Free Web Hosting Provider - Web Hosting - E-commerce - High Speed Internet - Free Web Page

Tenant’s Response and Objection to Putative Landlord’s Motion for Summary Judgment consisting of:

1. A. Tenant’s request for an additional week to obtain further professional help with this summary judgment issue.

Comes now the tenants, Richard Seidel and Tauni McCluskey, answering the Motion of the putative Landlord. We object to summary judgment. We hereby list the several disputed issues of fact to be resolved by the trier of fact at trial. By proving that there are disputed issues of fact, we remove the possibility of summary judgment. There is an important issue of fraud by Cindy. By committing fraud she precludes equitable relief of eviction because we invoke clean hands doctrine. Her hands are dirty. She cannot expect the equitable relief of eviction.

1. A. Tenants in this case ask for another week in order to give their new lawyer some time to work. This motion was served on very short notice. This motion has distracted us from the case. We faxed it to our lawyer at 7:30 pm last night and he only received it 15 minutes before midnight upon returning home. Although he worked overnight, he has not had adequate time to work. Also, we are not ready for trial. We have not completed discovery.

These 5 tenants, Mom, Dad, and 3 children moved here on November 22, 1999 - nearly 5 years ago. They enjoyed a friendly relationship with the previous manager, namely Newport Beach Fireman Tim Richards, 7351 Hanna Circle, Huntington Beach CA. 714-309-7999, 714-847-9560 . The landlord/ owner is his Mom. Cindy is not the owner.

The pleadings of the plaintiff in this case are carelessly done, erroneous, and perjurious.

This is a 5 year tenancy. The rent was fully paid up when the papers were filed.

Please note that this case commands no exigency. Tenants were paid up when Cindy, the unlicensed manager, filed this case. Observe that the papers of the plaintiff admit that no money is owing! Therefore any delays in this case would present no hardship for the plaintiff. Also note that this is an 8-plex, a commercial property.

Note also that plaintiff accepted rent after the 60 day notice. Plaintiff is not permitted to proceed with this case after having accepted rent after the 60 day notice.

Attorney Darlene Allen has no standing to bring this case. Darlene Allen does not speak for the owner of the property. This is an unauthorized lawsuit.

1.b. Challenge to jurisdiction: Plaintiff Cindy Richards does not own this property and has never owned this property. Her statements to the contrary are perjury. Neither is she a child of the owner. She is merely married to the son of the owner. Under California Business and Professions code she has no standing to bring this suit. She has no realtor’s license and therefore may not act as manager for this 8-plex. She has no standing to sue and this court has no jurisdiction to hear this case until the plaintiff can prove standing to sue. This court receives its jurisdiction by the lawful pleading of the owner of the realty. This case must stop; the issue of jurisdiction must be resolved before a case can go forward. Rhode Island v Massachusetts (1838) 37 U.S. 657 http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/rhode.html

In retaliation, Cindy, the unlicensed manager has refused to repair the gas oven - a critical item in a household of 5 humans who cook their meals in an oven.

The memorandum of points and authorities submitted by the purported landlord is simply a canned brief. It is not pertinent to the issues herein.

The problem began around December 2, 2002 - when Cindy, the wife of the Fireman’s brother, took over as manager.

Defendants are pro se. As such they are entitled some leeway. In particular, solid case law recommends the following remedies when a pro se has problems:

1. The court should point the litigant in the right direction where the litigant is obviously lost;

2. The court should be generous regarding continuances so that the pro se litigant may seek counsel from a lawyer - which is what tenants in this case need - a continuance to find specific cases regarding the acceptance of money from tenants after the 60 days notice has been served.

1. Authenticity of the purported contract. I say that the contract/ rental agreement offered by the purported landlord is a fake, a forgery, and an altered copy of the original agreement that we had with the true owner. Critical facts have been redacted.

3. Authority of Cindy to bring this suit; I say that she is prohibited by Business and Professions code. I say that she is not a licensed realtor and therefore may not, by law, bring this action.

4. Cleans hands doctrine. I say that the putative landlord is asking for equitable relief; she does not deserve that relief; she has perjured herself by presenting a forged contract.

5. Our tenancy is by our original contract with the owner - not by a contract with Cindy.

6. More specifically, when Cindy prepared the fake contract she forgot to upgrade our ages when she altered the date.

8. Larry Richards is the true owner. He is the father of Cindy’s husband. Cindy is nowhere close to being the owner.

9. The “new lease” was oral and therefore void. We are there by virtue of the old lease with the current owner, namely Larry.

10. Defendants did not fail to vacate the premises pursuant to the notice of termination of tenancy. Defendants asserted their right of possession of said property with the knowledge that their rent payment, given in good faith, was accepted in June past the expiration of said notice, thus waiving the 60 day notice. Exhibit C ( receipt of certified mailing of rent). Answer, p. 1, Declaration of Tauni McCluskey, Declaration of Richard Seidel.

11. A termination of tenancy was served upon defendants. Defendants assert that it is statutorily defective, however, due to the misgivings and multiple accounts of date of service and expiration date of said document - and, in any event, Cindy accepted rent for our tenancy after the 60 day notice. Notice of Termination of Tenancy, p.1, Complaint 7(b))(1), 8(a))(1), exhibit B (letter from Cindy Richards)

Signed: Richard Seidel _____________________________ Thursday, September 2, 2004

Declaration of Richard Seidel and Tauni McCluskey as to the disputed issues of fact.

I, Tauni McCluskey hereby declare under penalty of perjury that what Richard says below is indeed true.

7. We Tauni McCluskey and Richard Seidel, executed a written rental agreement on November 1999 with Tim Richards.

8. The rental agreement offered by the purported landlord is a fake, a forgery, and an altered copy of the original agreement that we had with the true owner. Critical facts have been redacted.

9. Authenticity of the purported contract. I say that the contract/ rental agreement offered by the purported landlord is a fake, a forgery, and an altered copy of the original agreement that we had with the true owner. Critical facts have been redacted.

11. Authority of Cindy to bring this suit; I say that she is prohibited by Business and Professions code. I say that she is not a licensed realtor and therefore may not, by law, bring this action.

12. Cleans hands doctrine. I say that the putative landlord is asking for equitable relief; she does not deserve that relief; she has perjured herself by presenting a forged contract.

13. Our tenancy is by our original contract with the owner - not by a contract with Cindy.

14. More specifically, when Cindy prepared the fake contract she forgot to upgrade our ages when she altered the date.

16. Larry Richards is the true owner. He is the father of Cindy’s husband. Cindy is nowhere close to being the owner.

17. The “new lease” was oral and therefore void. We are there by virtue of the old lease with the current owner, namely Larry.

18. On December 7 2002 we received a notice from the plaintiff Cindy Richards [Exhibit 1]

19. The management was changing " a little bit " we are requesting a new lease agreement from everyone please send it with next months rent.

20. On or about January 3rd 2003, I answer the door at about 2m in the afternoon. Its Jeff and Cindy Richards.

21. After the usual hi, how are you, the conversation goes like this. This is a business to us and we are going to treat it that way, If you want to continue living here your going to have to start paying some money each month to get caught up, I know you have been paying your rent and nothing has been said but you do owe us and also what about the kitchen cabinets, I think half of the cost plus back rent you should be paying us at least $500 dollars extra each month. You need to start making an effort. Because if you don’t well your just going to have to go.

24. I ask for some kind of record that you can send me to verify all of this, send it back with the lease if you could, they agree and say bye.

25. I am annoyed that they want me to pay this extra retroactive without an agreement in writing.

29. Well I did what I was told and Tauni was so upset and afraid of them we could never call them for repairs. For fear we would get kicked out if we bothered them.

30. So thirteen months go by and we had been late only a couple times And the balance that they claimed was always past due was about to be paid off. That was our savings for the year. I was relieved.

31. In February Cindy waited until the 17th to cash the rent check, and told me on the 24^th.

32. Now there are only 4 days left in the month. I guess its my fault in the end but she planned it.

33. March 4th we get a 3 day notice to pay or quit, she tacks on late fees past due amounts to the sum of $2900.

34. I pay it after the 3 days although she did say that if I didn't have it on the third day I had better look for another place to live.

36. No action on there part. On the 28th of April they come pretending to do an evaluation on the house and so they arrive with some appraiser and she does a walk through

37. It takes about 3 minutes. They leave. Ok thank god, So I go to the store come back and I see Tim, Jeff and Cindy pounding on my door. I pull up.

38. I haven't seen Tim in over a year. For some reason he hands me the 60 day notice. Why are you doing this, I don't owe you any money.

39. This got a little intense so I just said ok just go. I continued to pay the rent for the next two months.

40. When June 29th rolled around, I hadn't heard from them, after I sent a certified letter try to negotiate certified Exhibit 2. I just assumed it was like all the other times.

44. “I told you in the letter that if you couldn't agree to work it out that I would gladly go in November, that would be a reasonable amount of time” is what I said in the letter.

g. They cut off electricity to garage and common grounds Thursday till Sunday. That is a violation of state law.

h. They neglected to recognize and give us credit for the $4800 dollars in security deposit defendants paid

I, Richard Seidel, declare under penalty of perjury that I served this Response upon opposing counsel at the court house on this date.