IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE MARGARITA MARES TRUST

by and through MARGARITA MARES as
TRUSTEE
Plaintiff,

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL

ASSOCIATION successor by merger to CIVIL ACTION NO. ________________
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB
NBS DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC COMPLAINT FOR EFFECTIVE
INC., T.I.L.A. RESCISSION
DOES 1-5,
Defendants.

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, Margarita Mares Rio pro se, sues Defendants, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., NBS

Default Services, LLC and Clear Recon Corp.

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

This is a civil action complaint brought by a resident of 1816 North C Street, Oxnard, CA

93030, Ventura County for violations of the Federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635, et

seq. (hereinafter referred to as TILA) which prohibits lenders from engaging in abusive,

deceptive, and unfair practices by requiring disclosures of true parties and about its terms and

cost to standardize the manner in which costs associated with borrowing are calculated and

disclosed The Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (hereinafter known as WFB), NBS Default

Services, LLC (hereinafter known as NBS) and Clear Recon Corp. (hereinafter known as

CRC) are alleged creditors (but are actually debt collectors as defined under the FDCPA which

will be included in an amended complaint). Plaintiff reserves the right to name additional

1
 Defendants if and when their names are discovered through discovery. The unnamed defendants

will be specifically identified as their omissions as to the requirements of TILA and FDCPA are

discovered. The Defendants are employed and at all times relevant to this case were acting

under a respondeat superior relationship with WFB, NBS and CRC. WFB, NBS and CRC

engaged in abusive, deceptive, and unfair practices with the effect of depriving the Plaintiff of

the protection afforded him under TILA and FDCPA. Plaintiff brings a claim of intentional

infliction of emotional distress against the named Defendants WFB, NBS and CRC for the

distress caused by defendants failure to comply with TILA and FDCPA. Plaintiffs reasons for

mailing her rescission letter after the TILA 3 year SOL for doing so, is due to recently

discovered fraud at alleged closing in 2004 which resets trumps 3 year SOL. The fraud was

alleged lender was not lender funding the loan (which in the alternative is no consummation),

securitization of the note/DOT/loan was not disclosed, MERS mentioned not properly disclosed

and more that will be proven in discovery. More facts that will be proven in discovery with

evidence is that Defendants Chain of Title paper trail is broken or fraudulently manufactured

and does not match the Chain of Custody of the note which is the money trail. By TILA

operation of law, Defendants had 20 days upon receipt of Plaintiffs rescission letter March 6,

2017 to file a lawsuit to reverse or vacate the rescission whether the rescission was right or

wrong they did not. Defendants now cannot use the null and void note and deed of trust to

prove standing. Instead Defendants simply must show consideration paid to prove injury and this

case is over and will need to be settled by Plaintiff with the true creditor. Proof would be like

wire transfer or cancelled check or possibly complete ledger account provided in discovery.

Jurisdiction

1. Plaintiff, Margarita Mares Rio is a resident of Ventura County, California and otherwise sui

2
 juris.

2. Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, is a Foreign corporation

and is authorized to do business in the State of California. In the alternative, there is diversity

of citizenship because the home office of the Defendant at 101 N PHILLIPS AVENUE,

SIOUX FALLS. SD 57104 is in another state and has continued to conduct business in the

State of California. (Note: In 2006, the alleged owner of World Savings Bank, FSB, Golden

West Financial, was allegedly bought by Wachovia, which was later allegedly sold to Wells

Fargo).

3. Defendant, NBS DEFAULT SERVICES, LLC, is Foreign and is presumed to be authorized

to do business in the State of California. In the alternative, there is diversity of citizenship

because the home office of the Defendant at 14841 DALLAS PKWY STE 300, DALLAS,

TX 75254 is in another state even though it conducts business in the State of California.

4. Defendant, CLEAR RECON CORP, is a California company and is presumed to be authorized to

do business in the State of California. The home office of the Defendant is 4375 JUTLAND DRIVE

SUITE 200, SAN DIEGO CA 92117.

5. The amount in controversy without interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value specified by 28

U.S.C. 1332. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where

the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,

and is between (1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects

of a foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign

state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as

plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States. The court has subject matter jurisdiction.

6. This action involves the federal question in the application of rescission procedures as

3
 specified in the Federal Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. 1635, et seq. (hereinafter referred

to as TILA).

Preliminary Factual Allegations Applicable to All Counts

7. On March 1, 2017, the Plaintiff sent USPS Certified Mail to Defendants a letter of Rescission

dated February 27, 2017 regarding Rescission of two loans: World Savings Bank, FSB,

Adjustable Rate Mortgage Note Pick-A-Payment Loan, Loan Number 0025556820 and

World Savings Bank, FSB Equity Line of Credit (Open End Deed of Trust), Loan number

0047439104 now serviced by alleged successor Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. loan number

0483743167 alleged successor in interest to real property located at 1816 North C Street,

Oxnard, CA 93030, Ventura County, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A Rescission

Letter dated February 27, 2017.

8. Notice of Rescission of the loans was sent to all Defendants, U.S.P.S. Certified Mail March

1, 2017 as depicted in the mailing confirmations attached hereto as Exhibit B Mailing

Confirmations.

9. As set forth in TILA, and the applicable extension as provided in Regulation Z, the loan

contract (note and mortgage) was cancelled by operation of law upon mailing the Notice of

Rescission. This is per the unanimous Supreme Court Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans,

Inc., 574 U.S. ___ (2015), a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that

the Truth in Lending Act does not require borrowers to file a lawsuit to rescind loans and that

sending written notice is sufficient to effectuate rescission. Some commentators described

Justice Antonin Scalia's unanimous majority opinion as "terse" and the "shortest opinion of

the year". Other analysts have described Jesinoski as a "landmark case" in Truth in Lending

Act jurisprudence.

4
10. The loan contract was cancelled by operation of law on the date of mailing March 1, 2017

shown on Exhibit A.

11. The note was rendered void by operation of law on the date of mailing March 1, 2017 shown

on Exhibit A.

12. The mortgage was rendered void by operation of law on the date of mailing March 1, 2017

shown on Exhibit A.

13. Under TILA, the Defendants, if it is a creditor, are required to comply with the rescission

within twenty-days by performing three acts:

a. Return of the cancelled note,

b. Filing in the county records such instrument that would release any

encumbrance or lien arising out of the cancelled loan contract, and

c. Payment of all money received from the Plaintiffs, on behalf of the Plaintiffs,

and all money paid for fees, commissions or other compensation in connection with the

alleged origination of the loan contract.

14. By operation of law, the rescission is effective as of the date and time of mailing March 1,

2017 and no lawsuit is required by the Plaintiff and no tender of any payment is required by

the Plaintiff.

COUNT I TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

15. The Plaintiff realleges and reaffirms the Jurisdictional Allegations as if they were specifically

set forth herein.

16. The Plaintiffs realleges and reaffirms the Preliminary Factual Allegations Applicable to All

Counts numbers 7-14 as if they were specifically set forth herein.

17. This is a cause of action which seeks injunctive relief for preventing Defendants from

5
 collecting, forcing, reporting, or taking any affirmative action or seeking any relief with

respect to the loan contract that is referenced in the subject Rescission letter (Exhibit A).

18. This property is unique in that it is a residential home that is owned by the Plaintiff and who

has made a substantial investment in the property and the property contains his personal

items.

19. Plaintiffs property is unique in that it is a residential home that is owned by the Plaintiff and

who has made a substantial investment in the property and the property is the shelter for the

family under the Homestead declaration dated June 7, 1999.

20. Attached hereto as Exhibit C Recorded Letter of Rescission is constructive notice to the

world and was recorded against the property after the rescission took effect upon mailing

March 1, 2017 by operation of law per Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 574 U.S.

___ (2015) decision.

21. If not enjoined, Defendants have made it clear that they are ignoring federal law and are

attempting to unlawfully take this property from the Plaintiff further casting doubt on the

marketability of the title that will only add to and create complexities in the title that were

directly caused by the Defendant and its predecessors in interest.

22. The Plaintiff has been obliged to seek the services of legal counsel to represent Plaintiff by

becoming attorney of record for this case, then to amend this complaint adding violations of

FDCPA and creating fraudulent foreclosing documents. The cost of paying attorney fees,

expenses, and costs for which the Defendants should be responsible.

WHERFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will enter an order

enjoining the Defendants from any use of any document, claim or instrument referenced as

6
 rescinded or cancelled in the subject Rescission letter and further stating that the note and

deed of trust are null and void, grant attorneys fees and costs, and grant such further relief as

this Court may deem just and proper.

COUNT II MANDATORY INJUNCTION

23. The Plaintiffs realleges and reaffirms the Jurisdictional Allegations as if they were

specifically set forth herein.

24. The Plaintiffs realleges and reaffirms the Preliminary Factual Allegations Applicable to All

Counts numbers 7-14 as if they were specifically set forth herein.

25. Under TILA, the Defendant, if it is a creditor instead of a debt collector with no rights to

foreclose, is required to comply with the rescission within twenty days by performing three

acts:

a) Return of the cancelled note,

b) Filing in the county records such instrument that would release any encumbrance or lien

arising out of the cancelled loan contract, and

c) Payment of all money received from the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all money

paid for fees, commissions or other compensation in connection with the alleged origination

of the loan contract.

26. In order to seek legal redress, the Plaintiff has been obliged to seek the services of legal

counsel to take over her Pro Se case and will be obligated to pay reasonable attorneys fees,

expenses and costs for which the Defendants should be liable.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court will enter an order

requiring the Defendants to return the cancelled original note to Plaintiff, to file any

7
 documents required to release any claim of encumbrance or lien arising out of the loan

contract referenced in the Rescission letter, payment of all money received from the Plaintiff,

on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all money paid for fees, commissions or other compensation in

connection with the alleged origination of the loan contract and grant the Plaintiff attorneys

fees, expenses and costs of this action and grant such other relief as the Court may deem just

and proper including, but not limited to an accounting of all money paid or received as

compensation arising out of the execution of instruments by Plaintiff relating to the loan

contract that was referenced in the subject Notice of Rescission. In the alternative, Plaintiff

prays that this Honorable Court will simply enter an order stating that the rescission was

effective by operation of law where the note and deed of trust are null and void and grant the

Plaintiff attorneys fees, expenses and costs of this action and grant such other relief as the

Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: April ___________, 2017

Respectfully submitted,

Margarita Mares
1816 North C Street
Oxnard, CA 93030
Ventura County
805-432-1777
Margarita_Mares@hotmail.com

8
Exhibit A: Rescission Letter dated Monday, February 27, 2017

9
Exhibit B: Mailing Confirmation March 1, 2017

10
Exhibit C: Recorded Rescission Letter

NOTE: On Friday, April 21, 2017 Plaintiff was unlawfully not allowed to record the
Rescission Letter by the Ventura County Clerk and Recorder. Plaintiff will prepare a
declaration on this matter and attach the Rescission Letter with the Lis Pendens that will
be recorded when this complaint is filed.

11