Monday, June 20, 2011

89-Year Old Stroke Victim Recovers Title To $800K Home After Judge Voids Deeds Used In Swindle By Her Purported Preacher

In Pomona County, California, The Downey Patriot reports:

  • A Pomona Superior Court judge last week granted a motion filed by the district attorney's office on behalf of an elderly victim whose home was swindled three years ago by a so-called church bishop who duped the Claremont woman into signing over the grant deed of her home.
  • Judge Steven Blades granted the motion to declare the two grant deeds in this case "null and void and of no legal effect," deputy district attorney James Daloisio said.
  • "The objective of this motion was to free up this 89-year-old stroke victim's property so that she could use her equity to execute a reverse mortgage as she has no substantial means of support and requires constant medical care," Daloisio said.
  • Leroy Dowd, a 74-year-old self-styled bishop who operated the now-defunct Triumph Church of God in south Los Angeles, allegedly met the victim through church in December 2006. Dowd told the victim that he could help her secure widow's benefits from Medicare and Social Security.
  • Under this guise, he tricked her into signing over the grant deed to her $800,000 home, which was paid in full, prosecutors said. Eight days later, Dowd sold the house to straw buyer Bessie Mae Moore, 63, who borrowed $800,000 from victim lender MortgageIt. At closing, Dowd walked away with more than $775,000, authorities said.
  • Dowd pleaded guilty in May 2010 to one count of grand theft of personal property and was immediately sentenced to three years in state prison. He was ordered to pay $800,000 in restitution.(1) Moore pleaded no contest in December 2008 to one misdemeanor count of obtaining money, labor or property by false pretenses. She was sentenced to 98 days in county jail.
  • The prosecutor gave credit to the Claremont Police Department, who investigated the case, for working quickly enough to avoid foreclosure. The district attorney's office worked closely with the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor's fraud investigation unit to reinstate the prior assessed value of the house.

For the story, see Elderly victim recovers home pilfered by phony bishop.

(1) The story is silent as to what happened to the mortgage lender and the $800K trust deed/mortgage it holds. If the trust deed was also voided, it probably required the consent and sign off by the lender (it would be difficult to believe that a judge in a criminal proceeding would have the necessary jurisdiction over the current trust deed holder (who itself was a victim, and not a party to the criminal proceeding) to unilaterally void its trust deed. Judgments and orders issued by a court lacking jurisdiction (either subject matter, or personal) are void ab initio). If the trust deed was also voided, the lender would be entitled to the $800K in restitution.

Had the trust deed not been voided, the judge's voiding of the scammer's grant deed would simply result in the homeowner's recovery of her home title subject to the loan that financed the scam, and it would be up to the victimized homeowner to file a civil lawsuit to quiet title to nullify the lender's lien on the home. See Unwinding An Abusive Or Fraudulent Real Estate Transaction? Determining If The Deed Is Void, Or Merely Voidable for some California case law on the issue of whether the trust deed in this case is absolutely void/void ab initio, or merely voidable.

If the trust deed that came into being as a result of this ripoff is found to be merely voidable (as opposed to absolutely void/void ab initio), it would then be up to the victimized homeowner to assert that the lender, at the time it originated the loan, had a duty to inspect the premises to ascertain the occupancy status of the premises, and by its failure to do so, her continued occupancy before, during, and after the scam was perpetrated was sufficient to place the lender on notice of any of her unrecorded rights or equities in the premises. See California Bona Fide Purchaser, Possession, Duty Of Inquiry.

No comments: