Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins

8/18/2019 Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins

1/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Joseph C. Rosenblit (Bar No. 131663)

LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. ROSENBLIT

1370 N. Brea Blvd. Suite 235

Fullerton, CA 92835

877-475-7065

Attorney for Plaintiff;

Joseph

A

Miner, Trustee

of

JM Trust

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL TOWN

HOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC, a California

non-profit mutual benefit corporation,

RUSTAN LAINE, in his capacity as President

of Huntington Continental, MYRA KUCK, in

her capacity as Treasurer of Huntington

Continental, KEYSTONE PACIFIC

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., a

California corporation.; CAREY TREFF, in his

capacity as President and CEO of

Keystone,

ARTURO

CR

YRA, an individual; DIANN

ROBERTSON, an individual; RICHARD

BARR, an individual; and DOES 10 to 50,

Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 30-2014-00748493-CU-CO-CJC

Hon. Judge: Frederick P. Aguirre

Department: C23

DECL R TION OF JOSEPH C

ROSENBLIT IN

SUPPORT

OF

MOTION

TO MEND

COMPL INT

[filed separately]

Date:

:

2015

i m e ~ ~

__

Dept: C23

Reservation

#: _

1.

I Joseph C. Rosenblit, am an attorney at law licensed to practice before all the courts

of

the

State of California. I represent plaintiff, Joseph A Miner in this matter, am familiar with the facts

this case and

if

called upon to testify I would competently do so.

2.

Attached as Exhibit A is the proposed Second Amended Complaint.

3.

When the original complaint was drafted and filed I was under certain constraints due to wh

Declaration of Joseph C. Rosenblit

1

Second Amended Complaint Reservation 72197017

72197017

September 8

8:30 am


2/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

27

28

I believed were certain imminent statutes of limitations. I did what I could to include all causes of

action and all facts and all parties. I was nothing if not over inclusive.

4. When defendants initially demurred and brought motions to strike I held the belief that I ha

adequate time to correctly amend the complaint but did not anticipate the curve ball thrown at me i

the ruling at the ANTI-SLAPP MOTION wherein my interpretation

of

the law was at odds with th

court s ruling. As I had already filed the first amended complaint I knew it would simply be subje

to attacks on the pleading and I knew that a second amended complaint would have to be filed.

5. As I undertook to better understand all

of

the underlying facts

of

this case it led me

on

one

more thoroughly unanticipated road involving the complex interplay of corporate law, the Davis

Sterling Act, case law, the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act and its California counterpart the

Rosenthal Act.

6.

The research I did in applying those laws to the facts

of

this case and making sure that all

viable defendants were named within the context of all proper causes of action and properly

articulated remedies was an incredibly time consuming effort that took me the better part of 73 hou

to put together into the drafted {proposed} Second Amended Complaint. And as a solo practitione

with a heavy caseload it was time that had to be spread over 3 months.

7. Although in terms

of

the causes

of

action contained in the {proposed} Second Amended

Complaint are almost identical to those contained in the first amended complaint they are much

different in laying out both the necessary elements and the basis of defendant liability. What I

sought to do and hopefully achieved to a greater degree was clarity such that an attack on the

pleading could

be

successfully deflected. I have labored to do so. The court will be the judge of

that.

8 I believe that, consistent with judicial economy, the {Proposed} Second Amended Complai

achieves the avoidance

of

the round

of

demurrers that a served first amended complaint would hav

1 Notwithstanding defendants motion to dismiss, there was no court order ever issued as to when a second amend

complaint was to

be

filed.

Declaration of Joseph C Rosenblit

2


3/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

12

3

14

5

16

7

18

19

20

2

22

23

4

25

26

27

28

invited and, as such, acts to eliminate any prejudice to defendants.

As

these defendants are apprised

of

the exact nature of the basis of the claims against them and given that all such cla ims are within

the applicable statutes of limitations there is no prejudice to the defendants.

9. the extensive research I have performed has convinced me of nothing else, I believe that

this action as reflected in the {Proposed} Second Amended Complaint is meritorious and should

be

allowed to

be

heard on those merits.

I swear under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of

the

State

of

California that the

foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: July 9, 2015

By:

Joseph . Rosenblit, Attorney for Plaintiff,

Joseph A. Miner

Declaration

of

Joseph C. Rosenblit

3


4/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Joseph C. Rosenblit (Bar No. 131663)LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH C. ROSENBLIT1370 N. Brea Blvd. Suite 235Fullerton, CA 92835877-475-7065

Attorney for Plaintiff;

Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ORANGE COUNTY - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER

Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JMTrust,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

HUNTINGTON CONTINENTALTOWN HOUSE ASSOCIATION,INC, a California non-profit mutual benefit corporation, RUSTANLAINE, in his capacity as Presidentof Huntington Continental, MYRAKUCK, in her capacity as Treasurer of Huntington Continental,KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTYMANAGEMENT, INC., a Californiacorporation.; CAREY TREFF, in hiscapacity as President and CEO of

Keystone, ARTURO CHAYRA, anindividual; DIANN ROBERTSON,an individual; RICHARD BARR, anindividual; and DOES 10 to 50,Inclusive,

Defendants.

Case No.: 30-2014-00748493-CU-CO-CJC

Hon. Judge: Frederick P. AguirreDepartment: C23

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:

01. BREACH OF GOVERNING DOCUMENTS;02. VIOLATIONS OF DAVIS STIRLING ACT;03. VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL FDCPA04. VIOLATIONS OF ROSENTHAL ACT;05. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES;06. NEGLIGENCE;07. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE;08. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;09. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;

10. AIDING AND ABETTING.

Plaintiff Joseph A. Miner, Trustee of JM Trust, an intervivos trust, (hereinafter

referred to as Plaintiff or MINER as context requires) through his counsel, based on

information and belief, and investigation of counsel, except for those allegations which

pertain to the named plaintiff or his attorneys (which are alleged on personal knowledge),

brings this action to challenge the illegal, grossly negligent, unfair business, and abusive

debt collection practices of Defendants which have caused Plaintiff damage. Plaintiff

Complaint for DamagesPage 1


5/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

brings this action against the following defendants: HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL

TOWN HOUSE ASSOCIATION, INC., (hereinafter “HUNTINGTON or

ASSOCIATION”); RUSTAN P. LAINE (hereinafter “LAINE”); MYRA J. KUCK

(hereinafter “KUCK ”); (DOE 1) FELDSOTT AND LEE, a law office (hereinafter

“FELDSOTT-LEE”); (DOE 2) STANLEY S. FELDSOTT (hereinafter “FELDSOTT”);

(DOE 3) JACQUELINE P. PAGANO, (hereinafter “PAGANO”); (DOE 4) TYLER J.

JONES (hereinafter “JONES”); KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT, INC., (hereinafter “KEYSTONE”); CARY S. TREFF (hereinafter

“TREFF”); (DOE 5) ERICA L. GRIFFITH (hereinafter “GRIFFITH”); (DOE 6)

BRITTANY BENNETT (hereinafter “BENNETT”); (DOE 7) RENEE M. BARGER

(hereinafter “BARGER ”); (DOE 8) CANE WALKER HARKINS LLP, a law office

(hereinafter “CANE-WALKER ”); (DOE 9) JAMES C. HARKINS (hereinafter

“HARKINS”); and DOES 10 to 50, Inclusive, (individually and collectively,

“Defendants”), and alleges as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This action, filed by the Plaintiff Joseph Miner, an owner of a separate

interest located within the Huntington Continental Town House Association, arises from

alleged violations of law and contract committed by a homeowner Association, members of the Board of Directors, various paid agents of the Association including debt collectors, law

firms and attorneys, and certain Directors and Officers who control these entities.

2. Plaintiff, under two separate legal standings, brings this action in part on his

own behalf, and in part as a member on behalf of the 445 homeowner-members (lot

owners) of the Association. A portion of the complaint challenges the multiple violations of

law and abusive debt collection practices by Defendants. A portion of the complaint

challenges the unjust enrichment of the Association’s service providers: Feldsott-Lee,

Cane-Walker and Keystone - two debt collection law firms and a debt collection /

management company.

3. While the Association is ultimately responsible for the acts of it’s Directors



6/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and it’s agents, Plaintiff on information and belief, identifies these entities as the

perpetrator of the alleged bad acts and violations of law to bring clarity to this action - who,

what, where, when. All allegations and causes of action within this complaint began

with, arose from, are proximate to, are connected to, are predicated on, and are a

direct result of the assessment “debt collection” activities against plaintiff .

4. Service providers: Feldsott-Lee [exhibit #1 ], Cane-Walker [exhibit #2],

Keystone [exhibit #3 ] have signed written contracts with the Association. Feldsott and

Keystone contracts contain indemnification clauses. The providers are indemnified by the

Association under certain situations. Plaintiff alleges these service providers are not

indemnified and should not be indemnified for illegal acts or violations of statute. Plaintiff

alleges illegal acts include violations of the State and Federal debt collection acts,

violations of the Davis Stirling Act, and any other illegal acts that are direct or proximate to

collection of Miner’s debt set forth herein.

5. Plaintiff contends there are three significant separate but related issues

addressed in this action: 1) the failed and illegal collection and attempted foreclosure

scheme implemented by Feldsott-Lee, 2) the pre-foreclosure and collection scheme carried

out by Keystone and Cane-Walker, and 3) the unjust enrichment of these service providers

and associates during these extortion-like illegal debt collection endeavors. Miner contendsthese acts have damaged Miner, his family, and separately damaged the 445 good and

honest members of the Association. At the start of this battle1 Miner had notified the

Huntington Board of Directors including President Rustan Laine and Treasurer Myra Kuck

of these unjust issues, such as the rejection of his assessment payments and inability to get

accounting, in writing by letter and email. His complaints and warnings fell on deaf ears.

6. While Association member-owners like Miner have many rights by law,

Miner contends the Association and it’s service providers simply ignore those rights - and

the law, and then run roughshod over the defenseless homeowners. The lawyers use

1Orange County Superior Court civil case : 30-2011-00466754



7/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

litigation privilege as a shield from lawsuits after recklessly and carelessly harming their

victims. Once a lawsuit is filed audacious lawyers and process servers claim protection.

Knowingly they can then have their way with the debtor - all in the name of collection.

7. Plaintiff contends, because of the seemingly unlimited and perpetual financial

resources of the Association, the service providers often offer the Association self-serving

advice, and make self-serving decisions which line their own pockets financially. They

initiate fruitless, often illegal, collection and enforcement pursuits such as the relentless

collection attacks on Plaintiff Miner. Plaintiff claims his Association, it’s managers /

collection company, collection agents and collection attorneys, have routinely violated the

law and should not be rewarded financially for such acts when in the end result - the

Association’s own members have been damaged.

8. What seems to be a common thread these days in all HOAs from coast to

coast is that HOA attorneys routinely suggest and initiate litigation. The reason: win, lose

or draw they get paid, and they get paid very well. Stanley Feldsott on his website indicates

he was paid $60,000 on a $3,000 debt collection. [exhibit #4]

9. In the illegal collection case against Miner, with the Association losing the

appeals, and eventually the entire lawsuit, Miner believes the Association has lost about

$250,000 between payments to the service providers, and payment for Miner’s attorney feesand costs. The service providers lost nothing - they were paid in total for their bad advice

and illegal practices. Miner alleges they were unjustly enriched.

10. On one hand Miner was damaged as a victim of an unnecessary and illegal

collection scheme, on the other hand Miner was damaged as member of the Association

who paid for the “illegal” collection scheme as a member of the Association. He, and the

other 444 members of the Association were then damaged when the Court found the

scheme to be illegal. Damages were the monetary payments paid to service providers who

failed to follow the law. In the Feldsott-Lee case - say $150,000 went to Feldsott-Lee, and

the $60,000 in attorney fees awarded by the Court to Miner. On information and belief -

$210,000 in the first foreclosure action. Additional amounts went to Cane-Walker, and



8/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Keystone. Exact damage figures to be obtained through discovery.

11. These collection practices and schemes by the service providers essentially

skirt and or violate statutory protections and collection laws. Damages are generally minor

but can be significant financial losses and result in foreclosure. During these collection

attacks homeowners typically have financial dilemmas, are underfunded and can not afford

counsel. They fold to the threat of these abusive collection practices and threatened

outrageous demands in attorney fees. Fees are then forced on the homeowner by offering a

payment plan or foreclosure is filed on the financially strapped defenseless owner who

refuses.

12. Management companies are not always considered debt collectors under the

law. Because of this they are able, and routinely and recklessly do abuse the system as they

have in Plaintiff’s experience. Because management companies have sometimes found a

legal loophole; and now deliberately incorporate collections companies ‘within’ the

management company itself as a ‘department’ or ‘division’ they skirt the laws enacted to

protect consumers. They harm and competitively disadvantage collectors who do follow the

law.

13. In this situation however Miner alleges the management company Keystone is

a debt collector, and acquired Plaintiff’s debt years in default. Plaintiff alleges acquiringPlaintiff’s debt in default classifies Keystone and it’s associates, and it’s associated

collection attorney, as debt collectors under the federal FDCPA. Plaintiff alleges Feldsott-

Lee, it’s associates and collection assistants are also debt collectors under the law.

The Congress created the FDCPA for the following purpose

“It is the purpose of this title to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debtcollectors, to insure that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debtcollection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to promote consistentState action to protect consumers against debt collection abuses.”

14. In Miner’s case, during the Feldsott-Lee collection, after being defaulted on a

lawsuit that he was never served with, and unaware of; and... even when the Association,

it’s directors and it’s counsel Jacqueline Pagano knew the service of process was factually



9/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

impossible, Feldsott-Lee and Pagano failed to vacate the default and re-serve the complaint.

Then, when Plaintiff attempted to pay his assessment debt in full the Association and it’s

debt collection counsel Feldsott-Lee, Stanley Feldsott, and Jacqueline Pagano rejected full

payment of the assessment debt claiming law and restrictions that did not exist. Feldsott-

Lee had used this collection ‘racket’ for years before Miner was successful in appellate

court to thwart Feldsott-Lee’s decades long illegal collection scheme. [exhibit #5]

15. Feldsott-Lee rejecting Miner’s full assessment payments by certified funds,

which was an illegal act by Feldsott-Lee, and then taking the action through two appellate

hearings (which both successively ruled in Miner’s favor), while charging the Association

for these services “win, lose or draw” was not in the best interest of the Association - Miner

alleges it was never important to the Association to “change the law”; however, it was very

important to Feldsott-Lee and it’s ‘fellow’ Association debt collectors. It was important to

Feldsott-Lee because it has been the illegal cornerstone of it’s own HOA collections

practice for decades. Plaintiff alleges Feldsott-Lee gambled with Association’s money, used

Association’s standing, to attempt to change a law that Feldsott-Lee would benefit from:

the goose that laid the golden egg - foreclosing on an owner’s residence for just $1800,

adding $1,000s in unearned attorney fees, and rejecting any partial payment made by an

owner to prevent foreclosure - a financial guillotine. This was Feldsott’s illegal racket for close to 20 years. It has made HOA collection attorneys rich including Stanley Feldsott.

16. These acts eventually cost this Association. In the end, because of Feldsott-

Lee’s illegal acts, the Association lost, it took nothing during the four year dispute [exhibit

#6], and was found to have violated the Davis Stirling Act. [exhibit #7] Plaintiff alleges the

Association’s contracted debt collector, Feldsott-Lee, and it’s associates and collection

agents, violated the law, in their pursuit of Miner’s debt. At the center of this illegal

collection effort was Jacqueline Pagano, a debt collection attorney and her debt collection

assistant Tyler Jones employed by Feldsott-Lee.

17. The Keystone collection against Miner began after the Feldsott-Lee collection

trial. It ran in parallel with the Feldsott-Lee appeals. Prior to the Keystone collection,



10/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Feldsott-Lee acting on behalf of the Association continued to refuse Miner’s assessment

payments, and while refusing payment, then added late fees and interest! Miner and his

counsel both wrote letters to make payment and requested clarification but the requests

went unanswered. When Keystone took over it began it’s attempt to collect Miner’s

defaulted debt Miner refused to pay the unearned late fees and interest. Keystone demanded

this unearned fees. This forced Miner to follow the legal requirements for mediation. On

information and belief Keystone then engaged collection attorney Harkins to represent the

Association not in ‘collection’, but in ‘mediation’. No mediation took place, Harkins and

Keystone then changed the ‘label’ of Harkins’ service from ‘mediation fee’, and cleverly

converted by re-labeling it to a ‘collection fee’ and then pursued Miner in Small Claims

court.

18. When Miner did not succumb to Keystone’s attacks, Keystone then began

billing Miner on his ledger for ‘attorney consultation fees’ re-labeling them as collection

fees. No collection took place - James Harkins was never the direct ‘collector’, Keystone

was the ‘collector’ - it was more labeling jiggery-pokery. On information and belief

Keystone, it’s agents and it’s collectors Erica Griffith, Brittany Bennett and Rene Barger

conspired with, aided and abetted attorney Harkins to harm Miner financially by charging

Miner and applying more than $25,000 in legal fees to his ledger generated by their ownLaurel and Hardy collection efforts. Harkins’ and Keystone’s ‘racket’ creates two classes of

pro se litigants in Small Claims court - plaintiff’s that can get attorney fees, and defendants

that can not.

19. On information and belief attorney Harkins and Keystone use this same

collection ‘racket’ throughout southern California in various homeowner Associations.

Miner contends the scheme is illegal and financially malicious towards homeowners and he

owes none of the attorney and collection fees charged to him.

20. Miner contends Harkins’ legal theory of billing enormous sums of attorney

collection fees in Small Claims court to homeowners was never intended by the legislature,

illegal under the Davis Stirling or Small Claims Acts and not in the best interest of the



11/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Association. Harkins, with his devious collection scheme, financially raping defenseless

homeowners with attorney fees in Small Claims court, is just plain wrong.

21. On information and belief, under Harkins’ legal guidance, Keystone then

attempted to ‘pass on’ and charge Miner for these illegal attorney ‘consulting’ fees

providing false and confusing monthly ledgers. When Miner filed this instant suit to

challenge the Association’s Small Claims action and other collection abuses, mysteriously

the Association dismissed it’s Small Claims lawsuit. It refused to consolidate the cases.

Miner alleges Harkins’ Small Claims attorney fees ‘racket’ is illegal.

22. Feldsott-Lee, Cane-Walker, and Keystone collect their fees from Huntington,

from which said fees are collected from title holders (‘members’) pursuant to declaration

and statute (civil code §4000- §6150). Funds are deposited into Huntington’s Operating and

Reserve accounts. Plaintiff, on information and belief, alleges it did not matter to the

service providers Feldsott-Lee, Cane-Walker, and Keystone if they actually collected from

Miner because when providers invoice the Association they are paid for their service

regardless - even if services are foolish, illegal, or unjust. Miner sues to prove the debt

collection efforts were illegal, unjust, and that he and his family, and as a ‘member’ of the

445 person Association, has been damaged. Plaintiff Miner has defended himself, and has

been victorious in three appellate proceedings, and now sues for damages.23. Plaintiff alleges, on information and belief, as a victim of unlawful collection,

and from the standing of a member of the Association, the service providers and collections

agents have continuously over the course of the last several years breached their duties to

Miner, been unjustly enriched, have been negligent, and have practiced ‘self dealing’

during the course of this dispute and have violated collection and other law alleged herein.

Plaintiff sues for 1) personal damages and 2) to recover all monies paid to these service

providers and have these monies returned to the Association to make the Association

whole; amounts to be proven at trial.

//



12/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

24. The location of all real property, that is the subject of this action, and the acts

complained of herein, occurred in Orange County, California and in the above captioned

Judicial Branch. The Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants because they are residents

of and / or doing business in the State of California. Venue is proper in this county in

accordance with Section 395(a) of the California code of Civil Procedure because the

Defendants, or some of them, reside in this county, the real property lies in this county, and

the injuries and / or incidents alleged herein occurred in this county.

III. PARTIES

A. PLAINTIFF

25. Plaintiff, JOSEPH A. MINER, is now, and at all times relevant to this

action, a natural person, adult, individual residing in the County of Orange. Plaintiff

is a ‘consumer’ under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3)

in that plaintiff was obligated or allegedly obligated to pay a ‘consumer’ debt and

the services he acquires are an acquisition of services “on credit.”

26. Plaintiff’s trust, The JM Trust is an intervivos, revocable, living family

trust. As an intervivos trust, effectively Mr. Miner and the Trust are one in the same.

The Trust is not a legal entity; it can not sue or be sued. Plaintiff is the Trustee of theTrust.

STANDING

Plaintiff Joseph Miner sues, and alleges causes of action, under two

distinctly separate legal standings:

A) As a victim of the Association, and it’s agents’ unlawful debt collection

practices and harassment, and other violations of law, and; as a result of the

unlawful federal and state debt collections practices, violations of theCommon Interest Development Act previously known as the Davis Stirling

Act and other alleged violations of law, and;

B) As a title holder and a mandated member of the Association adversely



13/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

affected by the significant monetary losses, reckless and negligent decisions,

and actions by the HOA Board of Directors and unlawful business practices of

it’s collection agents. As a mandated member of the Association, he has been

damaged by the many $100,000s of dollars paid from the Association’s own

HOA assessment coffers, to fund grossly negligent, unlawful, egregious,

frivolous, failed acts enriching the service providers who failed to follow the

law and were reckless and wasteful with Association funds.

27. Plaintiff sues as a victim of the alleged violations herein and separately

as a mandated HOA Association member to recover, and force these service

providers to repay the monies they have charged and been paid by the Association

for their foolish, futile, wasteful, illegal acts, and breach of duty to the Association.

B. DEFENDANTS

28. Defendant Group #1, (hereinafter “HUNTINGTON

DEFENDANTS”) consists of Huntington Continental Town Home Association,

Inc, Rustan P. Laine, it’s president, and Myra J. Kuck, it’s treasurer.

29. Defendant 1: HUNTINGTON CONTINENTAL TOWN HOUSE

ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereinafter “HUNTINGTON” or the “Association”) is, and at all

times relevant to this action was a non-profit mutual benefit corporation; CaliforniaCorporate Entity number - C0452014, believed to be organized under the laws of

California, with its principal place of business in Huntington Beach, California. At all times

mentioned herein, defendant Huntington was a party to debt collection activities of it’s

agents within County of Orange.

30. Defendant 2: RUSTAN P. LAINE (hereinafter “LAINE”) is, and at all

relevant times mentioned was a Board member and the President of HUNTINGTON.

Plaintiff contends that Laine is a senior, long term member of the Board, and therefore

contributes to the controlling decision-making actions of the Board, and resides at the

Huntington Continental community, in Huntington Beach, CA.

31. Defendant 3: MYRA J. KUCK (hereinafter “KUCK ”) is, and at all relevant



14/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

times mentioned was the Treasurer, and a Board member of HUNTINGTON. Plaintiff

contends that Kuck is a senior, long term member of the Board, and therefore contributes to

the controlling decision-making actions of the Board and it’s financial decisions, and

resides at the Huntington Continental community, in Huntington Beach, CA.

32. Defendant Group #2, (hereinafter “FELDSOTT DEFENDANTS”) consists

of Feldsott and Lee, a law firm, Stanley S. Feldsott is the principle collection attorney,

Jacqueline P. Pagano a collection attorney, and Tyler J. Jones a collections assistant.

Feldsott advertises a variety of collection services on it’s website.

33. Defendant 4: FELDSOTT & LEE, A LAW CORPORATION, (hereinafter

“FELDSOTT-LEE”) California Corporate Entity number - C0745288 is a professional

corporation that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business

the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or

attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due

another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §

1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a law

firm doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 23161 Mill

Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653

34. Defendant 5: STANLEY S. FELDSOTT (hereinafter “FELDSOTT”) is alicensed attorney employed by FELDSOTT-LEE in the debt collection business that uses

and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business

of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly

or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a

“debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed,

believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a licensed attorney SBN 45128 and

debt collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 23161

Mill Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653

35. Defendant 6: JACQUELINE P. PAGANO (hereinafter “PAGANO”) is a

licensed attorney employed by FELDSOTT-LEE in the debt collection business that uses



15/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business

of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly

or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a

“debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed,

believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a licensed attorney SBN 266283 and

debt collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 23161

Mill Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA 92653

36. Defendant 7: TYLER J. JONES (hereinafter “JONES”) is a collections

assistant, employed by FELDSOTT-LEE in the debt collection business, that uses and

instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business of

which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or

indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a “debt

collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes,

and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt collector doing business in the State of

California, County of Orange, located at 23161 Mill Creek Dr Ste 300 Laguna Hills, CA

92653

37. Defendant Group #3, (hereinafter “KEYSTONE DEFENDANTS”)

consists of Keystone Pacific Property Management, Inc, Cary S. Treff it’s CEO, Erica L.Griffith a collection assistant / manager, Brittany Bennett a collection assistant, Rene M.

Barger a collection assistant / manager, Cane Walker Harkins LLP a collection attorney

firm, and James C. Harkins a collection attorney.

38. Defendant 8: KEYSTONE PACIFIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,

INC., (hereinafter “KEYSTONE”) California Corporate Entity number - C1322177 is a

corporation that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business




1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt



16/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

collector doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 16775 Von

Karman Ste. 100, Irvine CA 92606. Keystone advertises a variety of debt collection

services on it’s website.

39. Defendant 9: CARY S. TREFF (hereinafter “TREFF”) is President and

Chief Operating Officer of KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with debt

collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business






Karman Ste. 100, Irvine CA 92606.

40. Defendant 10: ERICA L. GRIFFITH (hereinafter “GRIFFITH”) is a

manager, employed by KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with debt

collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business



another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a debt



41. Defendant 11: BRITTANY BENNETT (hereinafter “BENNETT”) is a

collections assistant, , employed by KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with

debt collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a

business the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects

or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or

due another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §




17/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



42. Defendant 12: RENEE M. BARGER (hereinafter “BARGER ”) is a

collections assistant, employed by KEYSTONE, a corporation that routinely deals with

debt collection, that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a

business the principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects

or attempts to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or

due another and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. §




43. Defendant 13: CANE, WALKER & HARKINS LLP (hereinafter “CANE-

WALKER ”) California LLP is a professional limited liability company that uses and

instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the principal business of

which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts to collect, directly or

indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another and is therefore a “debt

collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6). Plaintiff is informed, believes,

and based thereon alleges that Defendant is a law firm doing business in the State of California, County of Orange, located at 17821 E 17th Ste. 140. Tustin, CA.

44. Defendant 14: JAMES C. HARKINS (hereinafter “HARKINS”) is a

licensed attorney, a partner, and employed by CANE-WALKER in the debt collection

business that uses and instrumentally of interstate commerce or the mails in a business the

principal business of which is the collection of debts, or who regularly collects or attempts

to collect, directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or due another

and is therefore a “debt collector” as that phrase is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that defendant is a licensed

attorney SBN 152564 and debt collector doing business in the State of California, County

of Orange, County of Orange, located at 17821 E 17th Ste. 140. Tustin, CA.



18/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

45. Defendant Group #4, (hereinafter “SERVER DEFENDANTS”) consists of

Arturo P. Chayra, a registered process server, Diann G. Robertson, a registered process

server, and Richard S. Barr, a licensed private investigator who served process or runs a

process serving and private investigation company.

46. Defendant 15: ARTURO P. CHAYRA (dismissed).

47. Defendant 16: DIANN G. ROBERTSON (dismissed).

48. Defendant 17: RICHARD S. BARR (dismissed).

49. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or

otherwise, of Defendants DOES 10 through 50, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown

to Plaintiff at this time, and Plaintiff therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious

names. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges, that at all relevant times alleged

in this Complaint, Defendants DOES 10 through 50, inclusive, are natural persons, limited

liability companies, corporations or business entities of unknown form that have or are

doing business in the state of California. Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to replace the

fictitious names of these Doe Defendants with their true names when they are discovered

by Plaintiff.

50. At all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them,

were regularly engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts throughout the state of California, including Orange County, by assisting the other debt collectors file and maintain

civil debt collection lawsuits by utilizing the U.S. Mail, telephone and Internet.

51. Plaintiff is informed, believes and thereon alleges, that each and all of the

aforementioned Defendants are responsible in some manner, either by act or omission,

strict liability, fraud, deceit, fraudulent concealment, negligence, respondeat superior,

breach of contract or otherwise, for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s

injuries, as herein alleged, were proximately caused by the conduct of Defendants.

52. Plaintiff is informed, believes and therefore alleges, that at all relevant times

alleged in this Complaint, each of the Defendants sued herein was the agent, servant,

employer, joint venturer, partner, division, owner, subsidiary, alias, assignee and/or



19/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

alter-ego of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the

purpose and scope of such agency, servitude, joint venture, division, ownership, subsidiary,

alias, alter-ego, partnership or employment and with the authority, consent, approval and

ratification of each remaining Defendant.

53. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of any corporate or

other business Defendant, that reference shall mean that the corporation or other business

did the acts alleged in this Complaint through its officers, directors, employees, agents

and/or representatives while they were acting within the actual or ostensible scope of their

authority.

54. At all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, each Defendant has

committed the acts, caused others to commit the acts, ratified the commission of the acts, or

permitted others to commit the acts alleged in this Complaint and has made, caused,

ratified, or permitted others to make, the untrue or misleading statements alleged in this

Complaint. Whenever reference is made in this Complaint to any act of Defendants, such

allegation shall mean that each Defendant acted individually and jointly with the other

Defendants.

55. At all relevant times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants, and each of them,

were regularly engaged in the business of collecting consumer debts throughout the state of California, including Orange County, by assisting the other debt collectors file and maintain

civil debt collection lawsuits and to obtain default judgments in those cases by utilizing the

U.S. Mail, telephone and Internet.

56. Defendants regularly collects, directly or indirectly, consumer debts alleged to

be due to another via U.S. Mail, telephone, internet, and civil debt collection lawsuits.

Defendants are “debt collectors” within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) and Cal. Civil

Code § 1788.2C. Defendant group four, the process servers, are not subject to the exception

of 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)(D).

57. Defendants, and each of them, were all party to a common enterprise giving

rise to this action within which they conducted themselves as the employees, employers,



20/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

agents, sub-agents, servants or sub-servants of one another.

IV. SUBJECT MATTER

58. All events which are the subject matter of the action concern real property

located at the physical address of 19771 Inverness Lane, Huntington Beach, CA. The

property lies within the Huntington Continental Town House Association, a common

interest development, is subject to it’s governing documents, as well as California common

interest development law known as the Davis Stirling Act. In the instant action both State

and Federal collection law apply.

V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

59. Allegations in this Complaint are based upon information and belief except

for those allegations which pertain to Plaintiff Joseph Miner. Miner’s information and

belief is based upon the investigation conducted to date by Miner. Each allegation in this

Complaint either has evidentiary support or is likely to have evidentiary support or is likely

to have support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery.

60. Joseph Miner through his intervivos trust, the JM Trust, owns an attached

single family home located in the Huntington Continental Town Home Association, Inc.,Huntington Beach, CA (Huntington). The property, Miner’s retirement home, a

condominium-like, single story attached structure. The ‘condo’ was acquired by Miner and

his family in the late 1990s as consumers. Miner lived at the property for a few years until

2003 when he purchased a different residence. Since about 2003 the property has been

rented to mostly the same tenant. Miner inherited the property in total when his parents

passed on. Miner pays the HOA dues. Miner plans to return and live there one day.

61. On information and belief Huntington was self managed prior to a

“professional” property manager being hired. At some point in the early 2000s Action

Property Management, Inc. (Action) took over the management of Huntington. Things

started to change at Huntington about the time Miner's tenants moved in. Violation letters



21/71


22/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

66. The letter addressed to Miner stated that if he did not pay his account

Feldsott-Lee would start foreclosure proceedings. Miner sent Jones an email stating that he

was contacting them about 19771 Inverness Lane, Huntington Beach, and that they did not

need to foreclose or start proceedings - that he could pay his bill. Jones responded,

mentioned nothing about Miner being served with a law suit, and asked Miner how much

he could pay. Miner being polite answering his question via email stated he could make

significant payments. Miner indicated perhaps $2000 for the initial payment and then to get

the assessments paid off quickly. Miner requested line item accounting from Jones.

67. Miner had several short emails with Tyler Jones. Never did Jones state one

single time that Miner had been sued, one thing that he did state was - ‘Feldsott-Lee’ was

the company Miner would pay the attorney fees to.

68. Miner sent Huntington and it’s management company (Action at that time) a

simple letter stating that the Association did not need to foreclose, that he was willing to

make payments and pay off debt quickly. Miner enclosed a $2,000 good faith personal

payment check directly payable to the Association. Enclosed with payment, Miner in his

letter, stated he would make successive payments. Miner then made additional payments of

$1,000 and $500 by personal check. Miner, when he believed he was near to the paying

debt off started asking for his accounting again so he could pay his Association debt in fullin one check. All checks sent were cashed. None of Miner’s payments were applied to his

Assessments as required by law.

69. Monthly invoices, as required by the Declaration (CC&Rs) were not being

sent to either of Miner’s addresses; the office or the property at 19771 Inverness Lane

owned by Miner that is located in the Association. Miner had problems with Action

Management sending invoices to any address, let alone both addresses. Miner was

prevented from paying off his assessment debt in full because he was not receiving invoices

from the Association and therefore did not know what he owed.

70. While Miner had received some requested amounts during the payment

process, they were no longer up to date and Miner questioned the veracity of the invoices



23/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sent to him. Miner repeatedly requested regular line-item accounting. As a real estate

professional he wanted to see where his payments were going and what exactly was being

charged. He contacted ‘Action Management’ and the Association by mail and requested

accounting. He heard nothing in return.

71. Finally Miner called ‘Action Management’ via the telephone and asked to get

a copy of his accounting - they literally hung up the phone on him. Miner thought this to be

very bizarre behavior so he wrote the HOA Board of Directors asking for an up-to-date

accounting so he could pay his bill in full. He heard nothing back from the HOA Board of

Directors, or ‘Action Management Company.’ He wrote the Board several times. Some of

Miner letters to the HOA Board Directors were returned to Miner in the mail as

“REFUSED” written on the envelopes. There was no response from the HOA Board.

72. For a while Miner stopped making payments because no one would send him

any ‘detailed’ accounting, or send invoices. He thought this would get their attention.

Finally, with plenty of money in the bank to pay his bill in full, wanting to pay off

assessment debt in full, Miner wrote checks for his monthly $188 dues and sent them to the

Association. Miner enclosed a letter stating paraphrased “if you won't send me my

accounting I must not owe anything other than my monthly assessment dues.”

73. Miner, at his office, received a brief letter from Jones at Feldsott-Lee tellinghim that they would not accept partial payments. His most recent checks were returned.

What a ‘partial’ payment was - was never explained. Miner had full intention of paying all

his regular assessments due and just wanted a number for that assessment amount that was

owed. No one would send him an ‘itemized’ statement of charges: not the Association, not

the management company, not the attorney. The letters Miner did receive from Feldsott-

Lee, Pagano, and Jones were confusing, and the amounts indicated due were inaccurate.

Miner, at some point, noted his payments were not being applied to his assessments.

74. Because Miner could get no substantive response he pushed the Huntington

issue aside waiting for the line-item accounting to pay off his assessment bill in full.

75. In early December 2011 Miner, at his office, received notice from the



24/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Superior Court that he had been defaulted in a foreclosure lawsuit regarding the property at

Huntington. Miner was in shock. He was confused because he was never served with a

Complaint, nor did he ever know that a lawsuit regarding the property had been filed.

76. Miner called Feldsott-Lee attorney Pagano who was listed in the paperwork.

He had never been contacted by her, had never spoken with her, and he had never received

a single document from her or anyone stating he had been served with a lawsuit.

77. Miner spoke with Pagano directly and asked her what the default was about.

She informed him that he had been served with a lawsuit at his property back in April 2011,

eight months prior. Miner informed her he had not been served with a lawsuit. He also

informed her he had not lived at the property for eight years. He also stated that he had not

been to or seen the property for several years. He informed Ms. Pagano he did not know of

any legal action.

78. Miner asked that Pagano vacate the default, she refused. Rather than be

reasonable Pagano then added Miner to the complaint on a personal basis a few days later.

Her act eventually forced Miner to pay a double filing fee to respond to the complaint.

79. Miner researched the process server who claimed to have served Miner at the

Condo. His name was Arturo Chayra (Chayra). According to a well known process serving

company Chayra was well known for such bad acts - sewer service. Miner had found thatothers had lost their homes and their rentals because Mr. Chayra failed to notice them. He

signed and filed false documents. Miner discovered that Chayra had been sued previously

for the exact same issue, false proof of service, commonly called in the process server

industry as “sewer service.”

80. The Association, and ‘Action Management’ knew or should have known and

were also well aware that Miner had not resided at the property for almost a decade and had

tenants in the property. Miner alleges the party who gave ‘Chayra’ the process server, the

19771 Inverness address (Condo) for service of process was negligent. Unbeknownst to

Miner the false service at that address started the wheels of foreclosure in motion.

81. Later, in December, in an email from Rustan Laine (Laine), the President of



25/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Huntington, Laine confessed the Association knew Miner was not properly served. Nothing

was done by Defendants about the false service of process. The Association knew the proof

of service on Miner was fraudulent. Neither Feldsott-Lee, Pagano, Jones or the Association,

attempted to correct the false proof of service, or dismiss the default.

82. In the meantime Miner had done everything possible to get his accounting so

he could make full payment. He had the money, he made the effort, he specifically wrote

the Board of Directors many letters, he wrote and telephoned Action Property Management.

Until he received his checks back from Feldsott-Lee’s collection assistant Jones, he had not

heard from them after his initial letter back in April 2011.

83. In an effort to figure this out Miner researched the laws that governed these

issues, the Davis Stirling Act, and read the Civil Code about making payments as well as

the CC&Rs. The law was clear the Association had to apply his assessment payments to his

account. That was the law. Invoices were required to be sent monthly pursuant to the

governing documents, but invoices never came. Feldsott-Lee never sent a single monthly

invoice while the account was in their possession.

84. Miner, now desperate to resolve the issue, having made every reasonable

attempt possible to rectify the situation. Miner located some very old accounting and

attempted to calculate what he believed he owed in full. In late December 2011 Miner senta certified check directly to the President of the Association Laine in the amount of $3,500

to pay off what he calculated as his unpaid assessment dues in full plus an overage. Laine,

the President of the Association, sent Miner a confirmation email stating he received and

accepted the check. Laine, in the email, stated he would tell Feldsott-Lee to update Miner's

account, and send accounting.

85. Miner wanted to make certain the Board of Directors and the President knew

what was going on with the agents they had hired for the Association, and how he was

being treated while making every attempt to bring his account current. Miner sent them

many letters to update them on how the Association’s agents were handling the matter.

Miner noted a certain board member, Myra Kuck, would constantly refuse his letters and



26/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

send them back to him unopened.

86. About a week later after sending full payment to Rustan Laine, Miner

received a letter in the mail from Feldsott at his office. In the letter was his $3,500 certified

check uncashed and a letter stating the Association could not accept partial payments - no

explanation. Miner, confused, sent the check back to Feldsott explaining the President of

the Association had accepted his check with a conformation email, and they had a duty to

apply it against his assessments. Again, a second time the check was returned to Miner in

the mail. Miner still had not received his line item accounting.

87. Fed up, in 2012 Miner sued the Association in Small Claims court for his

accounting and other records as the law allows. In or about March of 2012 Action, as

manager for Huntington, attended the Small Claims hearing. At the hearing Liza Salinas,

the then community manager, finally supplied Miner with his itemized accounting charges

including the Feldsott-Lee collection contract with the Association. Jones, Pagano's

assistant, also attended the Small Claims court hearing. While in the hallway of the

courthouse Jones personally served Miner with the complaint for foreclosure. Miner was

served with the foreclosure complaint about 11 months after it was filed, and after he

attempted to pay his assessment debt in full! Miner was served with the complaint for

foreclosure three months after writing and delivering a check for full payment of all regular assessments past due, that by law, should have been applied to his regular assessment debt.

88. Miner, who was in pro per at the time, was at a disadvantage. Pagano, the

collection attorney, had never vacated the Association’s fraudulent default judgment

against Miner (served by Chayra). Miner, in pro per, filed an answer to complaint the best

he could. He was served with and answered the Association's discovery.

89. Even though he was having severe heart problems he attempted to mitigate

his losses by attending a board meeting and personally handing a settlement letter to Laine,

and all other members of the Board. He spoke at the meeting telling them how ridiculous

the refusal of his full assessment payments were and that he had made payment in full.

There was no reply to his settlement / mitigation letter by the Association. Miner, at that



27/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

time, did not realize the refusal of his assessment payments was against the law. He has

paid close to $4,000 dollars that had been rejected by Feldsott-lee, Pagano and Jones.

90. Exhausted from the significant and cumulative efforts made to pay his

assessments in full, angry at the treatment he received, Miner answered the original

complaint, then just before trial hired attorney Sam Walker for his defense.

91. At that point it was too late to compose and file a cross complaint. Preventing

the foreclosure was most important. Miner had just wanted to do the right thing for months

and was literally stonewalled from paying his assessment payments by the Association and

it’s agents. Miner knew the assessment payments were important to the Association. He

believed the Board of Director’s, negligence, poor judgment, and Huntington’s agents'

negligent or intentional acts hurt the homeowners as well as Miner.

92. Because of Miner’s document request, Miner was able to read Feldsott's

collection contract with the Association; it did not appear to be within the law. At that point

Miner realized what was going on and he noted a significant problem. While the law states

that any payment made shall be applied to assessments first, Feldsott was putting Miner’s

money in a trust fund and some in the firm’s pocket. Feldsott's contract clearly allowed it to

pay itself first, rather than last as the law requires. Further research was uncovered that this

may had been their practice for more than fifteen years. Hundreds of homeowners may havelost their homes due to these unlawful foreclosure practices of this collector.

93. Miner knew that it would be the homeowners who may end up paying for the

actions of the Board and he did everything possible to avoid that. Miner believed the Board,

or at least those who voted to approve Feldsott's contract, had breached their fiduciary duty,

were grossly negligent, or were at least negligent. The contract was clearly illegal. On

information and belief Stanley Feldsott authored and delivered to the Association with a

contract for collection and HOA home foreclosure that was against the law. It was Rustan

Laine, President of the Board of Directors, who signed the contract along with Stanley

Feldsott of Feldsott-Lee.

94. A limited civil trial was conducted in September 2012. Feldsott-Lee, Pagano,



28/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and Jones had rejected and returned Miner’s payments. During the months it took to get to

trial Feldsott-Lee, Pagano, and Jones continued to refuse payment. During this time

Miner’s assessment account swelled.

95. At trial it came out that Feldsott-Lee’s collection assistant Jones, who had no

accounting background, was managing Miner’s account doing some mysterious accounting.

Jones was not applying Miner's substantial payments to his assessment account as the law

required. Rather then applying payments to assessments, Jones was holding Miner’s monies

in an unknown trust fund. The accounting, at best, was improper, at worst perhaps

fraudulent. Not applying Miner’s assessment payments to his debt was a clear violation of

the Davis Stirling Act. Jones, a law firm collection assistant with no accounting

background, was tasked with the accounting duties. Jones could not explain to the Court

what exactly he was doing with Miner's funds. He could not explain his personal

unprofessional accounting methods. Feldsott-Lee and Jones lost a $500 payment made by

Miner’s that in court Miner had proved he made. Jones’ accounting at Feldsott-Lee proved

to be erroneous, confusing and perhaps fraudulent.

96. During Miner's research he noted there were a litany of legal, notice, and

procedural issues, required by law, the Association's agents were not following. He

believed the Notice of Delinquent Assessments (Association calls it a pre-lien notice) wasnot proper, that the lien recorded was not proper, notifications to Miner were not proper,

the Association failed to send Miner monthly invoices as required by the Declaration, it

failed to send all collection notices to both addresses, both primary and secondary. The

Association along with Feldsott-Lee, Pagano, and Jones failed to accept assessment

payments and failed to apply accepted payment to his assessment balance. These actions, or

inactions, were all improper and in violation of law.

97. Judge Galivan (deceased) was the presiding Judge in trial court. Miner’s

attorney had only arrived from out of town the day before; there was not much time to

prepare. The trial was short. Judge Galivan eventually ruled against Miner, with no

statement of decision.



29/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

98. Miner appealed. The Orange County Superior Court appellate division came

back and ruled for Miner 3-0 and reversed the judgment, then published the decision. The

decision set the law straight for nine million homeowners who live in a community

Associations in that any payment made shall be applied to assessments; Associations are

“compelled” to accept payment.

99. Huntington (or it’s attorneys Feldsott-Lee), not happy with Miner's very

favorable ruling, that changed the way HOA collection attorney’s do business, then spent a

significant amount of the homeowner’s assessment funds. Stanley Feldsott signed the

document that appealed the case to the Fourth District where the case is currently on

appeal. The homeowners at Huntington Continental had no reason whatsoever to spend

additional homeowner funds on this legal battle.

100. Miner contends the “real’ person who would benefit was Stanley Feldsott, his

collection firm Feldsott-Lee, his collection attorneys Jacqueline Pagano and Maria Kao and

the Association he founded CAI - who most, if not all, HOA collections attorney belong to

throughout the Sate of California.

101. On information and belief Miner therefore alleges it was Stanley Feldsott

who gained the most benefit, using the standing of the Association, the Association’s funds,

to attempt to change a law he had violated for close to two decades. Miner estimates,Stanley Feldsott’s law firm Feldsott-Lee collected $150,000 of the Association’s funds,

while paying his own law firm Feldsott-Lee to fight a legal battle that benefitted him and

his firm the most.

102. Miner alleges Feldsott-Lee, Feldsott, Pagano, and Jones not only violated the

Davis Stirling Act and collection law in it’s pursuit of Miner, but violated their duty to the

Association.

103. Following the trial Miner's attorney Sam Walker wrote Ms. Pagano, the

Association’s attorney controlling Miner’s file, a letter telling her that Miner was going to

appeal the decision and that Miner was willing to pay his past assessments, and again begin

paying his regular assessments monthly. [exhibit#8] There was no response from Feldsott,



30/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Pagano, Action, or the Association. Radio silence from all parties.

104. The Court trial was September 20, 2012 in Orange County Superior Court

(30-2011-00466754). Miner appealed to Superior Court Appellate Division (2013-

30-2013-00623099). The Appellate Division ruled on September 26, 2013 in Miner’s

favor. Feldsott asked for a rehearing on October 11, 2013, a second ruling was on January

13, 2013, again in Miner’s favor. Stanley Feldsott, in the name of Huntington, then

requested the case be transferred to the Fourth District Division Three on January 22, 2014,

and filed a briefing request on February 13, 2014. On October 14, 2014 the Fourth District

Division Three (G049624) ruled in Miner’s favor and reversed the foreclosure. The Court

remitted the remaining Counts to the Superior Court. On May 12, 2015 Miner was found to

be the prevailing party by the Superior Court on all counts. The Association took nothing in

the action on any count or cause of action against Miner.

105. The only person on trial was Miner. The gravamen of the trial was ‘illegal’

foreclosure on Miner’s property, whether rejecting payments was legal, what amounts of

money Miner had paid and when. There were no charges or causes of action litigated

‘against’ the Association or it’s service providers during the trial or appeals.

THE KEYSTONE COLLECTION106. Miner, worried about payments during the appeal period, not hearing

anything from the Association, wrote his own letter on May 1, 2013 to Action Property

Management (still known to Miner as the property manager at that time) asking about

making payments once again. Again, there was no reply. It had been so long, Miner could

not remember the last time he received any correspondence, invoices or demands of any

kind from the Association or it’s agents.

107. On or about June 1, 2013 Miner received an invoice (collection notice) from

the Association sent by a new property management company / collection agent: Keystone

Pacific Property Management (Keystone). The notice came to Miner's office but was not

sent to his primary property address at the Condo. Miner contacted his tenant, Judith



31/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Spiritos, and asked if she had received anything in the mail for him, she said no. In the prior

Court trial Spirtos, under oath, testified she was never served with the foreclosure

complaint, never received the complaint in the mail, and does not, and has not received

monthly invoices. She stated she receives nothing.

108. After receiving the new collection invoice from the new management

company, Miner contacted his attorney and asked if he had ever heard from Pagano about

making payments. The attorney said no, he received nothing. Miner asked what to do about

the invoice. Miner stated it was inaccurate. Besides the assessments that were in default, it

was for $80 in late fees and about $40 in interest Miner stated he did not owe.

109. A discussion ensued. Miner decided to hold off on payment because the

appellate decision was due soon. Miner had never been given authority to again start

making payments by the Association's attorney Pagano (Pagano and Jones had refused all

prior payments). Miner’s attorney stated there should be a ‘set off’ for any amounts owed

by the substantial amount Miner had paid in legal fees and costs. Coincidentally the first

collection invoice Miner received from the new management company Keystone was again

about the level needed for foreclosure: $1800. Again it was confusing to Miner. Miner’s

debt to this Association was years in default. It was further in default at least 8 months after

trial. The situation was in limbo. The documents from Keystone explained nothing.Feldsott had sent no explanation. The situation was confusing.

110. Miner waited to make payment as instructed by his attorney. In the meantime

he received a generic collection letter about the amount of assessments owed post trial.

This letter, a form ‘dunning’ letter, was not addressed to Miner personally and it did not

address the intense situation that had played out. It was sent by Bennett at Keystone.

111. About August 6, 2013 Miner again concerned that 60 days had passed since

he had started receiving collection invoices, sent a letter to Keystone, the new manager, for

clarification. He again asked for the Association’s attorney to address the situation and get

a proper authorization on record about Miner again making payments. Again, there was no

reply to Miner’s request from the new management company, the Association or it’s



32/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

attorney.

112. On August 16, 2014 or thereabout the Association replied through Keystone.

The reply was a new Notice of Delinquent Assessment (pre-lien notice) again with intent to

foreclose. Three letters had been written to address the payment issue. The Association

failed (refused) to respond to every letter.

113. Keystone, the new management company for the Association, was again

sending un-itemized invoices with summarized totals and amounts that do not give a person

the facts to figure out what exact charges, dates, fees, interest, and late fees that they would

owe to the Association. Their collection letters were confusing.

114. Pursuant to the Davis Stirling Act the Association is required by law to send a

required legal Notice of Delinquent Assessment (Keystone calls it a pre-lien notice), and an

Itemized Statement of Charges together to complete the legal requirements of the notice.

The management company sent a three page document, what they call a pre-lien notice (a

term not found in the Davis Stirling Act 2013), with summary totals of different categories

of assessments and fees. Miner contends the notice was statutorily void.

115. Miner alleges Keystone is a debt collector under Federal law because his

account was years in default when they took it over and began collecting. Keystone failed

to follow federal law. On information and belief Brittany Bennett (Bennett) was in chargeof Miner’s collection file.

116. To protect himself legally Miner properly disputed the charges on the Notice

of Delinquent Assessment (pre-lien notice). In writing, to make the Association aware he

had every intention of paying what was legally due, which included all assessments, he

included that statement on his letter. Miner never once disputed he owed assessments.

Miner in his letter, as the law states, requested mediation and alternate dispute resolution

and was required to do so to protect himself because the Association stated it would file a

lien and foreclose on his property. Miner had not yet received the decision from the first

trial’s appeal.

117. Miner was troubled. Not only had the Association “lump sum” billed Miner



33/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for about 9 months unpaid assessments, on his account, after repeatedly refusing payments,

failing to respond to all letters, failing to send invoices; someone then added late fees and

interest! It added these amounts for the time period: 1) while the Association was refusing

his payments and 2) would not respond to his or his attorney’s correspondence about

making payments! Miner believed this to be illegal.

118. Mediation was then set and Miner was to meet a member of the Board he had

never met. Miner welcomed that as perhaps this person would be reasonable,

knowledgeable, and understanding. Just prior to the meeting Erica Griffith (Griffith), the

Association manager appointed by Keystone contacted Miner and notified him there would

be a change of plans. Miner was notified that Myra Kuck (Kuck), and Humberto Macias

would be meeting with Miner. Miner attended a meeting with Kuck and Macias at Polly's

Pies in Huntington Beach close to the Association complex.

119. Miner was jubilant as the appeal ruling had just come in from the Orange

County Appellate Court Division. A three judge panel had just ruled 3-0 in Miner's favor,

and reversed the trial Court ruling in total. Miner reserved a table and waited for Kuck and

Macias, the two Board members. The members showed up and the meeting began. Miner

knew that it was Kuck, who was one of the board members who voted to foreclose on

Miner's property; Kuck would also refuse his personal letters about the important issuesconcerning the Association’s agents. Miner had heard from a long time resident at a board

meeting that Kuck was impossible to deal with.

120. Miner introduced himself. A conversation began. Miner discovered in no

time the meeting would be fruitless. He soon discovered Macias had NEVER read the

CC&Rs as long as he had been a board member. Kuck stated she had read them but was no

longer familiar. Miner had asked the Board members if he could record the meeting. They

allowed the recording.

121. Miner attempted to inform the Board members how much money they were

wasting of the homeowners money on legal issues, and the fact that he had just won the

appeal, both of them stated they did not know much about it! At one point Kuck was



34/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

laughing at Miner. It was clear to Miner Kuck did not understand the gravity of the

situation. No payment plan was offered by the board. Miner informed the board that he did

not get invoices to either his office or his condo. Kuck responded - all Kuck knew was she

received her invoices. It was apparent to Miner these Board members were incompetent and

uninformed. They did not know about the appeal, had not even read the CC&Rs that govern

their Board decisions.

122. Miner does not believe the board mediated in good faith. They should have

seen the issues loud and clear. Miner concluded that with their complete lack of knowledge

they should not be running a $90,000 a month non-profit and they had no obvious concern

about how much money, belonging to the owners, was being wasted in litigation. It

appeared to Miner they did not know enough about the issues they were making decisions

about to be decision makers. Miner, at the end of the meeting, offered the Board members a

certified funds check for $780 at the meeting as a good faith payment. Myra Kuck rejected

Miner’s check.

123. When Griffith, the community manager, informed Miner that Kuck would

replace the other board member at the meeting Miner had no idea of the history of these

two associates. Later, at a board meeting, Miner attended he was warned by a long term

owner, of Griffith's history at Huntington. Miner was informed that Griffith and Kuck are personal friends (Miner was able to confirm they were Facebook friends).

124. This owner informed Miner that many years ago Griffith worked with an

individual named Robert Kirschner who was a Board member at Huntington Continental.

Miner was told that Kirschner was a very bad guy. It was relayed to Miner that Griffith was

his right hand helper and effectively his “hench-woman.”

125. It was also revealed to Miner that Griffith was ejected from the Huntington

Continental by the owners over a management scandal. Griffith and Kuck had become

friends. Miner was informed the situation was so bad the California Attorney General was

involved in Griffith’s departure, but Miner has not confirmed this. Miner was warned these

two may be trouble if they chose to target him.



35/71

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1819

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Documents

Miner Vs Keystone Pacific, C Treff, James Harkins