37 Cal.Rptr. 2d 810], internal citations omitted.)“ See (FAC Exhibits 9-5 and 10-4) dated June 25, 2013”

 

“5.  (“The provision tolling operation of [section 338(d)] until discovery of the fraud has long been treated as an exception and, accordingly, has held that if an action is brought more than three years after commission of the fraud, plaintiff has the burden of pleading and proving that he did not make the discovery until within three years prior to the filing of his complaint.” (Samuels v. Mix (1999) 22 Cal.4th 1, 14 [91 Cal.Rptr.2d 273, 989 P.2d 701], internal citation omitted.)  Union Bank’s June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History (FAC Ex. # 10-4) is the Discovery date of the December 26, 2011 Rescission along with) FAC Ex. 9-5).”

 

“6.  The section 338, subdivision (d), three-year statute of limitations applies to an unjust enrichment cause of action based on mistake.” (Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Dintino (2008), 167 Cal.App.4th 333, 348 [84 Cal.Rptr.3d 38], original italics.)”

 

“7.  On or about December 26, 2011 defendants and each of them changed Certified SBA Loan Documents and provided this information on June 27, 2013.  (The San Luis Obispo Superior Court has established the Rescission as November 23, 2011.)  These representations were false and defendants knew the falsity of these statements at the time they were made. Defendants knew in Defendants October 9, 2015 Demurrer (Exhibit # 6-1 to 6-14) of the Extrinsic fraud they would be doing on December 26, 2011 when defendants purposely changed Certified SBA loan documents.  Under delayed Discovery and Fraud, the Statute of Limitations fall under Code of Civil Procedure section 338(d) and Code of Civil Procedure section337(3).”

The Trial Court ignored as Pled in the (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 612, Paragraph # 21), Regarding Respondent’s Fraud, Breach of Written Contract, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence

“21.  Defendants actions in charging $57,676.17 in Attorney fees fall under. [Tate v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corporation (In re Tate), 253 B.R. 653 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. 2000)] “As a result, many creditors adopted policies to refrain from including the fees in their claims, while continuing to assess the fees to the debtors’ accounts.  The practice was admonished by an Alabama bankruptcy court that published opinions in a series of cases, prohibiting the assessment of post-petition, pre-confirmation attorneys’ fees to an account without disclosure in the proof of claim or in a fee application.  [Slick v. Norwest Mortgage, Inc. (In re Slick), 280 B.R. 722 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2002)]; Dean v. First Union Mortgage Corporation (In re Dean), 281 B.R. 327 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2002)]; and Powe v. Chrysler Financial Corporation, L.L.C. (In re Powe), 278 B.R. 539 (Bankr. S. D. Ala. 2002).”

The Trial Court in its Abuse of Discretion ignored as Pled in the (“CT” P. 592 and 593 Paragraph # 166, Regarding Respondent’s Fraud, Breach of Written Contract, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence.

“166.  Defendants actions against Plaintiff and his Creditors (County of San Luis Obispo) involves, situations in which Union Bank has intentionally withheld information from the Plaintiff about relevant transactions and loan changes made by defendant on December 26, 2011.  See (E.g. Klein v. First Edina National Bank (1972) 243 Minn. 418 [196 N.W.2d 619, 622-623, 70 A.L.R.3d 1337]; First National Bank in Lenox v. Brown (Iowa 1970) 181 N.W.2d 178, 182-183; Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank (1937) 49 Ariz. 34 [64 P.2d 101, 106]; Deist v. Wachholz (1984) 208 Mont. 207 [678 P.2d 188, 193-195].)”

Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission was withheld until June 27, 2013 by the use of a May 23, 2013 RESPA Denial, restraining orders and Bankruptcy Rule 3002.1 per (“CT” 1594 to 1595 Augumented Opposition Ex. # 27) Testimony by Respondent making the Civil Court the proper Court as Respondent changed loan documents in June 2013.  Extrinsic fraud is found where fiduciaries have concealed information they have a duty to disclose. (See, e.g., Adams [181 Cal. App. 3d 597] v. Martin (1935) 3 Cal. 2d 246, 248 [44 P.2d 572]; In re Marriage of Brennan (1981) 124 Cal. App. 3d 598, 601 [177 Cal. Rptr. 520]; Morgan v. Asher (1920) 49 Cal. App. 172, 176-179 [193 P. 288].)  Appellant cannot be expected to object to matters not known from Respondent’s December 26, 2011 Rescission because of Respondent’s concealment of information as a fiduciary that took Respondent’s Attorneys until June 27, 2013 to inform Appellant as seen in (“CT” P. 746 785-789 FAC Exhibits 9-5 and 10-4).  Extrinsic Fraud is explained.  In Craney v. Low (1956) 46 Cal. 2d 757 [298 P.2d 860],  As Respondent’s Attorneys put themselves in Charge of Answering SBA loan questions for Union Bank as seen in (“CT” Vol. 3 P. 690 to 705)-statements by Respondent’s Attorney Robert B. Forouzandeh.   "The commonest ground for equitable relief is extrinsic fraud, a broad concept which covers a number of situations.  Its essential characteristic is that it has the effect of preventing a fair adversary hearing, the aggrieved party being deliberately kept in ignorance of the action or proceeding, or in some other way fraudulently prevented from presenting his claim or defense." 5 Witkin, California Procedure (2d ed. 1971) Attack on Judgment in Trial Court, section 183, page 3752.

Respondent’s withholding a Loan Transaction History through restraining orders til June 27, 2013 is known to the Court per the Courts restraining order statements (“CT” Vol.6 P. 1629 to 1632.  FAC Ex. # 10-4).  In Stenderup v. Broadway State Bank (1933) 219 Cal. 593 [28 P.2d 14], defendants withheld requested information, without which plaintiff was unable to show fraud in accounting. The court held this constituted extrinsic fraud. As said in Caldwell v. Taylor, supra, 218 Cal. 471, at page 479.

The doctrine of res judicata precludes parties or their privies from relitigating a cause of action that has been finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction." (Bernhard v. Bank of America (1942) 19 Cal.2d 807, 810-811 [122 P.2d 892]; see 7 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, supra, section 188, p. 621)  This is not the Case as argued (“CT” Vol. 2 P. 541 Par. 55 Lines 22 to 27  P. 542 Line 1 to 3 (“CT” Vol. 3-P. 790 to792 FAC Exhibit # 11-1 to11-3) per Respondent changing Loan Documents in June 2013.

          Respondent’s Amortization Schedules created by Robert B. Forouzandeh and not by Respondent Union Bank per the (“CT”746) FAC Ex. 9-5) Acknowledged by the Court in its Directed Judgment Pursuant to Civil Code section 631.8 is not Substantiated by the Record and should not have been abused by the Court.

          Respondent’s Attorneys created the amortization schedules used in the Courts December 3, 2015 decision, contributing to the Appellants delay in filing suit. [Bollinger v National Fire Ins. Co. (1944) 25 C2d 399, 411 equitably tolled (extended, suspended, put on hold).  See (“CT” Vol. 3 P.698 FAC Exhibit 6-13 Lines 9-13). 312.)”

          Respondent Union Bank has successfully misled the Court to prevent Appellant from a Jury Trial on the merits of this case, which has denied Appellant his right to trial.  Appellant has pled that on several dates within the four year statute of limitations, there was Breach of Written Contract, showing that Appellant claims are not barred by the Statute of Limitations prior to May 19, 2011 and are within Civil Code section 337(1).  Appellant has shown Respondent’s Fraud Civil Code section 338(d). Respondent’s fraud and deceit are defined in Civil Code section 1572, 1709, and 171

VII.  CONCLUSION

          Appellant respectfully requests that the Second Appellate Court make new California Case Law with Respondent’s June 25, 2013 Loan Transaction History and use of Restraining orders acknowledged by the Court in its December 3, 2015 Decision:  

For the foregoing reasons and those contained in Appellant’s Opening Breif, Appellant respectfully requests that the Second Appellate Court reverse Hon Judge Barry T. LaBarbera’s December 3, 2015 ruling for Judgment on Breach of Written Contract, Fraud, Perjury, Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Negligence.   Allow Appellant to file a Second Amended Complaint or Proceed to Trial, with Respondent’s claimed rescission on November 23, 2011 from Amortization Schedules created by respondent’s Attorneys.

 

DATED: July    , 2016                                 William A. Bookout, Appellant

 

                                                                        By: ____________________________

                                                                                                William A. Bookout

From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2013 3:04 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Chris Gautschi (
sanschromo@yahoo.com); RichardRossi [richard@rossilegal.com] (richard@rossilegal.com)
Subject: RE: In re William Arthur Bookout USBC Cen. Dist.CA.CaseNo.9:11-bk-15818

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

As you requested, I am providing you with a complete transaction history of your loan current as of June 25, 2013.  As we have repeatedly told you, when you defaulted on the Forbearance Agreement it was rescinded and your loan was recalculated as though none of the benefits in the Forbearance Agreement had ever been provided.  As a result, this current history may vary from statements and other documents you may have received in the past which were calculated using the terms of the Forbearance Agreement.  Additionally, this document will not match the amortization schedules which were previously provided to you, because as I have repeatedly told you, amortization schedules set forth the schedule of future payments on a loan if the terms of the loan are adhered to i.e. they are forward looking.  Amortization schedules do not take into account missed payments, late payments, fees incurred etc.

 

Furthermore, as you will see, Union Bank, and its predecessors, although never obligated to do so, have waived $14,984.80 in various fees over the course of your loan which discredits your baseless claims of impropriety with regards to the handling of the loan. 

 

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 

 

 

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:53 PM
To: Robert Forouzandeh; Diana Lee
Cc:
richard@rossilegal.com; 'Chris Gautschi'; ptrujillo@ch13wla.com; da, sbcounty; da, sbcounty; sandiego@sba.gov; ombudsman@fdic.gov; ombudsman@sba.gov; pbrinks@cappellonoel.com
Subject: RE: Union Banks SBA Loan Fraud and refusal to provide a Loan Transaction History

 

June 26, 2013

 

Mr. Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee

 

Immediately provide a Current Union Bank-SBA-(Loan Transaction History) to myself and those attached above including the Santa Barbara Superior Court!  Union Bank has provided in Union Banks Exhibit (B) A August 29, 2011 (Loan Transaction History)  A September 13, 2010 (Loan Transaction History) A November 4, 2011(Loan Transaction History) in Union Bank Exhibit J online Loan accounting  and a December 31, 2007 IRS 1098Form accounting (Loan History Statement!

 

Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee,  Please immediately provide a full itemized accounting of the $57,676.17 in Attorney Fees charged per Union Banks Exhibit B to the Santa Barbara Superior Court!  Please break down the Attorney fees charged during Bankruptcy and what these fees were for along with the Attorney Fees charged in SBB&T’s Civil Harassment action in 2011!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 

CC  Santa Barbara Superior Court

CC Denise Motter, Santa Barbara Superior Court

 

From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:28 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi [richard@rossilegal.com] (
richard@rossilegal.com); Chris Gautschi (sanschromo@yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: In re William Arthur Bookout USBC Cen. Dist. CA.CaseNo.9:11-bk-15818

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

Union Bank does not have a current SBA Form 1149 for your loan because it is not required to maintain one.  Union Bank does have a payment history for your loan.  Would you like me to forward you a copy of that?

 

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 

 

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 4:05 PM
To: Robert Forouzandeh
Cc:
richard@rossilegal.com; 'Chris Gautschi'; ptrujillo@ch13wla.com; da, sbcounty; da, sbcounty; sandiego@sba.gov; ombudsman@fdic.gov; ombudsman@sba.gov
Subject: RE: In re William Arthur Bookout USBC Cen. Dist. CA. CaseNo.9:11-bk-15818

 

June 26, 2013

 

Mr. Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee

 

Again a (Loan Transaction History) is a SBA Form 1149 as seen in Union Banks Exhibit B to the Santa Barbara Superior Court.  I am again requesting a current (Loan Transaction History for the July 9, 2013 hearing in front of the Santa Barbara Superior Court!

 

Richard Rossi has been paid $7,500.00 to ask the questions asked of Union Bank in Union Banks Exhibits B Through J!  Please see that Union Bank answers the questions asked of Union Bank in Union Banks Exhibits B Through J.  The Amortization Schedule that Union Bank claims is an official Bank document is not an accurate Union Bank document!

 

Again, Please immediately provide a current (Loan Transaction History) SBA Form 1149 and answer the Questions asked of Union Bank on June 10, 2013!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 

CC  Santa Barbara Superior Court

CC Denise Motter, Santa Barbara Superior Court

 

From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 3:13 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc:
richard@rossilegal.com; 'Chris Gautschi'
Subject: RE: In re William Arthur Bookout USBC Cen. Dist. CA. CaseNo.9:11-bk-15818

 

Mr. Bookout,

 

Mr. Gautschi and Mr. Rossi are not your counsel of record in the Civil Harassment action.  They only represent you in your bankruptcy proceeding.  You have appeared on your own behalf and filed papers on your own behalf in the Civil Harassment action.  As such, filings in the Civil Harassment action are only served on you.

 

As to your request for a “loan transaction history” what exactly are you looking for?  Are you looking for a history of each and every payment that has been made on your account?

 

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 

 

 

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 7:38 PM
To:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com; dlee@rppmh.com; ptrujillo@ch13wla.com
Cc:
pbrinks@cappellonoel.com; sanschromo@yahoo.com; 'Richard Rossi'; da, sbcounty; ombudsman@sba.gov; ombudsman@fdic.gov; legal@fdic.gov; customeradvocateteam@unionbank.com; Fredericks, Jeffrey; adam.kaplan@sba.gov; terrill.ashker@sba.gov; sandiego@sba.gov; John Belsher; pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net; dawn.golik@sba.gov; cj.ward@keyt.com; keithcarls@kcoy.com; lol@rsmediate.com; Lcannon@dfi.ca.gov
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216

 

June 10, 2013

 

Diana Jessup Lee, California State Bar # 155191 and Robert Forouzandeh, California State Bar # 247177.

Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi,

 

Please have Union Bank Cancel Account # 0100846187 and refund this money as seen in the 4/22/13-6/5/13 Union Bank Statement!

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, Explain  per Union Bank successor to SBB&T November 4, 2011 online (Loan Transaction History) below as to how Union Banks statements on May 23, 2013--February 28, 2013 --January 24, 2013 and January 8, 2013 are true and not fraudulent? 

Union Banks Statement May 23, 2013 is False and a (Loan Transaction History) is again requested of Union Bank!: Union Banks States May 23, 2013   To date, Ms. Lee and I have repeatedly answered your questions.”   

Union Bank States February 28, 2013 IRS 1098 Forms and amortization schedules are two different things with different purposes.  Our May 6, 2011 amortization schedule is accurate.”  Explain how Union Bank believes an amortization schedule is an official Bank Record against Union Bank successor to SBB&T, January 25, 2011 email?  With regard to your request for an amortization schedule, an amortization schedule is necessarily based upon assumptions, such as a static interest rate, and assumes strict performance by the borrower as required by the terms of the loan.” 

 

Union Bank Fraudulently States January 24, 2013 against the November 4, 2011 online (Loan Transaction History) below   As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly  principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay.  The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2.  Why do you keep asking the same question?  If you believe my explanations are wrong, please state precisely why and explain your conclusion as opposed to simply asserting false conclusory statements.” 

 

Union Bank States January 8, 2013 Per Union Banks online Loan Transaction History changed during Bankruptcy in front f Judge Robin L. Riblet!  “ You ask why your loan balance was deemed to be $400,962.89 instead of $390,996.91 in November 2011.  As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November 23, 2011 email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from SBBT's online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan.  The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement.  Due to your default on the Forbearance Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement was rescinded and the principal amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules.  The Prime Rate during that period varied between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest rate for your loan during that period of time varied between 5.25%-10.25.  Since the interest rate was higher than the fixed 6% rate for much of this period, when the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized under the original loan terms, your principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to the higher interest rate and the fact that you failed to make any payments for a large portion of that period of time.  The $390,996.91 balance temporarily appeared on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system had not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and had not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi,  I am asking Union Bank as to what Union Bank successor to SBB&T has done with the extra principal paid, per the 2011 online Loan Transaction Histories below?  Union Bank in their emails below continue to refuse to provide a current Loan Transaction History!  Union Bank Fraudulently States February 28, 2013.  IRS 1098 Forms and amortization schedules are two different things with different purposes.  Our May 6, 2011 amortization schedule is accurate.”

Union Bank successor to SBB&T Fraudulently States June 28, 2011 I do not know what "computerized" records you are requesting.  The May 6, 2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other records.”

 

Union Bank successor to SBB&T States September 7, 2011 against the November 4, 2011 online (Loan Transaction History) and the August 29, 2011 (Loan Transaction History)!  As you will see at the top of Amortization Schedule 1, it clearly shows that $22,274.46 was reduced from the outstanding balance of principal and interest due on the loan at the time of the forbearance agreement.  This is why the $22,274.46 is placed inside of parenthesis ($22,274.46) on the Amortization Schedule.  The fact that it is in parenthesis shows that it was reduced from the outstanding balance of principal and interest owed on the loan at that time.  Similarly, at the top of Amortization Schedule 2, it shows that your Principal Balance "after 5 payments" was $416,898.31.  The "5 payments" refers to the $22,274.46.  Thus, the $22,274.46 was reduced from the principal and interest on the loan (the outstanding balance) prior to the loan being re-amortized pursuant to the Forbearance Agreement.”

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi,  Explain what Union Bank successor to SBB&T has done with the extra principal paid per Diana Jessup Lees statement# 3, below in regards to the 2007 IRS 1098 Form accounting?   Please show in a current (Loan Transaction History) as to how principal was applied per Diana Jessup Lees June 29. 2011 Statement # 1! “Many of your early payments were for more than the minimum amount due, and the principal balance was reduced accordingly with each payment.” 

 

Union Bank successor to SBB&T Fraudulently States June 29, 2011  “1.   The bank did not overcharge you $7,172.57.  Each of your payments were applied to outstanding interest and then to principal.  Many of your early payments were for more than the minimum amount due, and the principal balance was reduced accordingly with each payment.   Solely for settlement purposes I offered to discount your loan by various amounts, including $7,000.  Your mischaracterization of such offers is discouraging.  The bank is willing to discuss any reasonable proposal for curing your loan default.  The fact that another bank foreclosed on your home because you did not pay that bank either, is not a topic we can address. 

 

2.  The two amortization schedules enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter were created by SBBT based on the terms of your original loan, the forbearance agreement, and your payment history.  Your request for additional computerized documents makes no sense.

 

3.   I will check on the 2007 Form 1098 and see if it should be amended to reflect that you paid less in interest.

 

4.  Your July 2007 payment of $22,274.46 was used "to pay the monthly principal and interest payments owing on Note for the earliest five monthly past due payments (May, 2006, June, 2006, July, 2006, August, 2006 and September, 2006)" exactly as stated in the Forbearance Agreement (emphasis added).  This has been explained to you repeatedly.  See my May 19, 2011 letter as well as the charts enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter.  I do not intend to continue repeating myself, so please do not keep asking this same question.”

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi,  Please answer the questions asked of Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee below on May 31, 2013!  Please provide a current (Loan Transaction History going back to 2003 per the fraudulent statements and accounting from Union Bank as seen in Union Banks emails below from January 25, 2011 to May 23, 2013!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 

CC Judge Robin L. Riblet Case # ND11-15818-RR

CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee  Fax (818) 933-5755

CC Jeffery Frederick  Santa Barbara District Attorney Supervising Investigator

CC United States Small Business Administration

 

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 12:15 PM
To:
ptrujillo@ch13wla.com
Cc: 'swalker@cobrakayaks.com'; 'dlee@rppmh.com'; 'rforouzandeh@rppmh.com'; 'pbrinks@cappellonoel.com'; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Richard Rossi';
vicki@tridentsports.com; James Gallinger< James@tridentsports.com> (James@tridentsports.com); da, sbcounty (sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); ombudsman@sba.gov; ombudsman@fdic.gov; legal@fdic.gov; customeradvocateteam@unionbank.com; Fredericks, Jeffrey (jfreder@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.) <adam.kaplan@sba.gov> (adam.kaplan@sba.gov); Ashker, Terrill K. <terrill.ashker@sba.gov> (terrill.ashker@sba.gov); sandiego@sba.gov; John Belsher (john@bbrlawfirm.com)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216

 

May 31, 2013

 

Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee  Fax (818) 933-5755

15060 Ventura BLVD, Suite 240

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403                               Re: Case # ND 11-15815-RR

 

Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee 

 

Attached below is the December , 2011 email communication with Union Bank successor to SBB&T (Diana Jessup Lee, California State Bar # 155191 and Robert Forouzandeh, California State Bar # 247177.

 

Union Bank, in Robert Forouzandeh’s, May 23, 2013 email continues to refuse to provide a current (Loan Transaction History) with Union Bank successor to SBB&T changes during Bankruptcy in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet.  I am asking the United States Bankruptcy Court for a current (Loan Transaction History) by Union Bank with the loan changes made during Bankruptcy in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet!

 

I am asking the United States Bankruptcy Court as to why Union Bank successor to SBB&T charged a monthly payment of $4,121.06 per month up to November 3, 2011 and then claimed to Judge Robin L. Riblet a different amount in Union Bank successor to SBB&T October 28, 2011 (Proof of Claim)?  Please see Union Banks online (Loan Transaction History) accounting below up to November 4, 2011!

 

I am asking the United States Bankruptcy Court as to why Union Bank successor to SBB&T has been allowed during Bankruptcy to claim in their (Proof of Claim) to Judge Robin L. Riblet a principal balance of $400,962.89 against Union Bank successor to SBB&T November 4, 2011 online (Loan Transaction History below) of $390,996.91?

 

I am asking the United States Bankruptcy Court as to why Union Bank successor to SBB&T has been allowed during Bankruptcy to claim in their (Proof of Claim) to Judge Robin L. Riblet (Deferred and Defaulted Payments) of $45,171.20 against the Union Bank successor to SBB&T November 4, 2011 online (Loan Transaction History) below?

 

I am asking the United States Bankruptcy Court as to why Union Bank successor to SBB&T could claim monthly late fees of $206.05 or 5% of $4,121.06 per month up to September 16, 2011 and then change this amount in Union Bank successor to SBB&T (Proof of Claim to Judge Robin L. Riblet on October 28, 2011?

 

I am asking the United States Bankruptcy Court as to what Union Bank successor to SBB&T has done with the extra principal paid, per the 2011 online Loan Transaction Histories below?  Union Bank in their emails below continue to refuse to provide a current Loan Transaction History!  Union Bank States February 28, 2013.  IRS 1098 Forms and amortization schedules are two different things with different purposes.  Our May 6, 2011 amortization schedule is accurate.”

 

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 

CC Judge Robin L. Riblet Case # ND11-15818-RR

CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee  Fax (818) 933-5755

CC Cobra Kayaks

CC Trident Performance Sports

CC Jeffery Frederick  Santa Barbara District Attorney Supervising Investigator

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, December 02, 2011 11:44 AM
To: 'Robert Forouzandeh'; 'Diana Lee'
Cc: 'Karen Grant'; 'Mary Jo Barbeau'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Diana Lee'; 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'danhil@charter.net'; 'Bob Johnston'; 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; 'Thomas Cregger'; 'carlos.mendoza@sba.gov'; 'Hobby, Jill C.'; 'Koznek, Jeff'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'econnolly@newtimesslo.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'ctrimble@pismobeach.org'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'cj.ward@keyt.com'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009

December 2, 2011

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors George Leis, Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb, Richard A. Nightingale, John R. Mackall, Mark K. Olson, D. Vernon Horton, William R. Loomis, Edward E. Birch, Kathy J. Odell, Clayton C. Larson, Gordon J. Wahlgren and Mary Mascolo,

Diana Jessup Lee, California State Bar # 155191

Robert Forouzandeh, California State Bar # 247177

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA 93101

Mr. Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee,

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors

Again, please provide the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust loan statements for November and December 2011! Please see that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust restores the online accounting for my SBA loan that has been taken down by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust! Attached below is the most recent SBBT online accounting up to November 4, 2011 showing the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Fraud and Breach of Contract as seen in the November 30, 2011 email from Robert Forouzandeh!

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has admitted on November 18, 2011 that the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan was required to be “(re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Breached the 2007 Forbearance Agreement by not following the SBA Form 147 Note Rules signed on October 6, 2003! In the Proof of Claim to Judge Robin L. Riblet dated October 28, 2011 Santa Barbara Bank& Trust after Four Years has attempted to show that SBBT is following the rules of SBA Form 147 Note! SBBT States that the payment on 12/1/09 should have been $3,743.71 instead of the SBBT required (Payment Notice) of $4,121.06! This amount overcharged by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust against SBA Form 147 Rules is $377.35 per month in 2009 and $4,528.20 overcharged by Santa Barbara Bank& Trust in 2009!

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Statement on November 30, 2011 needs to re turned over to the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Robin L. Riblet Your client is asking what his December 2011 payment to Santa Barbara Bank and Trust ("SBBT") should be. I would direct his attention to the Proof of Claim filed by SBBT in Mr. Bookout's bankruptcy proceeding, which states that Mr. Bookout's post-petition payments to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust should be $4,077.32. This amount is based on the recalculated principal balance of $400,962.89 which was determined as a result of Mr. Bookout's pre-petition default of the Forbearance Agreement (which had a fixed interest rate of 6%) resulting in the termination of the interest rate afforded under the Forbearance Agreement. I have explained this re-calculation process to your client on several occasions.” Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Please review the falsified Santa Barbara Bank & Trust accounting below showing that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Breached the 2007 Forbearance and Workout Agreement with Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts November 18th and 30th, 2011 email!s!

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors, Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Why would Santa Barbara Bank & Trust charge late fees of $206.05 against the October 6, 2003 SBA Form 147 Note? Please review the email below dated August 18, 2010 to Sandra Sheffield! The response from Sandra Sheffield can be seen at www.sbaquestions.net

Top of Form

Date

Description

Category

Debit

Credit

Balance

11/4/2011

EFF 11/03/2011

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

10/11/2011

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

9/16/2011

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

8/30/2011

Review Fee

$650.00

$390,996.91

8/30/2011

Commercial Appraisal Fee

$4,000.00

$390,996.91

8/30/2011

Review fee

$650.00

$390,996.91

8/30/2011

Commercial Appraisal

$3,500.00

$390,996.91

8/16/2011

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

7/18/2011

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

6/23/2011

Legal Fee

$25.00

$390,996.91

6/16/2011

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

5/24/2011

Legal Fee

$575.00

$390,996.91

5/16/2011

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

4/18/2011

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

4/8/2011

EFF 03/23/2011 Legal Fee Inv #30117

$2,150.00

$390,996.91

3/16/2011

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

3/9/2011

Foreclose Fee-470 Price St

$1,490.24

$390,996.91

3/9/2011

Foreclose Fee - 1141 Paso Robles St

$948.00

$390,996.91

2/24/2011

Legal Fee Inv 29941 dated 2/9/11

$2,408.00

$390,996.91

2/16/2011

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

2/1/2011

Legal Fee Inv#29816 Dtd 1/10/11

$2,218.71

$390,996.91

1/18/2011

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

12/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

11/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

10/18/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

9/17/2010

Collateral Ecaluation Fee

$900.00

$390,996.91

9/17/2010

Appraisal Fee

$2,800.00

$390,996.91

9/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

8/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

7/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

7/15/2010

SFR Appraisal Fee

$350.00

$390,996.91

6/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

6/3/2010

UCC Search Fee

$15.50

$390,996.91

5/17/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

4/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

3/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

3/8/2010

Legal Fee

$50.00

$390,996.91

2/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

1/19/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

12/31/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

12/16/2009

Automatic

$206.05

$392,024.73

11/13/2009

Late Charge Payment

$0.94

$392,024.73

11/13/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$392,024.73

Bottom of Form

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, N.A., Member FDIC.

© 2011 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, N.A. All rights reserved.


From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 5:57 PM
To: 'sandra.sheffield@pacificcapitalbank.com'
Cc: 'ronald.truly@sba.gov'; 'Carlos.Mendoza@sba.gov'; 'Bill Bookout'
Subject:

Dear Mrs. Sheffield,

If at all possible I would like to do a work out agreement with Pacific Capital Bank, while trying to sell the Oceano Nursery property.

If possible I would like to refinance both the Pismo Beach property and the Oceano Nursery property with the appraisals that Pacific Capital Bank are doing on both of these properties at this time.

I would like to obtain a copy of the 631 Lake Street property appraisal that is tied in with this SBA loan from 2007, when Pacific Capital Bank appraised the Oceano Nursery property for $530,000.00 after Heritage Oaks Bank informed Pacific Capital Bank that I was behind on loan payments.

I would like to receive a full Loan Transaction History going back to the beginning of my loan as this Loan Transaction History found on line below only goes back to 7/31/2008?

Our new business in Pismo Beach is started to do real good with our kayak tours and with the help of a new SBA Loan we will be able to better serve our community.

Thanks

Bill Bookout

Pismo Beach Surf Shop

Top of Form

Account Activity

Your Online Banking session will expire in 815 seconds.

Continue Banking Online | Logout

Signing out...

The pop-up window used to extend your session was blocked.
Click
here for information regarding pop-up blocking software, or copy and paste the following link into a new browser:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/web/sp2_popupblocker.mspx

SBA Term Loan

Account Name:

SBA Term Loan

Account #:

xxxxxx3501

Principal Balance:

$390,996.91

Interest Rate:

6%

Interest Accrued:

$14,782.90

Payment Due Date:

1/6/2010

Payment Due:

$4,121.06

Late Charges Due:

$4,240.81

Fees Due:

$0.00

Open Date:

10/10/2003

Original Loan Amount:

$450,000.00

Maturity Date:

10/6/2021

Interest Paid YTD:

$0.00

Interest Paid Last Year:

$26,024.21

·

 

Date

Description

Category

Debit

Credit

Balance

8/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

7/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

7/15/2010

SFR Appraisal Fee

$350.00

$390,996.91

6/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

6/3/2010

UCC Search Fee

$15.50

$390,996.91

5/17/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

4/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

3/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

3/8/2010

Legal Fee

$50.00

$390,996.91

2/16/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

1/19/2010

Automatic

$206.05

$390,996.91

12/31/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

12/16/2009

Automatic

$206.05

$392,024.73

11/13/2009

Late Charge Payment

$0.94

$392,024.73

11/13/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$392,024.73

10/5/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$393,622.29

10/5/2009

Late Charge Payment

$78.94

$395,532.71

9/1/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$395,532.71

9/1/2009

Late Charge Payment

$78.94

$395,686.06

7/2/2009

Late Charge Payment

$78.94

$395,686.06

7/2/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$395,686.06

6/30/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$399,675.72

6/30/2009

Late Charge Payment

$78.94

$402,473.58

6/10/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$402,473.58

5/11/2009

Late Charge Payment

$78.94

$404,599.36

5/11/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$404,599.36

4/21/2009

Late Charge Payment

$78.94

$407,381.08

4/21/2009

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$407,381.08

4/16/2009

Automatic

$206.05

$410,624.64

4/9/2009

EFF 04/08/2009

$4,121.06

$410,624.64

4/9/2009

EFF 04/08/2009

$78.94

$412,710.42

4/9/2009

EFF 04/08/2009

$4,200.00

$412,710.42

4/8/2009

Regular Payment

$4,200.00

$410,545.70

3/16/2009

Automatic

$206.05

$412,710.42

3/10/2009

EFF 03/09/2009

$4,121.06

$412,710.42

3/10/2009

EFF 03/09/2009

$78.94

$413,029.35

2/17/2009

Automatic

$206.05

$413,029.35

1/14/2009

EFF 01/12/2009

$4,121.06

$413,029.35

1/14/2009

EFF 01/12/2009

$78.94

$414,425.42

12/3/2008

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$414,425.42

12/3/2008

Late Charge Payment

$78.94

$416,492.54

11/4/2008

EFF 11/03/2008

$4,121.06

$416,492.54

11/4/2008

EFF 11/03/2008

$78.94

$418,354.34

9/30/2008

Interest Payment - No Date

$78.94

$418,354.34

9/30/2008

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$418,354.34

9/2/2008

Interest Payment - No Date

$78.94

$420,024.30

9/2/2008

Regular Payment

$4,121.06

$420,024.30

7/31/2008

EFF 07/30/2008

$78.94

$420,024.30

7/31/2008

EFF 07/30/2008

$4,121.06

$420,024.30

Bottom of Form

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Board of Directors, Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is seen above overcharging late fees against the October 6, 2003 SBA Form 147 Note!

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is seen above charging (Late Payments) against the 2007 Forbearance and Workout Agreement!

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is seen above not properly amortizing the Oceano Nursery SBA loan in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 against SBA rules as Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on November 18, 2011 now admits per SBA rules! “re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules.

Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Please explain this August 2, 2011 email statement to Judge Robin L, Riblet for the December 16, 2011 hearing! Explain as to how the $45,171.20 was added to the May 19, 2011 Notice of Default by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust?

The July 27, 2011 statement sent from Santa Barbara Bank and Trust does not include the amounts owed by you for the deferred payments under the Forbearance Agreement. When you breached the Forbearance Agreement by going into default on your loan, pursuant to contract, the deferred payments were accelerated and due in full immediately. Accordingly, they were added to the notice of default amount. Nonetheless, as a token of good faith, if you pay the amount set forth on the July 27, 2011 statement ($102,859.01), Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will accept this as a complete cure of your default on your loan which is now in its 21st month.”

Judge Robin L. Riblet can see from the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust online Loan Accounting above! On September 2, 2008 all Deferred and Defaulted Payments had been Made! This is backed up In Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts September 30, 2008 letter to the United States Small Business Administration attached above! Santa Barbara Bank & Trust falsified the May 19, 2011Notice of Default Claim of $45,171.20 owed Santa Barbara Bank & Trust!

Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, as Judge Robin L. Riblet can see from Santa Barbara Bank & Trust accounting above, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has falsified the October 28, 2011 Proof of Claim to the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Robin L. Riblet! Please explain as to why on August 2, 2011 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust was attempting to collect $102,859.01 in the fraudulent accounting by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust as seen above and in the November 30, 2011 email from Robert Forouzandeh!

Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Again, please provide the Santa Barbara Bank& Trust loan statements for November and December 2011 along with a copy of the new amortization for the loan changes made by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in the October 28, 2011 Proof of Claim to Judge Robin L. Riblet. This Proof of Claim is in dispute with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust and it should be resolved by Judge Robin L. Riblet at our hearing on December 16, 2011!

Sincerely

Bill Bookout

CC KEYT 3 On Your Side CJ Ward

CC Judge Robin L. Riblet---Exhibit # 22

CC Barry A. Cappello Lender Liability

CC Chris Gautschi [sanschromo@yahoo.com]

CC San Luis Obispo District Attorney

CC San Luis Obispo Police Department Case # 111108022

CC Adam D. Kaplan Office of Inspector General OIG complaint ID # 20110484--20120076

 

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 12:59 PM
To: ptrujillo@ch13wla.com
Cc: 'swalker@cobrakayaks.com'; 'dlee@rppmh.com'; 'rforouzandeh@rppmh.com'; 'ptrujillo@ch13wla.com'; 'pbrinks@cappellonoel.com'; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Richard Rossi'; vicki@tridentsports.com; James Gallinger <James@tridentsports.com> (James@tridentsports.com); da, sbcounty (sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); ombudsman@sba.gov; ombudsman@fdic.gov; legal@fdic.gov; Fredericks, Jeffrey (jfreder@co.santa-barbara.ca.us)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216

 

May 30, 2013

 

Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee  Fax (818) 933-5755

15060 Ventura BLVD, Suite 240

Sherman Oaks, CA 91403                               Re: Case # ND 11-15815-RR

 

Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee 

 

Attached is Union Bank successor to SBB&T Exhibit A-22 and B-23 per their Bankruptcy response March 30, 2012.

 

Has the United States Bankruptcy Court approved Union Bank paying themselves $26,500.00 as a standard Bank Foreclosure fee and then $39,750.00 to fix up the Oceano Nursery property after foreclosure?

 

Has the United States Bankruptcy Court approved Union Bank paying themselves $73,599.09 in Attorney fees for SBB&T filing a Fraudulent NOD per Union Banks May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules and May 19, 2011 NOD and May 19, 2011 Letter from Diana Jessup Lee,?  Judge Robin L. Riblet approved $311,608.43 on June 21, 2012 per Karen L. Grants claim of Debt.  Union Bank States February 28, 2013 below!  The attorneys’ fees credited as a result of the foreclosure of the Oceano property were credited as provided in your Deed of Trust.  This process was supervised by the Bankruptcy Court.

 

Please review Union Banks emails below from January 25, 2011 to May 28, 2013.

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 

CC Judge Robin L. Riblet Case # ND11-15818-RR

CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee  Fax (818) 933-5755

CC Cobra Kayaks

CC Trident Performance Sports

 

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 6:26 AM
To: dlee@rppmh.com; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com; ptrujillo@ch13wla.com
Cc: dawn.golik@sba.gov; sandiego@sba.gov; da, sbcounty; da, sbcounty; customeradvocateteam@unionbank.com; cj.ward@keyt.com; Fredericks, Jeffrey; jill.hobby@sba.gov; adam.kaplan@sba.gov; terrill.ashker@sba.gov; Nudson, Anne; Richard Rossi; sanschromo@yahoo.com; 'Bill Bookout'; ombudsman@fdic.gov; ombudsman@sba.gov; legal@fdic.gov; 'Debra Hernandez'; keithcarls@kcoy.com; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; bobj@westdalecapital.com; pbrinks@cappellonoel.com
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216

 

May 27, 2013

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.  California State Bar # 155191

Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi,

 

Again, Union Banks response below is not acceptable!  Union Bank has admitted, their SBA loan Banking Fraud on May 23, 2013, February 28, 2013, January 24, 2013 and January 8, 2013, as seen in Union Banks emails below!  (Amortization Schedule are not official Bank Monthly Computerized loan documents!)     Attached is Union Banks August 29, 2011  Loan Transaction History showing Union Banks SBA loan Banking Fraud on May 23, 2013, February 28, 2013, January 24, 2013 and January 8, 2013!

 

Union Bank successor to SBB&T Fraud and Breach of Contract is seen in Union Bank successor to SBB&T’s May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules attached, against the Union Bank successor to SBB&T August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 (Loan Transaction History.)  Union Bank successor to SBB&T, September 23, 2011 Payment Notice, attached again shows Union Bank successor to SBB&T, SBA Loan Fraud, Breach of Contract and Grand Theft!  Union Banks May 23, 2013 email stating: To date, Ms. Lee and I have repeatedly answered your questions.”   Is again a False Statement by Union Bank!

 

Union Bank successor to SBB&T has twice cross collateralized my personal residences at 631 Lake Street Oceano California and 470 Price Street in Pismo Beach!  The 2003 Oceano Nursery SBA loan was for Oceano Nursery property and not for the 470 Price Street property or the 631 Lake Street property per Union Bank May 23, 2013 statement!  The Real Estate Settlement Practice Act is not applicable to loans made for business purposes.”

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi:  Again, Please immediately provide a current (Loan Transaction History) per the May 13, 2013 Full RESPA and Truth in Lending Act request of Union Bank on May 13, 2013, as acknowledged by Union Bank in their May 23, 2013 email below!

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, attached is the Oceano Nursery (Note Terms).  Union Bank successor to SBB&T has breached these Terms in the Union Bank successor to SBB&T, Attorney fees of $73,599.09 during Bankruptcy!  Explain under (Collateral Conditions) Why Union Bank successor to SBB&T, committed fraud in 2003 with putting a second on the 470 Price Street property?  Attached is the September 13, 2010 payment history as provided by VP Sandra Sheffield.  Explain why Union Bank successor to SBB&T would file a fraudulent NOD on May 19, 2011 as shown in Union Banks February 28, 2013 email below #5?

Union Bank shows their SBA loan Fraud in their February 28, 2013 email below #5 Stating:In response to your question pertaining to your 2007 IRS Form 1098:  As a result of your many defaults on your loan, there have been many changes to your loan calculations.  The settlement you negotiated in the 2007 Forbearance Agreement was very unique and benefitted you in ways that were contrary to your loan terms, as well as the bank’s standard procedures.  The department which sends out the IRS Forms 1098, which is separate from the department that handles your loan, was not aware of the more favorable terms given to you.  The interest amount listed in the 2007 Form 1098 does not affect how your loan has been credited or amortized by SBBT.” 

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, This is found on the SBA Website and does not cover amortization Schedules per Union Banks Email on February 28, 2013!   Is the bank’s transcript acceptable instead of using the SBA transaction history form?   Lending institutions have their own unique electronic records and coding systems. If SBA can understand the coding on the bank transcript or the coding can be explained on the form, and shows a breakdown for application of principal and interest along with any other accounting transactions, SBA will be able to use the bank transcript. Otherwise, the lender will need to complete SBA’s Form 1149. The transcript submitted for purchase must be certified by the lender.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, If Union Bank has nothing to hide; then Union Bank will provide a current (Loan Transaction History)--(Loan Payment History)  as requested of Union Bank, showing the extra principal paid per the August 29, 2011(Loan Transaction History)! Union Bank will explain how the 2007 five payments totaling $22,274.46 was applied towards principal against the Union Bank 11/3/2008 (Loan Payment History) attached and the June 30, 2011 OCC letter as acknowledged in Union Banks emails below!  Both Union Bank successor to SBB&T 10/28/2011 and 1/6/2012 Proof of claims to Judge Robin L. Riblet are Fraudulent!  Union Bank successor to SBB&T IRS 1098 Forms accounting (Annual Statements) for 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 show Union Banks SBA loan, Banking Fraud on May 23, 2013, February 28, 2013, January 24, 2013 and January 8, 2013, as seen in Union Banks emails below!  Union Bank successor to SBB&T 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 (Payment Notices) and Online accounting attached show Union Banks SBA loan Banking Fraud on May 23, 2013, February 28, 2013, January 24, 2013 and January 8, 2013, as seen in Union Banks emails below from January 25, 2011 to May 23, 2013! 

 

Union Bank successor to SBB&T claimed August 29, 2011 to the United States Small Business Administration in a SBA Form 1149 (Loan Transaction History) that the Oceano Nursery SBA principal balance was $390,996.91 and then changed this amount on October 28, 2011 during bankruptcy in their (Proof of Claim) to Judge Robin L. Riblet to be $400,962.89.  The $390,996.91 amount shows in the 2009-2010 IRS 1098 Forms and SBB&T”S September 23, 2011 (Payment Notice).  Again, Please immediately provide a current loan transaction history per the Union Bank acknowledged May 13, 2013 Full RESPA and Truth in Lending Act request of Union Bank. 

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee, In the Union Bank successor to SBB&T August 29, 2011 and September 20, 2010 (Loan Transaction History’s) Explain how Union Bank on January 24, 2013 claimed, that the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule # 2 is accurate against the August 29, 2011 and September 20, 2010 (Loan Transaction History’s)?  The Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks June 30, 2011 letter, shows that Union Bank successor to SBB&T did not apply any principal from the five payments totaling $22,274.46 as claimed to Judge Robin L. Riblet by Union Bank successor to SBB&TExplain why Union Bank on May 23, 2013 would Fraudulently State!  (“To date, Ms. Lee and I have repeatedly answered your questions.”) 

 

Robert Forouzandeh, Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi,  I am requesting an accounting of Union Bank successor to SBB&T charge of $39,750.00 to fix up the Oceano Nursery property after foreclosure and that this money is returned with interest!  The SBA Loan Note did not allow for  Union Bank successor to SBB&T charge of $26,500.00 (10% standard deduction by the bank on all foreclosures)  Union Bank as the lender, holds the primary responsibility for keeping accurate records and the emails from Union Bank on May 23, 2013, February 28, 2013, January 24, 2013 and January 8, 2013! Show that Union Bank does not keep accurate records!  See, In re Parrish, 326 B.R. 708, 721 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005), and In re Jacobson, 5 B.R. 274, 277 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1980).  See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2011).  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2011).  See, e.g., In re Henry, 266 B.R. 457, 480 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2001)(Awarding interest in addition to compensatory damages under 362(h)).  Attached

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh/ Diana Jessup Lee:  Per Union Banks, May 23, 2013 email: There have been no “false accusations” As stated by Union Bank!  I trust that you will provide a copy of this communication to Union Bank and Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka!  Please again answer to the questions above and asked of Union Bank on May 13, 2013--March 14, 2013 -- February 8, 2013 and February 14, 2013 as seen at www.unionbank.me---- www.unionbancalcorp.com --- www.unionbancal.net -- www.union-bank.co and www.governorjerrybrown.net

 

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 

CC Jeffery Frederick  Santa Barbara District Attorney Supervising Investigator

CC Judge Robin L. Riblet Case # ND11-15818-RR

CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee  Fax (818) 933-5755

CC United States Small Business Administration

 

 

From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2013 5:30 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: Santa Barbara Superior Court Case # 1381216

 

Mr. Bookout,

 

The Real Estate Settlement Practice Act is not applicable to loans made for business purposes.  The Truth in Lending Act requires a lender to disclose certain pieces of information to a borrower prior to extending credit.  Your SBA loan was funded in 2003.  Therefore your “Full RESPA and Truth in Lending Act request” is unintelligible.

 

Your May 13, 2013 letter sent directly to Union Bank, your May 16, 2013 and your May 23, 2013 online correspondences sent to Union Bank, all of which were filled with false accusations about your loan constituted three additional violations of the Restraining Order entered in the above entitled action.  On numerous occasions, I have demanded that you cease contacting Union Bank directly and to comply with the terms of the Restraining Order by directing all communications pertaining to your loan to either Diana Jessup Lee or me.  To date, Ms. Lee and I have repeatedly answered your questions.  Your continuing violations of the Restraining Order are not justified and will no longer be tolerated.

 

Furthermore, I have been notified that you telephoned my office this afternoon and were verbally abusive to two members of our staff.  In the future, if you contact this office via telephone, I demand that you treat all staff members with civility and respect.  It is this type of conduct on your part which led to the Restraining Order being issued.

 

If you contact Union Bank directly again, your violation will be reported to the Court and will subject you to contempt proceedings.   

 

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 7:57 AM
To: dlee@rppmh.com
Cc: ptrujillo@ch13wla.com; pbrinks@cappellonoel.com; sandiego@sba.gov; da, sbcounty (sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); sanschromo@yahoo.com; Richard Rossi (richard@rossilegal.com); 'Mendoza, Carlos G.' (Carlos.Mendoza@sba.gov); Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.) <adam.kaplan@sba.gov> (adam.kaplan@sba.gov); Ashker, Terrill K. <terrill.ashker@sba.gov> (terrill.ashker@sba.gov)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216

 

May 13, 2013

 

Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka

Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.  California State Bar # 155191

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Dear Union Bank SBA Loan Representative Diana Jessup Lee and Union Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka

 

Please consider this email to be A full RESPA and Truth in Lending Act request of Union Bank.  Please immediately provide an accounting of the Union Bank successor to SBB&T, Attorney fees of $73,599.09 during Bankruptcy per the questions asked of Patricia Trujillo/ Elizabeth F. Rojas, Chapter 13 Trustee on May 3, 2013!   Diana Jessup Lee, Again I am requesting a current, Union Bank Loan Transaction history from 2003 to present!  I am requesting a current SBA loan Transaction History (SBA Form 1149) per  Union Bank successor to SBB&T changing the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 loan transaction history during Bankruptcy in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet!

 

Diana Jessup Lee, Union Banks February 28, 2013 email statement from Mr. Robert B. Forouzandeh  ( “IRS 1098 Forms and amortization schedules are two different things with different purposes.  Our May 6, 2011 amortization schedule is accurate.”)  Shows Union Banks Senior Vice Presidents Christine Sontag’s errors per her Declaration on  December 20, 2013!  Diana Jessup Lee an Amortization schedule is not an official Union Bank record as believed by Mr. Robert B. Forouzandeh and yourself with Union Banks emails on January 8, 2013 and January 24, 2013!  (An Amortization Schedules is necessarily based upon assumptions, such as a static interest rate, and assumes strict performance by the borrower as required by the terms of the loan.) Please view George C. Lazars January 25, 2011 email attached!  Explain as to what Union Bank has done with the extra principal paid per the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 as Richard Rossi presented to Judge Robin L. Riblet?

 

Diana Jessup Lee, Please provide an accounting of the Oceano Nursery inventory sold after April 13, 2012 by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to Rick Gambril!

 

Chris Gautschi and Richard Rossi are both my Bankruptcy Attorneys!  Please provide each them a copy of a current Union Banks SBA Loan Transaction History from 2003 to present.  Please provide Chris Gautschi, Richard Rossi with Union Banks answers to the questions asked of Union Bank on March 14, 2013 -- February 8, 2013 and February 14, 2013 as seen at www.unionbank.me---- www.unionbancalcorp.com --- www.unionbancal.net and www.union-bank.co !

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 

CC Jeffery Frederick  Santa Barbara District Attorney Supervising Investigator

CC Judge Robin L. Riblet Case # ND11-15818-RR

CC Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee  Fax (818) 933-5755

CC Chris Gautschi

CC Richard Rossi

From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:18 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi [richard@rossilegal.com] (
richard@rossilegal.com); Chris Gautschi (sanschromo@yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to theSanta Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216

 

Mr. Bookout,

 

Here are the answers to your questions posed below:

 

  1.  On February 19, 2013, I sent your February 2013 Billing Statement to your attorney.  The March statement will be sent to your attorney in late-March when it is prepared.
  2. The attorneys’ fees credited as a result of the foreclosure of the Oceano property were credited as provided in your Deed of Trust.  This process was supervised by the Bankruptcy Court.
  3. SBBT required no such thing.
  4. SBBT did not breach the 2007 Forbearance Agreement.
  5. In response to your question pertaining to your 2007 IRS Form 1098:  As a result of your many defaults on your loan, there have been many changes to your loan calculations.  The settlement you negotiated in the 2007 Forbearance Agreement was very unique and benefitted you in ways that were contrary to your loan terms, as well as the bank’s standard procedures.  The department which sends out the IRS Forms 1098, which is separate from the department that handles your loan, was not aware of the more favorable terms given to you.  The interest amount listed in the 2007 Form 1098 does not affect how your loan has been credited or amortized by SBBT. 
  6. SBBT did not commit fraud.
  7. IRS 1098 Forms and amortization schedules are two different things with different purposes.  Our May 6, 2011 amortization schedule is accurate.

 

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 


From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:22 PM
To: Bill Bookout (
Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Subject: Notice of Violation of Modified Restraining Order

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

On February 13, 2013 at 3:22 p.m. you communicated directly with Union Bank in violation of Section 6(a)(4) of the Modified Restraining Order entered on February 5, 2013.  As stated in that Order you “must direct any communications pertaining to [your] SBA Loan solely to Diana Jessup Lee or Robert Forouzandeh, and not to any officers, directors or employees of SBBT or Union Bank.” (Emphasis in original.)  Your violation constitutes contempt of Court.

 

This letter serves as a warning.  However, if you violate the Restraining Order again, we will bring your conduct to the Court’s attention, seek a contempt citation and pursue all available remedies.

 

I am compiling answers to questions in your recent email to my office.  Once I have gathered all necessary information, I will respond further.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.


From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:21 AM
To: Vicki Cogley; Bill Bookout (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Cc: Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly  principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay.  The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2.  Why do you keep asking the same question?  If you believe my explanations are wrong, please state precisely why and explain your conclusion as opposed to simply asserting false conclusory statements. 

 

Again, please limit your correspondences to either me or Robert Forouzandeh and stop harassing Union Bank personnel who are not responsible for responding to your questions which contain hundreds of pages of emails that repeat ad nauseam your unfounded accusations and questions.

 

Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440 ext. 463

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 


From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:04 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to the Santa Barbara Superior Court. Case # 1381216

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

This email is in response to your email sent to me on January 7, 2013 at approximately 8:38 am.  I repeat the demand previously made by Robert Forouzandeh of my office that you cease contacting any Union Bank officers or employees pertaining to your SBA loan since their only involvement is as the successors to the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) personnel you have been ordered not to contact. 

 

As to the questions posed in your email, although both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have answered each of them on multiple prior occasions, I will do so again on behalf of Union Bank. 

 

1.       You ask about my “SBA loan training and knowledge…”  Both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have access to all necessary information pertaining to your SBA loan, and we are authorized by Union Bank to answer your questions.

2.       You ask for the “amount of inventory sold by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Bank with the sale of the Oceano Nursery Inventory.”  The answer is none.  On April 2, 2012, Mr. Forouzandeh wrote your attorney Mr. Gautschi stating that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) did not foreclose on any of the Oceano Nursery inventory, and that the foreclosure was limited to the real property.  The only “inventory” left at the Oceano property after the Trustees Sale was landscape rock.  In that same correspondence, Mr. Forouzandeh stated that you were free to pick up the landscape rock at any time and that if you failed to do so within a reasonable timeframe the landscape rock would be deem abandoned at which point SBBT would proceed to hire a hauling company to come to the property to remove the rocks.  Your reference to a 2007 Inventory Opinion Letter is misplaced since no inventory was foreclosed.  Furthermore, since the real property was not foreclosed until February 2012, the value and amount of inventory in 2007 is irrelevant. 

3.       You ask why SBBT/Union Bank “claimed…attorneys fees of $57,676.17…”   As we have previously stated, the note for your SBA loan specifically permits SBBT to charge you for the attorneys fees and costs incurred as a result of your default of the note, including those incurred in bankruptcy proceedings.  You defaulted on both the Note and then on the Forbearance Agreement.  On both occasions, you bombarded the bank’s attorneys and employees with duplicative and voluminous correspondences and false allegations which resulted in significant fees being incurred.  You then filed bankruptcy which resulted in SBBT incurring additional attorneys’ fees and costs to protect its position in the Bankruptcy.  Thus, not only is this amount permitted by the terms of your SBA loan, the amount is reasonable in light of your actions.

4.       You ask how SBBT “applied the 2007 five payments of $22,274.46…”  As I stated in detail in my May 19, 2011 letter, pursuant to the express terms of the Forbearance Agreement, the $22,274.46 payment was credited towards satisfying the principal and interest owed by you for the May 2006-September 2006 payments on your SBA loan which you had previously failed to make. 

5.       You ask how SBBT “can amortize a SBA loan…by adding into it unpaid principal and then claiming a balance owed of $465,195.50.”  Again, I specifically addressed this issue in my May 19, 2011 letter to you.  In 2007 your loan was past due $67,445.66.  You paid $22,274.46 which paid a portion of the past due principal and interest with the remaining $45,171.20 past due being added to the outstanding balance due and the combined total was re-amortized to assist you in bringing the loan current.  You expressly agreed to this when you entered into the Forbearance Agreement.  

6.       How SBBT “has a legal right to charge interest on principal…”  I am unclear what you mean by this question.  Lenders charge interest on the principal balance of loans.  That is legal. 

7.       You ask why SBBT “would file a fraudulent NOD…”  SBBT did not file a fraudulent NOD, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary. 

8.       You ask why “attorneys fees of $58,700.00 are due for asking banking questions…”  Your statement is incorrect.  The attorneys fees included in SBBT’s claim in your bankruptcy arose from your default on the SBA Loan, your default on the Forbearance Agreement, and your bankruptcy proceeding.  Had you not defaulted on your SBA loan, you would not have been charged these fees. 

9.       You ask how SBBT “feels a legal right to charge 10% of $265,000.00 as a standard Santa Barbara Bank & Trust foreclosure fee.”  SBBT did not “charge” a foreclosure fee.  The entity conducting the foreclosure charged a foreclosure fee, as is standard.     

10.   You ask why your loan balance was deemed to be $400,962.89 instead of $390,996.91 in November 2011.  As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November 23, 2011 email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from SBBT's online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan.  The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement.  Due to your default on the Forbearance Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement was rescinded and the principal amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules.  The Prime Rate during that period varied between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest rate for your loan during that period of time varied between 5.25%-10.25.  Since the interest rate was higher than the fixed 6% rate for much of this period, when the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized under the original loan terms, your principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to the higher interest rate and the fact that you failed to make any payments for a large portion of that period of time.  The $390,996.91 balance temporarily appeared on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system had not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and had not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.

 

I trust that these responses answer your questions.  If you have any further questions pertaining to your SBA loan, please contact Robert Forouzandeh or me, but do not contact any SBBT or Union Bank officers or employees.

 

 

Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440 ext. 463

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 


From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:35 PM
To: Bill Bookout (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Cc: Chris Gautschi (sanschromo@yahoo.com); Richard Rossi [richard@rossilegal.com] (richard@rossilegal.com)
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007

 

Mr. Bookout,

 

Over the past several days you have transmitted at least four email correspondences directly to various Union Bank officers, employees and directors who are the successors to the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) individuals you were ordered not to contact.  Your conduct violates the spirit of the June 27, 2011 Restraining Order after Hearing to Stop Harassment issued against you by the Santa Barbara Superior Court (the “Restraining Order”).  As part of the Restraining Order you were precluded from communicating with any SBBT officers, directors or employees and were ordered to direct any questions pertaining to your SBBT Small Business Administration Loan only to either Diana Jessup Lee or myself

 

This letter shall serve as the one and only demand that you cease and desist from contacting any Union Bank officers, directors or employees pertaining to your SBBT Small Business Administration loan.  Failure to abide by this demand will result in Union Bank initiating legal action against you to extend the Restraining Order to explicitly cover all Union Bank officials.  In the event legal action becomes necessary to modify the Restraining Order, Union Bank will seek reimbursement of all of its attorneys’ fees and costs from you as permitted by statute.

 

Furthermore, as I have reminded you on countless occasions, since the initiation of your bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court, you are represented by counsel of record.  Any communication regarding your SBBT loan while you are represented by counsel must be directed through your counsel.

 

Lastly, I would like to address your December 2012 bank statement request.  As I told your attorney Mr. Gautschi on numerous occasions, the bank statements for your account are generated in the third or fourth week of each month.  Thus, no December 2012 statement has been created yet for your account.  Once the December 2012 statement is generated, I will immediately forward it to Mr. Gautschi as I have done before.  I provided your November 2012 statement to Mr. Gautschi on November 27, 2012.

 

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 


 

From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi; Diana Lee; Karen Grant
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

This correspondence is provided to you for information purposes only and does not constitute a demand for payment.

 

As you are well aware, you have filed bankruptcy.  Thus, as your attorney will be able to advise you, all issues surrounding your secured loan, including any accountings to be provided by secured creditors, are governed by federal statute.  Santa Barbara Bank and Trust has provided to you all accountings and records required by federal statute.  I again reiterate, your January post-petition payment to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust was $4,077.32 and your February 2012 post-petition payment along with all future post-petition payments for the 2012 calendar year are $4,389.64 per month. 

 

As to your question about the lack of late charges on your January 19, 2012 Statement that I provided to you, if you examine it closely, you will see that the late charges are identified as "Post Petition Late Charges Due".  This section only covers late charges that have accrued for the period of time since you filed your latest bankruptcy petition.

 

Lastly, as I have now stated to you on multiple occasions, the Santa Barbara Superior Court issued a restraining order against you (at a hearing in which you attended) which precluded you from contacting anyone at Santa Barbara Bank & Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee and myself.  That restraining order is still in full force and effect.  Again, as I am sure your attorney can advise you, any attempt by you to contact anyone at Santa Barbara Bank & Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee or myself would result in you being held in contempt of a valid Court Order by the Court.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 


From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 11:57 AM
To: Richard Rossi; Bill Bookout
Cc: Karen Grant; Diana Lee
Subject: In re William Arthur Bookout USBC Cen. Dist. CA. Case No. 9:11-bk-15818

 

Mr. Rossi:

 

Pursuant to the Addendum to Chapter 13 Plan Concerning Debtors Who Are Repaying Debt Secured by a Mortgage on Real Property filed by you on behalf of Mr. Bookout in the above entitled matter, secured creditor Santa Barbara Bank & Trust hereby submits the following monthly loan statement for Mr. Bookout's loan for the months of January and February 2012.  I have also attached the payment amount change notice as well.  As you will see, and as Mr. Bookout has mentioned on multiple occasions in the past, pursuant to the terms of Mr. Bookout's note, his loan was re-amortized this month and his new payment amount will be $4,389.64.  The new payment amount is effective for the post petition payment due on February 6, 2012.  Please be advised that Mr. Bookout has not tendered his post petition payment for January 2012 in the amount of $4,077.32 which is why this amount is listed as being "Post Petition Past Due Amount" on the monthly statement.

 

Pursuant to federal statute, this information is being provided to you and Mr. Bookout for information purposes only and these documents do not constitute demand for payment. 

 

If there are any questions, I would suggest that you, as opposed to your client, contact me to discuss further.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:24 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Karen Grant; Richard Rossi; Diana Lee
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

I again remind you that the Santa Barbara Superior Court ordered you not to contact anyone at Santa Barbara Bank and Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee and myself.  The Restraining Order still stands and remains in full force and effect.  If you fail to abide by its terms, the Court will take action against you accordingly.

 

Additionally, you have failed to confirm whether you conducted an unauthorized recording of our telephone conversation yesterday as you orally represented to me at the very end of the call.  If your statement was true, then your recording would constitute a criminal act on your part. 

 

As to the questions you have posed in your email below.  I have answered each and every one of them on multiple occasions in the past.  All of the answers you seek can be found in the prior communications you have received from Ms. Lee and/or myself.  In fact, you have even cut and pasted and included many of my answers to your questions in the email below.  Simply because you did not like our prior answers does not mean that our answers will change if you ask the same question over and over again. 

 

I should not have to remind you again that you are represented by counsel in your currently pending bankruptcy petition.  Any questions should be directed through your attorney of record.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 


From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:30 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi; Diana Lee; Karen Grant
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

First, you have refused to answer my question as to whether or not you recorded our telephone conversation from earlier this morning, as you orally told me that you had done.  If in fact you did record the telephone call, this would constitute a criminal act in violation of California Penal Code Section 632.

 

In regards to the May 19, 2011 from Diana Jessup Lee to you.  This letter is not fraudulent and we continue to stand by its validity and accuracy.  In that letter, Ms. Lee specifically stated that the $465,195.50 figure, "does not include any late fees, attorneys fees or any other charges other than principal and interest."  (emphasis in original)  As you are well aware, both your original note and the forbearance agreement allow SBBT to add late fees, attorneys fees and other costs incurred by SBBT as a result of your default of the note or the forbearance agreement.

 

In regards to the SBA Form 1149 of August 29, 2011, as I told you during the telephone call, this form was calculated using the figures and interest rate from the Forbearance Agreement.  Due to your default of the Forbearance Agreement, the Bank, as it was permitted to in the Forbearance Agreement, elected to revoke the benefits that the Forbearance Agreement provided to you.  This resulted in a recalculation of your loan based on the original note terms.  Due to the fact that the interest rate for your loan is lower based on the original method of calculation (Prime Rate + 2%= 5.25%) as opposed to the 6% fixed rate set forth in the Forbearance Agreement this was the crucial factor which resulted in the monthly payment amount being reduced to the amount set forth in SBBT's various filings in your bankruptcy proceeding.  Thus, neither the August 29, 2011 Form 1149 nor SBBT's bankruptcy filings are incorrect or fraudulent as you contend.

 

At no point during our telephone conversation did we discuss any issues surrounding your inverse condemnation case.  Your claim that we discussed this issue is patently false.

 

As I stated to you during the telephone call, SBBT will not forgive either the deed of trust against the Oceano property or the Pismo Beach property unless your loan to SBBT is satisfied. 

 

Lastly, I have stated to you on numerous occasions, due to your currently pending bankruptcy proceeding in which you are represented by counsel, it is highly inappropriate for you to be contacting me directly, as opposed to through your attorney of record.  This morning's telephone call during which you illegally recorded the call without my approval is a prime example.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.


From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:26 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Diana Lee; Richard Rossi
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

Your reference to the document that you have attached an image of below is not helpful for your position as it is not current and your account balance has changed significantly since that time due to your failure to make any payments on the loan other than for October and November 2011.

 

More importantly, please read the language of the second paragraph where it specifically states in capital letters, "ACCEPTANCE OF ALL NET PROCEEDS OR THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED ABOVE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FULL PAYMENT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS AND ANY REMAINING BALANCE WILL STILL BE OWED BY THE BORROWER AND GUARANTORS." 

 

Thus, neither Mr. Lutz's declaration nor the Demand Statement are inaccurate.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 

From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Diana Lee; Mary Jo Barbeau; Richard Rossi
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

As you are fully aware, pursuant to the Restraining Order issued by the Santa Barbara Superior Court on June 27, 2011, you are not to contact anyone at Santa Barbara Bank and Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee and myself.  Failure to abide by the Restraining Order may result in the Court holding you in contempt and incarcerating you and/or imposing civil penalties and fines against you.

 

I have reviewed the 10 questions you posed below.  These are questions which you have previously asked on multiple occasions and which have been previously answered on multiple occasions by either Mrs. Lee or myself.

 

Additionally, as you are aware, you have initiated a new bankruptcy claim in the United States Bankruptcy Court in which you are represented by counsel.  The questions you have posed go directly to Santa Barbara Bank and Trust's loan to you and its claim in your bankruptcy proceeding and thus, any and all questions pertaining to your loan with Santa Barbara Bank and Trust must be posed by your counsel.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 


From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:14 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007

 

Mr. Bookout,

 

Your questions have been repeatedly answered.  Your accusations are inaccurate, and repeating them over and over is not productive.  Please see the many factual responses we have provided you which explain exactly the amount of your default, the amount due on your loan and where all your payments have been credited.

 

Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.

 


From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:24 PM
To: 'Richard Rossi'
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; Diana Lee; 'Karen Grant'; Bill Bookout; Mary Jo Barbeau
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009

 

Mr. Rossi:

 

Your client is asking what his December 2011 payment to Santa Barbara Bank and Trust ("SBBT") should be.  I would direct his attention to the Proof of Claim filed by SBBT in Mr. Bookout's bankruptcy proceeding, which states that Mr. Bookout's post-petition payments to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust should be $4,077.32.  This amount is based on the recalculated principal balance of $400,962.89 which was determined as a result of Mr. Bookout's pre-petition default of the Forbearance Agreement (which had a fixed interest rate of 6%) resulting in the termination of the interest rate afforded under the Forbearance Agreement.  I have explained this re-calculation process to your client on several occasions.

 

Please be advised that pursuant to the terms of Mr. Bookout's loan, the loan will be re-amortized as of January 2012.  Due to Mr. Bookout's long running default on this loan, upon re-amortization, the monthly payments will change.  Once the loan is re-amortized, I will provide you with the new payment amount which will be applicable for the entire 2012 calendar year.

 

Please contact me if you have any questions.

 

Robert B. Forouzandeh

Attorney at Law

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Tel:  805-966-2440805-966-2440

Fax:  805-966-3320

E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com

Website:  www.reickerpfau.com

------------------------