This case was last updated from Fresno County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 07:55:25 (UTC).

JP Morgan Chase Bank vs. Kiet Nguyen

Case Summary

On 05/15/2014 JP Morgan Chase Bank filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against Kiet Nguyen. This case was filed in Fresno County Superior Courts, Bf Sisk Courthouse located in Fresno, California. The Judges overseeing this case are Ikeda, Dale, Hamilton, Jeffrey Y, Diaz, Monica, Hamilton, Jeffrey Y., Cullers, Mark, Dalesandro, Samuel, Cabrera, Carlos and Pebet, Noelle. The case status is Disposed - Judgment Entered.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******1395

  • Filing Date:

    05/15/2014

  • Case Status:

    Disposed - Judgment Entered

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Fresno County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Bf Sisk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Fresno, California

Judge Details

Judges

Ikeda, Dale

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y

Diaz, Monica

Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.

Cullers, Mark

Dalesandro, Samuel

Cabrera, Carlos

Pebet, Noelle

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Defendants

Nguyen, Kiet

Tran, Kha

Nguyen, Keit Van

Nguyen, Katheryn T.

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Yoo, Christopher

Alvardosmith 1 Macarthur Place Ste 200

Santa Ana, CA 92707

Matayron, Nicolas

 

Court Documents

Proof of Service

Proof of Service.pdf; Comment: re: Request for court judgment and supporting documents.

Memorandum of Costs filed

Memo of Costs.pdf; Comment: Total Costs: $ 9,038.82

Memorandum of Costs After Judgment Filed

UD62002-Memo of Costs.pdf; Comment: Memorandum of Costs (Summary)

Declaration Filed

UD62002-Dec of Nicolas Matayron.pdf; Comment: Declaration of Nicolas Matayron in Support of Application for Entry of Default Judgment and for Atto

Request to Enter Default

Request to Enter Default

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: continued OSC

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Notice of Hearing

Notice of Hearing; Comment: continued OSC

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Judgment Received

UD62002-Proposed Judgment.pdf; Comment: Forwarded to RA on 5-19-17

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

Request to Enter Default Denied

Request to Enter Default Denied; Comment: Time to answer has not elapse.

Amended Document Filed

Summons; Amended Document Filed; Comment: Summons on First Amended Complaint

Request for Judical Notice

Request for Judical Notice

Declaration Filed

Declaration Filed; Comment: of JPMorgan Chase Bank . in support of application for entry of default judgment

Request for Court Judgment

Civil Document; Comment: "Forwarded to.'

Minute Order Attachment

Minute Order Attachment

70 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Disposition: Judgment- Default Judgment by Court; Judicial Officer: Hamilton, Jeffrey Y.; Judgment Type: Default Judgment by Court; Party Names: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Nguyen, Kiet; Tran, Kha; Judgment - Monetary Award; Awarded To:; JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Awarded Against:; Nguyen, Kiet; Tran, Kha; Amount; Damages: $189,041.17; Pre-Judgment Interest: $72,471.98; Attorney Fees: $7,390.41; Costs: $1,648.41; Other: $22,791.94; Other Comment: Late Charges - $217.97 Escrow Advances - $22,573.97; Total: $293343.91

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/04/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Writ of Execution Issued- Writ of Execution Issued; Comment: Fresno County, $297,653.32

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Writ Filed- Not Executed- Writ Filed- Not Executed; Comment: Writ of Execution Issued (Returned)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/31/2019
  • Order to Show Cause - Pre- Judicial Officer: Pebet, Noelle; Hearing Time: 8:32 AM; Cancel Reason: Judgment

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/25/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Writ of Execution Issued- Writ of Execution Issued; Comment: County: Fresno Amount: $297,653.32

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Writ Filed- Not Executed- Writ Filed- Not Executed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service- Proof of Service; Comment: of supporting documents

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Writ of Execution Issued- Writ of Execution Issued; Comment: County: Fresno Amount: $297,653.32

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/15/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Memorandum of Costs After Judgment Filed- Memorandum of Costs After Judgment Filed; Comment: Costs: $ 266.00 Credit: $ 0.00 Interest: $ 4,018.41

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice of Entry of Judgment- Nguyen - Notice of Jdgmt.pdf

    Read MoreRead Less
145 More Docket Entries
  • 01/23/2019
  • Financial info for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Transaction Assessment $27.50

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Financial info for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: EFile Payment Receipt # WEB-2019-04750 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. $25.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/18/2019
  • Financial info for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Transaction Assessment $25.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Financial info for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Counter Payment Receipt # CIVIL-2019-00000453 Eddings Attorney Support SVCS, Inc. $27.50

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/09/2019
  • Financial info for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Transaction Assessment $27.50

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2014
  • Financial info for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Counter Payment Receipt # 196113 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. $40.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/03/2014
  • Financial info for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Transaction Assessment $40.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2014
  • Financial info for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Counter Payment Receipt # 190311 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2014
  • Financial info for JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.: Transaction Assessment $435.00

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/15/2014
  • Financial: JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; Total Financial Assessment $580.00; Total Payments and Credits $580.00

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

HOOWN O 0 3 O W

WILLIAM G. MALCOLM # 129271 E-FILED

NICOLAS MATAYRON # 304097 10/7/2016 %II‘}LCOLM ¢ CISNEROS FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

aw Corporation s

2112 Business Center Drive By:] . Phillips, Deputy

Second Floor

Irvine, California 92612

Phone: (949) 252-9400 Fax: (949)252-1032

Attorney for Plaintiff JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, A FEDERAL

ASSOCIATION SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,, AS

SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, A FEDERAL ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff, VS.

KIET NGUYEN aka KIET VAN NGUYEN; KHA TRAN aka KATHERYN T. NGUYEN; and DOES 1 through 23, inclusive;

Defendants.

Case No. 14CECGO01395

Honorable Jeffrey Y. Hamilton

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: 1. DECLARATORY RELIEF,

2. EQUITABLE LIEN AND 3. JUDICIAL FORECLOSURE

Complaint filed: May 15, 2014

Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., successor-in-interest to Washington Mutual Bank, a

Federal Association, alleges as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., successor-in-interest to Washington Mutual Bank, a Federal Association (“Plaintiff” or “Chase”), is a national association authorized to conduct business within this jurisdictional district and is the current beneficiary under the deed of trust that is the subject of this litigation.

2. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Kiet Nguyen aka Kiet Van Nguyen (“Kiet”) is an individual residing in the State of California, County of Fresno and claims or may claim an interest in the real property that is the subject of this litigation.

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant Kha Tran (“Kha”) 1s an individual residing in the State of California, County of Fresno and claims or may claim an interest in the real property that is the subject of this litigation. Upon information and belief, Kha is also known as Katheryn T. Nguyen. A true and correct copy of the public records showing that Kha Tran is also known as Katheryn T. Nguyen is attached hereto as Exhibit “1”.

4. The true names and legal capacities of the defendants named herein as DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are unknown to Plaintiff, which therefore sues said defendants, and each of them, by their fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of the DOE defendants, or any of them, are ascertained, Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this complaint to insert the same.

5. Venue for this action is with the Superior Court for the State of California in and for the County of Fresno pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 760.050, in that the real property that is the subject of this action is located in said county and state.

6. The real property at issue in this complaint is commonly known as 7187 N. Bain Avenue, Fresno, California (the “Property”), is designated as Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 503-031-09S and is legally described as:

LOT 9 OF TRACT NO. 4148, MCCAFFREY COMMUNITY NO. 2, ACCORDING TO

THE MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 53, PAGES 32, 33, 34 AND 35 OF

PLATS, FRESNO COUNTY RECORDS.

PLATS, FRESNO COUNTY RECORDS. n S WL N

n S WL N

O 00 0 N

7. On or about December 3, 1999, Kiet and Kha obtained title to the Property by way of a grant deed recorded on December 23, 1999, in the Official Records of Fresno County, California, as Document No. 1999-0182419 (the “Grant Deed”). The Grant Deed states that title to the Property is held by “Kiet Nguyen and Kha Tran, Husband and Wife as Joint Tenants”. A true and correct copy of the Grant Deed is attached hereto as Exhibit “2”.

8. On or about June 11, 2002, Kiet transferred his interest in the Property to Kha pursuant to an interspousal transfer grant deed which was recorded' on June 18, 2002 in the Official Records of Fresno County, California, as Document No. 2002-0100140 (the “Interspousal Deed”). A true and correct copy of the Interspousal Deed is attached hereto as Exhibit “3”.

9. On or about October 24, 2006, Kiet and Kha obtained a line of credit from Washington Mutual Bank (“WaMu”), with a maximum credit limit of $200,000.00 (the “HELOC”). The HELOC is evidenced by a WaMu Equity Plus agreement and disclosure dated October 24, 2006 (“HELOC Agreement”). The HELOC Agreement was executed by both Kiet and Kha. A true and correct copy of the redacted HELOC Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit “4”,

10. The HELOC Agreement was intended to be secured by deed of ‘trust which was recorded against the Property on March 7, 2007, as Document No. 2007-0047939 in the Official Records of Fresno County, California (the “Deed of Trust”). A true and correct copy of the Deed of Trust is attached hereto as Exhibit “5”.

11. Although the Deed of Trust was executed by both Kiet and Kha, the Deed of Trust only names Kiet as the trustor. Kha also signed the Deed of Trust as Katheryn Tran Nguyen although she was not identified as the trustor under the Deed of Trust. Kha was however the owner of the Property when the Deed of Trust was executed and recorded and as such, Kha should

have been named as trustor under the Deed of Trust.

THE UNDERSIGNED JOINS IN THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF THIS SECURITY INSTRUMENT TO SUBORDINATE ANY INTEREST HE OR SHE

MAY HAVE OR MAY ACQUIRE IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY HOMESTEAD OR MARITAL RIGHTS, AND TO

ACKNOWLEDGE ALL THE TERMS AND COVENANTS CONTAINED IN THIS

SECURITY INSTRUMENT AND ANY RIDERS HERETO.

13. The Deed of Trust was assigned to Plaintiff through a corporate assignment of deed of trust recorded on April 15, 2014, in the Official Records of Fresno County, California as Document No. 2014-0042422 (the “Assignment”). Plaintiff is the holder of the HELOC and current beneficiary under the Deed of Trust. A true and correct copy of the Assignment is attached hereto as Exhibit “6”.

14. The Deed of Trust was intended to identify both Kha and Kiet as Trustors, and in this regard, was in fact signed by both Kha and Kiet. The identity of the trustor under the Deed of Trust is however incorrect, because the identity of the trustor omits Kha. Through inadvertence and mistake, Kiet was incorrectly named as the sole trustor under the Deed of Trust. The Deed of Trust should also identify Kha as trustor.

15. On or about March 25, 2011, Defendants Kha and Kiet defaulted under the terms of the HELOC Agreement and Deed of Trust.

16. Plaintiff has therefore elected to accelerate all amounts due and owing pursuant to the terms of the HELOC Agreement and Deed of Trust.

17. As of September 13, 2016, $189,041.17 remains due and payable under the HELOC Agreement and Deed of Trust.

18. In addition to the amounts due and owing as of the date of the filing of this First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff reserves the rights to further amend its claims up to the time of trial to include any additional amounts which become due and remain unpaid as a result of additional damages caused by the defendants.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Declaratory Relief Against all Defendants)

20. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 19 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

21. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and defendants, and each of them, concerning their respective rights and interest in connection with the Property. Plaintiff contends that its deed of trust is a fully enforceable lien encumbering the Property in a first priority position and is senior and superior to the interests of all named defendants. Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that it holds an equitable lien encumbering the Property in a first priority position, securing an amount according to proof pursuant to the equitable lien cause of action referenced below. Plaintiff is informed and believes that an actual controversy has arisen as to the claimed interests by and between Plaintiff and defendants due to the error in identifying the trustor under the Deed of Trust.

22. In light of the controversy between the parties, Plaintiff desires a judicial determination of its rights and duties. As stated above, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that it holds the beneficial interest in its first priority position Deed of Trust over all interests held by the defendants named herein and that defendants’ respective interests in the Property, if any, are subject and junior to Plaintiff’s beneficial interest as of March 7, 2007, the date the Deed of Trust was recorded. Alternatively, Plaintiff seeks a judicial declaration that it holds an equitable lien on the Property in a first priority position, senior and superior to the interests held by the defendants and securing an amount according to proof pursuant to the equitable lien cause of action referenced below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Equitable Lien Against all Defendants)

24. Plantiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 23 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

25. Should it be determined that the Deed of Trust does not encumber the entire fee interest held in the Property, Plaintiff requests that this Court impress an equitable liefi on the Property effective March 7, 2007, the date the Deed of Trust was recorded, in an amount according to proof.

26. The Deed of Trust secures the HELOC Agreement originated by WaMu and subsequently acquired by Plaintiff, with a maximum credit limit of $200,000.00. Funds were disbursed to defendants Kha and Kiet and a balance remains pursuant to the HELOC Agreement.

27. Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-interest and Plaintiff believed that the HELOC Agreement would be secured by a fully enforceable first in priority lien against the entire fee interest held in the Property. Since defendants Kha and Kiet obtained the benefit of the line of credit and proceeds received therefrom, equity and good conscience require that Plaintiff be granted an equitable lien against the Property, which equitable lien be adjudged to be a first lien encumbering the Property, senior to all other liens and encumbrances, in the event the Court declines to declare that Plaintiff’s Deed of Trust is a valid and fully enforceable first in priority lien against the entire fee interest held in the Property, senior and superior to the interests of the named defendants including defendants Kha and Kiet.

28. There will be no prejudice to Kha or Kiet, to the named defendants or unknown third parties by this Court impressing an equitable lien against the Property because there was actual and record notice through the public records of the Deed of Trust, only the trustor in the

Deed of Trust was incorrectly identified.

Deed of Trust was incorrectly identified. 29. Plaintiff is entitled to adjudication by this Court that Plaintiff holds an equitable lien on the Property in the amount and to the extent of the proceeds disbursed to Kha and Kiet pursuant to the HELOC Agreement and the Deed of Trust. Such equitable lien should have the same terms, conditions and date of priority as intended by the HELOC Agreement and Deed of Trust and should also secure interests and costs pursuant to the HELOC Agreement and according to proof.

29. Plaintiff is entitled to adjudication by this Court that Plaintiff holds an equitable lien on the Property in the amount and to the extent of the proceeds disbursed to Kha and Kiet pursuant to the HELOC Agreement and the Deed of Trust. Such equitable lien should have the same terms, conditions and date of priority as intended by the HELOC Agreement and Deed of Trust and should also secure interests and costs pursuant to the HELOC Agreement and according to proof.

30. Plaintiff is also entitled to a declaration from this Court that its equitable lien is prior to and superior to any recorded interest or any interests held by the defendants named in the instant action.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Judicial Foreclosure)

31. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 through 30 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

32. Plaintiff is entitled to foreclose on the Property in first priority position pursuant to the Deed of Trust or alternatively pursuant to its equitable lien.

33. By this action, Plaintiff seeks to judicially foreclose upon the collateral described in the HELOC Agreement and Deed of Trust and to have the Property sold under the laws of the State of California, with the proceeds of sale being applied to the obligation owing by Defendants Kha and Kiet pursuant to the HELOC Agreement and Deed of Trust.

34, Plaintiff seeks a judgment against Defendants Kha and Kiet in an amount to be proven at trial, as to all amounts due and owing under the HELOC Agreement and Deed of Trust, including the outstanding balance together with all other fees, charges and amounts owing under the HELOC Agreement, escrow advances if any, and all other fees/costs incurred, which total approximately $189,041.17 as of September 13, 2016.

35. Plaintiff seeks entry of Judgment foreclosing Plaintiff's Deed of Trust in first position or Plaintiff’s equitable lien in first position and ordering the sale of the Property by the Sheriff of Fresno County in the manner prescribed by California law.

35. Plaintiff seeks entry of Judgment foreclosing Plaintiff's Deed of Trust in first position or Plaintiff’s equitable lien in first position and ordering the sale of the Property by the Sheriff of Fresno County in the manner prescribed by California law. 36. Plaintiff seeks entry of Judgment applying the proceeds received first towards the costs of sale, then towards satisfaction of Plaintiff's Judgment, with any surplus to any defendant or party who may establish the right thereto;

36. Plaintiff seeks entry of Judgment applying the proceeds received first towards the costs of sale, then towards satisfaction of Plaintiff's Judgment, with any surplus to any defendant or party who may establish the right thereto;

37. Plaintiff seeks entry of Judgment ordering that all defendants and all persons claiming through or under them either as purchasers, encumbrancers, or otherwise are forever foreclosed of all interest or claim in the Property, except any statutory right of redemption that defendants may have in the Property;

First and Second Causes of Action

1. That the Court decree, declare and adjudge that Plaintiff holds a fully enforceable first in priority lien on the Property by virtue of the Deed of Trust recorded on March 7, 2007, as Document No. 2007-0047939 in the Official Records of Fresno County, California, which lien is senior and superior to the interests held by the defendants in the Property, that Plaintiff be permitted to enforce by any lawful means (including, but not limited to judicial foreclosure), its Deed of Trust;

2. For a temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and each of them, as well as their agents, attorneys, representatives, and all persons, in active concert or participating with them, from transferring, selling, conveying, or encumbering any portion of the Property;

3. In the alternative, if it is determined that Plaintiff does not have a fully enforceable first in priority lien on the Property, that the Court impose an equitable lien against the Property for the full amount of money owed on the HELOC Agreement secured by the Deed of Trust and that Plaintiff be permitted to enforce by any lawful means (including, but not limited to, foreclosure), its equitable lien;

4. That a recorded lien be imposed in favor of Plaintiff, as beneficiary under the Deed of Trust, for the balance of the funds not secured by the equitable lien;

5. For a judicial declaration that defendants have no rights, title, estate, interest in the Property adverse to Plaintiff’s.

6. For costs of suit; and

6. For costs of suit; and 7 /il /1 /] W W

7 /il /1 /] W W

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.

Third Cause of Action

For entry of Judgment against Defendants Kha and Kiet in an amount to be proven at trial, as to all amounts due and owing under the HELOC Agreement and Deed of Trust, including the outstanding balance together with all other fees, charges and amounts owing under the HELOC Agreement, escrow advances if any, and all other fees/costs incurred, which total approximately $189,041.17.

For entry of Judgment foreclosing Plaintiff's Deed of Trust in first priority position or Plaintiff’s equitable lien in first priority position and ordering the sale of the Property by the Sheriff of Fresno County in the manner prescribed by California law;

For entry of Judgment applying the proceeds received first towards the costs of sale, then toward satisfaction of Plaintiff's Judgment, with any surplus to any defendant or party who may establish the right thereto;

For entry of Judgment ordering that all defendants and all persons claiming through or under them either as purchasers, encumbrancers, or otherwise are forever foreclosed of all interest or claim in the Property, except any statutory right of redemption that Defendants may have in the Property;

Ordering that Plaintiff or any parties to this action may become a purchaser at the foreclosure sale and that if Plaintiff so chooses, it may credit bid the full amount of its indebtedness at the foreclosure sale;

For costs of suit and any attorney’s fees pursuant to contract or statute; and

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem proper.

WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK A FEDERAL ASSOCIATION