Neilson v. Albright et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re CEDAR FUNDING, INC.,
Debtor.
Case No. 08-52709-MM
Chapter 11
R. TODD NEILSON, Trustee for Debtor,
CEDAR FUNDING, INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DONALD S. ALBRIGHT, JR., et. al.,
Defendants.
Adversary No. 09-5120
MEMORANDUM DECISION ON
TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
I NTRODUCTION
In this adversary proceeding, R. Todd Nielson, the trustee of Cedar Funding, Inc.’s estate, seeks
to avoid nineteen Assignments of Deed of Trust that CFI recorded. These nineteen assignments were
issued to over two hundred and thirty investors in sixteen separate mortgage loans originated by CFI.
The trustee has moved for summary judgment with respect to seventeen of the assignments asserting
that they were recorded either during the ninety day preference period preceding CFI’s bankruptcy or
after the bankruptcy was filed and constitute preferential transfers within the meaning of § 547(b) of the
Bankruptcy Code. Because the trustee has only offered proof and requested summary judgment with
The following constitutes
the order of the court. Signed April 05, 2010
Marilyn Morgan
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
________________________________________
Entered on Docket
April 06, 2010
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 1 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	2
respect to seventeen of the nineteen assignments referenced in his complaint, this motion will be treated
as a motion for partial summary judgment as to those seventeen assignments. If the assignments are
avoided, the related investors will join the pool of CFI’s unsecured creditors.
PROCEDURE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The standards and procedures for granting partial summary judgment, also known as summary
adjudication, are the same as those for summary judgment. See Calif. v. Campbell, 138 F.3d 772, 780
(9th 1998); Continental Insur. Co. v. Cota, 2010 WL 383367 *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2010). 	Partial
summary judgment “upon all or any part of a claim” is appropriate when the evidentiary proof offered
by the moving party shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the specified portion of
the claim and the moving party is entitled to a determination as a matter of law. Celotex Corp v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 56. A plaintiff moving for summary judgment must
demonstrate all elements of its claim to prevail. Lockwood v. Wolf Corp., 629 F.2d 603, 611 (9th Cir.
1980). 	To avoid the seventeen Assignments of Deeds of Trust at issue, the trustee must provide
evidence establishing the elements of a preferential transfer claim as to each assignment.
Some defendants have alleged affirmative defenses to the trustee’s complaint. Because
defendants bear the burden of proof as to these defenses, the catalog of defenses listed in their answer,
without more, is insufficient to avoid summary judgment. Johnson v. Georgia-Pacific Corp., 2009 WL
1311896 at *2 (9 th Cir. May 12, 2009); In re MarchFirst, Inc., 2007 WL 4105816, at *5 (Bankr. N.D.
Ill. Nov. 15 2007), citing, Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S. Ct. at 2553. At a minimum, they must offer
sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact as to each element of any defense that they want to
pursue.
FACTS
Many facts regarding CFI and its operations are recounted in Rollins v. Nielson (In re Cedar
Funding, Inc.), 408 B.R.299 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2009). 	To the extent applicable, those facts are
incorporated herein with repetition only as needed to properly understand the events pertinent to the
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 2 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	3
pending motion for summary judgment. Less than fifty of over two hundred and thirty defendants have
opposed the trustee’s motion for summary judgment. The facts, as taken from the evidentiary materials
submitted by both sides, are stated in a light favorable to the defendants as required by the standards for
summary judgment.
Prior to bankruptcy, CFI was in the business of making loans secured by trust deeds against the
borrowers’ real property. Its operations were funded by hundreds of investors who gave CFI money
believing that they were acquiring fractional interests in the secured loans that CFI originated. Between
2004 and early 2008, CFI extended the fourteen real estate loans referenced in Exhibit A to various
borrowers. In return, CFI received promissory notes from the borrowers and recorded deeds of trust
naming CFI as the beneficiary. The defendants each gave CFI funds that were to be invested and used
to acquire fractional interests in one or more of the secured loans at issue.
It was CFI’s standard practice to deposit funds from investors into a general account known as
the “escrow account” that CFI maintained at Wells Fargo Bank and from which CFI funded loans to its
borrowers and, indirectly, monthly interest payments to its investors. In the escrow account, all investor
money was commingled together, along with any payments received from borrowers. Shortly after
receiving an investment, CFI typically made a bookkeeping entry associating that investment with a
particular loan. There is no evidence that CFI deviated from its standard practice with respect to the
investments at issue herein. At the time of investment, the defendant investors intended and believed
that, in return for their investment, they would receive a fractionalized interest in one or more of CFI’s
notes and in the corresponding deed of trust securing repayment of the note.
After tendering funds to CFI, the investors ordinarily received a form acknowledgment letter on
CFI letterhead thanking them for their investment in a loan that was identified in the caption of the letter.
While defendants’ evidence fails to establish that each defendant affected by this motion received an
acknowledgment letter, for purposes of this motion, it will be assumed that they did. The body of the
acknowledgment letters indicated that the investors held a specified percentage interest in the captioned
loan and advised the investors when to expect the first interest payment on their investment. The letters
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 3 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	4
also reflected that certain loan documents were enclosed. The documents varied from letter to letter,
but CFI generally enclosed executed copies of the original note and deed of trust between CFI and the
borrower, along with copies of several unexecuted documents, including a Loan Servicing Agreement,
a Lender/Purchaser Disclosure Statement, a Promissory Note Endorsement from CFI to the investor and
an Assignment of Deed of Trust referencing the investor as an assignee. The letters routinely asked the
investor to sign and return both the Loan Servicing Agreement and the Lender/Purchaser Disclosure
Statement.
Contrary to the norm, twenty-one defendant investors indicate that they received executed
Promissory Note Endorsements from CFI. Those investors include:
Note #4519 	Pensco fbo M. Coolidge 	endorsement dated 4/20/01
James Hage 	endorsement dated 4/20/01
Note #4532 	Bert Baumer 	endorsement dated 5/9/01
Note #5363 	Pensco fbo B. Cesarin 	undated (enclosed with letter dated 8/10/06)
Pensco fbo V. D’Amico 	undated (enclosed with letter dated 8/10/06)
Note #53631 	Linda Parise 	endorsement dated 5/14/08
Note #5364 	Inge Fitzpatrick 	endorsement dated 6/28/07
Selena Olms 	endorsement dated 10/17/07
Pensco fbo B. Parrish 	endorsement dated 10/10/07
Lisa Ponzio 	endorsement dated 3/7/08
Elizabeth Ward 	endorsement dated 1/16/08
Note #5365 	Donald Albright 	undated (enclosed with letter dated 11/27/07)
Sandra Peckinpah 	undated
Pensco fbo K. Ramsden 	undated (enclosed with letter dated 8/27/07)
Pensco fbo R. Waldroup 	undated (enclosed with letter dated 8/27/07)
Pensco fbo M. Waldroup 	undated (enclosed with letter dated 8/27/07)
Note #5474 	Keith Brown 	endorsement dated 4/16/08
Lisa Ponzio 	endorsement dated 4/16/08
Delwyn Smith 	endorsement dated 4/21/08
Note #5485 	Catherine Lau 	undated (enclosed with letter dated 4/10/08)
Mahin Salehinia 	undated (enclosed with letter dated 4/10/08)
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 4 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	5
Most of these twenty-one defendants also assert that the note endorsements were accompanied by an
executed Assignment of Deed of Trust bearing the same date as the endorsement.
Every time the investors contacted CFI, CFI treated them as if they owned a fractional interest
in the loan in which they had invested. 	Additionally, after CFI associated an investment with a
particular note, it began to make regular monthly interest payments to the investor. CFI sent out interest
payments to its investors even if the borrower on the loan was not making loan payments. 	The
defendants who have filed opposition papers each received monthly interest payments from the time of
their investment through March 2008. 	Starting in April 2008, however, CFI stopped all interest
payments to its investors.
During the first five months of 2008, the California Department of Real Estate and the California
Department of Corporations instituted investigations of CFI and its president and sole shareholder,
David Nilsen. On May 16, 2008, the DRE suspended Nilsen’s real estate license due to multiple and
continuing violations of California’s Business and Professions Code, which included the failure to
execute and/or record assignments of deeds of trust naming the individual investors as beneficiaries.
In an apparent attempt to save his real estate license, between March 7, 2008 and May 20, 2008, CFI
executed the seventeen Assignments of Deeds of Trust referenced in Exhibit A hereto. The assignments
reflected the fractionalized interests for which each of the defendant investors had previously paid.
These executed assignments were then recorded with the appropriate county recorder’s office. The
recording dates range from April 22, 2008 to September 22, 2008. In each case, the assignments of
CFI’s deeds of trust were recorded either within a thirty-five day period preceding, or sometime
subsequent to, CFI’s May 26, 2008 bankruptcy filing.
At the time the executed assignments were recorded, Accustom Development, LLC held fee title
to each of the eleven properties affected by the assignments. Accustom is wholly-owned by David
Nilsen, CFI’s president and sole shareholder. As explained in the Rollins decision, CFI and Nilsen often
used Accustom to facilitate transfers of real estate. When CFI originated a loan, it typically gave the
borrower less than the full amount of the loan, and its records reflected that the amount reserved was
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 5 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	6
an “interest reserve” from which the borrower’s interest payments were deducted. When the indicated
reserve was depleted and the borrower otherwise failed to make payments, CFI generally did not enforce
the terms of the note. 	At times, CFI arranged for the borrower to quitclaim title to the property to
Accustom. Meanwhile, CFI continued to pay interest to its investors, who were never informed that the
borrower was not making payments or that title of the underlying property had been transferred to
Accustom.
In a separate adversary proceeding, the trustee has challenged the transfers of title to Accustom
as constituting fraudulent conveyances. Immediately after that action was filed, Accustom executed
quitclaim deeds purporting to convey fee title from Accustom to the fractionalized investors associated
with eight of the eleven properties.
DISCUSSION
To succeed on summary judgment, the trustee must provide undisputed evidence showing that
the seventeen Assignments of Deed of Trust transferred an interest of CFI in property to the fractional
investors and that the transfers: 1) were for the benefit of a creditor; 2) were on account of an antecedent
debt; 3) were made while CFI was insolvent; 4) were made within 90 days of CFI’s bankruptcy petition;
and 5) would allow the receiving creditor to receive more than it would under a chapter 7 liquidation,
without the transfer. 11 U.S.C. § 547(b). The trustee has satisfied this burden.
With respect to the fourteen loan transactions at issue, CFI received promissory notes from each
of its borrowers. 	The borrowers also executed deeds of trust, naming CFI as beneficiary, securing
repayment of the notes. Both the deeds of trust and the promissory notes in favor of CFI constituted
“legal or equitable interests of the debtor in property.” 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1). As a result, there is no
serious challenge to whether the fractional security interests that CFI transferred to the investors
constituted an interest of CFI in property.
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 6 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	7
Turning to whether the transfers effected by the assignments were for the benefit of a creditor and
were on account of antecedent debt, defendants’ own submissions indicate that CFI promised to transfer
fractional interests in the notes and deeds of trust to the defendants in return for their investments.
Further, there is no dispute that each defendant invested thousands of dollars with CFI. 	Until CFI
accomplished the transfers, the defendants were creditors of CFI entitled to the conveyance of their
fractionalized security interests in the loans, which is why the trustee has referred to the transactions as
“failed sales.” When the transfers eventually occurred, they were clearly on account of antecedent debt
because the defendants had been entitled to their fractional interests since the time of their original
investment.
Based on the opposition papers, the only real dispute regarding the elements of a preferential
transfer is whether the transfer of the defendants’ secured interests in the underlying loans took place
during the 90 days immediately preceding CFI’s bankruptcy, a time period when CFI is presumed to have
been insolvent. Defendants contend that they received full ownership of their secured interests outside
of the preference period in one of two ways: First, they urge that CFI transferred the promissory notes
to them prior to the preference period, either by executing a Promissory Note Endorsement in their favor
or because the endorsement integrated into a signed acknowledgment letter. Alternatively, defendants
assert that summary judgment is unwarranted due to questions of fact as to whether they have an
equitable lien that pre-dates the preference period. Neither argument is persuasive.
I. 	Note Endorsements Outside the Preference Period Do Not Preclude Avoidance of the Liens.
Section 547(e)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code governs whether or not a transfer is made within the
90 day preference period. According to its terms, for avoidance purposes, a transfer is made:
(A) at the time such transfer takes effect between the transferor and the transferee, if such transfer
is perfected at, or within 30 days after, such time;
(B) at the time such transfer is perfected, if such transfer is perfected after such 30 days;
(C) immediately before the date of the filing of the petition, if [a transfer perfected after such 30
days] is not perfected at
(i) the commencement of the case.
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 7 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	8
11 U.S.C. § 547(e)(2)(A) - (C). Under this provision, for avoidance purposes, a transfer is not necessarily
“made” at the time that the debtor completes an effective transfer to the intended transferee. Rather, the
court must also consider when the transfer is perfected to see whether the effective date, the perfection
date, or the petition date will control.
Perfection, in turn, depends on whether the transfer involves real property or not. 11 U.S.C.
§ 547(e)(1). Here, the deeds of trust at issue are interests in real property. 	In re Cortez, 191 B.R. 174,
178 (9 th Cir. B.A.P. 1995). As a result, § 547(e) dictates that the perfection date for the assignment of
fractionalized interests from CFI to the defendants is the date when a bona fide third party purchaser
could no longer acquire a property interest senior to the defendants’ security interests. 	11 U.S.C.
§ 547(e)(1)(A). State law determines when it is no longer possible to gain a superior interest In re Lewis
W. Shurtleff, Inc., 778 F.2d 1416, 1420 (9th Cir. 1985). 	Under California’s real property recording
system, the priority of conveyances, with an exception for leases that is not applicable here, is determined
by time of recordation, not time of transfer. Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1213-1214; Bratcher v. Buckner, 90 Cal.
App. 4th 1177, 1185 (2001). A “conveyance” includes every written instrument by which any interest
in real property is created, mortgaged or encumbered, or by which the title to any real property may be
affected. Cal. Civ. Code § 1215. 	Consequently, a deed of trust, as an instrument providing a security
or collateral interest in real property, must be perfected by recordation to be binding on subsequent
purchasers without notice. Cortez, 191 B.R. at 178. Similarly, the assignment of a deed of trust may be
valid as between the assignor and assignee without recording, but it is only upon recording that its
priority is perfected and provides constructive notice to third parties to prevent them from gaining a
superior interest. Cal. Civ. Code § 2934. See also 4 Miller & Starr, CALIFORNIA REAL ESTATE , 3d ed.,
Deeds of Trust § 10:39 (2000).
Defendants argue that their fractional interests were transferred before the 90 day preference
period began because CFI transferred the promissory notes to defendants outside the preference period
and the transfer of the debt carried their security interests with it. Cal. Civ. Code § 2936. That argument
misses the effect of California’s real property recording system. The defendants are correct that transfer
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 8 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	9
of the underlying debt would have carried the security with it. Id.; 4 Miller & Starr, at §10:38 (transfer
of the debt accomplishes the transfer of the security without the necessity of a formal assignment of the
trust deed). Mere transfer of the security interests, however, is only valid between the assignors and
assignees of the security interests. 	To be effective against third parties, or “perfected” within the
meaning of § 547(e), the assignments of the deeds of trust had to be recorded. Id. § 2934.
Applying the above standards to the facts here, the evidence establishes that thirteen of the
seventeen assignments were recorded within 30 days of the date when the assignment was executed. For
those assignments, § 547(e)(2)(A) provides that the transfers were “made” on the effective date of the
assignments, i.e., between March 7, 2008 and May 20, 2008. One assignment, related to Loan No. 5364,
was recorded more than 30 days after its execution, but before the May 26, 2008 petition date.
Accordingly, the date of its recording is the day the transfer was made, namely May 13, 2008. 	See 11
U.S.C. § 547(e)(2)(B). Because the remaining three assignments were recorded more than 30 days after
their execution and after the petition date, § 547(e)(2)(C) dictates that the transfers were made
immediately before the petition date. 	For avoidance purposes, then, all the transfers were made within
the 90 day preference period that began on February 25, 2008.
II. 	The Circumstances Of This Case Dictate That The Principle of Ratable Distribution
Trumps Any Right To An Equitable Lien.
Defendants’ urge that summary judgment is also inappropriate because there are questions of fact
regarding whether the defendants have an equitable lien that transferred the equity of their security
interests to them at the time of their investment in CFI. 	They reason that only bare legal title was
transferred when the trust deed assignments were recorded during the preference period, and therefore
their equitable liens are not subject to avoidance as preferences. This argument does not preclude the
entry of summary judgment for the trustee.
Even if there is a triable issue of fact as to whether an equitable lien could be imposed, caution
is required before exercising this inchoate equitable power in the bankruptcy context. 	In re North
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 9 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	10
American Coin & Currency, Ltd., 767 F.2d 1573, 1575 (9th Cir. 1985). Once bankruptcy intervenes, the
right to an equitable lien should be balanced against bankruptcy principles of ratable distribution. See
Rollins, 408 B. R. at 314-16. 	For the reasons explained in the Rollins decision, CFI’s bad business
practices, including the commingling of investment monies from individual investors with payments from
borrowers, precludes the recognition of an equitable lien in favor of any particular claimant. To prefer
one claimant by awarding an equitable lien would be unfair to potential competing equitable claims to
the same property. Id. at 316.
Further, it would make little sense to impose an equitable lien under the circumstances of this
proceeding because any such lien would be avoidable as a preference. As one leading bankruptcy treatise
has recognized, “for purposes of Code § 547, an equitable lien is transferred when steps to declare or
enforce it are taken and without the benefit of any relation-back principle.” 4 NORTON BANKRUPTCY
LAW AND PRACTICE § 66.17 (3d ed. 2008). Accord Cadle Company v. Mangan, 316 B.R. 11, 22-23 (D.
Conn. 2004)(finding the analysis set forth in NORTON persuasive). This conclusion is consistent with
both the language of the Code and its historical treatment of equitable liens. As already discussed, under
§ 547(e), a transfer of an interest in real property is deemed to occur only when a bona fide purchaser
without notice of the lien can no longer obtain a superior interest. 	Significantly, no relation back
principle is recognized in that standard. Although § 546(b) of the Code limits some avoiding powers by
preserving relation back features of state law, § 547 is conspicuously absent from the list of Code
sections that remain subject to state law relation back rules. The historical treatment of equitable liens
under the preference laws also supports the conclusion that equitable liens do not relate back for
preference purposes. See 4 NORTON at § 66.17 (discussing the Bankruptcy Act’s adoption of a bona fide
purchaser test for preference laws, which operated to avoid many equitable liens and the subsequent
effect of the Uniform Commercial Code, which eliminated the need for special provisions regarding
equitable liens). Even though an equitable lien, once imposed, is said to relate back to the time of the
conduct creating it, as an unrecorded lien, it only takes precedence over subsequent attaching judgment
creditors, not bona fide purchasers. First Fidelity, 60 Cal. App. 4 th at 1440-41; Jud Whitehead, 111 Cal.
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 10 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	11
App. 2d at 873. Thus, under § 547 and the facts of this case, the imposition of an equitable lien would
not prevent the trustee from avoiding it.
III. 	Summary Judgment Is Not Otherwise Improper.
The defendants who filed opposition to the trustee’s motion for summary judgment finally
complain that the trustee’s motion seeks relief that goes beyond the claims alleged in the complaint.
However, the trustee, quite simply, seeks a determination as a matter of law that the security interests of
the defendants constitute avoidable preferences. A review of the moving papers uncovers no attempt to
expand the scope of the complaint.
Further, defendants have offered no evidence to support the majority of the affirmative defenses
that they have alleged. To the extent that these defenses are not supported by any evidence, they cannot
prevent the entry of summary judgment in the trustee’s favor. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S. Ct. at
2553;. MarchFirst,, 2007 WL 4105816, at *5.
Finally, almost 200 defendants have failed to lodge any opposition to the trustee’s motion for
summary judgment. When an opposing party does not respond to a motion for summary judgment, the
motion should, if appropriate, be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 56(f). Because these defendants have not
raised any factual disputes and the trustee has established his entitlement to relief as a matter of law,
summary judgment is also appropriate against the defendants who have failed to respond.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons explained, partial summary judgment is granted in favor of the trustee and against
the defendants with respect to the seventeen Assignments of Deed of Trust referenced in Exhibit A.
Good cause appearing, IT IS SO ORDERED.
**** END OF ORDER ****
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 11 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT A
1.
CFI Loan # 4519
Property Address: 45510 Arroyo Seco Rd., Greenfield, CA
Record Date of Assignment: 6/18/08
Recorded Document No. 2008039641
Assignees: 	Sean Cardoza; James M. Hage, Trustee of the James M. Hage Trust dated 9/22/05; Shirlee
J. Thorne; Jenny D’Angelo; Maria R. Connolly; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO
Marion Coolidge; George and/or Joanna Williams
2.
CFI Loan # 4519-3
Property Address: 45510 Arroyo Seco Rd., Greenfield, CA
Record Date of Assignment:6/24/08
Recorded Document No. 2008040873
Assignees: 	Shirlee J. Thorne; Catherine M. Doherty; Gary and/or Barbara Sobak; Betty Havey;
Eileen A. Hall; Roger King; Nancy Blaisdell
3.
CFI Loan # 4532
Property Address: 1060 Pajaro Hills Ct., Watsonville, CA 95076
Record Date of Assignment: 6/18/08
Recorded Document No. 2008039640
Assignees: 	Lorraine Franz; Dwight K. Landon; Alberta Stokes; Betty McVay; Bert Baumer; Shirlee
J. Thorne; Teresa G. Hurtubise; Allene A. Perry; Cyd Love; Dan L and Cynthis L. Kafer
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 12 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	13
4.
CFI Loan # 4625
Property Address: 25972 Puerta Del Cajon, Monterey, CA 93940
Record Date of Assignment: 6/5/08
Recorded Document No. 2008036342
Assignees: 	Albert L. and/or Gail T. Huff; Allene A. Perry; Betty Havey; Donald L. and/or Evelyn
Shaver; Pierre Vercammen; Roger and/or Michelle Pallastrinee; Ann Cathey; Jan J. Valtr
5.
CFI Loan # 5087
Property Address: 455 Voigt Road, Lakeport, CA 95453
Record Date of Assignment: 9/4/08
Recorded Document No. 2008015864
Assignees: 	Gerd Jensen; William E. and/or Laurie M. Crogan; David Salehinia; Elizabeth I. Ward;
Catherine C. Lau
6.
CFI Loan # 5188
Property Address: Fresno, CA 93711
Record Date of Assignment: 5/16/08
Recorded Document No. 2008-0071802
Assignees: 	Frances Ward; Marion H. Coolidge; Dean R. Morford, Trustee; Lawrence H. Kelley
and/or Sharon M. Kelley; Mark J. Penniman and Gail S. Penniman; William E. and/or
Laurie M. Crogan; James R. Thorsen and/or Diana Thorsen; James Thorsen; Judith P.
Leber; Berndt Von Zehren; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Christine Kolisch; Pensco
Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Blake Cesarin; Daniel and/or Sherri Villarreal; David
Salehinia; Darien Weiner; Barry B. Gumbert; Barbara G. Parrish; Pensco Trust Co.,
Custodian, FBO Barbara Parrish; Daniel J. Turner and Jeanne C. Turner, Trustees; Pensco
Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Brad Durham; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Ali
Rodgers; Vadim Kreyd; Gilda Ann Peterson; Cheryl B. Bilgin; Elizabeth I. Ward;
Savatore Masiorana; X-Files Limited Partnership, Ludmeilia Axionoff; Tetratech
Retirement Plan & Trust; Carol Garcia
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 13 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	14
7.
CFI Loan # 5211
Property Address: Lot 55 Las Lomas Rd., Watsonville, CA 95076
Record Date of Assignment: 5/19/08
Recorded Document No. 2008031832
Assignees: 	Shirlee J. Thorne; Terry R. and/or Marcia Talcott; James C. Jeffery III; Victor M. and/or
Jane R. Shaw, Trustees; Curtis and/or Terry Hilliard; Maark P. Warren; Michael F. and/or
Darlene L. Kelly; Elisabeth Spence; John Middleton
8.
CFI Loan # 5252
Property Address: 23950 Cedar Hill Lane, Twain Harte, CA 95383
Record Date of Assignment: 5/19/08
Recorded Document No. 2008007106
Assignees: 	Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Pamela Flagg; David Salehinia; Darien Weiner;
Steven M. Weingarten, Allyson J. Kumataka, Trustee Kumataka 1994 Trust
9.
CFI Loan # 5352
Property Address: 25972 Puerta Del Cajon, Monterey, CA 93940
Record Date of Assignment: 5/8/08
Recorded Document No. 2008029416
Assignees: 	Barbara C. Johns, Trustee; Aaron N. Gallegos; Raymond Feay; Jaime Villarreal;
Lawrence H. and/or Sharon M. Kelley; Bruce D. Weingarten; George W. Piercy; Juliet
F. Piercy; Steven M. Weingarten; Paul J. Franklin, III; Edward E. Tolleson; Catherine C.
Lau; Sue E. Newman; Sallyann Forzani; Walter and/or Mary Marshall; Anne L. Wiewel;
Kathleen A. Kemp; Brad Durham; Kaitryn Durham; John R. and/or Fleana M. Snapp
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 14 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	15
10.
CFI Loan # 5363
Property Address: 87 Chapparral Rd., Carmel Valley, CA 93924
Record Date of Assignment: 5/19/08
Recorded Document No. 2008032059
Assignees: 	Calvin and/or Margaret Rich; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO May S. Waldroup;
Charles R. and/or Isabelle C. Smith; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Sharon L. Jones;
Joseph F. Lupino; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Joseph Lupino; James C. Jefferey
III; Veronica D’Amico and Ronald D’Amico, Trustees; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian,
FBO Roberta Waldroup; Bruce D. Weingarten; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Blake
Cesarin; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Lloyd Gurley; Lloyd Gurley; David
Salehinia; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Veronica D’Amico; Pensco Trust Co.,
Custodian, FBO Marc D. Waldroup; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Ali Rodgers;
Richard J. and/or Margaret Ann Muir; Roberta Rose; Shawna Parker; Pensco Trust Co.,
Custodian, FBO Silvia T. Marwick; Debra A. Thorngate Davis; Selene Olms
11.
CFI Loan # 5364
Property Address: Solano Rd., Corning, CA 96021
Record Date of Assignment: 5/13/08
Recorded Document No. 2008006690
Assignees: 	Lisa Ponzio
12.
CFI Loan # 5364
Property Address: Solano Rd., Corning, CA 96021
Record Date of Assignment: 9/22/08
Recorded Document No. 008013820
Assignees: 	Alberta Stokes, Trustee of the Alberta Stokes Revocable Trust dated 2/26/03; Gerd
Jensen, Trustee of the GT Revocable Trust dated 4/12/04; Linda C. Elliott, Trustee of the
Temple and Linda Elliott Trust dated 5/3/06; Bert Baumer; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian,
FBO May S. Waldroup; Charles R. Smith, Jr. and/or Isabelle C. Smith; Floyd L.
Swenson; Danette Swenson; Bruce D. Weingarten; John Steers and/or Joyce Steers;
Lloyd Gurley; David Salehinia; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Barbara Parrish;
Elizabeth I. Ward; Alma E. Ruiz; Harry and Kristen McMurray; Elisabeth Spence;
Christine J. Garbo; Inge Fitzpatrick; Richard L. Blanding; Linda and/or James Miller; Ray
P. and/or Joyce Denne; Anthony Palma; Warren E. Anderson; The Marcia Ann Clanton
Living 	Trust 	dated 	6/16/06; 	Lisa 	Ponzio; 	Brockman 	Farming, 	Inc.; 	Mal 	Bon
Bauerschmidt; Jodi G. McLean; Selene Olms; IRA Services, Custodian, FBO Judith
Eileen Foon
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 15 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	16
13.
CFI Loan # 5365
Property Address: 93/97 Chapparral Rd., Carmel Valley, CA 93924
Record Date of Assignment: 5/19/08
Recorded Document No. 2008032057
Assignees: 	Bert Baumer; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO May S. Waldroup; Mark D. and/or
Barbara L. Bartindale; Paul J. Franklin, III; Jeanie McKnight Clausen, Trustee; Myrna
J. Kurtz; Donald S. Albright, Jr., Trustee; Michael and/or Patricia Moeller; Church of
Jesus Christ in The Americas, Inc.; Richard L. Schneider; IRA Services FBO Richard G.
Anderson; Community Church of Monterey; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO Marc
Waldroup; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO John M. Waldroup; Pensco Trust Co.,
Custodian, FBO Kristen Ramsden; Sandra Lee Peckinpah
14.
CFI Loan # 5474
Property Address: 441 Colton St. (and 935 Doud Ave.), Monterey, CA 93940
Record Date of Assignment: 5/8/08
Recorded Document No. 2008029404
Assignees: 	Michael J. and/or Diane L. Kennedy; Steven M. Weingarten; Christina Shaw; Albert John
Manildi; Lisa Ponzio; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO John H. Jackson; Keith B.
and/or Kimberly A. Brown; Chris Keehn; Lucretia Butler; Delwyn G. and/or Sherri L.
Smith; Vicki Burns
15.
CFI Loan # 5474
Property Address: 441 Colton St. (and 935 Doud Ave.), Monterey, CA 93940
Record Date of Assignment: 5/9/08
Recorded Document No. 2008029886
Assignees: 	Lisa Ponzio
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 16 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	17
16.
CFI Loan # 5474
Property Address: 441 Colton St. (and 935 Doud Ave.), Monterey, CA 93940
Record Date of Assignment: 4/22/08
Recorded Document No. 2008025262
Assignees: 	Michael J. Kennedy; Steven M. Weingarten; Edward E. Tolleson; Albert John Manildi
Trust; Lisa Ponzio; Pensco Trust Co., Custodian, FBO John H. Jackson; Scott Parker;
Delwyn G. Smith
17.
CFI Loan # 5485
Property Address: 441 Colton St. (and 935 Doud Ave.), Monterey, CA 93940
Record Date of Assignment: 5/8/08
Recorded Document No. 2008029408
Assignees: 	Mahin Salehinia; Catherine C. Lau; Donna Shaver; Antonio & Debora Flores, Trustees,
Flores Family Trust dated December 22, 1995; Wayne Ross; Alma E. Ruiz; Ben and/or
Deboroah Compagno; Nathan Michael Fort; Berj D. Amir; Alexander Castillo; Edward
Ronald Whitehead; Selene Olms
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 17 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	18
Adv. P. 09-5120
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SERVICE LIST
Cecily A. Dumas
FRIEDMAN DUMAS & SPRINGWATER LLP
150 Spear Street, Suite 1600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Larry J. Lichtenegger, Esq.
Vincent C. Catania, Esq.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
3850 Rio Road, #58
Carmel, CA 93923
Wesley J. Hammond
WILD , CARTER & TIPTON , PC
246 West Shaw Avenue
Fresno, CA 93755-6339
Aron M. Oliner
DUANE M ORRIS LLP
One Market Plaza
Spear Street Tower, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94105
Nancy Blaisdell
24501 Via Mar Monte #71
Carmel, CA 93923
Vicki Burns
6 Amanda Lane
Lafayette, CA 94549-4265
Sean Cardoza
823 Fountain Avenue
Monterey, CA 93940
Ann Cathey
63 Desmond Road
Salinas, CA 93907
The Marcia Ann Clanton Living Trust dated
06/18/2006
P.O. Box 1401
Capitola, CA 95010
Community Church of Monterey
P.O. Box 222811
Carmel, CA 93922
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 18 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	19
Maria R. Connolly
105 Circulo De Casitas
Monterey, CA 94940
William E and Laurie Crogan
614 Paradise Park
Santa Cruz, CA 95060-7007
Jenny D. D' Angelo
2620 Fresno Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Ray P. and Joyce Denne
823 Pine Street
Monterey, CA 93940
Linda Elliott
310 Bird Rock Rd.
Pebble Beach, CA 93953
Pamela Flagg
19020 Vierra Canyon Rd.
Prunedale, CA 93907
Nathan Michael Fort
813 Union Rd.
Hollister, CA 95023
Loraine Franz
2673 E. Darlington Ct.
Fresno, CA 93720-5305
Aaron N. Gallegos
87698 Mar Azul Terrace
Florence, OR 97439
Raymond R. Feay
87698 MAr Azul Terrace
Florence, OR 97439
Lloyd and Jeanne Gurley
11201 Scarlet Oak Dr.
Oakdale, CA 95361
Curtis and Terry Hilliard
68 Echo Valley Road
Salinas, CA 93907
IRA Services, Custodian FBO Judith EIleen
Foon
5470 Golf Drive
Soquel, CA 95073
Gerd Jensen
3061 Seminole Drive
Redding, CA 96001
Dan L. and Cynthia Kafer
P.O. Box 366
Douglas City, CA 96024
Chris Keehn
8225 El Camino Estrada
Carmel, CA 93923
Lucretia Butler
8225 El Camino Estrada
Carmel, CA 93923
Lawrence and Sharon Kelley
371 E. Alvin Dr.
Salinas, CA 93906
Roger King
P.O. Box 1076
Angels Camp, CA 95222
Christine W. Kolisch
80 Laurel Drive
Carmel Valley, CA 93924
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 19 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	20
Allyson Kumataka
5312 Tortilla Flats Lana
Marana, AZ 85653
Judith Leber
2712 E. Hoover
Orange, CA 92867
Cyd Love FBO Nicholas Tucker
1121 Hellam St.
Monterey, CA 93940
Walter and Mary Marshall
375 Lucinda Street
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Salvatore Masiorana
P.O. Box 3263
Monterey, CA 93942
Lawrence and Sharon Kelley
371 E. Alvin Drive
Salinas, CA 93906
Jodi McLean
P.O. Box 921
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Jeanie Mcknight Clausen
7019 Valley Greens Circle
Carmel, CA 93923
Harry and Kristen McMurray
1245 Aguajito Road
Monterey, CA 93940
Betty McVay
17667 Pond Derosa Lane
Salinas, CA 93907
Dean R. Morford
22644 Oak Canyon RD.
Salinas, CA 93908
Anthony Palma
69 Alta Mesa
Monterey, CA 93940
Pensco trust Co., Custodian FBO Lloyd
Gurley
P.O. Box 26903
San Francisco, CA 94126
Pensco trust Co., Custodian FBO Joseph
Lupino
P.O. Box 26903
San Francisco, CA 94126
Pensco trust Co., Custodian FBO Silvia T.
Marwick
P.O. Box 26903
San Francisco, CA 94126
Gilda Ann Peterson
P.O. Box 1455
Carmel Valley, CA 93924
George and Juliet Piercy
50-090 Palencia Ct.
La Quinta, CA 92253
Mark and Gail Penniman
5455 Entrance Drive
Soquel, CA 95073
Wayne Ross
P.O. Box 222
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
William Roth
17230 Tamara Lane
Royal Oaks, CA 95076
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 20 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	21
Alma E. Ruiz
1120 Loyola Dr.
Salinas, CA 93901
Donald and Evelyn Shaver
20250 Palou Dr.
Salinas, CA 93908
Donna Shaver
25140 Pine Hills Dr.
Carmel, CA 93923
Christina Shaw
45 Arabian Way
Scotts Valley, CA 95066
Victor and Jane Shaw
1077 Indian Village
Pebble Beach, CA 93953
John and Fleana Snapp
24558 Portola Road
Carmel, CA 93923
Gary and Barbara Sobak
1626 Atherton Way
Salinas, CA 93906
Elizabeth Spence
1119 N. 59th Street
Nampa, ID 83687
Johnn and Joyce Steers
1635 Josselyn Canyon Rd.
Monterey, CA 93940
Alberta Stokes
106 Third Street
Pacific Grove, CA 93950
Floyd and Danette Swenson
1323-A San Miguel Cyn. RD.
Royal Oaks, CA 95076
Tetratech Retirement Plan
P.O. Box 609
Aromas, CA 95004
Shirlee J. Thorne
3400 Paul Sweet RD Apt. B-306
Santa Cruz, CA 95065
Debra A. Thorngate Davis
14289 S Via Del Farolito
Sahuarita, AZ 85629
Edward E. Tolleson
P.O. Box 729
Marina, CA 93933
Daniel and Jeanne Turner
1490 Via Isola
Monterey, CA 93940
Pierre Vercammen
608 Lopez Avenue
Seaside, CA 93955
Daniel and Sherri Villarreal
8001 San Miguel Canyon Rd.
Prunedale, CA 93907
Jaime Villarreal
436 Park Street
Salinas, CA 93901
Mark P. Warren
3404 Mayfair Drive
Sacramento, CA 95864-3806
Darien Weiner
7240 Lotus Way
Aptos, CA 95003
Edward Ronald Whitehead
17551 Vierra Cyn Rd
Salinas, CA 93907
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 21 of
22

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 	22
George and Joanna Williams
1824 Redondo Way
Salinas, CA 93906
X-Files limited Partnership, Ludmilla
Axionnoff
2422 Judith Ct
Madera, CA 93637
Cheryl B. Bilgin
977 Portola
Del Rey Oaks, CA 93940
Case: 09-05120 Doc# 67 Filed: 04/05/10 Entered: 04/06/10 08:39:41 Page 22 of
22