Sinclair et al v. Fox Hollow, et al

Filing 1238

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/31/2017. (Kusamura, W)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7
8

FOX HOLLOW OF TURLOCK
OWNER’S ASSOCIATION, a California
Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation, et
al.,

11
12
13
14
15

FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs

9
10

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5439 AWI SAB

v.
MAUCTRST, LLC, et al.,
Defendants
I. Procedural History
1. The plaintiffs in this case are Fox Hollow of Turlock Owners’ Association (“Fox Hollow
HOA”) and California Equity Management Group, Inc. (“CEMG”).

16

2. The defendants in this case are Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair, Lairtrust, LLC

17

(“Lairtrust”), Capstone, LLC (“Capstone”), Mauctrst, LLC (“Mauctrst”), Gregory

18

Mauchley and Stanley M. Flake (both personally and as trustee of the Julie Insurance

19

Trust, the F. Hanse Trust, and the Capstone Trust, collectively “Flake Defendants”).

20

3. This case is related to a state court case filed on April 24, 2003 in Stanislaus County

21

Superior Court, Case No. 332233 (“State Court Action”). Parts of the present case were

22

stayed pending final resolution of the State Court Action. The parties filed a notice of

23

settlement on July 16, 2007. Doc. 303. However, in the State Court Action, it was

24

determined that the settlement was unenforceable. The case was resolved in a bench trial.

25

The ruling by the Superior Court was affirmed by the Fifth District Court of Appeal and

26

the petition for review was denied by the California Supreme Court in 2013.

27
28

4. The operative complaint in this case is the Consolidated Amended and Supplemental
Complaint (“CAC”), Doc. 410.

1

5. Defendants Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair, Mauchley, Mauctrst, Capstone, and

2

Lairtrust also filed counterclaims against Plaintiffs. Docs. 80, 425, and 471. These

3

counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice Doc. 1014.

4
5
6

6. The Flake Defendants reached a settlement with Plaintiffs. Doc. 1179. The claims against
them were dismissed. Doc. 1187.
7. Defendants Mauchley and Mauctrst also reached a settlement with Plaintiffs. Doc. 1009.

7

The claims against Defendant Mauchley were dismissed. Doc. 1195. By stipulation of the

8

relevant parties, Mauctrst’s answer was stricken and default was entered against Mauctrst

9

with the damages to be determined as part of the prove up hearing. Doc. 1017.

10

8. Defendants have failed to obey a variety of court orders in this case. They have been

11

sanctioned multiple times. See Docs. 613, 891, and 1014. Additionally, they have been

12

warned about their noncompliance without sanctions being imposed. See Docs. 727 and

13

860. In the end, Defendants Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair, Lairtrust, and Capstone

14

were specifically warned that the court would enter default against them if they did not

15

comply with court order. Doc. 1014, 19:27-20:3. On September 26, 2014, as a sanction for

16

repeated violations, their answers were stricken and default was entered. Doc. 1070.

17

9. The defendants in this case who had default entered against them are Richard Sinclair,

18
19

Brandon Sinclair, Lairtrust, Capstone, and Mauctrst (collectively “Defaulted Defendants”).
10. Defendants Richard Sinclair and Brandon Sinclair appealed the order. Docs. 1072 and

20

1073. Their appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the entry of default was not

21

an appealable order. Doc. 1080.

22

11. On November 28, 2014, Defendant Richard Sinclair filed for bankruptcy. Doc. 1078. All

23

proceedings against Defendant Richard Sinclair were stayed. Doc. 1079. The bankruptcy

24

court modified the automatic stay to permit Plaintiffs to proceed in their case against

25

Richard Sinclair. On May 11, 2015, the stay in this case was lifted. Doc. 1092.

26
27
28

12. Meanwhile, Defendant Richard Sinclair made a motion for a new trial. Doc. 1083. The
motion was treated as a request for reconsideration and denied. Doc 1184.
13. On October 16, 2015, the court ordered the parties to confer regarding a status conference
2

1

hearing date at which time the prospect of a prove up hearing could be discussed. Doc.

2

1189.

3
4
5
6

14. Defendant Richard Sinclair asked that the hearing be set after December 31, 2015 due to
medical issues. Doc. 1190.
15. The status conference was set for January 11, 2016 and Defendants Richard Sinclair and
Brandon Sinclair were ordered to personally appear. Doc. 1194.

7

16. The bankruptcy court held a hearing on December 17, 2015 regarding Defendant Richard

8

Sinclair’s legal competency. Judge Ronald Sargis concluded that Defendant Richard

9

Sinclair was legally competent to proceed as a party in his bankruptcy case. Doc. 1196-1.

10

17. On January 11, 2016, Defendants Richard Sinclair and Brandon Sinclair failed to appear at

11

the hearing. The court set a briefing schedule for default judgment and set the prove up

12

hearing for May 10, 2016. Doc. 1199.

13

18. Plaintiffs made a formal motion for default judgment. Doc. 1203. On April 14, 2016,

14

Defendant Richard Sinclair filed a timely opposition and declaration. Doc. 1208.

15

Defendant Richard Sinclair also submitted 108 exhibits in support of his opposition on

16

May 3, 2016, well after the opposition deadline.

17

19. On May 5, 2016, Defendant Richard Sinclair filed an ex parte motion to continue the prove

18

up hearing; he asserted that due to his medical issues, he was not allowed to drive until the

19

end of May. Doc. 1217. The request was denied and the court directed Defendant Richard

20

Sinclair to find alternate means of transportation to make it to the hearing. Doc. 1219.

21

20. The default judgment prove up hearing was held pursuant to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 55(b)(2)

22
23

on May 10, 2016.
21. None of the Defaulted Defendants took part in the hearing. The morning of the hearing,

24

Defendant Richard Sinclair asked to appear telephonically but his request was denied. Doc.

25

1237, Transcript, 1:13-25.

26

22. At the hearing, Defendant Richard Sinclair’s declaration and exhibits were stricken as a

27

sanction for his failure to appear and failure to comply with court orders requiring his

28

appearance at hearings. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 10:6-14.
3

1

23. Andrew Katakis, Sherri Lucy, and Casey Johnson testified. All of Plaintiffs’ proffered

2

exhibits, 1 through 50, were admitted. At the conclusion of the prove up hearing, the court

3

invited Plaintiffs to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (“proposed

4

FOFCOL”).

5
6
7
8

24. Plaintiffs filed proposed FOFCOL and a supplemental brief. Docs. 1226 and 1227.
Defendant Richard Sinclair filed an opposition. Doc. 1228.
25. Defendant Richard Sinclair also filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s decision
to strike his exhibits from the record. Doc. 1222.

9
10

II. Facts As Alleged in the Consolidated Amended and Supplemental Complaint (“CAC”),

11

Doc. 410

12

Nature Of The Action

13

26. This action arises out of the defendants’ fraudulent real estate scheme of creating the false

14

appearance of a homeowners association and individually saleable lots at a thirty-five (35)

15

unit town home complex located in Turlock, California, and known as Fox Hollow of

16

Turlock (“Fox Hollow”), in order to obtain loans secured by portions of Fox Hollow and to

17

enrich themselves at the expense of the lenders, the successors to the lenders and the

18

homeowners association by skimming off loan proceeds, dues collected in the name of the

19

homeowners association, and rental income and tenant deposits, all while concealing their

20

scheme and attempting to shield themselves from individual liability by creating shell

21

companies and churning record title to the property (the “Fox Hollow Scheme”).

22

27. Among other things, various defendants as more specifically alleged below: (1)

23

represented to the City of Turlock in 1994 that Fox Hollow had a homeowners association

24

with funds for common area lighting when no homeowners association existed; (2)

25

conveyed title to individual lots at Fox Hollow between themselves in 1997 without either

26

forming a homeowners association or conveying title to the common area at Fox Hollow to

27

the homeowners association as they were required to do by the City of Turlock as a

28

condition to the subdivision that had created such lots; (3) falsely represented to a lender in
4

1

1997 as part of obtaining five (5) loans totaling almost $1.5 million secured by lots at Fox

2

Hollow that Fox Hollow had a homeowners association even though no homeowners

3

association existed; (4) obtained a further subdivision of Fox Hollow in 1998 without

4

either forming a homeowners association or conveying title to the common area at Fox

5

Hollow to the homeowners association, and without performing work required to make the

6

lots individually saleable such as constructing firewalls between lots and relocating

7

underground utilities to individual lots, all as they were required to do by the City of

8

Turlock as a condition to the subdivision that created such lots; (5) falsely represented to

9

several lenders in 1998 as part of obtaining fifteen (15) loans totaling more than $1.8

10

million secured by lots at Fox Hollow that Fox Hollow had a homeowners association even

11

though no homeowners association existed, and fraudulently concealed from those lenders

12

that the lots were not individually saleable and that appraisals upon which the loans were

13

based were subject to the completion of work such as firewalls and utility relocations that

14

defendants had not done; (6) fraudulently concealed from the lenders in 1997 and in 1998

15

that the collateral for some of the loans did not include the one car garages that

16

corresponded to the units included as collateral; (7) created a shell company called

17

Mauctrst LLC and transferred record title to the lots at Fox Hollow to that shell company

18

only seven (7) days after the fifteen (15) loans in 1998 closed, and then less than one (1)

19

year later and after defaulting on all those loans, put the shell company in bankruptcy to

20

delay the foreclosures; (8) created documents and instruments purporting to give Capstone

21

Trust secured rights to Fox Hollow as a front for defendants to skim further money off Fox

22

Hollow; (9) exploited the fact defendants had not performed the work to make the lots

23

individually saleable to try to force the lenders to sell the loans to defendants at a

24

substantial discount off the amount due, after Fox Hollow was abandoned by the

25

bankruptcy trustee as severely over encumbered; (10) concealed from the lenders that the

26

collateral for some of the loans did not include the one car garages corresponding to the

27

units securing the loans and then exploited the error to prevent the units from being

28

separately saleable; (11) manufactured homeowners association records and purported to
5

1

act during the second one-half of 2000 on behalf of the homeowners association (even

2

though they had not formed the homeowners association nor conveyed the common area to

3

the homeowners association); (12) demanded in the name of the homeowners association

4

that the lenders who were completing the foreclosures on their loans pay homeowners

5

association assessments of $300 per month per lot or face delinquency notices, liens and

6

foreclosures; (13) formed Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA, on December 6, 2000, and thereby

7

imposed upon it the unfunded obligations, liabilities and expenses to complete the

8

requirements of the City of Turlock and to repair and maintain the common area and

9

buildings on the property that defendants had neglected; (14) initiated at least six (6)

10

lawsuits in state court to further delay the remaining foreclosures, all of which they lost;

11

(15) initiated a seventh (7th) lawsuit in state court to further delay the foreclosures on four

12

(4) of the other lots, and then settled that suit by using a fraudulent double escrow to

13

purchase two (2) of the lots from the lender in the first escrow while skimming off loan

14

proceeds in the second escrow on each lot; (16) rented units at Fox Hollow and collected

15

deposits and rents on those units even though they did not own the units; (17) refused to

16

turn over first month’s rent and tenant deposits upon demand; and (18) throughout the

17

entire time, neither assessed to themselves nor otherwise paid for the costs and expenses of

18

keeping up, repairing and maintaining Fox Hollow.

19

28. As a result of the fraudulent scheme, among other things, the lenders lost millions of

20

dollars including on claims assigned to Plaintiff CEMG, and Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA as

21

the homeowners association by virtue of its obligations under the CC&Rs for the property,

22

and Plaintiff CEMG as the successor to the lenders, were required to and did spend more

23

than $1.3 million to perform the work required by the City of Turlock to make the lots

24

individually saleable and to otherwise remedy the waste and neglect of Fox Hollow

25

committed by defendants.

26

Parties

27

29. Plaintiff Fox Hollow of Turlock Owners’ Association (“Fox Hollow HOA”) is, and at all

28

times herein mentioned since on or about December 6, 2000 was, a non-profit mutual
6

1

benefit corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, with

2

its principal office located in Stanislaus County, California.

3

30. Plaintiff California Equity Management Group, Inc. (“CEMG”) is, and at all times herein

4

mentioned was, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of

5

California, with its principal office located in Stanislaus County, California.

6

31. Defendant Mauctrst, LLC (“Mauctrst”) is and at all times mentioned herein since on or

7

about April 28, 1998, was a limited liability company, conducting business in Stanislaus

8

County, California, and owned and controlled by Defendants Mauchley and Richard

9

Sinclair.

10
11
12

32. Defendant Gregory Mauchley (“Mauchley”) is an individual who, at all times in this action
was commenced resided in Stanislaus County, California.
33. Defendant Richard C. Sinclair (“Richard Sinclair”) is an individual who, at all times

13

mentioned herein, resided in Stanislaus County, California. Defendant Richard Sinclair and

14

his spouse, Deborah A. Sinclair, will be referred to from time-to-time herein as the

15

“Sinclairs.”

16

34. Defendant Stanley M. Flake (“Flake”), at all times alleged herein, resided in Tuolumne

17

County, California, and was trustee of the Julie Insurance Trust, trustee of the F. Hanse

18

Trust, and trustee of the Capstone Trust.

19
20
21

35. Defendant Brandon Sinclair is an individual who, at all times mentioned herein, resided in
Stanislaus County, California.
36. Defendant Lairtrust, LLC (“Lairtrust”) is and at all times mentioned herein since on or

22

about May 26, 2000, was a limited liability company, conducting business in Stanislaus

23

County, California, and owned and controlled by the Sinclairs.

24

37. Defendant Capstone, LLC (“Capstone, LLC”) is and at all times mentioned herein since on

25

or about December 3, 2001, was a limited liability company, conducting business in

26

Stanislaus County, California, and owned and controlled by Defendants Richard Sinclair

27

and Brandon Sinclair.

28

38. Defendant Mauctrst is, and at all times mentioned herein was, the alter ego of Defendants
7

1

Mauchley and Richard Sinclair, in that there exists, and at all times herein mentioned, has

2

existed, a unity of interest and ownership between such Defendants such that any

3

separateness has ceased to exist, in that among other things Defendants Mauchley and

4

Richard Sinclair used assets of Defendant Mauctrst for their personal uses, caused assets of

5

Defendant Mauctrst to be transferred to both or one of them without adequate

6

consideration, treated assets of Mauctrst as owned by them individually, withdrew funds

7

from Defendant Mauctrst’s bank accounts for their personal use, and inadequately

8

capitalized Mauctrst for the activities it conducted. Adherence to the fiction of separate

9

existence of Mauctrst as an entity distinct from Defendants Richard Sinclair and Mauchley

10

would permit an abuse of the limited liability privilege and would sanction a fraud and

11

promote injustice in that among other things Defendants Mauchley and Richard Sinclair,

12

and each of them, carried on their investment and real estate business in the limited

13

liability company’s name exactly as they had conducted it previous to formation,

14

exercising complete control and dominance of such business to such an extent that any

15

individuality or separateness of Defendant Mauctrst and Defendants Mauchley and Richard

16

Sinclair does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist.

17

39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times mentioned

18

herein, each and every Defendant was the agent and employee of each and every other

19

Defendant and, in doing the acts herein alleged, was acting within the actual and apparent

20

course and scope of such agency and employment and with the permission and consent of

21

each other Defendant, and each Defendant ratified the conduct of each other Defendant and

22

is estopped by reason of his, her and its conduct and statements from denying such agency

23

and employment and that he, she or it acted within such course and scope of agency and

24

employment.

25
26
27
28

Jurisdiction and Venue
40. This court’s jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 15 U.S.C. § 1964(a); and applicable
principles of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
41. Venue is proper in this judicial district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b); 18
8

1

U.S.C. § 1965; and Local Rule 3-120(d).

2

Background Facts For Claims

3

The Fox Hollow Property

4

42. The real property about which the present action relates (the “Fox Hollow Property”) is:

5

commonly known as 152 20th Century Boulevard, Turlock, California; located in the City

6

of Turlock, County of Stanislaus, State of California; and more particularly described as:

7

The East Half Of That Portion Of Land As Follows:

8

Beginning At The Northeast Corner Of Section 15, Township 5 South, Range 10
East, Mount Diablo Base And Meridian, According To United States Government
Township Plats Running Thence West On The Section Line Between Section 10
And 15, 1,059.3 Feet; Thence South 0 Degrees 45 Minutes East 472.5 Feet As
Place Of Beginning; Thence Same Course 472.5 Feet; Thence South 89 Degrees 30
Minutes East 368.76 Feet; Thence North 0 Degrees 45 Minutes West 472.5 Feet;
Thence North 89 Degrees 30 Minutes West 368.76 Feet To Place Of Beginning.
Excepting Therefrom The West 15 Feet.

9
10
11
12

43. The Fox Hollow Property consists of approximately 1.76 acres, and is rectangular in shape,
13
with approximately 170 feet fronting on 20th Century Boulevard, and a depth of
14
approximately 442 feet.
15
44. On or about March 6, 1996, Defendant Flake as executive trustee of the Julie Insurance
16
Trust, filed in Book 37 of Maps, Page 38, Stanislaus County Records, a final subdivision
17
map for the Fox Hollow Property, and thereby subdivided the Fox Hollow Property into
18

Lots 1, 11, 18 and 19, and a designated remainder (“Fox Hollow Subdivision Map # 1”).

19
Such lots as created by the filing of the Fox Hollow Subdivision Map #1 shall be referred
20

to herein by their lot number (e.g., “Lot 1”).

21
45. Fox Hollow Subdivision Map # 1 as filed in the Official Records of Stanislaus County,
22
California on March 6, 1996, depicted Lot 18A contiguous to Lot 19 and adjacent to Lot
23
18.
24
46. On or about July 21, 1998, Defendant Mauchley filed in Book 38 of Maps, Page 19,
25
Stanislaus County Records, a final subdivision map for the Fox Hollow Property, and
26
thereby further subdivided the designated remainder of the Fox Hollow Property into Lots
27

2 through 10, Lots 12 through 17, and a common area (“Fox Hollow Subdivision Map #

28
9

1

2”). Such lots as created by the filing of the Fox Hollow Subdivision Map #2 shall be

2

referred to herein by their lot number (e.g., “Lot 2”).

3

47. Fox Hollow Subdivision Map # 2 as filed in the Official Records of Stanislaus County,

4

California on July 21, 1998, depicted Lot 2A as contiguous to Lot 12 and across the

5

common area from Lot 2, depicted Lot 6A as contiguous to Lot 15 and across the common

6

area from Lot 6, depicted Lot 7A as contiguous to Lot 16 and across the common area

7

from Lot 7, depicted Lot 8A as contiguous to Lots 16 and 7A and across the common area

8

from Lot 8, depicted Lot 9A as contiguous to Lot 18 and across the common area from Lot

9

9, and depicted Lot 10A as contiguous to Lot 17 and across the common area from Lot 10.

10

Initial Purchase, Encumbrance, And Development Of Fox Hollow Property As An

11

Apartment Complex

12

48. The Sinclairs purchased the Fox Hollow Property in November 1988 after obtaining

13

approval from the City of Turlock to construct a 35-unit townhouse apartment complex,

14

and obtained a construction loan in the face amount of $1,492,500 from Stockton Savings

15

& Loan Association (“Stockton S&L”), secured by a first deed of trust against the Fox

16

Hollow Property, that was recorded on November 7, 1988 (the “Stockton Construction

17

Loan”).

18

49. Construction of the apartment complex on the Fox Hollow Property started in 1989 and

19

was completed in late 1990 or early 1991. The apartment complex consisted of two rows

20

of buildings along the east and west sides of the property facing each other, with a

21

swimming pool at the south end, and access to 20th Century Boulevard at the northern

22

boundary.

23

50. The buildings included three (3) detached single-family dwellings with one-car garage,

24

nine (9) duplexes with attached one-car garages, and seven (7) duplexes with detached

25

one-car garages.

26

51. The Sinclairs stopped making payments on the Stockton Construction Loan in July 1992,

27

and Stockton S&L recorded a Notice of Default on August 11, 1993, asserting a default in

28

the amount of $172,525.92.
10

1

Entitlements Obtained From The City Of Turlock To Subdivide And Convert The Fox

2

Hollow Property Into A Twenty (20) Lot Planned Unit Development With Homeowner’s

3

Association

4

52. On or about the summer of 1992, Defendant Richard Sinclair made a preliminary proposal

5

to the Community Development Department of the City of Turlock (the “Turlock

6

Development Department”) to subdivide the Fox Hollow Property and convert the property

7

to a planned unit development.

8
9

53. On or about August 10, 2002, the Turlock Building Department responded to the
preliminary proposal in writing, by letter sent to Richard Sinclair, in which the Turlock

10

Building Department advised Defendant Sinclair that: The creation of a multi-lot

11

subdivision from the existing apartment complex would require a formal submittal of

12

applications for rezone, a planned development permit, a tentative subdivision map, and a

13

conditional use permit; Mr. Sinclair’s proposal to promote ownership of individual lots

14

with multi-unit structures tended to promote a pattern of absentee owners sharing little

15

beyond their investment; the City would require a complete building code analysis report

16

of existing building construction and proposed property lines and would require

17

construction modifications so that units were structurally and architecturally independent

18

of each other prior to the recording of a final subdivision map; and under the

19

circumstances, staff did not support the proposal as presented because of concerns about

20

the proposal creating major challenges for a successful residential development.

21

54. On or about September 17, 1992, Defendant Richard Sinclair confirmed in writing in a

22

letter sent to the Director of the Turlock Development Department that he agreed to

23

implement the conditions for approval of the project into CC&Rs for the property “to

24

protect the general public’s welfare and safety in perpetuity,” and that he had proceeded to

25

have the CC&Rs and homeowners documents redrafted accordingly.

26

55. On or about February 2, 1993, Defendant Richard Sinclair as “Applicant” and “Owner”

27

applied to the City of Turlock for a conditional use permit, planned unit development,

28

rezoning and vesting tentative map, to subdivide the Fox Hollow Property into nineteen
11

1

(19) lots, and a common area, and to convert the apartment complex to a planned unit

2

development with a homeowners association owning and being responsible for the

3

maintenance of the common area and certain aspects of the individual lots (the “Project”).

4

56. As part of the application for approval of the Project, Defendant Richard Sinclair

5

represented through his engineer on the Vesting Tentative Map of Fox Hollow submitted

6

to the City of Turlock on or about February 5, 1993, that the garages that were detached

7

from the dwelling units are denoted as Lots with a number followed with the capital letter

8

“A” and that the relationship between those “A” lots and the dwelling units was that a

9

garage lot corresponded to the dwelling unit with the same numeric lot number, as for

10

example as stated on the Vesting Tentative Map “GARAGE LOT 6A CORRESPONDS

11

TO DWELLING UNIT LOT 6.”

12

57. On or about March 4, [1993], the Turlock Community Development Department issued a

13

letter to Defendant Richard Sinclair confirming that a complete building code analysis of

14

the existing building construction would be required, that any modifications to the existing

15

structures that were required to meet current standards for subdivided lots would need to

16

be accomplished prior to recording the final subdivision map, that the existing landscaping

17

must be repaired prior to recording of a final map, and that appropriate CC&Rs needed to

18

be recorded to ensure the continued maintenance of the development.

19

58. The Project was approved by the Turlock City Planning Commission on or about April 1,

20

1993, and by the Turlock City Council on or about May 25, 1993, subject to various

21

conditions, including among others:

22

***
4. Prior to recordation of a final map(s) the applicant shall:

23
24
25
26
27
28

a) Provide the City of Turlock a complete building codes analysis of the existing
buildings and facilities; and
b) All modifications necessary to insure compliance with the Turlock Municipal
Code and the Uniform Building Code shall be completed. [Building Department]
***
11. Upon any subdivision of the site, a homeowners association shall be formed
and responsible for the maintenance of all common areas, roadway, parking,
12

1

fencing and landscaping in accordance with Exhibit C. [Planning Department]
59. Defendant Richard Sinclair applied to and obtained approval of the Project from the City

2
of Turlock on the basis that the Project involved thirty-five (35) town homes with one car
3

garages on 1.76 acres and was “creating [a] 20 lot subdivision consisting of 3 detached

4
single family dwellings, 7 detached duplexes, 9 duplexes attached by garages, and 1 lot for
5

common area, pool, driveways, [and] parking.”

6
60. A structural building code compliance analysis for the Fox Hollow Property as required
7
under Condition 4 a) was performed by an architect retained by Defendant Richard Sinclair
8
and submitted to and approved by the City of Turlock in or about December 1993. The
9
structural work specified in the analysis to meet current standards for individually owned
10
lots included installing twenty-seven (27) firewalls for the garages, three (3) fire walls in
11
the units, eliminating six (6) roof overhangs, removing seven (7) windows, and adding two
12
(2) roof vents.
13
61. In January 1994, Defendant Richard Sinclair submitted an application to the Turlock
14
Community Development Department, for a modification to Condition 4 b) to the
15
conditions of approval for the Project so that the work required to bring the existing
16
buildings into compliance with current standards be deferred until sometime after the
17

recording of a final map for the Project (the “Modification Application”).

18
62. Defendant Richard Sinclair was advised in a letter sent on or about February 7, 1994, from
19
the Turlock Community Development Department, that after further discussion involving
20

the City Engineer, City Attorney’s Office, and the building official and the senior planner

21
of the Community Development Services, they were unable to develop an option that
22
would ensure no City involvement in completion of the project in the event the property
23
owners failed to fulfill their obligations in the matter after recording the final map, and
24
accordingly, the options available were to: Complete the original conditions of the vesting
25
map, file multiple final maps and completing the conditions covering the portion of the
26
property subject to each final map, or re-subdividing the property as a condominium
27
project.
28
13

1

63. On or about February 17, 1994, the Turlock Planning Commission denied the Modification

2

Application and thereby continued to require that all modifications to meet current

3

standards for individually owned lots be completed prior to recording the final map.

4

64. Thereafter, on or about April 29, 1994, Defendant Richard Sinclair notified the Planning

5

Department of the City of Turlock in writing that he would be completing multiple maps

6

for the subdivision and that: “There are sufficient funds within the Homeowner’s

7

Association to replace and maintain said [common area] lighting.” Said statement was

8

false when made in that no homeowners association had been created nor were there funds

9

within a homeowner association to replace and maintain lighting or otherwise maintain the

10
11

common area.
65. On or about June 8, 1994, Defendant Richard Sinclair filed a Voluntary Petition under

12

Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on behalf of himself and his spouse, with the United

13

States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 94-92271-A-11 (the

14

“Sinclair Bankruptcy Case”).

15

Defendants Lose Fox Hollow Property In Late 1994 Through Foreclosure And Then

16

Reacquire Fox Hollow Property In October 1995

17

66. The Sinclairs lost the Fox Hollow Property to Stockton S&L through a non- judicial

18

foreclosure on the Stockton Construction Loan on or about December 13, 1994.

19

67. On or about the summer of 1995, Defendant Richard Sinclair contacted Defendant Flake

20

and Defendant Mauchley; and discussed with each of them reacquiring the Fox Hollow

21

Property from the lender, and continuing to pursue the Project.

22

68. Pursuant to such discussions, Defendant Richard Sinclair formed a trust for Defendant

23

Mauchley in August 1995 called “Mauctrst”, and Defendant Stanley Flake, as Trustee of

24

The Julie Insurance Trust, purchased the Fox Hollow Property from the lender (which had

25

been renamed Stockton Federal Bank) on or about October 31, 1995, for approximately

26

$1.27 million that Defendant Flake, as trustee of the F. Hanse Trust, had advanced for the

27

purchase.

28

Fox Hollow CC&Rs Recorded In September 1996
14

1

69. On or about September 16, 1996, Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Julie Insurance Trust,

2

executed as the declarant, and Defendant Sinclair caused to be recorded as Document No.

3

96-0078121-00 in the Official Records of Stanislaus County, California, a Declaration of

4

Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for the Fox Hollow Property (the “Fox Hollow

5

CC&Rs”).

6

70. Article I, Section 16 of the Fox Hollow CC&Rs, defines “Association” as the “Fox Hollow

7

of Turlock Owners’ Association, a non-profit mutual benefit corporation, membership in

8

which shall be limited to owners (as hereinafter defined) and in which all owners have a

9

membership interest.”

10

71. Article I, Section 11 of the Fox Hollow CC&Rs, defines “Owner” and “Owners” as “the

11

record owner or owners, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to a

12

lot. . . .”

13

72. Article I, Section 11, defines “Lots” as “Those certain parcels of land, together with the

14

single family residential improvements attached thereto, described on the map of Fox

15

Hollow subdivision, as Lots 1-19, County of Stanislaus, State of California.”

16
17
18

73. Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Julie Insurance Trust, declared in Article II, Section 1,
that the Fox Hollow Property was subject to the Fox Hollow CC&Rs.
74. Pursuant to the Fox Hollow CC&Rs: Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Julie Insurance

19

Trust, was required to convey to the Association fee title to the common area for the Fox

20

Hollow Property free and clear of all liens and encumbrances “prior to the conveyance of

21

title to the first lot” and to appoint the initial Board of the Association consisting of three

22

(3) Directors (Art.III, §§ 3 & 6); the Association was charged with the duty to repair and

23

maintain the common area and certain aspects of the Lots (Art. IV § 1); and the Board of

24

the Association was mandated to “establish regular monthly assessments for operations

25

and maintenance of the Project . . . payable in monthly installments on the first day of each

26

month commencing on the first day of the first month following conveyance of the first

27

Lot.” (Art. V, § 2).

28

75. Article V, Section 1 of the Fox Hollow CC&Rs provides in part that: “Declarant hereby
15

1

covenants and agrees for each Lot owned by it within the Project, and each Owner of any

2

Lot by acceptance of a deed is deemed to covenant and agree, to pay to the Association the

3

dues levied pursuant to this Article.”

4

76. Defendants reaffirmed in the Fox Hollow CC&Rs that the “A” lots were not separate from

5

their corresponding dwelling units in that among other things: (a) Article V provides that

6

the monthly assessments for operations and reserves shall be charged to the residential

7

units on the Lots; and (b) the easements for ingress and egress over the common area under

8

Article VI are “for the benefit of the Lots and Lot Owners.”

9
10

Defendants’ Five (5) Loan Fraudulent Financing Scheme In February 1997
77. On or about early 1997, Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake carried out

11

fraudulent record title churning and financing transactions involving Fox Hollow, by

12

creating the false appearance of a planned unit development with a homeowners

13

association and the false appearance of an arms length transaction between Defendants

14

Flake and Mauchley in order to borrow more than $1.4 million against the Fox Hollow

15

Property.

16

78. Defendant Richard Sinclair established the price for the conveyance of Lots 1, 11, 18 and

17

19, and the remainder of the Fox Hollow Property, from Defendant Flake, as trustee of the

18

Julie Insurance Trust, to Defendant Mauchley at $1.9 million.

19

79. As part of the scheme, Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Julie Insurance Trust, conveyed

20

record title to Lots 1, 11, 18, 19, and the balance of the Fox Hollow Property, to Defendant

21

Mauchley, by five separate deeds accepted by Defendant Mauchley, and recorded in the

22

Official Records of Stanislaus County, California on February 26, 1997.

23

80. Also, as part of the scheme, Defendant Richard Sinclair assisted Defendant Mauchley in

24

obtaining loans on Lots 1, 11, 18 and 19, each in the amount of $119,000, and an

25

additional loan in the amount of $1 million against the balance of the Fox Hollow

26

Property, from GMAC Mortgage Corporation (“GMAC”), secured by first deeds of trust in

27

favor GMAC, also recorded in the Official Records of Stanislaus County, California, on

28

February 26, 1997.
16

1

81. Also, as part of the scheme, the $1.9 million price for Fox Hollow was paid to Defendant

2

Flake from the proceeds on the five (5) loans from GMAC and by a Deed of Trust in favor

3

of Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Capstone Trust, against the Fox Hollow Property,

4

executed on or about February 21, 1997, by Defendant Mauchley, and recorded on or

5

about March 3, 1997, that purportedly secured an obligation in the amount of $444,888,

6

and provided that Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Capstone Trust will provide lot

7

releases for the fifteen (15) lots being created (the lots other than Lots 1, 11, 18 and 19) for

8

the payment of $37,037 per lot, and lot releases on Lots 1, 11, 18 and 19 for the payment

9

of $16,447.33 per lot.

10

82. Defendant Mauchley represented and promised in the “Planned Unit Development Rider”

11

included in the deeds of trust in favor of GMAC that were recorded against Lots 1, 11, 18

12

and 19, on or about February 26, 1997, that:

13

The Property includes, but is not limited to, a parcel of land improved with a
dwelling, together with other such parcels and certain common areas and facilities,
as described in covenants, conditions and restrictions of record (the “Declaration”).

14
15

21

The Property is a part of a planned unit development known as Fox Hollow . . .
[and] the Property also includes Borrower’s interest in the homeowners association
or equivalent entity owning or managing the common area and facilities of the
PUD (the “Owners Association”), and the uses, benefits and proceeds of
Borrower’s interest. PUD COVENANTS. In addition to the covenants, and
agreements made in the security instrument, Borrower and Lender further covenant
and agree as follows: [¶] A. PUD Obligations. Borrower shall perform all of
Borrower’s obligations under the PUD’s constituent documents. The “Constituent
Documents” are the: (i) Declaration; (ii) articles of incorporation, trust instrument
or equivalent document which creates the Owners Association; and (iii) any by
laws or other rules or regulations of the Homeowners Association. Borrower shall
promptly pay, when due, all dues and assessments imposed pursuant to the
Constituent Documents.

22

83. Said representations and promises in the Planned Unit Development Riders were false

16
17
18
19
20

23

when made. The true facts known by Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake,

24

and concealed by them from GMAC, were that: there was no homeowners association or

25

equivalent entity to own or manage the common area and facilities of the PUD; title to the

26

common area had not been transferred to a homeowners association; and Defendants

27

Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake, and each of them, had no intention at that time to

28

form a homeowners association, to transfer title to the common area to a homeowners
17

1

association, or to charge and collect dues and assessment to maintain the common area and

2

lots, all as required of them in the Fox Hollow CC&Rs and by the conditions of approval

3

by the City of Turlock for the Project.

4

84. Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake, and each of them, also concealed from

5

GMAC that the corresponding one car garage for Lot 18 was on Lot 18A, that the

6

corresponding one car garage for Lot 18 was not included in the legal description under the

7

deed of trust for the loan on lot 18, that the corresponding one car garage for Lot 18 was

8

left as additional collateral for Defendant Flake to receive the balance of the sales price

9

from the creation of the other fifteen(15) lots, and that the corresponding one car garage for

10

Lot 18 was left out as part of the deal between Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and

11

Flake.

12

85. GMAC made said loans in reliance upon said representations and promises, and had it

13

known the true facts and concealed facts, it would not have completed said loans without

14

compliance with the Fox Hollow CC&Rs and City of Turlock conditions for the Project,

15

and without including the corresponding one car garage on Lot 18A in the legal description

16

in the deed of trust for the loan on Lot 18.

17
18
19

Defendants’ Fifteen (15) Loan Fraudulent financing Scheme In July 1998
86. Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake, continued the fraudulent record title
churning and financing scheme for Fox Hollow in 1998.

20

87. As part of the scheme, Defendant Richard Sinclair, in the name of Defendant Mauchley,

21

filed applications for loans against each of the fifteen (15) remaining lots at Fox Hollow

22

and continued to process Fox Hollow Subdivision Map # 2, for purpose of obtaining said

23

loans.

24

88. Each of said loans was conditioned on the filing of Fox Hollow Subdivision Map # 2 to

25

create the lots, and each of said loans was based on each of the lots being individually

26

saleable.

27

89. As part of said scheme, by early 1998, Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake

28

planned to transfer record title to the lots at Fox Hollow to an entity to be called Mauctrst
18

1

LLC immediately after such loans funded. Pursuant to such plan: Defendant Mauchley

2

executed an “Option & Operating Agreement For Real Property And Contracts” on or

3

about January 1, 1998, individually, as “Mauctrst” and as member manager of Mauctrst

4

LLC, that provided among other things that Defendant Richard Sinclair would be paid a

5

monthly fee of $10,000 for overseeing the management and control of various properties

6

including Fox Hollow; Defendant Richard Sinclair executed and caused to be filed with the

7

California Secretary of State “Articles of Organization” for Mauctrst LLC on or about

8

April 28, 1998; Defendant Richard Sinclair prepared, Defendant Mauchley executed,

9

Defendant Mauctrst accepted and Defendant Richard Sinclair caused to be recorded in the

10

Official Records of Stanislaus County, California, a grant deed conveying record title to

11

Lots 1 through 19 to Mauctrst on or about July 29, 1998 (only seven (7) days after the July

12

1998 loans closed); and Defendant Richard Sinclair prepared and Defendants Mauctrst and

13

Mauchley executed a deed of trust from Mauctrst LLC dated July 23, 1998 and recorded

14

on December 3, 1998 against Lots 1 through 19, that purportedly secured an obligation in

15

the amount of $271,000, and provided that Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Capstone

16

Trust would provide lot releases for lots 8, 10, 16 upon the payment of $7,742.85 per lot,

17

and for Lots 1-7 , 9, 11-15, and 17-19 upon the payment of $15,485.70 per lot (the “July

18

1998 Flake Lot Release Trust Deed”).

19

90. As part of said scheme, Defendant Mauchley, on or about July 9, 1998, executed loan

20

applications for each of such loans, describing the property by unit number or numbers,

21

and representing that the property had been acquired in 1995.

22

91. On or about July 22, 1998, Defendant Mauchley, after he had recorded Fox Hollow

23

Subdivision Map # 2, creating fifteen (15) more lots with duplexes or single family

24

townhouses, closed the fifteen (15) new loans secured by a first deed of trust against the

25

each lot. The total amount of these loans was more than $1.8 million.

26

92. Each town home at Fox Hollow was assigned a unit number by the U.S. Post Office with

27

the even numbered units generally were located along the east side of the property, and the

28

odd numbered units were generally located along the west side of the property. The
19

1

following table correlates lot number, unit number, lender and loan amount for the

2

February 1997 and July 1998 loans at Fox Hollow [the banks and finance companies that

3

loaned money to Defendant Mauchley in 1997 and 1998 are not parties in this case and are

4

collectively referred to as “Lenders”]:

5

Lot No.

Unit No.

Lender Abbreviation

Loan Amount

1

133 & 135

GMAC

$119,000

2

129 & 131

Oceanmark / Bank One

$130,000

9

3

125 & 127

Granite Bay / Allied American Funding / Conti

$130,000

10

4

121 & 123

Alternative / Bank One

$135,000

11

5

117 & 119

Oceanmark / Bank One

$130,000

12

6

113 & 115

Alternative / HFC

$135,000

13

7

109 & 111

Granite Bay / Allied American Funding / Conti

$130,000

14

8

107

Oakmont / HFC

$74,000

15

9

101 & 103

Granite Bay / Allied American Funding / Conti

$130,000

16

10

105

Oakmont / HFC

$74,000

17

11

130 & 132

GMAC

$119,000

18

12

126 & 128

Alternative / Norwest Bank

$135,000

19

13

122 & 124

Oceanmark / Ocwen

$130,000

20

14

118 & 120

Granite Bay / Allied American Funding / Conti

$130,000

15

114 & 116

Oceanmark / Bank One

$130,000

16

108

Oakmont / HFC

$74,000

17

110 & 112

Alternative / Chase

$135,000

18

100 & 102

GMAC

$119,000

19

104 & 106

GMAC

$119,000

Total

$2,278,000

6
7
8

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

93. A portion of the proceeds on the July 1998 loans was used to pay off the $1 million loan
20

1

from GMAC, and to pay Defendant Flake the amount remaining due on the deed of trust

2

he received at the time of the sale of the Fox Hollow Property to Defendant Mauchley in

3

February 1997, as well as other advances he made, in the amount of approximately

4

$575,000.

5

94. Defendant Mauchley represented and promised in the “Planned Unit Development Rider”

6

included in the deeds of trust securing the loans on Lots 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16

7

and17, and that were recorded on or about July 22, 1998, that:

8

The Property includes, but is not limited to, a parcel of land improved with a
dwelling, together with other such parcels and certain common areas and facilities,
as described in covenants, conditions and restrictions of record (the “Declaration”).

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

The Property is a part of a planned unit development known as Fox Hollow . . .
[and] the Property also includes borrower’s interest in the homeowners association
or equivalent entity owning or managing the common area and facilities of the
PUD (the “Owners Association”), and the uses, benefits and proceeds of
Borrower’s interest.
PUD COVENANTS. In addition to the covenants, and agreements made in the
security instrument, Borrower and Lender further covenant and agree as follows:
[¶] A. PUD Obligations. Borrower shall perform all of Borrower’s obligations
under the PUD’s constituent documents. The “Constituent Documents” are the: (i)
Declaration; (ii) articles of incorporation, trust instrument or equivalent document
which creates the Owners Association; and (iii) any by laws or other rules or
regulations of the Owners Association. Borrower shall promptly pay, when due, all
dues and assessments imposed pursuant to the Constituent Documents.
95. Said representations and promises in the Planned Unit Development Riders were false

18
when made. The true facts known by Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake,
19
and concealed by them from each of such lenders, were: there was no homeowners
20
association or equivalent entity to own or manage the common area and facilities of the
21
PUD; title to the common area had not been transferred to a homeowners association; and
22
Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake, and each of them, had no intention at
23
that time to form a homeowners association, to transfer title to the common area to a
24
homeowners association, or to charge and collect dues and assessment to maintain the
25
common area and lots, all as required of them in the Fox Hollow CC&Rs and by the
26
conditions of approval by the City of Turlock for the Project.
27
96. Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake, and each of them, concealed from each
28
21

1

of the lenders that the corresponding one car garages for Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, were on

2

Lots 2A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A and 10A; that the corresponding one car garages for Lots 2, 6, 7,

3

8, 9 and 10, were not included in the legal description in the deed of trust for the loan on

4

each such lot; and that the corresponding one car garages for Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10, were

5

left as additional collateral for Defendant Flake and were left out as part of the deal

6

between Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake in 1997.

7

97. Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley, Flake and Mauctrst, and each of them, concealed

8

from the lenders on such loans that they had not, despite being required to do so in the

9

Turlock City conditions for approval of the Project, made the modifications to the

10

structures as required in the building code analysis and had not relocated utilities so that

11

each lot was individually served by electricity, telephone, gas and cable television, and

12

thereby prevented such lots from being individually saleable even though each lot was

13

provided as collateral for one of the loans and the value of the lot as collateral was based

14

upon the lot being individually saleable.

15

98. As part of said July 1998 loans, Granite Bay Funding, closed the loans to Defendant

16

Mauchley secured by first deeds of trust against lots 3, 7, 9 and 14, each securing a loan in

17

the amount of $130,000, and then for value received completed the sale, transfer and

18

assignment of such loans to CEMG’s processor, Allied American Funding, on or about

19

August 1998, who that in turn, sold, transferred and assigned said loans to CEMG’s

20

predecessor, Conti Mortgage Corporation on or about August 1998. Granite Bay Funding,

21

Allied American Funding, and Conti Mortgage Corporation shall be collectively referred

22

to hereinafter as “Conti” and Lots 3, 7, 9 and 14 shall be referred to collectively as the

23

“Conti Lots.”

24

99. Each of said lenders (including without limitation Conti) made said loans and purchased

25

said loans in reliance upon said representations and promises, and had they known the true

26

facts and concealed facts, they each would not have made and purchased said loans as

27

alleged herein without compliance with the Fox Hollow CC&Rs and City of Turlock

28

conditions, and without including the corresponding one car garages on Lots 2A, 6A, 7A,
22

1

8A, 9A and 10A, in the legal description in the deed of trust for the loan on Lots 2, 6, 7, 8,

2

9 and 10.

3

100.

Defendant Flake in his various capacities, advanced approximately $1.27 million to

4

purchase the Fox Hollow Property in October 1995, and as a result of the February 1997

5

financing scheme, received approximately $1.4 million in cash in February 1997, and as a

6

result of the July 1998 financing scheme received approximately $545,000 in cash in July

7

1998 and the July 1998 Flake Lot Release Trust Deed.

8

Defendants Use Their Refusal And Failure To Complete The Requirements To Subdivide

9

The Fox Hollow Property To Try To Force The Lenders To Sell The Loans To Defendants

10
11

At A Substantial Discount
101.

On or about July 1, 1999, and after Defendant Mauchley had gone into default on

12

each of the loans obtained as part of the financing scheme in February 1997 and July 1998,

13

Defendant Richard Sinclair, in the name of Mauctrst, filed a Voluntary Petition under

14

Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, with the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern

15

District of California, Case No. 99-28903-C-11 (the “Mauctrst Bankruptcy Case”).

16

102.

Defendants continued to conceal their failure to comply with the requirements of

17

the City of Turlock for the subdivision and conversion to a planned unit development for

18

the Fox Hollow Property until at least on or about November 18, 1999, when they started

19

disclosing some of the information in an effort to try to renegotiate or purchase at a

20

substantial discount the loans on the Lots at Fox Hollow Property.

21

103.

The first of such disclosure was made by Defendants Mauctrst, Richard Sinclair,

22

and Mauchley, on or about November 18, 1999, in a First Amended Disclosure Statement

23

filed in the Mauctrst Bankruptcy Case, in which they admitted:

24

At the time that the 19 loans were put into place on Fox Hollow . . . 19 appraisals
were obtained valuing the 16 duplexes at $185,000 each with the other 3 single
family residences valued at $93,500 each. One of the duplex appraisals is attached
as Exhibit “F” and incorporated herein by reference. The total appraised value at
the time was $3,240,500, subject to final completion of the subdivision firewalls
and underground relocation of utilities to accommodate individual ownership in
this planned united development.

25
26
27
28

104.

Defendants Mauctrst, Richard Sinclair and Mauchley made the same admission in
23

1

their Second Amended Disclosure Statement filed in the Mauctrst Bankruptcy Case on

2

December 17, 1999.

3

105.

Prior to the time the loans closed, Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and

4

Flake believed that the value of Fox Hollow would be enhanced upon completion of the

5

requirements of the City of Turlock so that the lots would be individually saleable.

6

Moreover, Defendant Richard Sinclair was aware that completion of such requirements

7

was material in that he was aware during the Sinclair Bankruptcy Case, that the appraised

8

value for Fox Hollow as an apartment complex was approximately $1.7 million dollars

9

while he placed the value of Fox Hollow with individually saleable lots at approximately

10
11

$3 million.
106.

The schedules filed by Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Mauctrst in the

12

Mauctrst Bankruptcy Case on or about September 7, 1999 and amended schedules filed on

13

or about December 8, 1999, also disclosed that Mauctrst had paid Defendant Richard

14

Sinclair over the period of twelve (12) months proceeding the filing of the Bankruptcy

15

Case, approximately $160,000.

16

107.

Defendants Mauctrst, Richard Sinclair and Mauchley also admitted in such

17

schedules and amended schedules filed in the Mauctrst Bankruptcy Case, that Conti

18

Mortgage Corporation was the successor to and held an undisputed security interest on the

19

July 1998 loans against Lots 3, 7, 9 and 14.

20

108.

On or about December 9, 1999, the trustee in the Mauctrst Bankruptcy Case filed a

21

motion for authority to abandon various real property, including the Fox Hollow Property,

22

on the ground that such property was substantially over-encumbered.

23
24
25

109.

On or about January 14, 2000, the Bankruptcy Court approved the abandonment by

the bankruptcy trustee of the Fox Hollow Property back to Mauctrst.
110.

On or about January 25, 2000, Defendant Richard Sinclair, on behalf of

26

Defendants, disclosed in writing in letters mailed to representatives of the lenders holding

27

the July 1998 deeds of trusts on Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 13, 14 and 15, in an effort to purchase

28

their loans for $80,000 (when the amount then due exceeded $130,000):
24

2

Currently, this property cannot be sold as a duplex or single family residence. The
subdivision has not been completed. Underground electrical work, relocation of
utilities and individual meters are among the requirements still to be completed for
the City of Turlock. . . .

3

***

4

Only someone who controls all properties can complete these requirements. I have
a client who is willing to do this and would complete the purchase quickly.

1

5

111.

On or about October 12, 2000, Defendant Richard Sinclair, purportedly on behalf

6
of the homeowners association for the Fox Hollow Property, sent a fax to the escrow
7
holder handling escrow for the sale of lots 2, 4 and 15 at Fox Hollow, stating:
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Please allow this letter to serve as notice to Chicago Title and PMZ that title to the
lots cannot be transferred at the present time. A few of the reasons are as follows:
(1) The subdivision requirements to sell lots has not been completed. The City of
Turlock has a number of requirements including, but not limited to, the movement
of the electrical and other utility lines to each individual lot. You will have to
obtain permission from the other lot owners to re-route those utility lines and from
the Homeowners Association and receive approval from the City of Turlock for the
balance of the subdivision improvements and requirements prior to offering the
property for sale or transferring title.
(2) Additionally, firewalls between lots in the garages and on the back of each
duplex must be installed. New permits will have to be obtained and go through the
permit application process with respect to each unit.
(3) Each lot has additional individual requirements for corrections and
improvements before those lots can be offered for sale.
***
(5) The deeds of trust may not have included security on some or all of the garages,
particularly the detached ones. Therefore, title to those garages may remain in the
name of the former owner. Restrictions regarding sale and use without garages
should be explored both with the City of Turlock and with the recorded CC&Rs
and Homeowners Association documents.
112.

While Defendants, as alleged above, began disclosing their failure to meet certain

22
of the requirements of the City of Turlock to subdivide the Fox Hollow Property and
23
convert it into a planned unit development, they continued to conceal their failure to
24
comply with other requirements until at least late 2000 including the requirements to: (a)
25
Form the homeowners association; (b) convey the common area to the homeowners
26
association; (c) appoint a board of directors for the homeowners association; and (d)
27
commence the assessment of monthly dues sufficient to fund the operation and
28
25

1
2
3

maintenance of the Fox Hollow Property in accordance with the Fox Hollow CC&Rs.
Defendants Fraudulent HOA Dues And Assessments Billing Scheme In 2000 and Early 2001
113.

The lenders (or their successors) who had made the loans as hereinabove alleged in

4

February 1997 and July 1998 began completing the foreclosures on those loans in June

5

2000 after the Fox Hollow Property was abandoned by the Mauctrst Bankruptcy trustee

6

back to Mauctrst.

7

114.

The foreclosures were completed with the recording of trustee’s deeds upon sale on

8

Lot 7 on May 22, 2000, on Lot 4 on July 31, 2000, on Lots 1, 11, 18 and 19 on September

9

29, 2000, on Lots 5 and 15 on October 5, 2000, on Lot 2 on October 23, 2000, on Lot 17

10

on October 31, 2000, on Lot 12 on February 9, 2001, on Lot 13 on April 2, 2001, on Lot

11

16 on January 8, 2002, on Lot 10 on January 14, 2002, on Lots 6 and 8 on January 17,

12

2002, on Lot 3 on May 22, 2003, on Lot 9 on May 30, 2003, and on Lot 14 on June 25,

13

2003. Mauctrst was the record title holder of each of Lots 1 through 19 from July 29, 1998,

14

and until the date the trustees deed upon sale for the lot was recorded, as alleged herein.

15

115.

As a part of the ongoing misuse of the homeowners association and their efforts to

16

defraud the lenders, Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Brandon Sinclair,

17

purportedly as the Board of Directors of Fox Hollow HOA (even though the articles of

18

incorporation for Fox Hollow HOA had not been filed with the California Secretary of

19

State), started on or about August 1, 2000, to send through the U.S. mail written dues

20

statements to the various lenders on the Lots at Fox Hollow, demanding payment of $300

21

per month per lot, including without limitation, as follows: On Lot 1 to GMAC from

22

September 21, 2000 through December 31, 2000; on Lot 2 to Bank One from October 1,

23

2000 through January 31, 2001; on Lot 4 to Bank One from August 1, 2000 through

24

January 31, 2001; on Lot 5 to Bank One from October 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001;

25

on Lot 7 to Conti Mortgage from August 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001; on Lot 11 to

26

GMAC from September 21, 2000 through December 31, 2000; on Lot 15 to Bank One

27

from October 1, 2000 through January 31, 2001; on Lot 18 to GMAC from September 21,

28

2000 through December 31, 2000; and on Lot 19 to GMAC from September 21, 2000
26

1
2

through December 31, 2000.
116.

On or about November 2000, Defendant Richard Sinclair, purportedly on behalf of

3

the homeowners association, sent a letter to an attorney for Bank One National

4

Association, as trustee, formerly FKA First National Bank of Chicago as trustee (“Bank

5

One”), demanding payment of dues for October and November on Lots 2, 4, 5 and 15, and

6

stating in the “PS” “A number of people have inquired about purchasing the duplexes that

7

your clients owns. Please advise us of the price as-is, where-is, so we may pass along the

8

information.” (D348.)

9

117.

Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Brandon Sinclair, on or about

10

December 2000, pursued foreclosures on various lots for failure to pay assessments, and

11

recorded on December 19, 2000, and caused to be sent through the U.S. mail notices of

12

delinquent assessment in the name of Fox Hollow HOA, for lots 1, 2, 4, 5, 11, 15, 18 and

13

19.

14

118.

Thereafter, on or about January 22, 2001, Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley

15

and Brandon Sinclair recorded and caused to be sent through the U.S. mail notices of

16

delinquent assessment in the name of Fox Hollow HOA, for lots 2, 4, 5, 7 and 15.

17

119.

Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Brandon Sinclair, represented in each

18

such dues statement, letter and notice of delinquent assessment that there was a

19

homeowners association, that Brandon Sinclair was president of the homeowners

20

association, and that dues of $300 per lot per month were due and owing to the

21

homeowners association starting August 1, 2000.

22

120.

Said representations were false when made. The true facts known by Defendants

23

Richard Sinclair, Mauchley, and Brandon Sinclair, and concealed by them from each of

24

such lenders were that: (1) Defendants had failed and refused to form Fox Hollow HOA as

25

a non-profit mutual benefit corporation until on or about December 6, 2000; (2)

26

Defendants had failed and refused to collect any dues and assessments from themselves;

27

and (3) Defendants intended to and did use payments of association dues and assessments

28

to finance lawsuits they had initiated against various lenders seeking to enjoin and delay
27

1
2

the foreclosures on their loans.
121.

Each of said lenders, including without limitation GMAC, made dues payments to

3

said Defendants in reliance upon said representations, and had they known the true facts

4

and concealed facts, they each would not have made such payments.

5
6

The Foreclosure Delay Litigation
122.

Defendant Richard Sinclair prepared and filled in the names of Defendants

7

Mauctrst and Mauchley, as plaintiffs therein, seven (7) lawsuits over the period March 22,

8

2000 and July 21, 2000, in the Stanislaus County Superior Court (Case Nos. 253769,

9

254996, 269907, 269969, 270025, 271066 and 271115), against various lenders on Lots at

10
11

Fox Hollow, seeking to enjoin the foreclosures (the “Foreclosure Delay Cases”).
123.

Although Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauctrst and Mauchley succeeded in using

12

Foreclosure Delay Cases to delay the foreclosures on the various lots without making any

13

further payments on any of the loans, said Defendants lost six (6) of the lawsuits and

14

settled the remaining case against GMAC involving Lots 1,11, 18 and 19 as more

15

specifically alleged below.

16
17

Bank One Obtains A Receiver In Early 2001 For The Fox Hollow HOA
124.

On January 30, 2001, Bank One (who had already foreclosed on Lots 5, 5 and 15),

18

filed suit against Fox Hollow HOA, Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. 287128,

19

seeking a property inspection and appointment of a receiver for the Fox Hollow HOA. By

20

order of the court, Michael McGranahan was appointed as inspector and was required to

21

report back on February 22, 2001.

22

125.

Mr. McGranahan received his order of appointment to conduct the inspection of the

23

Fox Hollow HOA and Fox Hollow Property on or about February 9, 2001, and sent a letter

24

to Defendant Richard Sinclair via telecopier enclosing the order and demanding he turn

25

over the records of the Fox Hollow HOA. On or about February 12, 2001, Brandon

26

Sinclair delivered to Mr. McGranahan’s office certain files and financial records for Fox

27

Hollow HOA.

28

126.

On or about February 13, 2001, Mr. McGranahan sent a second letter to Defendant
28

1

Richard Sinclair requesting documents and information that had not been delivered in

2

accordance with the previous written request and court order. Despite Mr. McGranahan’s

3

request, Defendant Richard Sinclair did not provide any additional documents, and in

4

particular, Defendant Richard Sinclair did not provide any bank statements or cancelled

5

checks.

6

127.

Defendant Richard Sinclair responded by fax sent to Mr. McGranahan on or about

7

February 14, 2001 asserting in part: “The lots were created but no party ever decided to

8

complete the task that would prepare the subdivision for sale of individual lots and the

9

property was and continues to be operated as an apartment complex. The property changed

10
11

hands many times being kept as an apartment complex in bulk.”
128.

Mr. McGranahan submitted his report of inspection to the court on February 22,

12

2001, explaining that when he inspected the property on or about February 2, 2001, the

13

property was “in very poor condition, littered with garbage, old discarded furniture,

14

disabled vehicles and shopping carts.”

15

129.

Mr. McGranahan also reported that according to a summary provided to him by

16

Defendant Richard Sinclair, Defendant Mauchley had paid dues on the lots at Fox Hollow

17

from August 2000 through February 2001, in the amount of $23,000, but: “These alleged

18

payments are not supported by any receipts, cancelled checks or bank records.”

19

130.

Mr. McGranahan further explained that according to the information provided by

20

Defendant Richard Sinclair, the Fox Hollow HOA paid Defendant Richard Sinclair

21

attorney’s fees in the amount of $15,266.99, paid management fees of $5,020 (including

22

$350 to Brandon Sinclair), and paid $2,920 for insurance in which the Association was not

23

even named as an insured. There was no accounting for the balance of $3,513.95.

24
25
26

131.

The court, on March 22, 2001, appointed Mr. McGranahan to serve as a receiver

and he did so until he was relieved by Order of the court filed April 12, 2002.
132.

Mr. Rubenstein replaced Mr. McGranahan as a receiver for Fox Hollow HOA until

27

he was released in October 2002 and the case was dismissed without prejudice on

28

November 26, 2002.
29

1
2

133.

The cost and expenses to the Fox Hollow HOA for the receivership proceeding

included $22,609.95 for receiver’s fees and $5,655.33 for the receivers’ attorney’s fees.

3

Defendants’ Fraudulent Financing Scheme Continues In 2001 With Two (2) More Loans On

4

Lots At Fox Hollow And With Rent And Tenant Deposit Skimming On Lots That They Had

5

Lost Through Foreclosure By Lenders

6

134.

On or about May 2001, Defendants Mauchley and Flake, as trustee of the Capstone

7

Trust, entered into a settlement agreement with GMAC, of the lawsuit commenced by

8

Mauchley and Mauctrst, Stanislaus County Superior Court Case No. 269907, in which

9

Defendant Mauchley agreed to drop said lawsuit, and Defendant Flake, as a purported

10

junior lien holder on Lots 1, 11, 18 and 19, agreed to purchase said lots for $114,750 each

11

($459,000 total) in cash, with possession of said lots “delivered to Capstone at close of

12

escrow.”

13

135.

Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake concealed from GMAC during

14

the negotiations of said agreement, at the time said agreement was executed by the parties,

15

and thereafter through at least July 2002, that they had agreed among themselves to use

16

Capstone Trust as a straw buyer who would immediately upon purchase of a lot from

17

GMAC, transfer title to such lot to Defendant Richard Sinclair in a second escrow as part

18

of Defendant Richard Sinclair obtaining a loan against such lot in an amount substantially

19

in excess of the amount paid to GMAC, and Defendants Richard Sinclair and Flake would

20

split among themselves the net loan proceeds in excess of closing costs and the amount

21

paid to GMAC.

22

136.

Pursuant to such fraudulent scheme, Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Capstone

23

Trust, closed escrow on the purchase of Lot 19 from GMAC on or about August 1, 2001,

24

and then immediately conveyed title to said lot to Defendant Richard Sinclair by Grant

25

Deed recorded on or about August 2, 2001, who simultaneously obtained a loan from Long

26

Beach Mortgage Company, in the amount of $152,000, secured by a first deed of trust

27

against Lot 19 that was also recorded on or about August 2, 2001, with the proceeds from

28

such loan used to pay GMAC the purchase price of $114,750 and the closing costs, and the
30

1

balance of the net loan proceeds in the amount of approximately $31,420 distributed to

2

Defendants Richard Sinclair and Flake.

3

137.

Also, pursuant to such fraudulent scheme, Defendant Flake, as trustee of the

4

Capstone Trust, closed escrow on the purchase of Lot 1 from GMAC on or about

5

December 10, 2001, and then immediately conveyed title to said lot to Defendant Brandon

6

Sinclair by Grant Deed recorded on or about December 10, 2001, who simultaneously

7

obtained a loan from Decision One Mortgage Company, in the amount of $142,500,

8

secured by a first deed of trust against Lot 1 that was also recorded on or about December

9

10, 2001, with the proceeds from such loan used to pay GMAC the purchase price of

10

$114,750 and the closing costs, and the balance of the net loan proceeds of approximately

11

$18,452.14 distributed to Defendants Richard Sinclair and Flake.

12

138.

Pursuant to the Fox Hollow Scheme, Defendant Richard Sinclair conveyed title to

13

Lot 19 to Lairtrust by Grant Deed recorded on or about February 4, 2002, and Defendant

14

Brandon Sinclair conveyed title by Grant Deed to Lot 1 to Capstone LLC, also recorded on

15

or about February 4, 2002.

16

139.

Had Defendants Richard Sinclair and Flake disclosed the true facts to GMAC,

17

Long Beach Mortgage Company, and Decision One Mortgage Company, GMAC would

18

not have completed the sales of Lots 1 and 19, and Long Beach Mortgage Company and

19

Decision One Mortgage Company would not have closed said loans.

20

140.

While the purchase of said lots was pending, Defendant Richard Sinclair, by

21

facsimile, sent to GMAC, on or about June 27, 2002, asked for access to the units for

22

purposes of inspection. Unknown to GMAC, and despite said statement as well as the term

23

in the settlement agreement that possession shall transfer upon close of escrow, Defendants

24

Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair and Mauctrst had continued to rent out and collect rents

25

on units on Lots 1, 11, 18 and 19, following completion of the foreclosure of the same on

26

September 29, 2000. Defendants Brandon Sinclair, Richard Sinclair and Lairtrust collected

27

rents on said lots during times they did not own said lots, through August 1, 2001, as to Lot

28

19, December 10, 2001 as to Lot 1, and June 25, 2002, as to Lots 11 and 18, in an amount
31

1

according to proof at trial, all while failing to pay homeowner association dues and failing

2

to maintain said property.

3

141.

Defendants Richard Sinclair for Lairtrust and Capstone LLC also entered in to

4

written leases on units 104, 133 and 135 with tenants and then refused the demands for

5

return of first month’s rent and security deposits in the amounts of $1,825, $1,850 and

6

$1,895 respectively which such rights of the tenants have been assigned to Plaintiff

7

CEMG.

8

142.

Despite losing title to Lot 7 through foreclosure on June 6, 2000, Defendants

9

Richard Sinclair and Mauctrst continued to lease out and collect rents on units on said lot

10

in an amount according to proof at trial, until on or about February 2003, all while failing

11

to pay homeowner association dues and failing to maintain said property.

12

143.

With respect to Lot 19, Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Capstone Trust was the

13

record title holder on August 1 and 2, 2001, Defendant Richard Sinclair was record title

14

holder from August 2, 2001 to February 4, 2002, and Defendant Lairtrust LLC was record

15

title holder from February 4, 2002 to March 14, 2004, each having accepted the deed of

16

conveyance in which he or it became record title holder.

17

144.

With respect Lot 1, Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Capstone Trust, was the

18

record title holder on December 10, 2001, Defendant Brandon Sinclair was the record title

19

holder from December 10, 2001 to February 4, 2002, and Defendant Capstone LLC was

20

record title holder from February 4, 2002 through March 14, 2004, each having accepted

21

the deed of conveyance in which he or it became record title holder.

22
23

CEMG Acquires The Lots And Loans At Fox Hollow Property
145.

Plaintiff CEMG obtained fee simple title to Lots 2, 4, 5, 13 and 15 by a deed

24

executed by Bank One, which deed was recorded on May 17, 2002, in the official records

25

of Stanislaus County, California (the “Bank One Lots”). Plaintiff CEMG has continued up

26

to the present time to own and control of the Bank One Lots, and all improvements located

27

thereon.

28

146.

Plaintiff CEMG obtained fee simple title to Lots 11 and 18, by a deed executed by
32

1

GMAC, which deed was recorded June 25, 2002, in the Official Records, Recorder of

2

Stanislaus County, California (the “GMAC Lots”). Plaintiff CEMG has continued up to the

3

present time to own and control the GMAC Lots, and all improvements located thereon.

4

147.

Plaintiff CEMG obtained fee simple title to Lots 12, and 17, by deeds dated July

5

31, 2001, and recorded August 30, 2002, in the official records of Stanislaus County,

6

California (the “Absher-Avanta Lots”). Plaintiff CEMG has continued up to the present

7

time to own and control of the Absher-Avanta Lots, and all improvements located thereon.

8
9

148.

On September 13, 2002, CEMG entered into a written agreement with Conti

Mortgage Corporation by Fairbanks Capital, its attorney-in-fact (“Conti Mortgage”), to

10

purchase the promissory notes and deeds of trusts for the loans recorded against Lots 3, 7,

11

9 and 14, on July 22, 1998, and all legal and equitable claims, known or unknown,

12

thereunder. CEMG and Conti Mortgage entered into an amendment of such agreement on

13

or about October 29, 2002, to include the sale of Lot 7 to CEMG.

14

149.

CEMG completed the purchase of the loans on Lots 3 and 7, and the purchase of

15

Lot 7 from Conti Mortgage on or about January 14, 2003. Plaintiff CEMG has continued

16

up to the present time to own and control Lot 7, and all improvements located thereon.

17
18
19

150.

CEMG completed the purchase of the loans on Lots 9 and 14 from Conti Mortgage,

on or about May 27, 2003.
151.

Plaintiff CEMG completed the foreclosures and trustees deeds upon sale were

20

recorded on Lot 3 on May 21, 2003, on Lot 9 on May 30, 2003 and on Lot 14 on June 25,

21

2003. CEMG has continued up to the present time to own and control of Lots 3, 9, 14 and

22

all improvements located thereon.

23

152.

As part of the purchase of the notes and deeds of trust on Lots 3, 7, 9 and 14, and

24

the purchase of Lot 7, Conti Mortgage also transferred, sold and assigned to and Plaintiff

25

CEMG accepted from Conti Mortgage all legal and equitable claims, known or unknown,

26

under the subject notes and deeds and trust.

27
28

153.

Plaintiff CEMG obtained fee simple title to Lots 6, 8, 10 and 16, by a deed

executed by Merle Alldrin, Rachel Alldrin, Gary Alldrin, and Lisa Alldrin (the “Alldrin
33

1

Lots”), which deed was recorded August 1, 2003, in the Official Records, Recorder of

2

Stanislaus County, California. Plaintiff CEMG has continued up to the present time to own

3

and control of the Alldrin Lots, and all improvements located thereon.

4
5

Plaintiffs Rehabilitate Fox Hollow Property
154.

On or about September 30, 2002, Mr. Rubenstein, as receiver for the Fox Hollow

6

HOA, provided notice of a meeting of the owners and of the board of directors of the Fox

7

Hollow HOA for October 15, 2002.

8
9
10
11

155.

At the meeting of owners for the Fox Hollow HOA on October 15, 2002, the

owners elected Andrew Katakis, Gary Alldrin and Dave B. Konecny, as directors for the
Fox Hollow HOA.
156.

On January 10, 2003, the Fox Hollow HOA Board held a noticed meeting. The

12

Board decided to hire professionals to assist with the problems facing Fox Hollow,

13

including among others, a construction consultant - Todd Smith & Association - to assist in

14

matters related to project renovation and code compliance.

15

157.

Mr. Smith conducted an extensive inspection of the property and contacted the City

16

of Turlock and various contractors to assess what needed to be done and the costs to do the

17

work.

18

158.

On July 21, 2003, the Fox Hollow HOA provided notice to the owners of a meeting

19

on July 31, 2003. The agenda for the July 31, 2003 meeting included notice that there

20

would need to be a special assessment and noted: “The project encompasses significant

21

deferred maintenance issues, pending code compliance issues with the City of Turlock

22

building department, health and safety issues and overall project beautification.”

23

159.

On July 31, 2003, the Fox Hollow HOA Board of Directors held its meeting and

24

decided to move forward with the renovation and improvements to the common area and

25

completing the requirements of the City of Turlock for the Project, and approved a special

26

assessment of approximately $9,500 against each of the lots to fund the project.

27
28

160.

Over the period of mid 2003 through 2004, extensive work at substantial expense

was performed on the Fox Hollow Property. This work included completing the
34

1

requirements of the City of Turlock for separate ownership of the lots, and also a complete

2

renovation of the exteriors and interiors of many of the units that were no longer habitable.

3

161.

The outside work included among other work, installing twenty-four (24) fire walls

4

in garages and six (6) fire walls in units, and cutting twelve (12) roof overhangs. Separate

5

underground utilities including electricity, gas, cable, television and telephone, were also

6

run to fifteen (15) of the units. This work was required under the original City of Turlock

7

approval to be completed prior to recordation of the final subdivision map.

8

162.

The total cost to the Fox hollow HOA for such work was more than $300,000.

9

163.

Plaintiff CEMG expended a total of more than $1 million on the rehabilitation that

10

included paying dues and special assessments to Fox Hollow for the work, as well as

11

additional work on the units.

12

Defendants Continue To Falsely Assert Ownership In And A Right Of Possession To Garage

13

Lots And Common Area

14
15
16

164.

Defendants have continued and threaten to continue their misconduct as alleged

herein.
165.

Defendants, from and after the commencement of this action up to the present time

17

have failed and refused to convey record clear title to the “A” Lot to Plaintiff CEMG,

18

despite demand having been made and accordingly, Plaintiff CEMG has been prevented

19

from obtaining approval of the subdivision through the California Department of Real

20

Estate, and from receiving profits form selling the individual single-family residences and

21

duplexes during on or about 2005 and 2006 at a time when market values were

22

substantially higher than they are currently.

23

166.

On or about June 26, 2007, Defendant Richard Sinclair caused to be recorded a

24

quitclaim deed purportedly transferring title to Lots 2A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A, 10A, and 18A,

25

from Defendant Mauchley to Defendant Lairtrust, as Instrument No. 2007-0084538-00,

26

Official Records of Stanislaus County, California.

27
28

167.

On or about April 17, 2008, Defendant Richard Sinclair as “Member/Manager for

Mauctrst LLC”, served by U.S. Mail on Plaintiffs and on the tenants at the Fox Hollow
35

1

Property of unit number 131 and garage lot 2A, unit number 113 and garage lot 6A, unit

2

number 109 and garage lot 7A, unit number 111 and garage lot 7A, unit number 107 and

3

garage lot 8A, unit number 101 and garage lot 9A, unit number 103 garage lot 9A, unit

4

number 105 and garage lot 10A, unit number 100 and garage lot 18A, and unit number 102

5

and garage lot 18A, a “Notice of Termination of Tenancy/Occupancy And Use Of

6

Premises” demanding on behalf of the owner, Defendants Mauctrst and Mauchley, or their

7

predecessor Stanley Flake, Trustee, that such tenants and Plaintiffs remove themselves

8

from and deliver up possession, occupancy and use of the reference garage lot, as for

9

example “Garage Lot Unit 2A Located at 152 20th Century Blvd., Turlock, California

10

95380”, on or before May 19, 2008, and stating that the notice is given “to terminate your

11

tenancy, occupancy and use of the premises of the above described property.”

12

168.

Thereafter, on or about May 22, 2008, Defendant Richard Sinclair, again on behalf

13

of Defendants Mauchley and Mauctrst, or their predecessor-in-interest, Stanley Flake,

14

Trustee, wrote to CEMG and demanded that CEMG and its tenants vacate the garages on

15

lots 2A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A, 10A and 18A, and if they failed to do so by 5:00 p.m. on May 28,

16

2008, unlawful detainer action would follow.

17

169.

On or about July 2, 2008, Defendant Richard Sinclair commenced unlawful

18

detainer actions in the names of Mauctrst and Lairtrust, in the Superior Court of California,

19

County of Stanislaus, Case Nos. 628615 and 62852, against CEMG and its tenants for lots

20

9A and 2A respectively, in which Defendants Mauctrst and Lairtrust asserted they are the

21

owners of such garage lots, and sought to evict CEMG and its tenants from such garage

22

lots.

23
24
25

170.

On or about August 22, 2008, pursuant to motion by CEMG in such actions, such

actions were stayed pending the outcome of this action.
171.

On or about April 17, 2008, Defendant Richard Sinclair as “Member/Manager for

26

Mauctrst LLC”, also served by U.S. Mail on the tenants of each of the thirty-five (35) units

27

at Fox Hollow and on Plaintiffs, a “Notice of Termination of Tenancy/Occupancy And Use

28

Of Premises” for the “Driveway and Common Area Located at 152 20th Century Blvd.,
36

1

Turlock, California 95380,” demanding on behalf of the owner, Defendants Mauctrst and

2

Mauchley, or their predecessor Defendant Stanley Flake, Trustee, that such tenants and

3

Plaintiffs remove themselves from and deliver up possession, occupancy and use of the

4

premises described above, on or before May 19, 2008, and stating that the notice is given

5

“to terminate your tenancy, occupancy and use of the premises of the above described

6

property.”

7
8
9

Count One Fraud
172.

The Plaintiffs asserting this count are Fox Hollow HOA and CEMG, and this count

is being asserted against Defendants Mauctrst, Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair,

10

Mauchley, Flake, Lairtrust and Capstone LLC (“Defendants”). For purposes of this count,

11

and this count only, “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants” shall be limited to those parties.

12
13
14
15
16

173.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 146 as if fully set forth herein.
174.

As set forth above, Plaintiff CEMG is the assignee of all claims of Conti arising out

of or related to the July 1998 loans on Lots 3, 7, 9 and 14.
175.

The Defendants, and each of them, knew that said representations and promises

17

were false at the time they were made, and Defendants, and each of them, concealed said

18

facts and made the representations and promises with the intent to induce said lenders to

19

make said loans and dues payments, and with the intent to defraud and deceive said

20

lenders, including without limitation, Conti.

21

176.

Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake, commencing on or about 1995,

22

and continuing until at least 2003 and according to proof at trial, knowingly agreed,

23

colluded and conspired with each other and among themselves to fraudulently create the

24

false appearance of a homeowners association and individually saleable lots at Fox Hollow

25

in order to obtain loans secured by portions of Fox Hollow and to enrich themselves at the

26

expense of the lenders, the successors to the lenders and the homeowners association, by

27

skimming off loan proceeds, dues collected in the name of the homeowners association,

28

and rental income and tenant deposits, all while concealing their scheme and attempting to
37

1

shield themselves from individual liability by creating shell companies and churning

2

record title to the property (the “Fox Hollow Scheme”).

3

177.

Defendant Mauctrst joined in, agreed to and become a part of Fox Hollow Scheme

4

by on or about April 1998; Defendant Lairtrust joined in, agreed to and become a part of

5

Fox Hollow Scheme on or about May 2000; Defendant Brandon Sinclair joined, agreed to

6

on and become a part of Fox Hollow Scheme by in or about June 2000; and Defendant

7

Capstone LLC joined in, agreed to and become a part of Fox Hollow Scheme by on or

8

about December 2001.

9

178.

Defendants agreed to, participated in, aided and abetted, and committed acts in

10

furtherance of and in pursuance to the Fox Hollow Scheme from on or about 1995 and to

11

the present, in that, among other things: Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Julie Insurance

12

Trust, purchased the Fox Hollow Property from Stockton Savings Bank on or about

13

October 31, 1995, with Defendant Flake, as trustee of the F. Hanse Trust proving the funds

14

for the purchase; Defendant Richard Sinclair contacted the architect for the Project on or

15

about November 1995, to let him know Defendant Flake would be paying the bills;

16

Defendant Flake met with the architect for the Project and thereafter, on or about

17

November 18, 1995, started paying the architect for his prior work on the Project;

18

Defendant Flake continued to pay for architectural services with respect to the Fox Hollow

19

Subdivision including, without limitation, on December 15, 1995; Defendant Richard

20

Sinclair assisted Defendant Flake with respect to the subdivision; Defendant Flake, as

21

trustee of the Julie Insurance Trust, signed the final map for Fox Hollow Lots 1, 11, 18 and

22

19 on or about November 10, 1995; Defendant Sinclair filed an unlawful detainer

23

proceeding on January 18, 1996, in the Stanislaus County Municipal Court, Case No.

24

74645, on behalf of himself and Defendant Flake, as “Owner”, on unit 103 at Fox Hollow;

25

Defendant Richard Sinclair communicated with the City of Turlock and worked with the

26

civil engineer and architect for the Project to complete the final map for Fox Hollow Lots

27

1, 11, 18 and 19 and caused Fox Hollow Subdivision Map #1 to be recorded, on or about

28

March 6, 1996; Defendant Richard Sinclair revised and Defendant Flake as trustee of the
38

1

Julie Insurance Trust, signed the Fox Hollow CC&Rs in September 1996; Defendant

2

Richard Sinclair caused the Fox Hollow CC&Rs to be recorded, on or about September 16,

3

1996 and returned to “Mauctrst”; Defendant Sinclair filed an unlawful detainer proceeding

4

on November 8, 1996, in the Stanislaus County Municipal Court, Case No. 81879, on

5

behalf of himself and Defendant Flake, as “Owner”, on unit 109 at Fox Hollow; Defendant

6

Richard Sinclair assisted Defendant Mauchley in obtaining financing from GMAC in or

7

about February 1997 for the Project as more specifically alleged herein; Defendant Flake

8

in or about February 1997 requested and received an extension of time from the City of

9

Turlock for one year to complete various improvements on the Fox Hollow Property with

10

respect to the subdivision; Defendant Richard Sinclair facilitated the transfer of title of the

11

Fox Hollow Property from Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Julie Insurance Trust, to

12

Defendant Mauchley on February 26, 1997 as more specifically alleged herein; Defendant

13

Richard Sinclair communicated with the City of Turlock and worked with the civil

14

engineer and architect for the Project to complete a final map for the remaining Fox

15

Hollow lots; Defendant Mauchley signed Fox Hollow Subdivision Map # 2 on or about

16

February 27, 1998; Defendant Richard Sinclair signed and filed limited liability company

17

articles of organization in the name of Mauctrst LLC with the California Secretary of State

18

on or about April 28, 1998; Defendant Richard Sinclair assisted Mr. Mauchley over the

19

period from on or about February 1998 to on or about July 1998 in obtaining fifteen (15)

20

loans from several lenders against lots at the Fox Hollow Property as more specifically

21

alleged herein; Defendant Sinclair sent a facsimile to the City of Turlock on February 20,

22

1998, forwarding an assignment from Defendant Flake to Defendant Mauchley; Defendant

23

Sinclair sent a letter via facsimile to Mr. Sessions of GMAC Mortgage in Hawaii, on or

24

about May 5, 1998, providing financial information concerning Mr. Mauchley; Defendant

25

Richard Sinclair caused Fox Hollow Subdivision Map # 2 to be filed in the Official

26

Records of Stanislaus County, California, on July 21, 1998; Mr. Mauchley signed the loan

27

documents for the July 1998 loans on or about July 9, 1998, including without limitation,

28

the loan applications, promissory notes and deeds of trust that were recorded in the Official
39

1

Records of Stanislaus County, on July 22, 1998; Defendant Richard Sinclair prepared and

2

Mr. Mauchley signed a deed conveying title to the Fox Hollow Lots 1 through 19 to

3

Mauctrst that was recorded in the Official Records of Stanislaus County, California, on or

4

about July 29, 1998; Defendant Sinclair prepared, filed and prosecuted unlawful detainer

5

actions on behalf of himself and Mr. Mauchley as “Owner” in the Stanislaus County

6

Superior Court, on unit 121 at Fox Hollow on or about October 5, 1998 (Case No.

7

182407), on unit 119 at Fox Hollow on February 1, 1999 (Case No. 1851990), on unit 127

8

at Fox Hollow on February 1, 1999 (Case No. 185201), on unit 121 at Fox Hollow on

9

March 25, 1999 (Case No. 186532), on unit 127 at Fox Hollow on June 4, 1999 (Case No.

10

228301), on unit 105 at Fox Hollow on June 16, 1999 (Case No. 228676), on unit 131 at

11

Fox Hollow on February 14, 2000 (Case No. 252225), on unit 125 at Fox Hollow on

12

March 17, 2000 (Case No. 253689), on unit 117 at Fox Hollow on October 1, 2000 (Case

13

No. 274533), on unit 116 at Fox Hollow on October 18, 2000 (Case No. 274549), and on

14

unit 127 at Fox Hollow on March 6, 2001 (Case No. 288094); in September 1999 and

15

again in December 1999, Defendant Richard Sinclair filed schedules in the Mauctrst

16

Bankruptcy Case on behalf of Mauctrst and Mr. Mauchley, stating under penalty of perjury

17

that Mauctrst was owned fifty percent (50%) by Defendant Mauchley and fifty percent

18

(50%) by his spouse, when Mr. Mauchley denies his spouse had any ownership interest in

19

Mauctrst; Defendant Richard Sinclair in the name of Mauctrst and Mauchley, filed at least

20

six (6) lawsuits in the Stanislaus Superior Court between March 22, 2000 and July 21,

21

2000 (Case Nos. 253769, 254996, 269907, 270025, 271066 and 271115) and obtained

22

preliminary relief delaying foreclosures on various lots at the Fox Hollow Property, and

23

then lost all those case; in one of those cases (Case No. 254996), Defendant Richard

24

Sinclair in the name of Mauctrst and Mauchley, obtained a preliminary injunction

25

enjoining the foreclosure on lots 9 and 14, and also claimed the preliminary injunction

26

pertained to lots 3 and 7, that was conditioned upon them making the required monthly

27

payments on the promissory notes as they come due, and then failed and refused to make a

28

single payment and enjoyed the benefit of the injunction until 2003; Defendant Richard
40

1

Sinclair prepared and filed with the California Secretary of State articles of organization

2

for Defendant Lairtrust, on or about May 26, 2000; Defendant Richard Sinclair prepared

3

documents that purported to be minutes of Fox Hollow homeowner’s association board

4

meetings over the period June through December 2000, that stated Mr. Mauchley was in

5

attendance, when Mr. Mauchley denied attending any board meetings; Defendant Richard

6

Sinclair and Defendant Brandon Sinclair signed a letter dated August 1, 2000 in which the

7

Fox Hollow HOA purportedly waived any conflict of interest arising by reason of

8

Defendant Richard Sinclair’s representation of the homeowner’s association while also

9

representing Brandon Sinclair and Mr. Mauchley in other matters, including matters

10

against lenders who were foreclosing on and owned lots at the Fox Hollow Property;

11

Defendant Richard Sinclair and Brandon Sinclair signed and mailed out dues statements,

12

letters and notices of delinquent assessments to lenders over the period August 1, 2000,

13

through January 31, 2001, in the name of Fox Hollow HOA, asserting dues of $300 per

14

month per lot were due and payable to the homeowners association; on or about May 2001,

15

Defendant Richard Sinclair negotiated and Defendants Mauchley and Flake signed a

16

settlement agreement with GMAC under which Defendant Flake as Trustee of the

17

Capstone Trust, would purchase lots 1, 11, 18 and 19, and then Defendants Richard

18

Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair and Flake set up secret double escrows and concealed material

19

facts from GMAC and the lenders as herein alleged; Defendant Brandon Sinclair signed

20

and Defendant Richard Sinclair caused articles of organization for Defendant Capstone

21

LLC to be prepared and filed with the California Secretary of State on or about December

22

3, 2001; Defendants Richard Sinclair transferred title to Lot 19 to Lairtrust on or about

23

February 4, 2002; Defendants Brandon Sinclair transferred title to Lot 1 to Capstone LLC

24

on or about February 4, 2002; Defendant Richard Sinclair prepared, Defendant Mauchley

25

executed and Defendant Richard Sinclair caused to be recorded in 2007, a deed conveying

26

record title to the “A” lots to Defendant Lairtrust; Defendant Richard Sinclair, on behalf of

27

Defendants Mauchley, Mauctrst and Flake sent Notices of Termination of

28

Tenancy/Occupancy And Use Of Premises to Plaintiffs and the tenants at Fox Hollow in
41

1

April 2008, purportedly to evict them from the common area and the “A’ Lots at Fox

2

Hollow; and Defendant Richard Sinclair filed in the names of Mauctrst and Lairtrust

3

unlawful detainer actions in state court in July 2008 to evict CEMG and its tenants from

4

the garages on Lots 2A and 9A.

5

179.

Defendants, and each of them, attempted to and intended to perfect and carry out

6

the Fox Hollow Scheme so that they could continue the scheme described above, or

7

abandon the same at any time, and all loss would fall on Bank One, GMAC, Conti,

8

Absher-Avanta, HFC Beneficial, Plaintiffs and other lenders and members of the public

9

who might be induced to make loans on, invest in or purchase lots and units at Fox

10
11

Hollow, while Defendants retained their profits from such scheme.
180.

As a proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of Defendants as hereinabove

12

alleged, Conti Mortgage completed a foreclosure on and Lot 7 on or about June 6, 2000 for

13

a credit bid of only $85,000 when $144,595.85 was due and owing on the loan at the time,

14

and was thereby damaged in the amount of approximately $50,000 and according to proof

15

at trial, and sold Lot 7 and the loans on Lots 3, 7, 9 and 14 to Plaintiff CEMG for a loss of

16

more than $500,000 and according to proof at trial.

17

181.

Further, Plaintiff CEMG as a proximate result of such fraudulent conduct, in

18

addition to the claims assigned to it by Conti, was required to and did incur expenses in

19

correcting and remedying the failure to complete the requirements for the subdivision map

20

and otherwise rehabilitate Lots 3, 7, 9 and 14 in an amount in excess of $280,000 and

21

according to proof at trial, and otherwise incurred expenses and lost profits relating the

22

individual lots at Fox Hollow.

23

182.

Further, Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA as a proximate result of such fraudulent

24

conduct, was required to and did: incur and pay receivers fees and receivers attorneys fees

25

in the amount of $28,265.28, incur and pay expenses in correcting and remedying the

26

failure to complete the requirements for the subdivision map and otherwise rehabilitate the

27

common area in an amount in excess of $300,000 and according to proof at trial and was

28

deprived of homeowners dues collected and retained by defendants in an amount according
42

1
2

to proof at trial.
183.

In doing the things alleged herein, Defendants, and each of them, acted willfully

3

and with the intent to cause injury to Bank One, GMAC, Conti, Absher-Avanta, HFC-

4

Beneficial, Plaintiff CEMG as assignee of the claims of Conti, and Plaintiffs individually,

5

and in conscious disregard of the rights of Bank One, GMAC, Conti, Absher-Avanta,

6

HFC-Beneficial, Plaintiff CEMG as assignee of the claims of Conti, and Plaintiffs

7

individually, thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount

8

appropriate to punish Defendants, and each of them, and to deter others from engaging in

9

similar misconduct.

10
11

Count Two RICO
184.

The Plaintiffs asserting this count are Fox Hollow HOA and CEMG, and this count

12

is being asserted against Defendants Mauctrst, Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair,

13

Mauchley, Flake, Lairtrust and Capstone LLC (“RICO Defendants”). For purposes of this

14

count, and this count only, “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants” shall be limited to those parties.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

185.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 157 as if fully set forth herein.
186.

As set forth above, CEMG is the assignee of all claims of Conti arising out of or

related to the loans on the Conti Lots.
187.

At all relevant times, Defendants Mauchley, Richard Sinclair, Flake, Brandon

Sinclair were “persons” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c).
188.

At all relevant times herein from and after April 28, 1998, Defendant Mauctrst was

a “person” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).
189.

At all relevant times from and after December 6, 2000, Fox Hollow HOA was the

24

“person” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c), and an

25

“enterprise” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).

26
27
28

190.

At all relevant times from and after May 26, 2000, Defendant Lairtrust was a

“person” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).
191.

At all times relevant herein from at least on and after December 3, 2001, Defendant
43

1

Capstone LLC was a “person” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and

2

1964(c).

3

192.

At all times relevant herein from and after on or about 1995, Defendants Richard

4

Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake formed an association-in-fact to own and operate Fox

5

Hollow and divide among themselves money and benefits derived therefrom. This

6

association-in-fact was an “enterprise” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).

7

193.

At all times relevant herein from and after April 1998, Defendant Mauctrst joined

8

said association-in-fact. This association-in-fact was an “enterprise” within the meaning of

9

RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).

10

194.

At all times relevant herein from and after May 2000, Defendant Lairtrust joined

11

said association-in-fact. This association-in-fact was an “enterprise” within the meaning of

12

RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).

13

195.

At all times relevant herein from and after June 2000, Defendant Brandon Sinclair

14

joined said association-in-fact. This association-in-fact was an “enterprise” within the

15

meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).

16

196.

At all times relevant herein from and after December 2001, Defendant Capstone

17

LLC joined said association-in-fact. This association-in-fact was an “enterprise” within the

18

meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).

19
20
21

197.

At all relevant times, said enterprises were engaged in, and their activities affected,

interstate and foreign commerce, within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
198.

The RICO Defendants, for purposes of executing such scheme and artifice to

22

defraud and for obtaining money, loans and property by means of a false or fraudulent

23

pretense, representation and promise, and attempting to do so, transmitted and caused to be

24

transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate or foreign commerce writings

25

and signals (“Wiring”), and also deposited, caused to be deposited and authorized the

26

following materials and things to be placed in any post office or authorized depository, or

27

deposited or caused to be deposited the following matters or things to be sent or delivered

28

by private or commercial interstate carrier (“Mailing”): Wiring and/or Mailing loan
44

1

applications and other loan documents for the February 1997 loans; Wiring and/or Mailing

2

demands for payments into the escrows relating to the February 1997 loans; causing the

3

funds from the lender to be Wired or Mailed into and disbursed from the five (5) escrows

4

for the February 1997 loans; Wiring and/or Mailing the loan applications and other loan

5

documents for the July 1998 loans; Wiring and/or Mailing demands for payments into the

6

escrows relating to the July 1998 loans; causing the funds to be Wired and/or Mailed into

7

and disbursed from the fifteen (15) escrows for each of the July 1998 loans; Mailing dues

8

statements to the lenders over the period of August through December 2000 as hereinabove

9

alleged; Mailing the notices of delinquent assessment to the lenders on or about December

10

19, 2000 and on or about January 22, 2001, as hereinabove alleged; Wiring and/or Mailing

11

the settlement agreement with GMAC as herein alleged; Wiring and/or Mailing the loan

12

application and other loan documents relating to the loan on Lot 19 that closed on or about

13

August 2, 2001, and on Lot 1 that closed on or about December 10, 2001; Wiring and/or

14

Mailing demands for payments into the escrows relating to the loan on Lot 19 that closed

15

on or about August 2, 2001, and on Lot 1 that closed on or about December 10, 2001;

16

causing the funds to be to be Wired or Mailed into and disbursed from the escrow for the

17

loan on Lot 19 on or about August 2, 2001 and for the loan on Lot 1, on or about

18

December 10, 2001.

19

199.

At all times relevant herein, RICO Defendants conducted or participated, directly

20

or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a “pattern of racketeering

21

activity” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), in violation of RICO, 18

22

U.S.C. § 1962(c).

23

200.

Specifically, at all relevant times, RICO Defendants engaged in “racketeering

24

activity” within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), by engaging in the acts set

25

forth above. The acts set forth above constitute a violation of one or more of the following

26

statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud); and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud). RICO

27

Defendants each committed and/or aided and abetted the commission of two or more of

28

these acts of racketeering activity.
45

1

201.

The acts of racketeering activity referred to in the previous paragraph constitute a

2

“pattern of racketeering activity”, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). The acts

3

alleged were related to each other by virtue of common participants, common victims and

4

a common method of commission, and the common purpose and common result of

5

defrauding the lenders and Fox Hollow HOA and enriching the Defendants at the expense

6

of the lenders and Fox Hollow HOA while concealing Defendants fraudulent activity.

7

202.

At all relevant times, the RICO Defendants each were associated with the

8

enterprise and agreed and conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in that they agreed to

9

conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of affairs of the enterprise

10

through a pattern of racketeering activity, as alleged herein, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

11

1962(d).

12

203.

The RICO Defendants committed and caused to be committed a series of overt acts

13

in furtherance of such conspiracy and to affect the objects thereof, including but not

14

limited to the acts set forth above.

15

204.

As a result of RICO Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d) and

16

each of them, the Fox Hollow HOA incurred expenses and has been damaged as herein

17

alleged in an amount according to proof at trial, including, but not limited to, receivers fees

18

and receivers attorneys fees, expenses in correcting and remedying the failure to complete

19

the requirements for the subdivision map and otherwise rehabilitating the property, and for

20

homeowners dues collected and retained by defendants.

21

205.

As a result of RICO Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d) and

22

each of them, Plaintiff CEMG has incurred expenses and been damaged as alleged herein,

23

and according to proof at trial, including, but not limited to, losses suffered by Conti on the

24

foreclosure on Lot 7 and on the sale of loans on Lots 3, 7, 9 and 14 to CEMG, the costs

25

and expenses incurred in correcting and remedying the failure to complete the

26

requirements for the subdivision map and otherwise rehabilitate Lots 3, 7, 9 and 14, loans

27

made to Fox Hollow HOA to cover a portion of the fees and expenses incurred by it as a

28

result of the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein, expenses incurred and profits lost
46

1

relating the individual lots at Fox Hollow, and the payments of deposits to tenants that

2

Defendants wrongfully withheld.

3

206.

Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), Fox Hollow HOA and CEMG are entitled

4

to recover three-fold their damages plus costs and attorneys’ fees from the RICO

5

Defendants.

6
7

Count Three Unjust Enrichment
207.

The Plaintiffs asserting this count are Fox Hollow HOA and CEMG, and this count

8

is being asserted against Defendants Mauctrst, Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair,

9

Mauchley, Flake, Lairtrust and Capstone LLC. For purposes of this count, and this count

10
11
12
13

only, “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants” shall be limited to those parties.
208.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 157 as if fully set forth herein.
209.

As a result of the conduct of Defendants, they have been unjustly enriched at the

14

expense of Plaintiffs and the law thereby implies a contract by which Defendants must pay

15

to Plaintiffs the amount by which, in equity and good conscience, the Defendants have

16

been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs.

17
18

Count Four Accounting
210.

The Plaintiffs asserting this count are Fox Hollow HOA and CEMG, and this count

19

is being asserted against Defendants Mauctrst, Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair,

20

Mauchley, Flake, Lairtrust and Capstone LLC. For purposes of this count, and this count

21

only, “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants” shall be limited to those parties.

22
23
24

211.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 157 as if fully set forth herein.
212.

Defendants, as alleged herein, collect dues and assessments on behalf of the

25

homeowners association, paid themselves funds rightfully belonging to the homeowners

26

association, and collected rents and deposits from tenant of units at Fox Hollow at times

27

when such Defendants did own the units.

28

213.

The amount of money due from Defendants to Plaintiffs is unknown to Plaintiffs
47

1

and cannot be ascertained without an accounting of such dues, assessments, payments,

2

rents and deposits.

3
4

Count Five Constructive Trust Re: Garage Lots
214.

The Plaintiff asserting this count is CEMG, and this count is being asserted against

5

Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauctrst, Mauchley, Lairtrust and Flake, Trustee. For

6

purposes of this count, and this count only, “Plaintiff’ and “Defendants” shall be limited to

7

those parties.

8
9
10

215.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 157 as if fully set forth herein.
216.

The lenders who made the February 1997 loans and July 1998 loans commissioned

11

appraisals of the unit or units identified in each loan application, and received appraisals

12

listing each unit as having a one car garage.

13

217.

On or September 15, 1998, Defendant Mauctrst filed with the California

14

Department of Real Estate a Notice of Intention (Common Interest) on Fox Hollow of

15

Turlock (“Notice”). The Notice, at page 3, Section 2.L, provides that the improvements at

16

Fox Hollow of Turlock will contain one “1 car garage for each residential unit, and

17

common area parking spaces.”

18

218.

The legal description in the deeds of trust executed by Defendant Mauchley for the

19

February 1997 and July 1998 loans were prepared, at least in part, by employees of the title

20

company retained in connection with each particular transaction and were ambiguous in

21

that they included the unit number or numbers as a description of the property and also

22

included a lot number for Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 18 without including the “A” lot for the

23

corresponding one garage for the unit or units described in the deed of trust.

24

219.

Defendant Mauchley, by virtue of applying for such loans based upon unit numbers

25

and under the circumstances as alleged herein, agreed either expressly or impliedly to

26

include as collateral for and is estopped from denying that the collateral for such loans did

27

not include, the corresponding one-car garage for each unit.

28

220.

The failure to include the corresponding “A” lot in the legal descriptions in said
48

1

deeds of trust and therefore in the trustee’s deeds upon the foreclosures under said deeds of

2

trust was the result of the mutual mistake of the parties, the unilateral mistake of the lender

3

that was known or should have been know by Defendants and/or the fraud of Defendants.

4

221.

By virtue of the agreement to include the corresponding garage for each unit as

5

collateral and/or the mistake and/or fraud as herein alleged, Defendants hold such “A” lots

6

as constructive trustee for Plaintiff’s benefit.

7
8
9

Count Six Declaratory And Injunctive Relief Re: Garage Lots
222.

The Plaintiff asserting this count is CEMG, and this count is being asserted against

Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauctrst, Mauchley, Lairtrust and Flake, Trustee. For

10

purposes of this count, and this count only, “Plaintiff’ and “Defendants” shall be limited to

11

those parties.

12
13
14

223.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 157 as if fully set forth herein.
224.

An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and Defendants

15

in that Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff CEMG is entitled to and Defendants are estopped

16

from claiming ownership in and the right of possession to the “A” Lots, whereas

17

Defendants contend that they own and have a right of possession to the “A” Lots to the

18

exclusion of Plaintiff CEMG and its tenant at Fox Hollow.

19

225.

Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment, declaring the rights and obligations of the

20

parties with respect to the “A” Lots at Fox Hollow, and declaring that Plaintiff CEMG is

21

entitled to ownership in and the right of possession to the “A” Lots to the exclusion of

22

Defendants and each of them.

23

226.

A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the

24

circumstances such that the parties herein will know their rights in and to the “A” Lots and

25

in order to avoid a multiplicity of actions and the disruption of the peaceable use and

26

enjoyment of the “A” Lots by Plaintiff CEMG and it tenants at the Fox Hollow Property.

27
28

227.

Defendants have and threaten to continue to claim ownership in the “A” Lots at the

Fox Hollow Property and to harass the tenants thereon, and accordingly, an injunction
49

1

should issue enjoining and restraining Defendants and each of them from asserting,

2

claiming or communicating to tenants at the Fox Hollow Property that they, or any of

3

them, hold or claim any ownership in and to such any such “A” Lots, or otherwise to

4

interfere with the use and enjoyment of such “A” Lots by Plaintiffs and any tenants at Fox

5

Hollow.

6

Count Seven Fox Hollow HOA Claim For Delinquent Assessments, Late Charges, And

7

Interest

8

228.

9

The Plaintiff asserting this count is Fox Hollow HOA, and this count is being

asserted against Defendants Mauctrst, Richard Sinclair, Mauchley, Stanley Flake as

10

Trustee of the Capstone Trust, Brandon Sinclair, Lairtrust and Capstone LLC. For

11

purposes of this count, and this count only, “Plaintiff” and “Defendants” shall be limited to

12

those parties.

13
14
15
16
17

229.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 146 as if fully set forth herein.
230.

At the times herein mentioned from and after September 6, 1996 and through

February 2004, the Fox Hollow CC&Rs were in effect in accordance with their terms.
231.

The covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in the Fox Hollow CC&Rs

18

constitute equitable servitudes under Civil Code section 1354 that inure to the benefit of,

19

and are binding on, all owners of lots within the development and the association,

20

including Plaintiff and Defendants.

21

232.

In or about August 2000, Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Brandon

22

Sinclair purportedly as the board for the homeowners association: (1) levied a regular

23

monthly assessment in the amount of $300 on each lot of the Fox Hollow Property for the

24

purpose of “paying the joint bills of the Homeowners Association and to begin to gather

25

and prepare to comply with all the requirements so that the property could be operated”

26

and adopted the Fox Hollow of Turlock Owners’ Association Delinquent Assessment

27

Collection Policy, that provided that assessments were due and payable on the first day of

28

each month of each year and become delinquent if not paid on or before the 15th day of
50

1

each month, that if a regular or special assessment becomes delinquent, a late charge equal

2

to the greater of $10.00 or ten percent (10%) of the delinquent amount shall be charged,

3

and interest at a rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum shall be assessed against all

4

delinquent assessments, late charges and reasonable costs of collection commencing thirty

5

(30) days after the due date of the delinquent assessment.

6

233.

Mr. McGranahan, as receiver for the Fox Hollow HOA, on or about August 15,

7

2001, approved the Fox Hollow HOA Delinquent Assessment Collection Policy that

8

provided that all assessments were due and payable on the first day of each month of each

9

year and become delinquent if not paid on or before the thirtieth (30th) day of each month

10

of each year, a late charge equal to the greater of $10.00 or ten percent (10%) of the

11

delinquent amount shall be charged, and that interest at a rate of twelve percent (12%) per

12

annum shall be assessed against all delinquent assessments, late charges and reasonable

13

costs of collection commencing thirty (30) days after the due date of the delinquent

14

assessment.

15

234.

Pursuant to Article V, Section 1 of the Fox Hollow CC&Rs each assessment,

16

together with interest, attorneys fees and costs of collection, shall also be a separate,

17

distinct and personal obligation (debt) of the Owner of a Lot at the time when the

18

assessment is levied.

19
20
21

235.

Pursuant to Article V, Section 1, the declarant and each Owner vested in the

Association the right to bring all actions for the collection of assessments.
236.

Pursuant to Article IV, Subsection 2.5, the Board is empowered and obligated to

22

enforce the provisions of the Fox Hollow CC&Rs as well as the Bylaws and Rules for the

23

Association.

24

237.

The Defendants named in this claim failed and refused to pay regular and special

25

assessment to Fox Hollow HOA and owe the following amounts for assessments and late

26

charges for their respective property interests set forth below, plus interest on such

27

amounts at a rate of twelve (12) % per annum from thirty (30) days after each assessment

28

and late charge was due, and until paid: Defendants Mauctrst, Richard Sinclair and
51

1

Mauchley in the amount of $49,305.14 on Lots 1 through 19 prior to the foreclosures by

2

the lenders; Defendants Brandon Sinclair and Capstone LLC in the amount of at least

3

$15,730 on Lot 1; and Defendants Richard Sinclair and Lairtrust LLC in the amount of at

4

least $16,930 on Lot 19.

5
6

Count Eight Specific Performance Re: Common Area
238.

The Plaintiff asserting this count is the Fox Hollow HOA, and this count is being

7

asserted against Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley, Mauctrst and Flake, Trustee. For

8

purposes of this count, and this count only, “Plaintiff” and “Defendants” shall be limited to

9

those parties.

10
11
12

239.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 146 as if fully set forth herein.
240.

The consideration of the mutual benefits and burdens for the declarant and Owners

13

set forth in the Fox Hollow CC&Rs was fair and reasonable at the time the Fox Hollow

14

CC&Rs were recorded and at the times Defendants recorded the subdivision maps,

15

conveyed and accepted title to various Lots at Fox Hollow and obtained the loans secured

16

by Lots at the Fox Hollow Property, all as alleged hereinabove.

17

241.

Plaintiff has performed all of the conditions, covenants and promises required of it

18

on its part to be performed in accordance with the Fox Hollow CC&Rs for Defendants and

19

each of them to be obligated to convey title to the common area for the Fox Hollow

20

Property to the Fox Hollow HOA, except as excused by Defendants’ failure to satisfy

21

conditions precedent and prior breaches waived by Defendants, and for which Defendants

22

are estopped from asserting.

23

242.

On or about March 20, 2003, Fox Hollow HOA made written demand on

24

Defendants to execute and deliver to the Fox Hollow HOA in recordable form, a deed

25

conveying title to the common area of the Fox Hollow Property that was described by the

26

legal description for the Fox Hollow Property, excepting out the Lots shown on Fox

27

Hollow Subdivision Map # 1 and Fox Hollow Subdivision Map # 2 (the “Fox Hollow

28

Common Area”).
52

1

243.

Defendants, and each of them, at all times alleged herein were obligated to convey

2

title to the Fox Hollow Common Area to the Fox Hollow HOA under the Fox Hollow

3

CC&Rs as hereinabove alleged, but have failed and refused to do so and thereby breached

4

the Fox Hollow CC&Rs.

5
6

Count Nine Declaratory And Injunctive Relief Re: Common Area
244.

The Plaintiffs asserting this count are Fox Hollow HOA and CEMG, and this count

7

is being asserted against Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley, Mauctrst, and Flake,

8

Trustee. For purposes of this count, and this count only, “Plaintiffs” and “Defendants”

9

shall be limited to those parties.

10
11
12

245.

Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1

through 146 and 215 through 218 as if fully set forth herein.
246.

Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Julie Insurance Trust, despite being obligated to

13

do so, failed and refused to form a homeowners association for the Fox Hollow Property

14

and to convey title to the common area for the Fox Hollow Property to the Fox Hollow

15

HOA at any time from and after filing Fox Hollow Subdivision Map # 1 in March 1996

16

and conveying title of Lots 1, 11, 18 and 19 to Defendant Mauchley on or about February

17

26, 1997, and up to the present time.

18

247.

An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants

19

in that Plaintiffs contend that Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA is entitled to ownership in and the

20

right of possession to the Fox Hollow Common Area, whereas Defendants contend that

21

they own and have a right of possession to the Fox Hollow Common Area to the exclusion

22

of Plaintiffs and the tenants of CEMG at the Fox Hollow Property.

23

248.

Plaintiffs request a declaratory judgment, declaring the rights and obligations of the

24

parties with respect to the Fox Hollow Common Area, and declaring that Plaintiff Fox

25

Hollow HOA is entitled to ownership in and the right of possession to the Fox Hollow

26

Common Area and that Defendants and each of them have no ownership of or right to

27

exclude Plaintiffs and the tenants of CEMG at the Fox Hollow Property from the Fox

28

Hollow Common Area.
53

1

249.

A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the

2

circumstances such that the parties herein will know their rights in and to the Fox Hollow

3

Common Area and in order to avoid a multiplicity of actions and the disruption of the

4

peaceable use and enjoyment of the Fox Hollow Common Area by Plaintiffs and the

5

tenants of CEMG at the Fox Hollow Property.

6

250.

Defendants have and threaten to continue to claim ownership in the Fox Hollow

7

Common Area and to harass the tenants of CEMG at the Fox Hollow Property, and

8

accordingly, an injunction should issue enjoining and restraining Defendants and each of

9

them from asserting, claiming or communicating to tenants at the Fox Hollow Property

10

that they, or any of them, hold or claim any ownership in and to the Fox Hollow Common

11

Area, or otherwise from interfering with the use and enjoyment of the Fox Hollow

12

Common Area by Plaintiffs and any tenants at the Fox Hollow Property.

13
14
15

III. Findings of Fact from the Prove Up Hearing
251.

On September 13, 2002, Plaintiff CEMG purchased Lots 3, 7, 9, and 14 from Conti

16

for $61,250 each. Ex. 11, pages 3 and 4. The price of Lots 9 and 14 were reduced to

17

$52,500 in light of legal challenges raised by Defendants. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 31:32-

18

33:5. Ex. 11, Addendum.

19

252.

The amount owing on the loans at the time Conti sold them was $193,678.11 for

20

Lot 3, $144,595.85 for Lot 7, $199,995.14 for Lot 9, and $199,370.55 for Lot 14. Exs. 13,

21

14, and 15; Doc. 1237, Transcript, 34:17-36:6. Conti suffered a total loss of $510,139.65

22

due to selling the loans for less than the outstanding loan balance. Ex. 16; Doc. 1237,

23

Transcript, 36:18-37:14.

24

253.

In order for the subdivision of Fox Hollow to be approved by the City of Turlock,

25

improvements had to be made, including “installing twenty-seven (27) firewalls for the

26

garages, three (3) fire walls in the units, eliminating six (6) roof overhangs, removing

27

seven (7) windows, and adding two (2) roof vents.” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 35-38. Plaintiffs

28

hired architect Vernon Fergel to determine what needed to be done on Fox Hollow to
54

1

permit subdivision. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 48:11-21. The building code analysis by Fergel

2

recommended installing firewalls for garages, installing firewalls for certain units,

3

eliminating certain roof overhangs, and checking or adding smoke detectors. Ex. 18.

4

254.

The physical condition of the Fox Hollow project, both structures and grounds, in

5

late 2002 was poor. Ex. 17; Doc. 1237, Transcript, 38:1-46:19. In rehabilitating its Lots,

6

Plaintiff CEMG, substantially replaced the interior of the buildings, leaving only the

7

foundations, studs, and sheetrock. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 50:17-23.

8
9
10
11

255.

The total cost of rehabilitating was $75,068.08 for Lot 3, $69,348.75 for Lot 7, $78,

781.16 for Lot 9, and $68,955.14 for Lot 14 for a total of $292.153.13. Ex. 20; Doc. 1237,
Transcript, 53:16-54:5.
256.

Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA rehabilitated the common areas. Doc. 1237, Transcript,

12

49:12-50:6. Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA spent a total of $350,110.95 in 2003 and 2004 on

13

these projects. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 80:4-82:7; Exs. 24-25.

14

257.

Plaintiff CEMG planned to sell the Lots after remodeling them. Doc. 1237,

15

Transcript, 58:1-3. However, California’s Department of Real Estate would not give the

16

necessary approval because “one of the issues had to do with the common ownership of the

17

- - the road. And there was some garage lots that were retained by Mr. Sinclair’s group, so

18

he basically held those captive. Therefore, not allowing us to finalize the DRE white

19

report.” Doc. 1237, Transcript, 58:6-20; See Ex. 36. The dispute over ownership of the

20

common areas and the garage lots prevented the Lots from being sold to the general public.

21

258.

Katakis estimates that had the issues with ownership of the garage lots and the

22

common areas not arisen, Plaintiff CEMG would have been able to get approval from the

23

Department of Real Estate within weeks and been able to sell the units on the Lots from

24

“very late 2004, all the way into mid 2005.” Doc. 1237, Transcript, 61:17-25. Katakis

25

states that the real estate market for condominium units in the Turlock area was very

26

favorable to sellers in late 2004, early 2005. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 62:10-19.

27
28

259.

Plaintiff CEMG had a real estate appraisal of their Fox Hollow Lots done in 2004.

The report of December 12, 2004 by W.G. Bartha & Associates estimated that the Lots
55

1

would sell for a total of $6,350,000. Ex. 37. Katakis estimated that in that time frame, each

2

duplex was worth $410,000 and each single family unit was worth $205,000 for a total of

3

$6,355,000. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 66:8-19; Ex. 38, page 2. In contrast, Katakis estimated

4

that as of May 28, 2015, each duplex was worth $253,746.91 and each single family unit

5

was worth $141,751.25 for a total of $3,977,710.47. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 66:20-67:5;

6

Ex. 38, page 1. After taking into the cost of marketing and actual sales, Katakis estimates

7

that Plaintiff CEMG lost $2,353,516.63 in not being able to sell the Lots in 2004-2005.

8

Doc. 1237, Transcript, 67:19-25. Delay in the sale of the Lots cost Plaintiff CEMG

9

$2,353,516.63.

10

260.

Lawrence Rubenstein and Michael McGranahan were appointed Receivers for

11

Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA from March 2001 to October 2002. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 106-

12

107. They, and their attorneys, charged Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA a total of $28,277.28

13

for their services. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 25:24-26:2; Exs. 4, 5, 6, and 8.

14

261.

Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA, before its incorporation, paid Defendant Richard

15

Sinclair $15,266.99 in attorney’s fees between August 2000 and January 2001. Ex.7,

16

McGranahan Report, page 4, Exs. A and C. During this time Lender GMAC paid $5,200

17

to this entity. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 28:5-19.

18

262.

Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Defendant Mauchley. Doc. 1237, Transcript,

19

68:21-22. To settle the CAC part of their dispute, Defendant Mauchley agreed to transfer

20

to Plaintiffs three pieces of property worth a total of $460,000 and a $50,000 promissory

21

note. Ex. 42. Katakis stated that the promissory note is worthless as it was discharged in

22

bankruptcy. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 70:19-25. The total amount set aside to settle the

23

claims contained in the CAC is $460,000.

24

263.

Plaintiffs reached a settlement with Flake Defendants. Doc. 1179. To settle the

25

CAC part of their dispute these Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs $2,625,000 (70% of the

26

total settlement amount of $3,750,000). Doc. 1237, Transcript, 72:8-10. Katakis stated that

27

a part of that amount was spent on attorney’s fees, leaving $2,297,793 to settle the

28

substantive claims contained in the CAC. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 72:11-73:5; Ex. 44.
56

1
2

IV. Motion for Reconsideration

3

264.

Defendant Richard Sinclair sought to file 108 Exhibits in support of his opposition

4

to the motion for default judgment. However, they were submitted late, on May 3, 2016,

5

one week before the prove up hearing. Defendant Richard Sinclair also filed an ex parte

6

motion to postpone the hearing for 90 as his license had been suspended until the end of

7

May. Doc. 1217. The motion was denied and Defendant Richard Sinclair was directed to

8

find alternative transportation. Doc. 1219. On the morning of the hearing, Defendant

9

Richard Sinclair called the court seeking to participate telephonically; his request was

10

denied. The lateness of the filing, together with Defendant Richard Sinclair’s absence at

11

the hearing, resulted in the striking of his declaration and exhibits. Doc. 1220

12

265.

Defendant Richard Sinclair filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that there

13

were “new or different facts and circumstances.” Doc. 1222, Motion for Reconsideration,

14

1:23-25. The substance of the briefing does not follow through on that assertion. Instead

15

of presenting new facts explaining why his submissions were late and why he failed to

16

attend the hearing, Defendant Richard Sinclair continues to focus his argument on why this

17

court must honor the earlier settlement agreement the state courts have found

18

unenforceable, how Andrew Katakis has orchestrated a criminal conspiracy against him,

19

and how Plaintiffs’ counsel must be disqualified. See Doc. 1223. These arguments have

20

been consistently rejected by this court for years. See, e.g. Doc. 642 (denying motion to

21

disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel), Doc. 860 (denying motion to disqualify Plaintiffs’ counsel),

22

Doc. 1184 (refusing to reinstate settlement agreement that the California courts have

23

determined unenforceable and refusing to find that Plaintiffs perpetrated fraud on the

24

courts in the State Court Action). Without any concrete, detailed explanations for why he

25

did not file his exhibits in a timely manner and failed to show up at the prove up hearing,

26

Defendant Richard Sinclair’s motion for reconsideration is denied.

27

///

28
57

1
2
3
4

V. Conclusions of Law
266.

This court has jurisdiction over this action based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 federal

question jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) supplemental jurisdiction.
267.

Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry

5

of a default judgment include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits

6

of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money

7

at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether

8

the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal

9

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,

10
11

1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986).
268.

“Upon the entry of default, well-pleaded factual allegations regarding liability are

12

taken as true, but allegations regarding the amount of damages must be proven. Pope v.

13

United States, 323 U.S. 1, 65 S. Ct. 16, 22, 89 L. Ed. 3, 102 Ct. Cl. 846 (1944); see also

14

Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); Domanus v.

15

Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290, 303 (7th Cir. 2014) (“Any allegations in the complaint relating to

16

liability are considered true, but allegations going to damages are not”). In addition,

17

‘necessary facts not contained in the pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient,

18

are not established by default.’ Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 980 F.2d 1261, 1267

19

(9th Cir. 1992) (citing Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978)).”

20

Anderson v. Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174477, *2-3 (E.D. Cal.

21

Dec. 15, 2016).

22

269.

Plaintiffs have stated that “Both Mr. Sinclair and Brandon Sinclair are adults and

23

neither is subject to any legal determination of incompetence….Neither Mr. Sinclair nor

24

Brandon Sinclair is subject to the Servicemen Civil Relief Act.” Doc. 1205, Durbin

25

Declaration, 2:17-21.

26
27
28

A. Sufficiency Of The Claims
270.

In the CAC, Plaintiffs have raised claims of fraud; civil RICO; unjust enrichment;
58

1

accounting; and breach of the Fox Hollow Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions

2

(“CC&Rs”). For damages, Plaintiffs seek money, constructive trust, specific performance,

3

declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. See Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 147-225.

4

271.

In the motion for default judgment (Doc. 1203) and proposed FOFCOL (Doc.

5

1226-1), Plaintiffs only address some of the counts included in the CAC. The court finds

6

that Plaintiffs intended them to be support for the actual causes of action prosecuted.

7

272.

First, Plaintiffs do not treat the fraud claim as an independent cause of action. In

8

fact, rather than discuss fraud as a claim under California law, Plaintiffs instead discuss the

9

fraud allegations in the context of mail and wire fraud which constitute predicate acts

10

under RICO. See Doc. 1203, Motion, 19:5-26:19. Plaintiffs do not seek any damages from

11

fraud independent of RICO. See Doc. 1226-1, Proposed FOFCOL. Consequently, the

12

court need not rule on the sufficiency of the fraud cause of action.

13

273.

Similarly, in later filings, Plaintiffs have not treated their accounting claim as a

14

separate cause of action. California courts have recognized that rather than being a truly

15

independent claim “the nature of a cause of action in accounting is unique in that it is a

16

means of discovery.” Teselle v. McLoughlin, 173 Cal. App. 4th 156, 180 (Cal. App. 3d

17

Dist. 2009). Consequently, the court need not rule on the sufficiency of the accounting

18

cause of action.

19
20
21

1. RICO
274.

“[P]leading requirements should be enforced strictly when default judgments are

22

sought under RICO. Not only is the monetary penalty for failure to answer greatly

23

enhanced by the provisions for treble damages, but a defendant’s reputation may be

24

stigmatized.” Alan Neuman Productions, Inc. v. Albright, 862 F.2d 1388, 1393 (9th Cir.

25

1988), citations omitted. In light of this admonition, Plaintiffs’ RICO claim is read

26

narrowly to focus on the more specific factual assertions.

27
28

275.

Plaintiffs summarize the nature of the RICO claim as Defendants “knowingly

agreed, colluded and conspired with each other and among themselves to fraudulently
59

1

create the false appearance of a homeowners association and individually saleable lots at

2

Fox Hollow in order to obtain loans secured by portions of Fox Hollow and to enrich

3

themselves at the expense of the lenders, the successors to the lenders and the homeowners

4

association, by skimming off loan proceeds, dues collected in the name of the homeowners

5

association, and rental income and tenant deposits, all while concealing their scheme and

6

attempting to shield themselves from individual liability by creating shell companies and

7

churning record title to the property.” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 151. The specific actions

8

Plaintiffs cite as constituting the heart of the RICO claim are set out in detail in Paragraph

9

153. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 153.

10

276.

One part of the scheme was obtaining mortgages for the various Fox Hollow lots in

11

1997-98 while making misrepresentations and withholding material information from the

12

lenders. To borrow the money, Defendants created the false appearance of an arms length

13

transaction between Defendants Flake and Mauchley. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 52. The Fox

14

Hollow CC&Rs were executed and recorded on September 16, 1996 by Defendants Flake

15

and Richard Sinclair. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 44. It spelled out the operation and rules of the

16

Fox Hollow HOA. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 45-50. In particular, it required transfer to the HOA

17

of “fee title to the common area for the Fox Hollow Property free and clear of all liens and

18

encumbrances ‘prior to the conveyance of title to the first lot.’” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 49. The

19

deeds of trust for these mortgages also included a Planned Unit Development Rider which

20

specified that the loan also included an interest in the HOA and that Defendant Mauchley

21

as the borrower promised to abide by the articles of incorporation of the HOA. Doc. 410,

22

CAC, ¶¶ 57 and 69. The mortgages were conditioned upon the Lots being individually

23

saleable. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 63. However, Defendants did not incorporate the Fox Hollow

24

HOA until December 6, 2000. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 95. There is still a cloud over the title of

25

the common areas as Defendants refused to transfer them to Fox Hollow HOA. At the

26

time Defendant Mauchley obtained the loans “there was no homeowners association or

27

equivalent entity to own or manage the common area and facilities of the PUD; title to the

28

common area had not been transferred to a homeowners association; and Defendants
60

1

Richard Sinclair, Mauchley and Flake, and each of them, had no intention at that time to

2

form a homeowners association, to transfer title to the common area, or to charge and

3

collect dues and assessment to maintain the common area and lots, all as required of them

4

in the Fox Hollow CC&Rs and by the conditions of approval by the City of Turlock for the

5

Project.” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 58 and 70. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants concealed these

6

facts from the Lenders. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 58. In obtaining the loans, Defendants used

7

mails and/or interstate phone calls or electronic communications. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 173.

8

Properties on a Fox Hollow development that did not have an HOA and have been

9

subdivided to be individually saleable are worth less than properties in a project that have

10

those tasks completed. Defendants were aware that whether a Lot was individually

11

saleable was an important distinction in determining the worth of the Properties. In 2000,

12

Defendants sent the Lenders letters through the mail that revealed these problems in a bid

13

to buy back the deeds of trust from the Lenders for less than the amount outstanding on the

14

loans. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 77 and 85. By misrepresenting the state of the Fox Hollow

15

development when initially obtaining the mortgages, Defendants defrauded the Lenders. A

16

related matter is ownership of the garages associated with the Lots. In obtaining the

17

mortgages, Defendants “concealed from each of the lenders that the corresponding one car

18

garages” for Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 18 were “not included in the legal description in the

19

deed of trust for the loan.” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 59 and 71. Again, this would act to

20

decrease the value of the Lots. Defendants continue to use the state of subdivision and

21

question over title to the garages to frustrate Plaintiff CEMG’s attempts to sell the Lots it

22

owns.

23

277.

Another part of the scheme involved misusing the name of Fox Hollow HOA to

24

fraudulently obtain money from the Lenders. The Lenders (and their successors)

25

foreclosed on the various Fox Hollow Lots in 2000-2003. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 89. Yet

26

starting on August 1, 2000 (before the HOA’s incorporation), Defendants Richard Sinclair,

27

Mauchley, and Brandon Sinclair represented themselves as the Board of Directors of the

28

Fox Hollow HOA and through the mail demanded monthly dues of $300 upon the Lenders
61

1

who successfully foreclosed. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 90. GMAC paid the amounts Defendants,

2

representing themselves as Fox Hollow HOA, demanded. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 96.

3

278.

“Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section

4

1962 of this chapter [18 U.S.C. § 1962] may sue therefor in any appropriate United States

5

district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit,

6

including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Plaintiffs assert that

7

Defendants’ actions violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d). Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 180. Under

8

federal RICO law, “(c) It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with

9

any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce,

10

to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs

11

through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. (d) It shall be

12

unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b),

13

or (c) of this section.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d). “To state a claim under § 1962(c), a

14

plaintiff must allege ‘(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of

15

racketeering activity.’” Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 486 F.3d 541, 547 (9th Cir. 2007),

16

citations omitted.

17

279.

An “‘enterprise’ includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or

18

other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a

19

legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). “[A]n association-in-fact enterprise must have at least

20

three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the

21

enterprise, and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s

22

purpose.” Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 946 (2009). “[B]are assertions of a pattern

23

of racketeering activity do not establish an enterprise.” Doan v. Singh, 617 Fed. Appx.

24

684, 686 (9th Cir. 2015). Plaintiffs’ factual allegations in the CAC adequately describe

25

conduct of an enterprise consisting of “an association-in-fact to own and operate Fox

26

Hollow and divide among themselves money and benefits derived therefrom” with

27

activities connecting Defendants with the enterprise taking place between 1995 and 2001.

28

Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 167. Each of the Defendants participated and took action on behalf of
62

1
2

the association-in-fact.
280.

A “‘pattern of racketeering activity’ requires at least two acts of racketeering

3

activity, one of which occurred after the effective date of this chapter and the last of which

4

occurred within ten years (excluding any period of imprisonment) after the commission of

5

a prior act of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). “RICO defines as racketeering

6

activity only acts that are ‘indictable’ (or, what amounts to the same thing, ‘chargeable’ or

7

‘punishable’) under one of the statutes identified in §1961(1).” RJR Nabisco, Inc. v.

8

European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090, 2102 (2016). Section 1961(1) includes “any act which

9

is indictable under any of the following provisions of title 18, United States Code:…

10

section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud).” 18 U.S.C. §

11

1961(1)(B). Plaintiffs allege multiple acts of mail and wire fraud undertaken by the

12

association-in-fact between 1997 and 2001. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 173. Mail fraud is defined

13

as “Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or

14

for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations,

15

or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or

16

furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or

17

other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit

18

or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to

19

do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing

20

whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited

21

any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial

22

interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly

23

causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the

24

place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such

25

matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or

26

both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Wire fraud is defined as “Whoever, having devised or intending

27

to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means

28

of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be
63

1

transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign

2

commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing

3

such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20

4

years, or both.” 18 U.S.C. § 1343. “Sections 1341 and 1343 reach any scheme to deprive

5

another of money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or

6

promises.” Carpenter v. United States, 484 U.S. 19, 27 (1987). “[C]auses to be delivered”

7

and “causes to be transmitted” is interpreted broadly. United States v. Garner, 663 F.2d

8

834, 838 (9th Cir. 1981), citing United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 399 (1974) (“the

9

government may prove the use of the mails for the purpose of executing a scheme to

10

defraud by showing that a defendant acted knowing that the use of the mails would follow

11

in the ordinary course of business, or that, even when not intended, such use was

12

reasonably foreseeable. In addition, the mailings need not be an essential part of the

13

contemplated scheme, they need only be made for the purpose of executing the scheme”).

14

Plaintiffs have alleged multiple acts of mail and/or wire fraud in connection with their

15

scheme. Each of the Defendants intended to participate in the scheme to defraud the

16

Lenders.

17

281.

These activities affected interstate commerce. “A minimal effect on interstate

18

commerce satisfies this jurisdictional element.” United States v. Bagnariol, 665 F.2d 877,

19

892-93 (9th Cir. 1981) (noting that “interstate telephone calls” could suffice). Plaintiffs

20

specifically alleged that Defendant Richard Sinclair sent a letter via facsimile to Mr.

21

Sessions of GMAC Mortgage in Hawaii on May 5, 1998 providing financial information

22

on Defendant Mauchley in support of the mortgage application. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 153.

23

282.

Plaintiffs have stated RICO claims against all the Defaulted Defendants.

24
25
26

2. Unjust Enrichment
283.

“The elements of unjust enrichment are ‘receipt of a benefit and unjust retention of

27

the benefit at the expense of another.’ This equitable test does not turn merely on the

28

transfer of money or other benefits from one party to another — it requires injustice.”
64

1

Berger v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 741 F.3d 1061, 1070 (9th Cir. 2014), citing Lectrodryer

2

v. SeoulBank, 77 Cal. App. 4th 723, 726 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2000) and Doe I v. Wal-Mart

3

Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 684 (9th Cir. 2009). In the CAC, Plaintiffs refer to the general

4

facts alleged and do not specifically state what constitutes unjust enrichment. See Doc.

5

410, CAC, ¶¶ 182-184. Plaintiffs do not explain what allegations fit an unjust enrichment

6

claim in their motion for default judgment. See Doc. 1203. In their later briefing, Plaintiffs

7

suggest that their unjust enrichment cause of action is based on the failure to return

8

security deposits to tenants in 2002; Plaintiffs noted that the tenants had assigned their

9

rights to Plaintiff CEMG. See Doc. 1226-1, Proposed FOFCOL, ¶¶ 176-183, citing Doc.

10

410, CAC, ¶¶ 1, 89, 111, 112, 115, 116, 118, 119, 121, and 151. The most pertinent

11

allegations in the CAC state that Defendants “entered in to written leases on units 104, 133

12

and 135 with tenants and then refused the demands for return of first month’s rent and

13

security deposits in the amounts of $1,825, $1,850 and $1,895 respectively which such

14

rights of the tenants have been assigned to Plaintiff CEMG.” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 116.

15

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not actually hold title to these properties at the time

16

they rented them out. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 115. If Defendants did not have actual authority

17

to lease out the property, the lease agreements were voidable. See Lafountaine v.

18

Grobstein, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 2218, *11 n.8 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. June 7, 2016). As Plaintiffs

19

appear to be seeking to enforce the terms of the lease, namely the return of the security

20

deposit, these allegations fail to state a claim for unjust enrichment as it appears there was

21

an agreement which defined the rights of the parties.

22

284.

However, “unjust enrichment is an action in quasi-contract, which does not lie

23

when an enforceable, binding agreement exists defining the rights of the parties.” Paracor

24

Fin., Inc. v. GE Capital Corp., 96 F.3d 1151, 1167 (9th Cir. 1996). In the rental context, a

25

lease agreement provides for damages based on breach of contract. See Western Gen. Ins.

26

Co. v. Encino Exec. Plaza, Ltd., 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 3895, *20-21 (Cal. App.

27

2d Dist. Apr. 29, 2005) (“Landlord fails to explain whether equitable relief is available in

28

this situation. If Tenant had withheld payment of the increased operating costs, Landlord
65

1

might have been limited to seeking standard contract damages as opposed to equitable

2

relief”). Based upon CAC’s factual allegations that the renters and the Defendants had a

3

written lease agreement, no unjust enrichment claim has been stated.

4
5
6

3. Constructive Trust
285.

Plaintiff CEMG owns Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 18 (on which stand the main

7

residential structures) while there is controversy over who owns the associated garages.

8

Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, and 128. Plaintiffs assert in counts five

9

and six that Defendants hold these garages in a constructive trust for CEMG’s benefit and

10

seek declaratory and injunctive relief to have ownership over the garages formally

11

transferred. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 189-202. Federal and California courts have determined

12

that “a constructive trust is an equitable remedy, not a cause of action.” Rasmussen v.

13

Dublin Rarities, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24260, *36 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015); Lawson v.

14

CitiCorp Trust Bank, FSB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86780 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2011); PCO,

15

Inc. v. Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, 150 Cal. App. 4th

16

384, 398 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. 2007). The same is true of the request for declaratory and

17

injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have not stated a cause of action for these two counts. The

18

remedy requested is addressed below.

19
20
21

4. Fox Hollow CC&Rs
286.

Under California law, CC&Rs “shall be enforceable equitable servitudes, unless

22

unreasonable, and shall inure to the benefit of and bind all owners of separate interests in

23

the development. Unless the declaration states otherwise, these servitudes may be enforced

24

by any owner of a separate interest or by the association, or by both.” Cal Civ. Code §

25

5975(a), formerly codified as Cal. Civ. Code § 1354(a) (repealed 2014).

26

287.

“[T]he association shall levy regular and special assessments sufficient to perform

27

its obligations under the governing documents and this act.” Cal. Civ. Code § 5600(a),

28

formerly codified as Cal. Civ. Code § 1366(a) (repealed 2014). The Fox Hollow CC&Rs
66

1

set out that the HOA would “establish regular monthly assessments for operations and

2

maintenance of the Project…payable in monthly installments on the first day of each

3

month.” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 49. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to pay the

4

assessments of the Fox Hollow HOA. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 212.

5

288.

The Fox Hollow CC&Rs also required Defendant Flake, as trustee of the Julie

6

Insurance Trust, “to convey to the [HOA] fee title to the common area for the Fox Hollow

7

Property free and clear of all liens and encumbrances ‘prior to the conveyance of title to

8

the first lot.’” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 49. On March 20, 2003, Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA

9

demanded that Defendants deliver a deed transferring title over the common area to the

10

HOA. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 217. Defendants have refused to do so. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 218.

11
12

289.

Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA has stated a cause of action based on breach of the Fox

Hollow CC&Rs.

13
14
15

B. Eitel Factors
290.

Factors which may be considered by courts in exercising discretion as to the entry

16

of a default judgment include: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits

17

of plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of money

18

at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts; (6) whether

19

the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal

20

Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470,

21

1471–72 (9th Cir. 1986).

22

291.

Regarding the first and sixth factors, default was entered because Defendants

23

Richard Sinclair, Brandon Sinclair, Lairtrust, and Capstones consistently violated court

24

orders and repeatedly refused to fulfill their responsibilities to participate in discovery.

25

Doc. 1070. Defendant Richard Sinclair declared that due to his lack of assets, monetary

26

sanctions could not induce him to obey court orders. Doc. 982. This case was first filed in

27

federal court in 2003. A plaintiff suffers prejudice if they “would be denied the right to

28

judicial resolution of the claims presented, and would be without other recourse for
67

1

recovery.” Warner Bros. Home Entm’t v. Jimenez, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97139, *9 (C.D.

2

Cal. July 8, 2013), quoting Electra Entm’t Grp. Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 392

3

(C.D.Cal.2005). Plaintiffs in this case would suffer prejudice if default judgment is not

4

entered. As default was ordered by the court at the end of a series of sanctions, there was

5

no excusable neglect by Plaintiffs.

6

292.

The second and third factors are related and often analyzed together. See DR JKL

7

Ltd. v. HPC IT Educ. Ctr., 749 F. Supp. 2d 1038, 1048 (N.D. Cal. 2010). The discussion

8

above has established that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated causes of action against the

9

Defaulted Defendants. In examining the merits of the claim, defendants may present

10

evidence but must do so in opposition to the motion for default judgment to be deemed

11

timely. See NewGen, LLC v. Safe Cig, LLC, 840 F.3d 606, 616 n.7 (9th Cir. 2016). In

12

this case, Defendant Richard Sinclair’s submissions were untimely submitted and stricken

13

from the record for his failure to appear at the hearing. Doc. 1220. The evidence submitted

14

by Plaintiffs supports the merits of their substantive claims. Defendant Richard Sinclair

15

has raised the concern that Defendant Brandon Sinclair was a minor during at least part of

16

the time period over which the events of this case took place. Defendant Brandon

17

Sinclair’s birth date is July 16, 1978. Exhibit 49, Response to Interrogatories Signed by

18

Richard Sinclair, page 3. He turned 18 in 1996, before the main part of the RICO

19

violations occurred. Defendant Brandon Sinclair personally took part in the RICO scheme

20

in 2000. Further, the overall case law on the actions of minors suggests that as long as

21

Defendant Brandon Sinclair took active part in the RICO violations, he can be found

22

financially liable. In a criminal RICO case, the Ninth Circuit stated that “Nothing in the

23

[Juvenile Delinquency Act] or in any other statute suggests that Congress intended to

24

create a loophole resulting in no rehabilitation or punishment whatsoever for persons who

25

indisputably committed a serious continuing crime, merely because the crime happened to

26

span the defendant’s eighteenth birthday…. we adopt the prevailing view that, for

27

prosecution of a defendant indicted at age 18, 19, or 20, pre-majority acts may be admitted

28

as substantive proof of a continuing crime such as the substantive RICO count here.”
68

1

United States v. Camez, 839 F.3d 871, 875-76 (9th Cir. 2016). Looking at related non-

2

RICO law, invites the same conclusion. In one fraud case, parents passed funds through

3

their minor children’s account to try to hide the monies during a bankruptcy; the district

4

court found both the parents and the children jointly and severally liable for repaying the

5

bankruptcy estate. Boyer v. Belavilas, 474 F.3d 375, 377 (7th Cir. 2007). The Seventh

6

Circuit modified the judgment, finding the minor persons not personally liable on the basis

7

that Ҥ 17(c) of the [Uniform Transfers to Minors Act] addresses the problem of lifetime

8

liability arising from events a minor cannot control: ‘A minor is not personally liable for an

9

obligation arising from ownership of custodial property or for a tort committed during the

10

custodianship unless the minor is personally at fault.’ The children’s obligation to return

11

the fraudulent conveyance is one ‘arising from ownership of custodial property’. Unless a

12

minor is ‘at fault’--and the bankruptcy judge held that neither Angelo nor Nickolas bears

13

any fault--all obligations that relate to the UTMA account must be satisfied either from the

14

custodial assets under § 17(a) or by the custodian.” Boyer v. Belavilas, 474 F.3d 375, 378-

15

39 (7th Cir. 2007). In litigation, costs may be taxed against a minor. Petri v. Kestrel Oil &

16

Gas Props., L.P., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8695, *20 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 17, 2013). The fact

17

that Brandon Sinclair was a minor until 1996 would not affect this judgment.

18

293.

For the fourth factor, “Default judgment is disfavored when a large amount of

19

money is involved or is unreasonable in light of the defendant’s actions.” Joe Hand

20

Promotions, Inc. v. Burleson, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119191, *9 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14,

21

2011). This is a RICO case in which the Defendants are alleged to have undertaken a

22

coordinated scheme of defrauding Lenders and owners of the Lots over multiple years.

23

However, Plaintiffs request over $10 million in damages and “a large amount of money

24

weighs against default judgment.” Chong’s Produce, Inc. v. Pushpak Rests., Inc., 2017

25

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36498, *9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2017). This factor weighs against default

26

judgment. However, courts have the authority to reduce the award for default judgment.

27

See Hanover Ins. Co. v. Realty Bancorp Equities, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140831, *9

28

(C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2016); Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Be, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124057,
69

1

*7 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2011) (“Where a plaintiff's request for damages is excessive, the

2

court may mitigate the impact of this factor by reducing the amount awarded”).

3

294.

The fifth factor is the possibility of dispute concerning material facts. “Because all

4

allegations in a well-pleaded complaint are taken as true after the court clerk enters default

5

judgment, there is no likelihood that any genuine issue of material fact exists.” Elektra

6

Entm’t Group, Inc. v. Crawford, 226 F.R.D. 388, 393 (C.D. Cal. 2005). This conclusion is

7

further reinforced by the fact that Defaulted Defendants have “submitted nothing to

8

contradict the well-pled allegations.” Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Burleson, 2011 U.S.

9

Dist. LEXIS 119191, *10-11 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 14, 2011).

10

295.

The seventh factor is the strong policy that favors decisions on the merits. The

11

factor is not dispositive but must be considered alongside the other factors. Maxum Indem.

12

Co. v. Court Servs., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79956, *12 (E.D. Cal. June 8, 2012).

13

296.

On balance, the factors weigh in favor of granting the motion for default judgment.

14

Striking answers to the CAC was a litigation sanction arrived at after a years-long process

15

whereby the court has unsuccessfully tried to make Defendants Richard Sinclair, Brandon

16

Sinclair, Lairtrust, and Capstone comply with court orders. Defendant Richard Sinclair

17

especially has taken multiple opportunities to frustrate the process of this case, preventing

18

it from reaching a conclusion. At this point, default judgment appears to the only way to

19

resolve this case.

20
21

C. Money Damages

22

1. RICO

23

297.

“Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section

24

1962 of this chapter [18 U.S.C. § 1962] may sue therefor in any appropriate United States

25

district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit,

26

including a reasonable attorney’s fee.” 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). The trebling of civil RICO

27

damages is mandatory. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nassiri, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98348, *5-6

28

(D. Nev. July 15, 2013) (“Having reviewed 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), the court finds that it is
70

1

required to treble damages”); Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Madariaga, 851 F.2d

2

271, 277 (9th Cir. 1988) (“the treble damages mandated by RICO”). Section 1964(c)

3

“requires the plaintiff to establish proximate cause in order to show injury ‘by reason of’ a

4

RICO violation.” Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indem. Co., 553 U.S. 639, 654 (2008). Civil

5

RICO allows for joint and several liability. See Beneficial Standard Life Ins. Co. v.

6

Madariaga, 851 F.2d 271, 272 (9th Cir. 1988) (noting that the district court issued a

7

judgment finding defendants joint and severally liable); Fleischhauer v. Feltner, 879 F.2d

8

1290, 1301 (6th Cir. 1989) (“the nature of the RICO offense mandates joint and several

9

liability”).

10

298.

As part of the purchase of Lots 3, 7, 9, and 14, Plaintiff CEMG acquired from

11

Conti an assignment of all associated legal and equitable claims. Doc. 1237, Transcript,

12

33:6-16; Ex. 11, pages 3 and 4. “[F]ederal courts have consistently held that parties may

13

assign RICO claims.” HIF Bio, Inc. v. Yung Shin Pharms. Indus. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist.

14

LEXIS 97002, *14 (C.D. Cal. June 9, 2006), citing Lerman v. Joyce Int’l, 10 F.3d 106,

15

112-13 (3rd Cir. 1993) and In re National Mortg. Equity Corp. Mortg. Pool Certificates

16

Sec. Litigation, 636 F. Supp. 1138, 1156 (C.D. Cal. 1986). For these Lots, Plaintiff CEMG

17

(standing in the shoes of Conti) is the proper party to seek RICO damages. Granite Bay

18

Funding was the original lender on the mortgages secured by first deeds of trust for Lots 3,

19

7, 9, and 14 in July 1998; Conti acquired those loans from Granite Bay Funding in August

20

1998. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 73. Granite Bay kept the loans for only a month. There is no

21

indication that Granite Bay suffered any financial repercussions due to Defendants’ fraud.

22

Defendants concealed the failure to complete the subdivision through November 18, 1999.

23

Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 77 and 85. When Conti sold Lots 3, 7, 9, and 14 to Plaintiff CEMG in

24

2002, Defendants had already defaulted on the mortgages. Conti sold the loans to Plaintiff

25

CEMG for less than the amount owed. Conti suffered a financial loss of $510,139.65 due

26

to Defendants’ actions. Ex. 16. The trebled amount is $1,530,418.95.

27
28

299.

Plaintiff CEMG claims $292,153.13 in “compliance/rehab costs” for Lots 3, 7, 9,

and 14. Ex. 20. Defendant Richard Sinclair objected to this category of damages as much
71

1

of the money was spent “to spruce up a 20+ year old building.” Doc. 1208, Opposition to

2

Motion for Default Judgment, pages 89-90. At the prove up hearing, Katakis testified that

3

the rehabilitation of those Lots was extensive: “We replaced almost everything inside.

4

When I say everything, I mean everything, from Sheetrock to all flooring, to electrical, all

5

outlets, all cabinetry, all hard surfaces, tile work, all plumbing, all light fixtures, just go on

6

and on. The only things that weren’t replaced for the most part were the foundations and

7

studs and Sheetrock. Everything else had to be replaced.” Doc. 1237, Transcript, 50:17-23.

8

The report by the architect Fergel, who evaluated what was required for the “Proposed

9

Planned Development (P.D.) zoning to convert existing apartments to duplexes and single

10

units” did not call for redoing the interiors; instead, the report recommended installing

11

firewalls for garages, installing firewalls for certain units, eliminating certain roof

12

overhangs, and checking or adding smoke detectors. Ex. 18. Plaintiffs stated that the rehab

13

“included completing the requirements of the City of Turlock for separate ownership of the

14

lots, and also a complete renovation of the exteriors and interiors of many of the units that

15

were no longer habitable.” Doc. 401, CAC, ¶ 135, emphasis added. Thus the total figure

16

Plaintiff CEMG requests includes monies expended to make corrections necessary to

17

subdivide Fox Hollow as well as funds spent on other improvements. The evidence

18

presented does not allow for clarifying which expenditures are which. Failing to keep up

19

with general repairs on the individual Lots is not part of Plaintiffs’ RICO claim. See Doc.

20

410, CAC, ¶ 153. Plaintiff CEMG has not provided sufficient evidence to determine how

21

much it spent to complete the changes required to gain approval for subdivision. This

22

request for damages is denied.

23

300.

Plaintiff CEMG has owned 17 of the 19 Fox Hollow Lots (all but Lots 1 and 19)

24

since 2003. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 120-128. Plaintiff CEMG was prevented from selling the

25

Lots to individual buyers due to Defendants’ failure to transfer certain garage spaces to

26

Plaintiff CEMG and the common areas to Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA. As a consequence,

27

Plaintiff CEMG could not sell their Lots in late 2004, early 2005 when real estate prices

28

were high. Plaintiff CEMG has suffered a loss of $2,353,516.63 due to the delay. Doc.
72

1
2

1237, Transcript, 67:19-25. The trebled amount is $7,060,549.89.
301.

Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA spent $350,110.95 in 2003 and 2004 rehabilitating Fox

3

Hollow. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 80:4-82:7; Exs. 24-25. But as with Plaintiff CEMG,

4

Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA has not explained how much of the expense was to make

5

changes required to gain approval for subdivision and how much was general

6

improvement. There is insufficient evidence to determine how much was spent to make

7

the necessary changes. This request for damages is denied.

8
9

302.

Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA paid Rubenstein, McGranahan, and their attorneys a

total of $28,277.28 for their services which lasted from March 2001 to October 2002. Doc.

10

1237, Transcript, 25:24-26:2; Exs. 4, 5, 6, and 8. Plaintiffs seek to recover sum but have

11

not established how this is a result of Defendants’ RICO violations. The receivers took

12

control of the HOA and managed its operations. Plaintiffs have not provided evidence as

13

to how Defendants’ fraudulent actions necessitated these fees. This request for damages is

14

denied.

15

303.

Before Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA was formally incorporated, it paid Defendant

16

Richard Sinclair $15,266.99 in attorney’s fees between August 2000 and January 2001.

17

Ex.7, McGranahan Report, page 4, Exs. A and C. Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA seeks to

18

recover $5,200 of this amount. Doc. 1226-1, Proposed FOFCOL, 41:16-24 and 64:25-65:2.

19

Fraudulently demanding dues on behalf of a nonexistent HOA was part of Defendants’

20

RICO scheme. Lender GMAC paid $5,200 in response to those demands. Ex. 9. In this

21

circumstance, GMAC is the proper party to seek relief rather than Plaintiff Fox Hollow

22

HOA. “To determine whether an injury is ‘too remote’ to allow recovery under RICO and

23

the antitrust laws, the Court applies the following three-factor ‘remoteness’ test: (1)

24

whether there are more direct victims of the alleged wrongful conduct who can be counted

25

on to vindicate the law as private attorneys general; (2) whether it will be difficult to

26

ascertain the amount of the plaintiff’s damages attributable to defendant’s wrongful

27

conduct; and (3) whether the courts will have to adopt complicated rules apportioning

28

damages to obviate the risk of multiple recoveries.” Oregon Laborers-Employers Health &
73

1

Welfare Trust Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 185 F.3d 957, 963 (9th Cir. 1999), citing

2

Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation, 503 U.S. 258, 269-70 (1992).

3

GMAC is the direct victim; there was no obligation for GMAC to pay as the HOA did not

4

yet exist. This request for damages is denied.

5
6
7

2. Fox Hollow CC&Rs
304.

Plaintiffs have presented the testimony of Casey Johnson, a certified public

8

accountant who has reviewed the dues, late charges, special assessments, and finance

9

charges of the Fox Hollow HOA. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 85:15-21.

10

305.

Johnson specified that he was testifying to the total amount of HOA dues and

11

charges that Defendants failed to pay, from August 1, 2000 onward. Doc. 1237, Transcript,

12

86:11-14. As part of their RICO claim, Plaintiffs have specifically asserted that the

13

demand for HOA dues “over the period of August through December 2000” was

14

fraudulent. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 173. That is because “Defendants had failed and refused to

15

form Fox Hollow HOA as a non-profit mutual benefit corporation until on or about

16

December 6, 2000.” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 95. Plaintiffs have consistently asserted that Fox

17

Hollow HOA did not form until that time. See Doc. 1227, Supplemental Briefing (“When

18

Fox Hollow HOA was created in December 2000…”). The theory of the RICO violation

19

is that the non-existence of Fox Hollow HOA before incorporation is what made the

20

demands for HOA dues fraudulent. Thus, Plaintiffs’ request for HOA dues or late fees

21

from Defendants based on the time before the Fox Hollow HOA formed is disallowed.

22

306.

Johnson presented Exhibit 47, which contains two alternate summaries of total

23

charges due using simple or compound interest. Johnson also presented Exhibit 48 which

24

laid out who owned the Lots at any given time. Johnson’s testimony and the exhibits

25

provide evidence to support a modified award of monetary damages.

26

307.

Johnson concludes, using simple interest, that Capstone owes $40,384.26 due to

27

ownership of Lot 1 and Lairtrust owes $40,384.20 due to ownership of Lot 19. Doc. 1237,

28

Transcript, 93:4-9 and 15-18. Exhibit 48 shows that Johnson’s conclusion was based upon
74

1

ownership in the February 4, 2002 to March 15, 2004 period. Ex. 48, pages 1 and 19.

2

These amounts do not include any HOA dues from 2000.

3

308.

Johnson concludes that Mauctrst owes $142,318.06 due to ownership of Lots 1, 2,

4

3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 93:10-14.

5

However, some of that is based on HOA dues from August-December 2000. Examining

6

Exhibits 47 and 48 reveals that the amounts owed for Lots 1, 2, 5, 11, 15, 17, 18, and 19

7

are completely based on HOA dues assessed in 2000. These amounts are not recoverable.

8

The exhibits also show that the amounts owed for Lots 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, and 16 are

9

partially based on HOA dues assessed in 2000. The figures provided by Johnson must be

10

modified. Defendants levied a $300 monthly assessment on the first of the month with a

11

10% penalty for failure to pay by the end of the month. Defendants started levying on

12

August 1, 2000 and Fox Hollow HOA was not formed until December 6, 2000. Thus, the

13

levies for August, September, October, November, and December were invalid, for a total

14

of ($300 + $30) x 5 = $1,650. The amount owed Johnson set out for Lots 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12,

15

13, 14, and 16 must be reduced by $1,650 each. Johnson’s analysis also calculated finance

16

charges for nonpayment at a rate of 12% annual interest. His summary broke the finance

17

charges out into three periods running (1) August 1, 2000 to March 1, 2011, (2) March 1,

18

2011 to November 24, 2014, and (3) November 24, 2014 to May 10, 2016. Ex. 47. This

19

information does not allow the finance charges for the HOA dues from 2000 to be stripped

20

out. Similarly, the figures provided in Johnson’s full report does not set out the

21

information in a manner which would allow that sum to be readily calculated. See Ex. 46.

22

Consequently, no finance charges are awarded. Damages for unpaid HOA assessments

23

are set at $7,590 for Lot 3, $3,960 for Lot 6, $1,320 for Lot 8, $8, 550 for Lot 9, $1,320 for

24

Lot 10, $660 for Lot 12, $960 for Lot 13, $8,580 for Lot 14, and $1,155 for Lot 16, which

25

totals $34,095.

26
27

D. Declaratory Relief

28

1.Constructive Trust
75

1

309.

Plaintiffs request that the garages associated with Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 18 be

2

transferred to CEMG. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 193. As part of the RICO claim, Plaintiffs have

3

asserted that Defendants committed fraud by misleading the Lenders who thought the

4

garages were part of the Lots that they provided mortgage loans for; instead the garages

5

“were not included in the legal description in the deed of trust for the loan on each such

6

lot…and were left out as part of the deal between Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauchley

7

and Flake in 1997.” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 59 and 71. In 2008, Defendant Richard Sinclair,

8

on behalf of Defendants Mauchley and Mauctrst, demanded that Plaintiff CEMG and the

9

tenants of Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 18 vacate the garages. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 142 and 143;

10

Ex. 41. In 2007, Defendant Mauchley quitclaimed his interest in the garages in favor of

11

Defendant Lairtrust. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 141.

12

310.

The structure and organization of the Fox Hollow project leads to the natural

13

assumption that the garages, even though physically separated from the corresponding

14

residences, are automatically part of the associated Lots. For example, the Fox Hollow

15

CC&Rs only provided access easements over the common areas “for the benefit of Lots

16

and Lot Owners” with “Lots” defined as “Lots 1-19.” Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 47 and 51. If the

17

garage units were to be treated as independent units, their owners would have no easement

18

to access them under the Fox Hollow CC&Rs.

19

311.

“One who gains a thing by fraud, accident, mistake, undue influence, the violation

20

of a trust, or other wrongful act, is, unless he or she has some other and better right thereto,

21

an involuntary trustee of the thing gained, for the benefit of the person who would

22

otherwise have had it.” Cal. Civ. Code § 2224. “To properly allege the remedy of the

23

imposition of a constructive trust, a pleading requires: (1) facts constituting the underlying

24

cause of action, and (2) specific identifiable property to which the defendant has title.”

25

Jaffee v. Carryl, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83224, *9 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2016), citing

26

Michaelian v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 50 Cal. App. 4th 1093, 1114 (Cal. App. 5th Dist.

27

1996). “A plaintiff seeking imposition of a constructive trust must show: (1) the existence

28

of a res (property or some interest in property); (2) the right to that res; and (3) the
76

1

wrongful acquisition or detention of the res by another party who is not entitled to it.”

2

Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 616 F.3d 904, 909 (9th Cir. 2010), citing Communist

3

Party v. 522 Valencia, Inc., 41 Cal. Rptr. 2d 618, 623 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 1995).

4

“Constructive trusts are creatures of equity. In dealing with them, equity will disregard

5

mere form, and will ascertain and act on the substance of things, regarding that as done

6

which should have been done. The determination of whether a particular transaction is

7

unconscionable is not governed by hard and fast rules, but is committed largely to the

8

enlightened conscience of the individual judge, subject to the revisionary action of

9

appellate tribunals.” United States v. Pegg, 782 F.2d 1498, 1501 (9th Cir. 1986), quoting

10
11

60 Cal. Jur. 3d Trusts § 287 (1980).
312.

Plaintiffs have identified the real property at issue. The garages were meant to

12

have been attached to the deeds of trust securing Lots 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 18. Defendants

13

have retained an interest in the garages through misrepresentation. A constructive trust is

14

properly imposed on the garages for the benefit of Plaintiff CEMG.

15
16
17

2. Fox Hollow CC&Rs
313.

Plaintiffs also request that the common areas be transferred to the Fox Hollow

18

HOA. The CAC alleges that Defendants violated the Fox Hollow CC&R by refusing to

19

turn over the common areas. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶¶ 217 and 218.

20

314.

In response, Defendant Richard Sinclair claims that the common areas were

21

“already deeded to Plaintiffs.” Doc. 1208, Opposition to Motion for Default Judgment,

22

page 93. However, Plaintiffs have asserted that Defendants continue to claim ownership

23

over those areas. In 2008, Defendant Richard Sinclair, on behalf of Defendant Mauctrst,

24

demanded that Plaintiffs and Fox Hollow tenants stop using the common areas including

25

the driveway. Doc. 410, CAC, ¶ 146; Ex. 40. At the prove up hearing, Katakis specifically

26

testified that Defendant Richard Sinclair had attempted to interfere with Plaintiffs’ and

27

their tenants’ use of the common area. Doc. 1237, Transcript, 59:12-23.

28

315.

Declaratory relief is needed to affirm that the common areas of the Fox Hollow
77

1

project properly belong to the HOA per the Fox Hollow CC&R.

2
3

VI. Order

4

316.

Default judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs CEMG and Fox Hollow HOA

5

against the Defaulted Defendants for civil RICO and in favor of Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA

6

against the Defaulted Defendants for breach of the Fox Hollow CC&Rs.

7

317.

Defaulted Defendants’ RICO violations caused Conti $510,139.65 in damages and

8

Plaintiff CEMG of $2,353,516.63 in damages. Conti has assigned its rights to Plaintiff

9

CEMG. Treble damages apply. Plaintiff CEMG would be awarded $8,590,968.84 against

10
11

the Defaulted Defendants, jointly and severally.
318.

The settlement with Defendant Mauchley and the Flake Defendants has yielded

12

$460,000 and $2,297,793 respectively in funds available to satisfy this judgment. The total

13

sum of $2,757,793shall be used to offset the RICO award. Thus, the amount awarded to

14

Plaintiff CEMG against the Defaulted Defendants is reduced to $5,833,175.84.

15

319.

Defendants Capstone, Lairtrust, and Mauctrst violated the Fox Hollow CC&Rs by

16

failing to pay HOA dues. Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA is awarded $40,384.26 against

17

Capstone, $40,384.20 against Lairtrust, and $34,095 against Mauctrst.

18

320.

Defaulted Defendants’ fraudulent conduct resulted in a cloud over the title of

19

certain garage lots. Plaintiff CEMG is entitled to and owns and holds the right to

20

possession of Lots 2A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A, 10A and 18A of the Fox Hollow property

21

according to Fox Hollow, a subdivision, recorded in the Official Records of Stanislaus

22

County, California, on March 6, 1996, in Book 37 of Maps, Page 37, and Fox Hollow No.

23

2, a subdivision, recorded in the Official Records of Stanislaus County, California, on July

24

21, 1998, in Book 38 of Maps, Page 19 (the “detached garage lots”) as of the

25

commencement of the action in April 2003, and such Defaulted Defendants and each of

26

them have no ownership of or right to exclude Plaintiffs or any of the tenants at Fox

27

Hollow from any such detached garage lots. Defendants Richard Sinclair, Mauctrst, and

28

Lairtrust, and each of them, and their agents, servants, and employees, and all other
78

1

persons acting under, in concert with or for them, are permanently enjoined from asserting,

2

claiming or communicating to tenants at the Fox Hollow property (located at 152 20th

3

Century Boulevard, Turlock, Stanislaus County, California) that they or any of them hold

4

or claim any ownership or right to possession for the detached garage lots or otherwise

5

from interfering with the use and enjoyment of any of the detached garage lots by Plaintiffs

6

and the tenants at the Fox Hollow property.

7

321.

Defaulted Defendants’ fraudulent conduct resulted in a cloud over the title of the

8

common areas. Plaintiff Fox Hollow HOA is entitled to ownership in and the right to

9

possession of the Common Area and Access Easement and Public Utility Easement

10

depicted on Fox Hollow No. 2 subdivision map filed of record in Stanislaus County,

11

California, on July 21, 1998, in Book 38, Page 19 (the “Fox Hollow Common Area”) as of

12

the commencement of the action in April 2003, and such Defaulted Defendants and each of

13

them have no ownership of or right to exclude Plaintiffs or any of the tenants at Fox

14

Hollow from the Fox Hollow Common Area. Defendants Richard Sinclair and Mauctrst,

15

and each of them, and their agents, servants, and employees, and all other persons acting

16

under, in concert with or for them, are permanently enjoined from asserting, claiming or

17

communicating to tenants at Fox Hollow that they or any of them hold or claim any

18

ownership or right to possession for the Fox Hollow Common Area or otherwise from

19

interfering with the use and enjoyment of the Fox Hollow Common Area by Plaintiffs and

20

the tenants at the Fox Hollow property.

21
22
23

322.

Plaintiffs may file a motion for attorney’s fees and cost bill in accord with Local

Rules 292 and 293.
323.

The remainder of this action is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2017
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
79