Attorney General Complaint showing Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Fraud! Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector General for the SBA PDF
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Fraud as presented to the Santa Barbara Bankruptcy Court by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. The questions asked of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust below need to be answered!
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust PDF documents showing the SBBT May 19, 2011 Notice of Default to be fraudulent, in the $45,171.20 claimed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust!
Richard Rossi Objection_to_Proof_of_Claim.pdf
3.9 MB
Grant_s_response_to_our_obj_to_claim.pdf
324.7 KB
Karen L. Grants response doc 49 pt 2.pdf
317.0 KB
SBA Loan Fraud Case 01394465. pdf
3.1 MB Union Bank
SBA_August_29__2003_Fraud_by_Santa_Barbara_Bank___Trust.pdf
2.1 MB
The following email communication shows the questions that need to now be answered by Union Bank after Diana Jessup Lee's January 8, 2013 and January 24, 2013 emails below!
Judge_Robin_L._Riblet_Exhibits___1_of_3.pdf
8.2 MB
Questions that need to be answered by Union Bank
1.2 MB
From: Bill Bookout
[mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 10:49 AM
To: 'ombudsman@sba.gov'; 'dporter@dfi.ca.gov';
'grady.hedgespeth@sba.gov'; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.' (Carlos.Mendoza@sba.gov)
Cc: Fredericks, Jeffrey (jfreder@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); da, sbcounty
(sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; sanschromo@yahoo.com;
Nudson, Anne (anudson@co.santa-barbara.ca.us); lol@rsmediate.com;
'sandiego@sba.gov'; 'ombudsman@fdic.gov'; 'ruben.garcia@sba.gov';
'Lcannon@dfi.ca.gov'; 'legal@fdic.gov'; 'England, Jacqueline';
'kari.overson@sba.gov'; Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)
<adam.kaplan@sba.gov> (adam.kaplan@sba.gov);
'sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us'; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'
(Carlos.Mendoza@sba.gov); 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; 'Hobby, Jill C.'; Richard Rossi
(richard@rossilegal.com); dlee@rppmh.com; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
February 20, 2013
CARLOS
G.
MENDOZA
US Small Business Administration
District
Director 409
3rd St, SW
Central
California/
Fresno
Washington DC 20416
Small
Business Administration
559/487-5785,
Ext
2710
800/359-1833,
OPTION
6
Dear
Mr. Carlos Mendoza/SBA Obudsman
Union Bank successor to SBB&T, has
without the involvement of Santa Barbara Mediator, Lol Sorensen, falsified SBA
Loan accounting in Union Banks, Diana Jessup Lee May 6, 2011 Accounting and Amortization
Schedules as seen at www.governorjerrybrown.net
--- www.unionbank.me and
above. Please review Mr. Lol Sorensen’s February 19, 2013 email response
below! I am requesting a full Small Business Administration, SBA PLP Loan investigation and accounting
into Union Banks claim that their amortization schedules are more accurate then
IRS 1098 Forms or SBA 1149 Forms with the SBB&T May 19, 2011 NOD from the
two SBB&T May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules created by Santa Barbara Bank
& Trust!
Union Bank successor to SBB&T has ignored SBA 1149 accounting and IRS
1098 forms and stated in their (Diana Jessup Lee) SBA loan Representative’s May
6, 2011 letter?: “In the process of creating Schedule 1, some relatively minor
differences of opinion developed regarding how to interpret and apply the terms
of the Forbearance Agreement. As part of the mediation and compromise
process, we decided to prepare a second schedule, “Schedule 2,” which
extends every possible advantage to you, even if not consistent with the terms
of your SBA loan or computerized software that tracks loans.”
Again, I am asking for a full investigation from the
Small Business Administration in Union Bank successor to SBB&T, SBA Loan
Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2003
and that all questions asked below on February 8, 2013 and again on February
14, 2013 of Union Bank are now answered by the United States Small Business
Administration! Both, Union Bank SBA loan
Representatives Diana Jessup Lee and Robert B. Forouzandeh continue to ignore
SBA 1149 Forms and IRS 1098 Forms from 2007-2010 showing Union Bank successor
to SBB&T fraudulent accounting per the SBB&T May 19, 2011 NOD and the
two May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules that Union Bank now again on January 24,
2013 states: : “As I have done on numerous occasions, I
direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as
well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your
$22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly
principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September,
2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan
after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you
keep asking the same question?”
US Small Business Administration, Please review the February 13, 2013 email below from Union Banks SBA
loan representative, Robert B. Forouzandeh Stating: “I
am compiling answers to questions in your recent email to my office. Once
I have gathered all necessary information, I will respond further.” The US
Small Business Administration now needs to see that the 48 question asked of
Union Bank on February 14, 2013 are fully answered and that Union Bank is not
using (Amortization Schedules) as official SBA loan bank documents over IRS
1098 forms or SBA 1149 accounting with other SBA loan customers!
The Santa Barbara Superior Court (Denise Motter) per the
request of Union Banks Vice President Christine Sontag, will only allow Union
Bank SBA PLP loan questions to be asked of Robert B. Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee; making it necessary for the US Small Business Administration to answer
the 48 questions asked below of Union Bank on February 14, 2013!
US Small Business Administration, I am
requesting an accounting from the US Small Business Administration, of
Union Banks charge of $39,750.00 to fix up the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loaned
property from the Appraisal of $265,000.00 and that this money is returned with
interest as seen in Exhibit A-22 along with the Union Bank charge of $26,500.00
(10% standard deduction by the bank on all foreclosures). I am
requesting an accounting from the US Small Business Administration, per Union Banks Attorney fees of $57,676.17 for asking SBA PLP Loan
Questions of Union Bank successor to SBB&T per
their May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedules and May 19, 2011 NOD! US
Small Business Administration, Please review Union Banks emails below from
January 25, 2011 to February 13, 2013 showing SBA Loan Fraud and Breach of
Contract by Union Bank!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC
Jeffery Frederick Santa Barbara District Attorney Supervising
Investigator
CC
Chris Gautschi
CC
Richard Rossi
CC
Judge Robin L. Riblet Case # ND11-15818-RR
CC
Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee Fax (818) 933-5755
CC
California State Bar
Union Bank successor to SBB&T, From: Lol Sorensen [mailto:lol@rsmediate.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:30 AM
To: 'Bill Bookout'
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
theSanta Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
Bill,
No,
I was not involved in the preparation of the schedules.
Best
regards,
Lol Sorensen
Mailing
Address:
690 Oak Grove Court
Ojai, CA 93023
Santa Barbara Office:
211 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
lol@rsmediate.com
(805) 689-6654 (phone)
(866) 423-9058 (fax)
**************************************************************
This message is sent by an attorney-mediator and may contain
information that is privileged or confidential.
If you received this transmission in error, please notify the
sender by reply e-mail and delete the message
and any attachments.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2013 8:41 AM
To: lol@rsmediate.com
Cc: 'Bill Bookout'; Fredericks, Jeffrey; da, sbcounty;
dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; sanschromo@yahoo.com; Nudson, Anne
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
theSanta Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
February
15, 2013
Lol
Sorensen
690 Oak
Grove Court
Ojai, CA 93023
(805) 649-1389 (phone)
Dear Mr.
Sorensen,
In the
Diana Jessup Lee May 6, 2011 Union Bank/SBBT accounting and Amortization
Schedules as seen at www.governorjerrybrown.net --- www.unionbank.me and
above. Did you as the Mediator have any involvement in the creation of
these two Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Amortization Schedules as Diana Jessup
Lee States in her May 6, 2011 letter?: “In
the process of creating Schedule 1, some relatively minor differences of
opinion developed regarding how to interpret and apply the terms of the
Forbearance Agreement. As part of the mediation and compromise
process, we decided to prepare a second schedule, “Schedule 2,” which
extends every possible advantage to you, even if not consistent with the terms
of your SBA loan or computerized software that tracks loans.”
The
questions below of Union Bank on February 8, 2013 and February 14, 2013 will
now have to be answered by Union Bank. Diana Jessup Lee has stated
January 24, 2013 in her exhibit (G) as presented to Santa Barbara Superior
Court Commissioner Denise Motter: “As I have done on numerous occasions, I
direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as
well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your
$22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly
principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and
September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on
your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2.
Why do you keep asking the same question?”
Again was
the creation of these two amortizations schedules part of the (Mediation
Process) with you on April 27, 2011 and did you help in anyway in creating
these Amortization Schedules as Diana Jessup Lee has stated in her May 6, 2011
letter? “As part of the mediation and compromise process, we decided to
prepare a second schedule, “Schedule 2,”? It is now very
important to know who Diana Jessup Lee is referring to as “WE”
Sincerely
Bill
Bookout
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 7:22 AM
To: 'Diana Lee'; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com; Fredericks, Jeffrey
(jfreder@co.santa-barbara.ca.us)
Cc: 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us';
'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com';
'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Nudson, Anne'; 'da,
sbcounty'; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Debra Hernandez';
'adam.kaplan@sba.gov'; 'sandra.mazzoni@sba.gov'; 'Bill Bookout'
(Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
theSanta Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
February
14, 2013
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421
State Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Dear
Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to
SBB&T
Received the February 13, 2013 email
below from Robert B. Forouzandeh pertaining to the 2012 IRS Form 1098. Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T. Again
please answer the questions asked of Union Bank below on February 8, 2013 and
again on February 14, 2013! Please immediately provide a Monthly
(Payment Notice) statement for February 2013! Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T; Explain why Union Bank successor to SBB&T, has not adjusted the monthly payment
of the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loan with Union Banks profitable sale of the
Oceano Nursery inventory and property to Rick Gambril?
Robert B. Forouzandeh sent a second
email on February 13, 2013 stating per the February 8, 2013 questions asked
below! “On February 13, 2013
at 3:22 p.m. you communicated directly with Union Bank in violation of Section
6(a)(4) of the Modified Restraining Order entered on February 5, 2013. “As stated in that Order you “must direct any communications
pertaining to [your] SBA Loan solely to Diana Jessup Lee or Robert Forouzandeh,
and not to any officers, directors or employees of SBBT or Union Bank.”
(Emphasis in original.) Your violation constitutes contempt of Court.”
“This letter serves as a warning. However, if you violate the
Restraining Order again, we will bring your conduct to the Court’s attention,
seek a contempt citation and pursue all available remedies.”
“I
am compiling answers to questions in your recent email to my office. Once
I have gathered all necessary information, I will respond further.”
Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, has appointed you (Diana
Jessup Lee) as Union Bank successor to SBB&T; SBA Loan representative to answer Oceano
Nursery SBA PLP Loan Questions! Please answer the Union Bank SBA loan
questions below on February 14, 2013 and February 8, 2013! All questions
asked of Union Bank successor to SBB&T can
be seen at www.unionbank.me and at www.governorjerrybrown.net
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to
SBB&T. Again please provide a current (Loan Transaction History
Statement for 2012) per the IRS 1098 Forms attached and the SBA Forms 1149
Attached! Union Bank has been unable within 24 Hours to show
evidence of the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule # 2 or #1 being accurate
against Union Bank successor to SBB&T IRS 1098 Forms from 2007-2010! Robert B. Forouzandeh emails below do not provide a current
(Loan Transaction History Statement for Union Banks 2012 changed IRS Form 1098!
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T
1)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098,
SBBT/Union Bank did not apply any of the five forbearance agreement payments
towards Principal?
2)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098,
SBBT/Union Bank shows a (Ending Principal Balance) of $420,024.30 and does not
reduce this balance as seen in the December 31, 2006 IRS Form 1098?
3)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098,
SBBT/Union Bank shows only interest of $53,358.70 paid and nothing towards principal?
4)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098,
SBBT/Union Bank does not apply any extra principal paid as seen on 7/31/07?
5)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098,
SBBT/Union Bank charges (Regular Payment)s of $4,121.06 from 9/11/07-12/13/07?
6)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments of $4,121.06
against SBA loan rules? Diana Jessup Lee, You Claim January 24, 2013 that this
monthly payment should have been $4,028.05!
7)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of $4,121.06?
Diana
Jessup Lee, You Stated June 29,
2011: “I have
reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find the document to which you reference.
Nevertheless, it does not matter. The operative documents are my May 6
and 19 letters to you with enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD.
All three of these documents credit the $22,274.46 as if you had
timely made the monthly payments due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as
agreed in the Forbearance Agreement.”
8)
Explain as to why in the IRS 1098 Forms from 2007 to 2010 from
your June 29, 2011 email as to how SBBT/Union Bank prepared the May 6, 2011
Amortization Schedule against your June 29, 2011 email?
9)
Explain how Union Bank has credited the $22,274.46 principal,
per the 2007-2010 IRS forms 1098?
10)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank applied extra principal paid of $78.94 to interest on
4/15/2008?
11)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank applied extra Principal paid of $1078.94 to interest on May 21,
2008?
12)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged $157.88 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Diana
Jessup Lee, You Stated June 28, 2011: “Please send me a copy of
the "1098 form" about which you have questions and I will obtain an
explanation for you.”
Diana
Jessup Lee, You Stated July 5, 2011: “The schedules and "computerized
records" you request were included with and explained in my May 6
letter.”
13)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS
Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments of $4,121.06 against
SBA loan rules?
14)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of $4,121.06?
15)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged $711.40 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Diana
Jessup Lee, You Stated June 28, 2011 “I do not know what
"computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6, 2011
schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other
records.”
16)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank claimed a Principal Balance of $390,996.91
against the January 6, 2011 SBBT (Proof of Claim) amount of $400,962.89?
17)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged late payment fees of $206.05 or 5% of $4,121.06 against
SBA loan Rules or Your (Diana Jessup Lee) January 24, 2013 claim of a monthly
payment of $4,028.05?
18)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged $2,800.00 as an Appraisal fee? Please provide a
copy of this September 17, 2010 appraisal as charged!
19)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT did not claim
$45,171.20 owed Union Bank per the May 19, 2011 NOD?
20)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment
Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a monthly payment of $4,121.06
against SBA loan amortization rules?
21)
Explain how Union Bank on/SBBT on May 6, 2011 came up with
$4,028.05 instead of the August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) $4,121.06?
22)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment
Notice) explain Union Bank/SBBT (Charges/Fees Due) of $20,643.86?
23)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claims 20 payments
of $4,121.06 totaling $82,421.20 against the May 19, 2011 NOD, SBA loan rules
and Your (Diana Jessup Lee) January 24, 2013 email Stating? “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which
was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated
May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was
applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for
May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay.
The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is
confirmed in Schedule 2. “
24)
As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 24, 2007
(Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a payment due of $4,121.06
per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
25)
As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 24 2007
(Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized the Oceano Nursery SBA
loan at 6% against the your January 24, 2013 email by (Diana Jessup Lee)?
26)
As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June 23, 2007
(Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized $474,298.51 at 6%?
Diana Jessup Lee, You Claim January 24, 2013 that the SBA loan was amortized
at $462,069.51 with a monthly payment of $4,028.05!
27)
Explain as to how you as Union Banks SBA
loan representative, (Diana Jessup Lee) can claim January 24, 2013 that the
Oceano Nursery SBA loan was amortized from Schedule 2 after five payments
totaling $22,274.46 down to $416,898.31 and then adding 10 payments of both
principal and interest totaling $462,069.51 making a monthly payment of
$4,028.05 against Union Bank/SBBT’s SBA Forms 1149 and all IRS Form 1098 from
2007 to present?
28)
As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June 23, 2007
(Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT paid and applied principal from
the five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 forbearance agreement
against your (Diana Jessup Lee) January 24, 2013 email below?
29)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 4, 2007 online
accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT did not account for the June 30, 2007
five payments of principal and interest totaling $22,274.46?
30)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 17, 2007 online
accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of $33,945.49 after
subtracting $22,274.46?
31)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 23, 2007 online
accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of $33,821.79 after
subtracting $22,274.46 and receiving two principal and interest payments of
$5,000.00?
32)
Explain as to why in Union Banks May 6, 2011 amortization
schedule # 2 that SBBT/Union Bank does not account for the extra principal
paid?
33)
In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from
Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored paying principal from
five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 forbearance agreement?
34)
In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from
Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the
May 19, 2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks January 9, 2007 (Demand
Letter) loan accounting?
35)
In the Pacific Capital Bank September 29, 2006 (Letter) from
Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the
May 19, 2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks loan accounting?
36)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 29, 2011 SBA form
1149 explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of $4,121.06 per
month against the 2007 forbearance agreement and your Union Banks SBA Loan
Representative (Diana Jessup Lee) May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule?
37)
Explain as to How Union Bank believes that an Amortization
Schedule is accurate against IRS Forms 1098 and SBA Forms 1149?
Diana
Jessup Lee, You stated for Union Bank on January 8, 2013 against IRS 1098 Forms
and SBA 1149 Forms as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner,
Denise Motter: “As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November 23, 2011
email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from SBBT's
online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of
$390,996.91 for the loan. The $390,996.91 was calculated
using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance
Agreement.”
38)
Please provide a current Union Bank SBA Loan Transaction History
with your January 8, 2013 email statement! Please explain the 2008 IRS
Form 1098 Balance of $390,996.91 against your January 6, 2012 (Proof of Claim)
to Judge Robin L. Riblet?
39)
In the October 26, 2010 Demand Statement from Vice President
Sandra Sheffield. Explain as to why Pacific Capital Bank did not claim
$45,171.20 in deferred and defaulted payments against Union Banks May 19, 2011
NOD?
40)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 20, 2010 SBA
form 1149 explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of $4,121.06 per
month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
41)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 20, 2010 SBA
form 1149 explain how Union Bank on January 24, 2013 that the May 6, 2011
Amortization Schedule # 2 is accurate against the September 20, 2010 SBA Form
1149?
42)
In the May 2, 2011 Email to
Diana Jessup Lee, copied to Mediator Lol Sorensen. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored
the September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 provided in Mediation with Lol Sorenson by
Doug Lutz?
43)
In the Email to yourself (Diana Jessup Lee) and Mediator, Lol Sorensen
on May 2, 2010. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored the Santa Barbara
Bank & Trusts online accounting as of May 2, 2012 with monthly payments of
$4,121.06 and a principal balance of $390,996.91?
44)
Explain how Union Bank successor to SBB&T can charge 10%
($26,500.00 of an appraised property value of $265,000.00) as a Foreclosure fee
on all (SBA PLP Loan) Foreclosures? Union Bank in their 2013 Form 1099-A
Claim a (Fair market Value of Property) to be $189,000.00 against Union Banks
own property appraisal of $265,000.00!
45) Explain how Union Bank successor to
SBB&T can charge charge $39,750.00 off of an $265,000.00 Appraised value to
fix up a SBA loaned property that they are foreclosing on as seen in Union
Banks February 21, 2012 Exhibit A-22 as presented to United States Bankruptcy
Judge Robin L. Riblet?
46) Explain how Union Bank successor to
SBB&T charge $57,676.17 in Attorney fees, for asking bank loan questions;
without paying back an SBA loan with this money or creditors from profits in a
forced foreclosure sale caused by Union Bank Successor to SBB&T as seen in Union
Banks February 27, 2012 Exhibit B-23 as presented to United States Bankruptcy
Judge Robin L. Riblet and Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter?
47) Union Bank successor to SBB&T: Explain why Union Bank successor to SBB&T, has not adjusted the monthly payment
of the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP loan with Union Banks profitable sale of the
Oceano Nursery inventory and property to Rick Gambril?
48) Union Bank successor to
SBB&T: Explain what Union Bank has done with the extra Principal paid
Union Bank from the improperly amortized SBA PLP Loan payments from 2007 to
2011 of $4,121.06 per month? Diana Jessup Lee in the June 29, 2011 email
below, you have stated! “Solely
for settlement purposes I offered to discount your loan by various
amounts, including $7,000.”
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T, I am asking for a full accounting of
Union Banks Attorney fees as “Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) mandates that “an entity
seeking compensation for services or reimbursement for expenses shall file an
application setting forth a detailed statement of (1) the services
rendered, time expended and expenses incurred, and (2) the amounts
requested.”41” Union Bank charged $57,676.17 by Reicker, Pfau, Pyle &
McRoy LLP in Exhibit B-23 (Case No. ND11-15818RR). Union Bank in front of
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denis Motter has claimed that this
$57,676.17 in Attorney Fees had nothing to do with the questions asked of Union
bank as stated by Robert Forouzandeh January 28, 2013!
Robert
Forouzandeh Stated January 28, 2013! “MR. FOROUZANDEH: Your
Honor, the $57,000 in attorney's fees had very little to nothing to do with the
prior restraining order. That matter has been adjudicated in front of the
bankruptcy court. That's all been resolved. There was no request for
attorney's fees, either in our last petition before you or this present
petition before you. As to the questions, Mr. Bookout, yes, he is correct.
He's contacted the CEO of Union Bank asking questions about his loan. That
e-mail was forwarded to us. We immediately contacted Mr. Bookout and asked him
to direct all of his questions pertaining to his loan through our office and
when he CC's the other official, we again respond and say, "Mr. Bookout,
here are the answers to your questions, but please stop e-mailing everybody in
the organization."
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T, I am requesting an accounting of
Union Banks charge of $39,750.00 and that this money is returned with interest
as seen in Exhibit A-22 along with the Union Bank charge of $26,500.00 (10%
standard deduction by the bank on all foreclosures) Union
Bank as the lender, holds the primary
responsibility for keeping accurate records. See, In re Parrish, 326
B.R. 708, 721 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005), and In re Jacobson, 5 B.R. 274,
277 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1980). See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2011). Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2011). See,
e.g., In re Henry, 266
B.R. 457, 480 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2001)(Awarding interest in addition to
compensatory damages under 362(h)).
Diana
Jessup Lee, If Union Bank successor to SBB&T, has any documents (IRS 1098 Forms) to
back up the May 6, 2011 amortization schedule as you (Diana Jessup Lee) have
stated January 24, 2013: Then please provide these Union Bank successor to SBB&T documents as you have stated for
Union Bank on January 24, 2013! “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to
Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my
letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46
payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and
interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you
had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after
application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep
asking the same question? If you believe my explanations are wrong,
please state precisely why and explain your conclusion as opposed to simply
asserting false conclusory statements.”
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T, Again answer the 48
Questions asked above of Union Bank! The attached, Union Bank SBA
loan documents, show Union Bank successor to SBB&T (IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010 and a September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 as presented at Mediation with
Lol Sorensen by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Please answer the
question above and below of Union Bank from these Union Bank successor to SBB&T documents! Please also provide
your response to Elizabeth
F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee Fax (818)
933-5755. Attached are Union
Bank successor to SBB&T emails from January 25, 2011 to
February 13, 2013 showing Union Banks SBA loan Fraud and Breach of Contract!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC
Jeffery Frederick Santa Barbara District Attorney Supervising
Investigator
CC
Chris Gautschi
CC
Richard Rossi
CC
Judge Robin L. Riblet Case # ND11-15818-RR
CC
Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee Fax (818) 933-5755
CC
California State Bar
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:22 PM
To: Bill Bookout (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Subject: Notice of Violation of Modified Restraining Order
Mr. Bookout:
On February 13,
2013 at 3:22 p.m. you communicated directly with Union Bank in violation of
Section 6(a)(4) of the Modified Restraining Order entered on February 5,
2013. As stated in that Order you “must direct any communications
pertaining to [your] SBA Loan solely to Diana Jessup Lee or Robert Forouzandeh,
and not to any officers, directors or employees of SBBT or Union Bank.”
(Emphasis in original.) Your violation constitutes contempt of Court.
This letter serves
as a warning. However, if you violate the Restraining Order again, we
will bring your conduct to the Court’s attention, seek a contempt citation and
pursue all available remedies.
I am compiling
answers to questions in your recent email to my office. Once I have
gathered all necessary information, I will respond further.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle
& McRoy LLP
1421 State Street,
Suite B
Santa Barbara,
CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may
contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:33 AM
To: dlee@rppmh.com; Fredericks,
Jeffrey (jfreder@co.santa-barbara.ca.us)
Cc: 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.';
'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com';
'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Nudson, Anne'; 'da,
sbcounty'; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Debra Hernandez';
'adam.kaplan@sba.gov'; 'sandra.mazzoni@sba.gov'; 'Sabado, Michelle'; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
February
8, 2013
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421
State Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Dear
Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to
SBB&T
Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, has appointed you (Diana
Jessup Lee) as Union Bank successor to SBB&T; SBA Loan representative to answer Oceano
Nursery SBA Loan Questions! Please answer the Union Bank SBA loan
questions below on February 8, 2013! All questions asked of Union Bank successor to SBB&T can be seen at www.unionbank.me
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T
1)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098,
SBBT/Union Bank did not apply any of the five forbearance agreement payments
towards Principal?
2)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098,
SBBT/Union Bank shows a (Ending Principal Balance) of $420,024.30 and does not
reduce this balance as seen in the December 31, 2006 IRS Form 1098?
3)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098,
SBBT/Union Bank shows only interest of $53,358.70 paid and nothing towards
principal?
4)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098,
SBBT/Union Bank does not apply any extra principal paid as seen on 7/31/07?
5)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union
Bank charges (Regular Payment)s of $4,121.06 from 9/11/07-12/13/07?
6)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments of $4,121.06
against SBA loan rules? Diana Jessup Lee, You Claim January 24, 2013 that this
monthly payment should have been $4,028.05!
7)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of $4,121.06?
Diana
Jessup Lee, You Stated June 29,
2011: “I have
reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find the document to which you reference.
Nevertheless, it does not matter. The operative documents are my May 6
and 19 letters to you with enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD.
All three of these documents credit the $22,274.46 as if you had
timely made the monthly payments due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as
agreed in the Forbearance Agreement.”
8)
Explain as to why in the IRS 1098 Forms from 2007 to 2010 from
your June 29, 2011 email as to how SBBT/Union Bank prepared the May 6, 2011
Amortization Schedule against your June 29, 2011 email?
9)
Explain how Union Bank has credited the $22,274.46 principal,
per the 2007-2010 IRS forms 1098?
10)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank applied extra principal paid of $78.94 to interest on
4/15/2008?
11)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank applied extra Principal paid of $1078.94 to interest on May 21,
2008?
12)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged $157.88 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Diana
Jessup Lee, You Stated June 28, 2011: “Please send me a copy of
the "1098 form" about which you have questions and I will obtain an
explanation for you.”
Diana
Jessup Lee, You Stated July 5, 2011: “The schedules and
"computerized records" you request were included with and explained
in my May 6 letter.”
13)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS
Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments of $4,121.06 against
SBA loan rules?
14)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of $4,121.06?
15)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged $711.40 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Diana
Jessup Lee, You Stated June 28, 2011 “I do not know what "computerized"
records you are requesting. The May 6, 2011 schedules are official and
are correct, so there is no need for any other records.”
16)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank claimed a Principal Balance of $390,996.91
against the January 6, 2011 SBBT (Proof of Claim) amount of $400,962.89?
17)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged late payment fees of $206.05 or 5% of $4,121.06 against
SBA loan Rules or Your (Diana Jessup Lee) January 24, 2013 claim of a monthly
payment of $4,028.05?
18)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged $2,800.00 as an Appraisal fee? Please provide a
copy of this September 17, 2010 appraisal as charged!
19)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT did not claim
$45,171.20 owed Union Bank per the May 19, 2011 NOD?
20)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment
Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a monthly payment of $4,121.06
against SBA loan amortization rules?
21)
Explain how Union Bank on/SBBT on May 6, 2011 came up with
$4,028.05 instead of the August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) $4,121.06?
22)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment
Notice) explain Union Bank/SBBT (Charges/Fees Due) of $20,643.86?
23)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
August 24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claims 20 payments
of $4,121.06 totaling $82,421.20 against the May 19, 2011 NOD, SBA loan rules
and Your (Diana Jessup Lee) January 24, 2013 email Stating? “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to Schedule 2 which
was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my letter to you dated
May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was
applied to satisfy your monthly principal and interest payments due for
May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you had failed to pay.
The reduction in principal on your loan after application of this payment is
confirmed in Schedule 2. “
24)
As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 24, 2007
(Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a payment due of $4,121.06
per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
25)
As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 24 2007
(Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized the Oceano Nursery SBA
loan at 6% against the your January 24, 2013 email by (Diana Jessup Lee)?
26)
As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June 23, 2007
(Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized $474,298.51 at 6%?
Diana Jessup Lee, You Claim January 24, 2013 that the SBA loan was amortized
at $462,069.51 with a monthly payment of $4,028.05!
27)
Explain as to how you as Union Banks SBA
loan representative, (Diana Jessup Lee) can claim January 24, 2013 that the
Oceano Nursery SBA loan was amortized from Schedule 2 after five payments
totaling $22,274.46 down to $416,898.31 and then adding 10 payments of both
principal and interest totaling $462,069.51 making a monthly payment of
$4,028.05 against Union Bank/SBBT’s SBA Forms 1149 and all IRS Form 1098 from
2007 to present?
28)
As seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June 23, 2007
(Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT paid and applied principal from
the five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 forbearance agreement
against your (Diana Jessup Lee) January 24, 2013 email below?
29)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 4, 2007 online
accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT did not account for the June 30, 2007
five payments of principal and interest totaling $22,274.46?
30)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 17, 2007 online
accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of $33,945.49 after
subtracting $22,274.46?
31)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 23, 2007 online
accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of $33,821.79 after
subtracting $22,274.46 and receiving two principal and interest payments of
$5,000.00?
32)
Explain as to why in Union Banks May 6, 2011 amortization
schedule # 2 that SBBT/Union Bank does not account for the extra principal
paid?
33)
In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from
Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored paying principal from
five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 forbearance agreement?
34)
In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from
Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the
May 19, 2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks January 9, 2007 (Demand
Letter) loan accounting?
35)
In the Pacific Capital Bank September 29, 2006 (Letter) from
Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the
May 19, 2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks loan accounting?
36)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 29, 2011 SBA form
1149 explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of $4,121.06 per
month against the 2007 forbearance agreement and your Union Banks SBA Loan
Representative (Diana Jessup Lee) May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule?
37)
Explain as to How Union Bank believes that an Amortization
Schedule is accurate against IRS Forms 1098 and SBA Forms 1149?
Diana
Jessup Lee, You stated for Union Bank on January 8, 2013 against IRS 1098 Forms
and SBA 1149 Forms as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner,
Denise Motter: “As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November 23, 2011
email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from SBBT's
online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of
$390,996.91 for the loan. The $390,996.91 was calculated
using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance
Agreement.”
38)
Please provide a current Union Bank SBA Loan Transaction History
with your January 8, 2013 email statement! Please explain the 2008 IRS
Form 1098 Balance of $390,996.91 against your January 6, 2012 (Proof of Claim)
to Judge Robin L. Riblet?
39)
In the October 26, 2010 Demand Statement from Vice President Sandra
Sheffield. Explain as to why Pacific Capital Bank did not claim
$45,171.20 in deferred and defaulted payments against Union Banks May 19, 2011
NOD?
40)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 20, 2010 SBA
form 1149 explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of $4,121.06 per
month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
41)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 20, 2010 SBA
form 1149 explain how Union Bank on January 24, 2013 that the May 6, 2011
Amortization Schedule # 2 is accurate against the September 20, 2010 SBA Form
1149?
42)
In the May 2, 2011 Email to
Diana Jessup Lee, copied to Mediator Lol Sorensen. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored
the September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 provided in Mediation with Lol Sorenson by
Doug Lutz?
43)
In the Email to yourself (Diana Jessup Lee) and Mediator, Lol
Sorensen on May 2, 2010. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored the Santa
Barbara Bank & Trusts online accounting as of May 2, 2012 with monthly
payments of $4,121.06 and a principal balance of $390,996.91?
44)
Explain how Union Bank successor to SBB&T can charge
10% ($26,500.00 of an appraised property value of $265,000.00) as a Foreclosure
fee on all (SBA PLP Loan) Foreclosures? Union Bank in their 2013 Form
1099-A Claim a (Fair market Value of Property) to be $189,000.00 against Union
Banks own property appraisal of $265,000.00!
45) Explain how Union Bank successor to
SBB&T can charge charge $39,750.00 off of an $265,000.00 Appraised value to
fix up a SBA loaned property that they are foreclosing on as seen in Union
Banks February 21, 2012 Exhibit A-22 as presented to United States Bankruptcy
Judge Robin L. Riblet?
46) Explain how Union Bank successor to
SBB&T charge $57,676.17 in Attorney fees, for asking bank loan questions;
without paying back an SBA loan with this money or creditors from profits in a
forced foreclosure sale caused by Union Bank Successor to SBB&T as seen in
Union Banks February 27, 2012 Exhibit B-23 as presented to United States
Bankruptcy Judge Robin L. Riblet and Santa Barbara Superior Court
Commissioner Denise Motter?
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T, I am asking for a full accounting of
Union Banks Attorney fees as “Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) mandates that “an entity
seeking compensation for services or reimbursement for expenses shall file an
application setting forth a detailed statement of (1) the services
rendered, time expended and expenses incurred, and (2) the amounts
requested.”41” Union Bank charged $57,676.17 by Reicker, Pfau, Pyle &
McRoy LLP in Exhibit B-23 (Case No. ND11-15818RR). Union Bank in front of
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denis Motter has claimed that this
$57,676.17 in Attorney Fees had nothing to do with the questions asked of Union
bank as stated by Robert Forouzandeh January 28, 2013!
Robert
Forouzandeh Stated! “MR.
FOROUZANDEH: Your Honor, the $57,000 in attorney's fees had very little to
nothing to do with the prior restraining order. That matter has been
adjudicated in front of the bankruptcy court. That's all been resolved. There
was no request for attorney's fees, either in our last petition before you or
this present petition before you. As to the questions, Mr. Bookout, yes, he
is correct. He's contacted the CEO of Union Bank asking questions about his
loan. That e-mail was forwarded to us. We immediately contacted Mr. Bookout and
asked him to direct all of his questions pertaining to his loan through our
office and when he CC's the other official, we again respond and say, "Mr.
Bookout, here are the answers to your questions, but please stop e-mailing
everybody in the organization."
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T, Again answer the 46
Questions asked above of Union Bank!
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T, I am requesting an accounting of
Union Banks charge of $39,750.00 and that this money is returned with interest
as seen in Exhibit A-22 along with the Union Bank charge of $26,500.00 (10%
standard deduction by the bank on all foreclosures) Union
Bank as the lender, holds the primary
responsibility for keeping accurate records. See, In re Parrish, 326
B.R. 708, 721 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005), and In re Jacobson, 5 B.R. 274,
277 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1980). See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2011). Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2011). See,
e.g., In re Henry, 266
B.R. 457, 480 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2001)(Awarding interest in addition to
compensatory damages under 362(h)).
Diana
Jessup Lee, If Union Bank successor to SBB&T, has any documents to back up the May 6,
2011 amortization schedule as you (Diana Jessup Lee) have stated January 24,
2011: Then please provide these Union Bank successor to SBB&T
documents as you state! “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to
Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my
letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46
payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and
interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you
had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after
application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep
asking the same question? If you believe my explanations are wrong,
please state precisely why and explain your conclusion as opposed to simply
asserting false conclusory statements.”
Diana
Jessup Lee/ Union Bank successor to SBB&T; The attached, Union Bank SBA loan
documents, show Union Bank successor to SBB&T (IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010 and a September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 as presented at Mediation with
Lol Sorensen by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Please answer the
question above of Union Bank from these Union Bank successor to
SBB&T documents! Please also provide your response to Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee Fax (818) 933-5755
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC
Jeffery Frederick Santa Barbara District Attorney Supervising
Investigator
CC Chris
Gautschi
CC
Richard Rossi
CC
Judge Robin L. Riblet Case # ND11-15818-RR
CC
Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee Fax (818) 933-5755
CC
California State Bar
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 7:28 AM
To: Fredericks, Jeffrey
Cc: 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.';
'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'; 'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com';
'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; Nudson, Anne; da, sbcounty; dlee@rppmh.com;
'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; Richard Rossi; 'Debra Hernandez'; adam.kaplan@sba.gov; 'Bill Bookout'; sandra.mazzoni@sba.gov; 'Sabado, Michelle'
Subject: FW: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
February 6, 2013
California Governor Jerry Brown
c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 445-2841
Fax: (916) 558-3160
Dear California
Governor
Jerry Brown,
Please review Union Bank successor to
SBB&T, Small Business Administration (SBA) PLP loan # 664-196-4009 Fraud
and Breach of Contract as seen below in the January 24, 2013 and January 8,
2013 emails from Union Banks SBA loan Representative Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California
State Bar # 155191. Union Bank successor to SBB&T
clams that a May 6, 2011 Amortization schedule is accurate against Union Banks
IRS 1098 Forms. Please
review the January 24, 2013 questions asked of Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise
Motter, Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee, Union Bank President & Chief Executive
Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman, and Thomas Taggart below.
Attached is the January 28, 2012 Santa
Barbara Superior Court Transcript in front of Santa Barbara Superior Court
Commissioner Denise Motter. Commissioner Motter is fully aware of Union Bank successor to SBB&T, IRS 1098 Forms and SBA Forms 1149
showing Union Banks full knowledge of SBB&T Fraud and Breach of
contract! Union Banks States to Commissioner Motter: “There's nothing falsified. The documents speak for
themselves.” Union Bank successor to SBB&T
claims in the Court Transcript on P. 6 and 7 that that they have answered
questions after Union
Banks President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka has made aware of
SBB&T actions! Union Bank then claims that no
evidence has been provided!
A website www.governorjerrybrown.net has been set up to show Union Banks successor to SBB&T; SBA loan
fraud against Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010 and Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts August 29, 2011 SBA Form
1149. Please provide this information and evidence to the California
State Attorney General Kamala
D. Harris/California State Bar and see that the
questions asked below on January 24th 25th and 27th
of Union Bank are answered by Union Bank as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner
Denise Motter, on January 28, 2013.
California
Governor
Jerry Brown,
1)
Is it legal In California for Union Bank/SBBT to falsify a
NOD and Monthly overcharge an (SBA)Small Business Administration loan since
2003 and 2007 as seen in Union Banks IRS Form 1098 documents as Successor to
SBB&T?
2)
Can California Banks legally charge a 10% ($26,500.00 of an
appraised property value of $265,000.00) Foreclosure fee on all (SBA PLP Loan)
Foreclosures? Union Bank in their 2013 Form 1099-A Claim a (Fair market
Value of Property) to be $189,000.00 against Union Banks own property appraisal
of $265,000.00!
3)
Can California Banks charge $39,750.00 off of an
$265,000.00 Appraised value to fix up a SBA loaned property that they are
foreclosing on as seen in Union Banks February 21, 2012 Exhibit A-22 as
presented to United States Bankruptcy Judge Robin L. Riblet?
4)
Can a California Bank charge $57,676.17 in Attorney fees,
for asking bank loan questions; without paying back an SBA loan with this money
or creditors from profits in a forced foreclosure sale caused by Union Bank
Successor to SBB&T as seen in Union Banks February 27, 2012 Exhibit B-23 as
presented to United States Bankruptcy Judge Robin L. Riblet and Santa Barbara Superior Court
Commissioner Denise Motter?
5)
Can a California Bank in a May 19, 2011 NOD falsely claim
$45,171.20 owed Union Bank Successor to SBB&T against their own IRS Forms
1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts August 29,
2011 SBA Form 1149 as seen at www.governorjerrybrown.net ?
6)
Are California Banks now allowed to charge interest on
unpaid principal as claimed with Union Bank Successor to SBB&T May 19, 2011
NOD claim of both Principal and interest of $45,171.20 owed against the June
30, 2011 Comptroller of Currency Findings?
7)
As a Small California Business person in Pismo Beach
California. Union Bank successor to SBB&T; fraudulent actions has
also cost $7,625.00 in Bankruptcy Attorney fees and two California Business
properties plus business inventory and business loss! How is it legal in
California for Union Bank Successor to SBB&T to ignore their own
Computerized Bank Records and IRS 1098 Forms; against Union Banks SBA loan
Representative Diana Jessup Lee’s May 6, 2011 and May 19, 2011 letters as seen
at www.governorjerrybrown.net ? Please review Karen L.
Grant March 30, 2012 Case 9:11-bk-15818-RR, response from Union Bank Successor
to SBB&T at www.governorjerrybrown.net .Karen L. Grant charged $15,922.92 for her fraudulent statements to
Bankruptcy Judge Robin L. Riblet as seen in Karen L. Grant March 30, 2012
Case 9:11-bk-15818-RR, response!
California Governor Jerry Brown. Union Bank Successor to
SBB&T has
again falsely stated January 24, 2013 as presented to Santa Barbara Superior
Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to
Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my
letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46
payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and
interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you
had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after
application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep
asking the same question?”
The Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Banks has
investigated Santa Barbara Bank & Trust and found in the OCC letter on June
30, 2011 at www.governorjerrybrown.net Santa Barbara Bank & Trust not applying any principal as seen in Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010.
How are Union Bank Successor to SBB&T
fraudulent loan actions legal in California? Please review the emails below
from Union Bank successor to SBB&T
going back to January 25, 2011. Union Banks Schedule 2 does not exist per IRS 1098 Forms!
California Governor Jerry Brown. Again, please provide this
information to the California State Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris /California State Bar and see that the questions asked below on January
24th 25th and 27th of Union Bank are answered
by Union Bank as presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, on
January 28, 2013. The Santa Barbara District Attorney Office has stated
December 13, 2012 “As we discussed the District
Attorney’s Office is not the primary investigative agency for these types of
situations. My recommendation would be to make a referral to the
appropriate regulatory agency for your type of loan, if they determine that
there is any inappropriate criminal action by the lending institution they can
investigate and make a referral to the appropriate jurisdiction..”
California Governor Jerry Brown, I believe the appropriate regulatory
agency begins with the California State Attorney General Kamala D. Harris/California State Bar and your Office. Union Banks successor to SBB&T Attorney charges of $73,5999.09 for asking for an accounting of
a SBA loan, should be accounted for with the Union Bank January 24, 2013
email/Accounting from Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191! Attached are Union Banks, Attorneys
Diana Jessup Lee and Robert B. Forouzandeh emails from May 31, 2011 to January
24, 2013 including an email from SBB&T Attorney George C. Lazar on January
25, 2011. Each of these Emails go against the June 30, 2011 Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of National Bank letter and Union Banks own IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 at www.governorjerrybrown.net
CC
Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter Case # 1381216
CC
Michelle Sabado
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2013 9:46 AM
To: 'dlee@rppmh.com'; 'Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com'; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Cc: 'simon.bonilla@unionbank.com'; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Richard
Rossi'; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Nudson, Anne';
'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'da, sbcounty'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com';
'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com'; 'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'Fredericks, Jeffrey';
'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'daniel.weidman@unionbank.com'; 'thomas.taggart@unionbank.com';
'donnasikola@unionbank.com'; 'bobj@westdalecapital.com'; Scott Waker <swalker@cobrakayaks.com> (swalker@cobrakayaks.com); 'Debra Hernandez'
(debra@rossilegal.com)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
January
27, 2013
Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter
Union Bank
President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla.
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Dear Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank President &
Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman, and Thomas
Taggart
The
attached Exhibits are Union Bank documents, showing Union Bank/ Santa Barbara
Bank & Trust (IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and a
September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 as presented at Mediation with Lol Sorensen by
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. These documents are against Union
Banks Vice President, Christine Sontag’s January 24, 2013 Second Set of
Supplemental Exhibits; Motion to Modify a Restraining order for asking SBA PLP
Loan questions of Union Bank from the Declaration of Robert B. Forouzandeh.
Each document presented by Union Bank on January 24, 2013 asks for an
SBA loan accounting, from Union Bank/SBBT’s May 19, 2011 NOD, May 6, 2011 and
May 19, 2011 letters written by Diana Jessup Lee, Esq. California State
Bar # 155191. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2011).
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2011).
Union Bank
in their Exhibit F. provides to the Santa Barbara Superior Court on January 24,
2013. Union Banks (Payment Notices 2006-2007) Comptroller of the
Currency Administrator of National Banks June 30, 2011 findings, December 20,
2011 FOIA Documents with letters written by Pacific Capital Bank, Union Banks
SBA Forms 1149 documents dated May 30, 2008, September 13, 2010 and August 29,
2011. April 2, 2012 letter written to Robert Forouzandeh by the Law
Offices of Chris Gautschi per the Oceano Nursery inventory, Pacific Capital
Banks May 15, 2007 letter written by Vice President Sandra Sheffield followed
by Pacific Capital Banks May 17, 2007 foreclosure letter and actions!
Union Bank in their Exhibit F. A Preliminary Title Report for the Oceano
Nursery property, A San Luis Obispo County Assessed Value of the Oceano Nursery
property of $299,910.00 along with an email from Pacific Capital Bank on August
21, 2010 claiming that Pacific Capital Bank no longer makes SBA loans!
Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Please see that the
questions asked below January 24, 2013 and January 25, 2013 of Union Bank are
answered with these Union Bank documents showing Union Banks SBA loan Fraud as
recently as January 24, 2013, per the statements from Reicker, Pfau, Pyle &
McRoy LLP! Union Bank
on January 24, 2013 claims that their May 19, 2011 and May 6, 2011 SBBT letters
are accurate against IRS Forms 1098 and the September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 as
presented at Mediation with Lol Sorensen by SBBT. Union Bank in their January 24, 2013
Exhibit F. have provided the Comptroller of the Currency Administrator of
National Banks June 30, 2011 findings, showing Union Banks May 6, 2011 letter
(amortization schedule) and May 19, 2011 NOD to be fraudulent! Union Bank
in the June 30 2011 OCC letter is found talking about the Restraining order
filed with the Santa Barbara Superior Court on June 3, 2011 and that Ms. Diana
J. Lee had been hired as counsel. The OCC found that SBBT/Union Bank did
not apply any principal from the five payments totaling $22,274.46 and that
extra principal payments paid SBBT were applied to only interest. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir.
2011). Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d
553 (5th Cir. 2011).
Union Bank
in their December 21, 2012 Declaration to the Santa Barbara Superior Court
Commissioner Denise Motter, falsely claim: “In
an effort to dissuade Bookout from continuing his harassment, Mrs. Lee again
answered the four main questions Bookout continually asked over and over in his
many communications. A True and correct copy of the May 19, 2011 letter
is attached as Exhibit F to the Original Request and incorporated herein.”
Union Bank
has stated January 24, 2013 against Exhibits 6 and 10 as previously presented
to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to
Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my
letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46
payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and
interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you
had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after
application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep
asking the same question?”
Union Bank
States in their closing argument on January 24, 2013: “It must be noted that in some of Bookout’s emails he
attaches an email from Union Banks council in which all of his questions were
answered.”
“Exhibit G Consists of the two emails from Diana Jessup Lee, counsel
for Union Bank, to Bookout between January 8, 2013 and January 23, 2013.
These are the two most recent emails in which Ms. Lee answers Bookout’s
questions pertaining to his loan.”
Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. The Statements by
Union Bank representatives on December 21, 2012 and January 24, 2013 are again
Fraudulent! Union Bank has not answered the SBA loan questions asked of
Union Bank as seen in the December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098 and Union Banks 2008,
2010 and 2011 SBA Form 1149. Attached as Exhibits are 55 Union Bank
documents showing the fraudulent answers from Diana Jessup Lee on January 8,
2013 and January 24, 2013.
I am
asking for full compensation of all Union Bank/ Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
Attorney Fees charged by Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP and Karen L. Grant
along with Richard Rossi of $7,6125.00 due to the Union Bank Vice President
Christine Sontag retaliatory actions after asking SBA loan questions of Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust/Union Bank. I am asking with the fraudulent
answers from Diana Jessup Lee on January 8, 2013 and January 24, 2013; that the
current restraining order be removed and that a Union Bank representative is
designated to answer Union Bank SBA PLP loan questions! I ask that this
communication be provided to Judge Robin L. Riblet and Elizabeth F. Rojas, Chapter
13 Trustee.
I am
asking for a full accounting of Union Banks Attorney fees as “Bankruptcy Rule 2016(a) mandates that “an
entity seeking compensation for services or reimbursement for expenses shall
file an application setting forth a detailed statement of (1) the
services rendered, time expended and expenses incurred, and (2) the amounts
requested.”41” Union Bank charged $57,676.17 by Reicker, Pfau, Pyle &
McRoy LLP as seen attached in Exhibit B-23 (Case No. ND11-15818RR). I am
requesting an accounting of Union Banks charge of $39,750.00 and that this
money is returned with interest as seen in Exhibit A-22 along with the Union
Bank charge of $26,500.00 (10% standard deduction by the bank on all
foreclosures) Union
Bank as the lender, holds the primary
responsibility for keeping accurate records. See, In re Parrish, 326
B.R. 708, 721 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2005), and In re Jacobson, 5 B.R. 274,
277 (Bankr. D.S.D. 1980). See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Jones (In re Jones), 439 Fed.Appx. 330 (5th Cir. 2011). Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A. v. Stewart (In re Stewart), 647 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2011). See,
e.g., In re Henry, 266
B.R. 457, 480 (Bankr. C.D.Cal. 2001)(Awarding interest in addition to
compensatory damages under 362(h)).
Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. With Union Banks
fraudulent December 21, 2012---January 24, 2013 statements and attached
(Bankruptcy Case NO. ND11-15818 RR) Exhibits showing Reicker, Pfau, Pyle &
McRoy LLP; actions and use, after obtaining a restraining order from the Santa
Barbara Superior Court Case NO. 1381216. I am requesting a Court
Reporters Transcript of this hearing, January 28, 2013 Case NO. 1381216.
I again request, that the current and requested restraining order be removed
and that a Union Bank representative is designated to answer Union Bank SBA PLP
loan questions! I ask that this communication be provided to Judge Robin
L. Riblet and Elizabeth F. Rojas, Chapter 13 Trustee.
Sincerely
Bill
Bookout
Pismo
Beach Surf Shop
CC
Masashi Oka--Union Bank
CC
Chris Gautschi
CC
Richard Rossi
CC
Judge Robin L. Riblet
CC
Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee
CC
California State Bar
CC
Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 2:51 PM
To: 'dlee@rppmh.com'; 'Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com'; rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Cc: 'simon.bonilla@unionbank.com'; 'sanschromo@yahoo.com'; 'Richard
Rossi'; 'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Nudson, Anne';
'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'da, sbcounty'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com';
'gstarkey@newtimesslo.com'; 'mfountain@newtimesslo.com'; 'Fredericks, Jeffrey';
'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'daniel.weidman@unionbank.com';
'thomas.taggart@unionbank.com'; 'donnasikola@unionbank.com';
'bobj@westdalecapital.com'; 'Bill Bookout' (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
January
25, 2013
Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter
Union Bank
President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla.
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
RE: Union
Banks Motion to Modify Restraining Order Case # 1381216 -----Exhibits
previously filed with the Santa Barbara Superior Court 1-15 filed (June 24,
2011.CH-110) Union Banks Exhibits provided to Santa Barbara Superior
Court Commissioner Denise Motter on January 24, 2013.
Dear Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank President &
Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel Weidman, Thomas
Taggart and Diana Jessup Lee,
In
Response Union Banks Vice President Christine Sontag’s January 24, 2013 Motion
to Modify a Restraining order for asking SBA Loan questions of Union
Bank. Please see that the questions asked below January 24, 2013 and
January 25, 2013 of Union Bank are answered!
Union Bank
claims on January 24, 2013 against all (IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010 and Mediation SBA Forms 1149) Union Bank States: “It must be noted that in some of Bookout’s emails he
attaches an email from Union Banks council in which all of his questions were
answered.” This is not the case and is why the questions asked again
on January 24, 2013 and January 25, 2013 must be answered by Union Bank!
Union Bank
has stated January 24, 2013 against Exhibits 6 and 10 as presented to Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As I have done on numerous occasions, I
direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as
well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your
$22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly
principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and
September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal
on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule
2. Why do you keep asking the same question?”
Union
Banks (May 19, 2011 letter) Applies no principal as claimed by Union Banks Vice
President Christine Sontag again on January 24, 2013! Union Banks Exhibit
E. May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule was never used by Union Bank/SBBT in
any SBA Form 1149 or IRS Form 1098! Union Bank in Schedule 2 claims
10 payment totaling $45,171.20 owed by amortizing both principal and interest
into the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement! Union Bank/SBBT had
Stated June 28, 2011 against Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts-- 2007, 2008,
2009, 2010 IRS Form 1098: “I do not
know what "computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6,
2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other
records.”
“Please
send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and
I will obtain an explanation for you.”
A)
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank
needs to explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS
Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank did not apply any of the five forbearance agreement
payments towards principal as claimed by Diana Jessup Lee on January 24, 2013!
B)
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank
needs to explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007 IRS
Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank charged a monthly payment of $4,121.06 per month up
to November 2011?
C)
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank
needs to explain as to why SBBT/Union Bank filed a Fraudulent NOD on May 19,
2011 and claimed $45,171.20 owed in Deferred and Defaulted Payments against the
December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098 as seen in exhibit # 6?
D)
Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Union Bank
President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel
Weidman and Thomas Taggart, If Union Bank has any SBA loan documents to
back up Union Banks SBA Loan Representative Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013
email against all Union Bank/SBBT (IRS Forms 1098 from 2007, 2008, 2009,
2010 and Mediation with Lol Sorensen; September 13, 2010 SBA Forms
1149 along with the August 29, 2011 SBA form 1149) then please provide
these documents to myself and Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise
Motter by January 28, 2013!
Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. All questions are
fully asked of Union Bank on January 24, 2013 and January 25, 2013. I ask
that this communication be provided to the Judge Robin L. Riblet and Elizabeth
F. Rojas, Chapter 13 Trustee.
Sincerely
Bill
Bookout
Pismo
Beach Surf Shop
CC
Masashi Oka--Union Bank
CC
Chris Gautschi
CC
Richard Rossi
CC
Judge Robin L. Riblet
CC
Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee
CC
California State Bar
CC
Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 5:29 PM
To: dlee@rppmh.com; Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com
Cc: Masashi.Oka@unionbank.com; simon.bonilla@unionbank.com; sanschromo@yahoo.com; 'Richard Rossi';
'Mendoza, Carlos G.'; 'Ryner, Leanne M.'; 'Nudson, Anne'; dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; 'da, sbcounty'; velie@calcoastnews.com; gstarkey@newtimesslo.com; mfountain@newtimesslo.com; 'Debra Hernandez';
'Fredericks, Jeffrey'; lol@rsmediate.com; daniel.weidman@unionbank.com; thomas.taggart@unionbank.com;
'donnasikola@unionbank.com'; bobj@westdalecapital.com; 'Scott Waker';
'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'Bill Bookout'
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
January
24, 2013
Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter
Union Bank
President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka and Simon Bonilla.
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq. California State Bar # 155191
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
RE: Union
Banks Motion to Modify Restraining Order Case # 1381216 -----Exhibits
previously filed with the Santa Barbara Superior Court 1-15 filed (June 24,
2011.CH-110)
Dear Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter, Mrs. Diana Jessup Lee, Union
Bank President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel
Weidman, Thomas Taggart,
On January
24, 2013 and On January 8, 2013—Union Banks SBA Loan Representative (Diana
Jessup Lee) has shown Union Bank/Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts, SBA loan
Fraud since 2007! Union Bank questions asked below of Union Bank on
January 15, 2013 now have to be answered by Union Bank, along with the follow
up questions on January 22, 2013 and January 24, 2013! Union Bank Stated
January 8, 2013: “You ask why SBBT “would file a
fraudulent NOD…” SBBT did not file a fraudulent NOD, and you have
provided no evidence to the contrary.” Union Bank has provided in their Exhibit A to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court on December 21, 2012 back up evidence showing
Union Bank/SBBT SBA loan Fraud! As previously presented to the Santa
Barbara Superior Court are Exhibits 6 and 10 of 15.
Union Bank
has stated January 24, 2013 against Exhibits 6 and 10 as presented to Santa
Barbara Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As I have done on numerous occasions, I
direct you to Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as
well as my letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your
$22,274.46 payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly
principal and interest payments due for May, June, July, August and
September, 2006 which you had failed to pay. The reduction in principal
on your loan after application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule
2. Why do you keep asking the same question?” Union Banks June 6, 2011 Exhibit E. (CH-100) Applies no principal
as claimed by Diana Jessup Lee again on January 24, 2013! Union Banks
Exhibit E. May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule was never used by Union
Bank/SBBT in any SBA Form 1149 or IRS Form 1098! Union Bank in
Schedule 2 claims 10 payment totaling $45,171.20 owed by amortizing both
principal and interest into the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement!
Union Bank/SBBT had Stated June 28, 2011 against Santa Barbara Bank &
Trusts-- 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 IRS Form 1098: “I do not know what "computerized"
records you are requesting. The May 6, 2011 schedules are official and
are correct, so there is no need for any other records.”
“Please
send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and
I will obtain an explanation for you.”
Union
Bank/SBBT States June 29, 2011 against Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts 2007,
2008, 2009, 2010 IRS Form 1098: “The
two amortization schedules enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter
were created by SBBT based on the terms of your original loan, the
forbearance agreement, and your payment history. Your
request for additional computerized documents makes no sense.”
“I will check on the
2007 Form 1098 and see if it should be amended to reflect that
you paid less in interest.”
Union Bank
President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel
Weidman and Thomas Taggart, With the Emails from Union Banks SBA Loan
Representative Diana Jessup Lee. Please answer a few questions of Union
Bank before the January 28, 2013 hearing in front of Santa Barbara Superior
Court Commissioner Denise Motter! These questions are very important with
Union Banks January 24, 2013 and January 8, 2013 emails below! Union
Bank has been provided Exhibit 1-15 as mentioned by Union Banks SBA loan
representative Diana Jessup Lee on June 29, 2011 as she States: “I have reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find
the document to which you reference. Nevertheless, it does not
matter. The operative documents are my May 6 and 19 letters to you with
enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD. All three of these documents
credit the $22,274.46 as if you had timely made the monthly payments
due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as agreed in the Forbearance Agreement.”
1)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007
IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank did not apply any of the five forbearance
agreement payments towards Principal?
2)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007
IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank shows a (Ending Principal Balance) of
$420,024.30 and does not reduce this balance as seen in the December 31, 2006
IRS Form 1098?
3)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007
IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank shows only interest of $53,358.70 paid and
nothing towards principal?
4)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007
IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank does not apply any extra principal paid as seen
on 7/31/07?
5)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2007
IRS Form 1098, SBBT/Union Bank charges (Regular Payment)s of $4,121.06 from
9/11/07-12/13/07?
6)
Explain as to why SBBT/Union Bank filed a Fraudulent NOD on May 19,
2011 and claimed $45,171.20 owed in Deferred and Defaulted Payments against the
December 31, 2007 IRS Form 1098 as seen in exhibit # 6?
Union
Bank/SBBT States June 29, 2011: “I have
reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find the document to which you reference.
Nevertheless, it does not matter. The operative documents are my May 6 and
19 letters to you with enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD. All
three of these documents credit the $22,274.46 as if you had timely
made the monthly payments due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as agreed in
the Forbearance Agreement.”
7)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the
December 31, 2008 IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments
of $4,121.06 against SBA loan rules? Diana
Jessup Lee Claims January 24, 2013 that this monthly payment should have been
$4,028.05!
8)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2008
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of
$4,121.06?
9)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2008
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank applied extra principal paid of $78.94 to
interest on 4/15/2008?
10)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2008
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank applied extra Principal paid of $1078.94 to
interest on May 21, 2008?
11)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2008
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged $157.88 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Union
Bank/SBBT States June 28, 2011: “Please send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you
have questions and I will obtain an explanation for you.”
Union
Bank/SBBT States July 5, 2011: “The schedules and "computerized records" you request were
included with and explained in my May 6 letter.”
12)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2009 IRS Form
1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged monthly payments of $4,121.06 against SBA
loan rules?
13)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2009
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank did not re-amortize the payment of
$4,121.06?
14)
Explain as seen in exhibit # 6 as to why in the December 31, 2009
IRS Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank charged $711.40 in (Late Charges Paid YTD)?
Union
Bank/SBBT States June 28, 2011 “I do not
know what "computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6,
2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other
records.”
15)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS
Form 1098 that SBBT/Union Bank claimed a Principal Balance of $390,996.91
against the January 6, 2011 SBBT (Proof of Claim) amount of $400,962.89?
16)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged late payment fees of $206.05 or 5% of $4121.06 against
SBA loan Rules or Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013 claim of a monthly payment
of $4,028.05?
17)
Explain as to why in the December 31, 2010 IRS Form 1098 that
SBBT/Union Bank charged $2,800.00 as an Appraisal fee? Please provide a
copy of this September 17, 2010 appraisal as charged!
18)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August
24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT did not claim $45,171.20
owed Union Bank per the May 19, 2011 NOD?
19)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment
Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a monthly payment of $4,121.06
against SBA loan amortization rules?
20)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 24, 2011 (Payment
Notice) explain Union Bank/SBBT (Charges/Fees Due) of $20,643.86?
21)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August
24, 2011 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claims 20 payments of
$4,121.06 totaling $82,421.20 against the May 19, 2011 NOD, SBA loan rules and
Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013 email Stating? “As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to
Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my
letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46
payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and
interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you
had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after
application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. “
22)
As seen in Exhibit # 6, in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July
24, 2007 (Payment Notice) explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed a payment due of
$4,121.06 per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
23)
As seen in Exhibit # 6, in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July
24 2007 (Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized the Oceano
Nursery SBA loan at 6% against the January 24, 2013 email by Diana Jessup Lee?
24)
As seen in Exhibit # 6, in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June
23, 2007 (Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT amortized $474,298.51 at
6%? Diana Jessup Lee Claims January 24, 2013 that the SBA loan was
amortized at $462,069.51 with a monthly payment of $4,028.05!
25)
Explain as to how Union Banks SBA loan
representative, Diana Jessup Lee claims January 24, 2013 that the Oceano
Nursery SBA loan was amortized from Schedule 2 after five payment totaling
$22,274.46 down to $416,898.31 and then adding 10 payments of both principal
and interest totaling $462,069.51 making a monthly payment of $4,028.05 against
Union Bank/SBBT’s SBA Forms 1149 and all IRS Form 1098 from 2007 to present?
26)
As seen in Exhibit # 6, in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust June
23, 2007 (Payment Notice) explain how Union Bank/SBBT paid and applied
principal from the five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007
forbearance agreement and Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013 email?
27)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 4, 2007 online
accounting explain how Union Bank/SBBT did not account for the June 30, 2007
five payments of principal and interest totaling $22,274.46?
28)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 17, 2007 online
accounting (Exhibit # 6), explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of
$33,945.49 after subtracting $22,274.46?
29)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 23, 2007 online
accounting (Exhibit # 6), explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed interest due of
$33,821.79 after subtracting $22,274.46 and receiving two principal and
interest payments of $5,000.00?
30)
In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from
Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored paying principal from
five payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 forbearance agreement?
31)
In the Pacific Capital Bank January 9, 2007 (Demand Letter) from
Heidi Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the
May 19, 2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks January 9, 2007 (Demand
Letter) loan accounting?
32)
In the Pacific Capital Bank September 29, 2006 (Letter) from Heidi
Dugan. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT claimed $45,171.20 owed in the May 19,
2011 NOD compared to Pacific Capital Banks loan accounting?
33)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust August 29, 2011 SBA form 1149
explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of $4,121.06 per month
against the 2007 forbearance agreement and Union Banks SBA Loan Representative
Diana Jessup Lee?
Union Bank
Stated January 8, 2013 against Exhibits 6 and 10 as presented to Santa Barbara
Superior Court Commissioner, Denise Motter: “As Mr. Forouzandeh
stated to you in his November 23, 2011 email, the $390,996.91 balance was
apparently obtained by you from SBBT's online banking feature which temporarily
showed a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan. The
$390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth
in the Forbearance Agreement.”
34)
In the October 26, 2010 (Exhibit # 6) Demand Statement from Vice
President Sandra Sheffield. Explain as to why Pacific Capital Bank did
not claim $45,171.20 in deferred and defaulted payments?
35)
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 20, 2010 SBA form
1149 (Exhibit # 7), explain how Union Bank/SBBT claimed monthly payments of
$4,121.06 per month against the 2007 forbearance agreement?
36)
In Exhibit # 10 is a May 2, 2011
Email to Diana Jessup Lee, copied to Mediator Lol Sorensen. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored the
September 13, 2010 SBA Form 1149 provided in Mediation with Lol Sorenson by
Doug Lutz?
37)
In Exhibit # 10 Email to Diana Jessup Lee and Mediator, Lol
Sorensen on May 2, 2010. Explain why Union Bank/SBBT ignored the Santa
Barbara Bank & Trusts online accounting as of May 2, 2012 with monthly
payments of $4,121.06 and a principal balance of $390,996.91?
Union
Banks SBA loan Representative, Diana Jessup Lee, states June 29, 2011 from the
IRS Form 1098/First Bank of San Luis Obispo (Payment Notice)s evidence
presented to Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter: “I have reviewed your Ex. 6 and
cannot find the document to which you reference. Nevertheless, it does
not matter. The operative documents are my May 6 and 19 letters to you
with enclosed schedules and the May 19, 2011 NOD. All three of these
documents credit the $22,274.46 as if you had timely made the monthly
payments due May, 2006 through September, 2006, as agreed in the Forbearance
Agreement.”
Union
Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag on June 6, 2011 had claimed to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court commissioner Denise Motter, Case # 1381216: “All
communications by him are to be directed to Mr. Lazar and subsequently to Mrs.
Lee, and that any and all of his questions would be answered by those
designated representatives.” Again the questions asked above need to be
answered by Union Bank as stated June 6,
2011 from Union Banks Senior Vice President, Christine Sontag to Santa Barbara
Superior Court Denise
Motter.
Union Bank
President & Chief Executive Officer Masashi Oka, Simon Bonilla, Daniel
Weidman and Thomas Taggart, If Union Bank has any SBA loan documents to
back up Union Banks SBA Loan Representative Diana Jessup Lees January 24, 2013
email, then please provide these documents by January 28, 2013!
Sincerely
Bill
Bookout
Pismo
Beach Surf Shop
CC
Masashi Oka--Union Bank
CC
Chris Gautschi
CC
Richard Rossi
CC
Judge Robin L. Riblet
CC
Elizabeth F. Rojas Chapter 13 Trustee
CC
California State Bar
CC
Santa Barbara Superior Court Denise Motter
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:21 AM
To: Vicki Cogley; Bill Bookout (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Cc: Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court Commissioner Denise Motter. Case # 1381216
Mr. Bookout:
As I have done on numerous occasions, I direct you to
Schedule 2 which was attached to my May 6, 2011 letter to you as well as my
letter to you dated May 19, 2011 in which I explain that your $22,274.46
payment in July, 2007 was applied to satisfy your monthly principal and
interest payments due for May, June, July, August and September, 2006 which you
had failed to pay. The reduction in principal on your loan after
application of this payment is confirmed in Schedule 2. Why do you keep
asking the same question? If you believe my explanations are wrong,
please state precisely why and explain your conclusion as opposed to simply
asserting false conclusory statements.
Again, please limit your correspondences to either me or
Robert Forouzandeh and stop harassing Union Bank personnel who are not
responsible for responding to your questions which contain hundreds of pages of
emails that repeat ad nauseam your unfounded accusations and questions.
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421
State Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440 ext. 463
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
dlee@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This
e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 6:04 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Union Bank SBA PLP Loan Fraud as presented by Union Bank to
the Santa Barbara Superior Court. Case # 1381216
Mr. Bookout:
This email is in
response to your email sent to me on January 7, 2013 at approximately 8:38
am. I repeat the demand previously made by Robert Forouzandeh of my
office that you cease contacting any Union Bank officers or employees
pertaining to your SBA loan since their only involvement is as the successors
to the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) personnel you have been ordered
not to contact.
As to the questions
posed in your email, although both Mr. Forouzandeh and I have answered each of
them on multiple prior occasions, I will do so again on behalf of Union
Bank.
1. You
ask about my “SBA loan training and knowledge…” Both Mr. Forouzandeh
and I have access to all necessary information pertaining to your SBA loan, and
we are authorized by Union Bank to answer your questions.
2. You
ask for the “amount of inventory sold by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Union
Bank with the sale of the Oceano Nursery Inventory.” The answer is
none. On April 2, 2012, Mr. Forouzandeh wrote your attorney Mr. Gautschi
stating that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (“SBBT”) did not foreclose on any
of the Oceano Nursery inventory, and that the foreclosure was limited to the
real property. The only “inventory” left at the Oceano property after the
Trustees Sale was landscape rock. In that same correspondence, Mr.
Forouzandeh stated that you were free to pick up the landscape rock at any time
and that if you failed to do so within a reasonable timeframe the landscape
rock would be deem abandoned at which point SBBT would proceed to hire a
hauling company to come to the property to remove the rocks. Your
reference to a 2007 Inventory Opinion Letter is misplaced since no inventory
was foreclosed. Furthermore, since the real property was not foreclosed
until February 2012, the value and amount of inventory in 2007 is
irrelevant.
3. You
ask why SBBT/Union Bank “claimed…attorneys fees of $57,676.17…”
As we have previously stated, the note for your SBA loan specifically
permits SBBT to charge you for the attorneys fees and costs incurred as a
result of your default of the note, including those incurred in bankruptcy
proceedings. You defaulted on both the Note and then on the Forbearance
Agreement. On both occasions, you bombarded the bank’s attorneys and
employees with duplicative and voluminous correspondences and false allegations
which resulted in significant fees being incurred. You then filed
bankruptcy which resulted in SBBT incurring additional attorneys’ fees and
costs to protect its position in the Bankruptcy. Thus, not only is this
amount permitted by the terms of your SBA loan, the amount is reasonable in
light of your actions.
4. You
ask how SBBT “applied the 2007 five payments of $22,274.46…” As I
stated in detail in my May 19, 2011 letter, pursuant to the express terms of
the Forbearance Agreement, the $22,274.46 payment was credited towards
satisfying the principal and interest owed by you for the May
2006-September 2006 payments on your SBA loan which you had previously failed
to make.
5. You
ask how SBBT “can amortize a SBA loan…by adding into it unpaid principal and
then claiming a balance owed of $465,195.50.” Again, I specifically
addressed this issue in my May 19, 2011 letter to you. In 2007 your loan
was past due $67,445.66. You paid $22,274.46 which paid a
portion of the past due principal and interest with the remaining $45,171.20
past due being added to the outstanding balance due and the combined total was
re-amortized to assist you in bringing the loan current. You expressly
agreed to this when you entered into the Forbearance Agreement.
6. How
SBBT “has a legal right to charge interest on principal…” I am
unclear what you mean by this question. Lenders charge interest on the
principal balance of loans. That is legal.
7. You
ask why SBBT “would file a fraudulent NOD…” SBBT did not file a
fraudulent NOD, and you have provided no evidence to the contrary.
8. You
ask why “attorneys fees of $58,700.00 are due for asking banking questions…”
Your statement is incorrect. The attorneys fees included in SBBT’s claim
in your bankruptcy arose from your default on the SBA Loan, your default on the
Forbearance Agreement, and your bankruptcy proceeding. Had you not
defaulted on your SBA loan, you would not have been charged these fees.
9. You
ask how SBBT “feels a legal right to charge 10% of $265,000.00 as a standard
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust foreclosure fee.” SBBT did not
“charge” a foreclosure fee. The entity conducting the foreclosure charged
a foreclosure fee, as is standard.
10. You
ask why your loan balance was deemed to be $400,962.89 instead of $390,996.91
in November 2011. As Mr. Forouzandeh stated to you in his November
23, 2011 email, the $390,996.91 balance was apparently obtained by you from
SBBT's online banking feature which temporarily showed a principal balance of
$390,996.91 for the loan. The $390,996.91 was calculated using the
fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance
Agreement. Due to your default on the Forbearance Agreement, the
Forbearance Agreement was rescinded and the principal amount of the loan was
re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance
Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your
original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement
and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a
yearly basis per SBA loan rules. The Prime Rate during that period varied
between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest rate for your loan during that period
of time varied between 5.25%-10.25. Since the interest rate was higher
than the fixed 6% rate for much of this period, when the loan was
re-calculated and re-amortized under the original loan terms, your
principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to the higher interest rate
and the fact that you failed to make any payments for a large portion of
that period of time. The $390,996.91 balance temporarily appeared on
SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system had not been
updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and had not
re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.
I trust that these
responses answer your questions. If you have any further questions
pertaining to your SBA loan, please contact Robert Forouzandeh or me, but do
not contact any SBBT or Union Bank officers or employees.
Diana Jessup Lee,
Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle
& McRoy LLP
1421 State Street,
Suite B
Santa Barbara,
CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440 ext. 463
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may
contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 4:35 PM
To: Bill Bookout (Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net)
Cc: Chris Gautschi (sanschromo@yahoo.com); Richard Rossi
[richard@rossilegal.com] (richard@rossilegal.com)
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout,
Over the past several days you have transmitted at least
four email correspondences directly to various Union Bank officers, employees
and directors who are the successors to the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
(“SBBT”) individuals you were ordered not to contact. Your conduct
violates the spirit of the June 27, 2011 Restraining Order after Hearing to
Stop Harassment issued against you by the Santa Barbara Superior Court (the
“Restraining Order”). As part of the Restraining Order you were precluded
from communicating with any SBBT officers, directors or employees and were
ordered to direct any questions pertaining to your SBBT Small Business
Administration Loan only to either Diana Jessup Lee or myself.
This letter shall serve as the one and only demand that
you cease and desist from contacting any Union Bank officers, directors or
employees pertaining to your SBBT Small Business Administration loan.
Failure to abide by this demand will result in Union Bank initiating legal
action against you to extend the Restraining Order to explicitly cover all Union
Bank officials. In the event legal action becomes necessary to modify the
Restraining Order, Union Bank will seek reimbursement of all of its attorneys’
fees and costs from you as permitted by statute.
Furthermore, as I have reminded you on countless
occasions, since the initiation of your bankruptcy petition in the United
States Bankruptcy Court, you are represented by counsel of record. Any
communication regarding your SBBT loan while you are represented by counsel
must be directed through your counsel.
Lastly, I would like to address your December 2012 bank
statement request. As I told your attorney Mr. Gautschi on numerous
occasions, the bank statements for your account are generated in the third or
fourth week of each month. Thus, no December 2012 statement has been
created yet for your account. Once the December 2012 statement is
generated, I will immediately forward it to Mr. Gautschi as I have done
before. I provided your November 2012 statement to Mr. Gautschi on
November 27, 2012.
Robert
B. Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421
State Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This
e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 10:43 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi; Diana Lee; Karen Grant
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout:
This
correspondence is provided to you for information purposes only and does not
constitute a demand for payment.
As you are
well aware, you have filed bankruptcy. Thus, as your attorney will be
able to advise you, all issues surrounding your secured loan, including any
accountings to be provided by secured creditors, are governed by
federal statute. Santa Barbara Bank and Trust has provided to you all
accountings and records required by federal statute. I again reiterate,
your January post-petition payment to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust was
$4,077.32 and your February 2012 post-petition payment along with all future
post-petition payments for the 2012 calendar year are $4,389.64 per
month.
As to your
question about the lack of late charges on your January 19, 2012 Statement that
I provided to you, if you examine it closely, you will see that the
late charges are identified as "Post Petition Late Charges
Due". This section only covers late charges that have accrued
for the period of time since you filed your latest bankruptcy petition.
Lastly, as
I have now stated to you on multiple occasions, the Santa Barbara Superior
Court issued a restraining order against you (at a hearing in which you
attended) which precluded you from contacting anyone at Santa Barbara Bank
& Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee and myself. That restraining
order is still in full force and effect. Again, as I am sure your attorney
can advise you, any attempt by you to contact anyone at Santa Barbara Bank
& Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee or myself would result in you being
held in contempt of a valid Court Order by the Court.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 11:57 AM
To: Richard Rossi; Bill Bookout
Cc: Karen Grant; Diana Lee
Subject: In re William Arthur Bookout USBC Cen. Dist. CA. Case No.
9:11-bk-15818
Mr. Rossi:
Pursuant to the
Addendum to Chapter 13 Plan Concerning Debtors Who Are Repaying Debt Secured by
a Mortgage on Real Property filed by you on behalf of Mr. Bookout in the above
entitled matter, secured creditor Santa Barbara Bank & Trust hereby submits
the following monthly loan statement for Mr. Bookout's loan for the months
of January and February 2012. I have also attached the payment
amount change notice as well. As you will see, and as Mr. Bookout
has mentioned on multiple occasions in the past, pursuant to the terms of Mr.
Bookout's note, his loan was re-amortized this month and his new payment
amount will be $4,389.64. The new payment amount is effective for
the post petition payment due on February 6, 2012. Please be advised that
Mr. Bookout has not tendered his post petition payment for January 2012 in
the amount of $4,077.32 which is why this amount is listed as being "Post
Petition Past Due Amount" on the monthly statement.
Pursuant to federal
statute, this information is being provided to you and Mr. Bookout for
information purposes only and these documents do not constitute demand for
payment.
If there are any
questions, I would suggest that you, as opposed to your
client, contact me to discuss further.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle
& McRoy LLP
1421 State Street,
Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA
93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may
contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 3:24 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Karen Grant; Richard Rossi; Diana Lee
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout:
I again
remind you that the Santa Barbara Superior Court ordered you not to contact
anyone at Santa Barbara Bank and Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee and
myself. The Restraining Order still stands and remains in full force and
effect. If you fail to abide by its terms, the Court will take
action against you accordingly.
Additionally,
you have failed to confirm whether you conducted an unauthorized recording
of our telephone conversation yesterday as you orally represented to me at
the very end of the call. If your statement was true, then your
recording would constitute a criminal act on your part.
As to the
questions you have posed in your email below. I have answered each and
every one of them on multiple occasions in the past. All of the answers
you seek can be found in the prior communications you have received from Ms.
Lee and/or myself. In fact, you have even cut and pasted and included
many of my answers to your questions in the email below. Simply
because you did not like our prior answers does not mean that our answers will
change if you ask the same question over and over again.
I should
not have to remind you again that you are represented by counsel in your
currently pending bankruptcy petition. Any questions should be directed
through your attorney of record.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:30 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi; Diana Lee; Karen Grant
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout:
First, you
have refused to answer my question as to whether or not you recorded our
telephone conversation from earlier this morning, as you orally told me that
you had done. If in fact you did record the telephone call, this would
constitute a criminal act in violation of California Penal Code Section 632.
In regards
to the May 19, 2011 from Diana Jessup Lee to you. This letter is not
fraudulent and we continue to stand by its validity and accuracy. In that
letter, Ms. Lee specifically stated that the $465,195.50 figure, "does
not include any late fees, attorneys fees or any other charges other than
principal and interest." (emphasis in original) As you are
well aware, both your original note and the forbearance agreement allow SBBT
to add late fees, attorneys fees and other costs incurred by SBBT as a
result of your default of the note or the forbearance agreement.
In regards
to the SBA Form 1149 of August 29, 2011, as I told you during the telephone
call, this form was calculated using the figures and interest rate from the
Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default of the Forbearance Agreement,
the Bank, as it was permitted to in the Forbearance Agreement, elected to
revoke the benefits that the Forbearance Agreement provided to you. This
resulted in a recalculation of your loan based on the original note
terms. Due to the fact that the interest rate for your loan is lower
based on the original method of calculation (Prime Rate + 2%= 5.25%) as opposed
to the 6% fixed rate set forth in the Forbearance Agreement this was the
crucial factor which resulted in the monthly payment amount being reduced
to the amount set forth in SBBT's various filings in your bankruptcy
proceeding. Thus, neither the August 29, 2011 Form 1149 nor SBBT's bankruptcy
filings are incorrect or fraudulent as you contend.
At no
point during our telephone conversation did we discuss any issues
surrounding your inverse condemnation case. Your claim that we
discussed this issue is patently false.
As I
stated to you during the telephone call, SBBT will not forgive either the deed
of trust against the Oceano property or the Pismo Beach property unless your
loan to SBBT is satisfied.
Lastly, I
have stated to you on numerous occasions, due to your currently pending
bankruptcy proceeding in which you are represented by counsel, it is highly
inappropriate for you to be contacting me directly, as opposed to through your
attorney of record. This morning's telephone call during which you
illegally recorded the call without my approval is a prime example.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:26 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Diana Lee; Richard Rossi
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout:
Your
reference to the document that you have attached an image of
below is not helpful for your position as it is not current and
your account balance has changed significantly since that time due to your
failure to make any payments on the loan other than for October and November
2011.
More
importantly, please read the language of the second paragraph where it
specifically states in capital letters, "ACCEPTANCE OF ALL NET PROCEEDS OR
THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED ABOVE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE FULL PAYMENT OF THE INDEBTEDNESS
AND ANY REMAINING BALANCE WILL STILL BE OWED BY THE BORROWER AND
GUARANTORS."
Thus,
neither Mr. Lutz's declaration nor the Demand Statement are inaccurate.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 10:44 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Diana Lee; Mary Jo Barbeau; Richard Rossi
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout:
As you are
fully aware, pursuant to the Restraining Order issued by the Santa Barbara
Superior Court on June 27, 2011, you are not to contact anyone at Santa Barbara
Bank and Trust other than Diana Jessup Lee and myself. Failure to
abide by the Restraining Order may result in the Court holding you in contempt
and incarcerating you and/or imposing civil penalties and fines against you.
I have
reviewed the 10 questions you posed below. These are questions which you
have previously asked on multiple occasions and which have been previously
answered on multiple occasions by either Mrs. Lee or myself.
Additionally,
as you are aware, you have initiated a new bankruptcy claim in the
United States Bankruptcy Court in which you are represented by
counsel. The questions you have posed go directly to Santa Barbara Bank
and Trust's loan to you and its claim in your bankruptcy proceeding and thus,
any and all questions pertaining to your loan with Santa Barbara Bank and Trust
must be posed by your counsel.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2012 9:14 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout,
Your
questions have been repeatedly answered. Your accusations are inaccurate,
and repeating them over and over is not productive. Please see the many
factual responses we have provided you which explain exactly the amount of your
default, the amount due on your loan and where all your payments have been
credited.
Diana Jessup Lee,
Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle
& McRoy LLP
1421 State Street,
Suite B
Santa Barbara,
CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may
contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:24 PM
To: 'Richard Rossi'
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; Diana Lee; 'Karen Grant'; Bill Bookout; Mary Jo
Barbeau
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of
Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
Mr. Rossi:
Your client
is asking what his December 2011 payment to Santa Barbara Bank
and Trust ("SBBT") should be. I would direct his attention
to the Proof of Claim filed by SBBT in Mr. Bookout's bankruptcy
proceeding, which states that Mr. Bookout's post-petition
payments to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust should be $4,077.32. This
amount is based on the recalculated principal balance of
$400,962.89 which was determined as a result of Mr. Bookout's
pre-petition default of the Forbearance Agreement (which had a fixed
interest rate of 6%) resulting in the termination of the interest
rate afforded under the Forbearance Agreement. I have explained this
re-calculation process to your client on several occasions.
Please be
advised that pursuant to the terms of Mr. Bookout's loan, the loan will be
re-amortized as of January 2012. Due to Mr. Bookout's long
running default on this loan, upon re-amortization, the monthly payments will
change. Once the loan is re-amortized, I will provide you with the new
payment amount which will be applicable for the entire 2012 calendar year.
Please contact
me if you have any questions.
Robert
B. Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:22 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi; sanschromo@yahoo.com; kgrant@silcom.com; Diana Lee
Subject: FW: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of
Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
Mr.
Bookout:
Since you
have retained legal counsel, I have stated to you on more than three occasions
now, any questions, comments or concerns pertaining to your SBBT loan
should be directed through your attorneys only.
With that
being said, I did notice one new question that you have posed in your email
below which does not pertain to any legal matters and I will proceed
to answer it at this time and CC your attorneys on this email so that it is not
construed as an ex parte communication.
You ask: "How did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
come up with a principal balance owed of $400,962.89..." In doing so,
you post what appears to be a cut and paste excerpt from SBBT's website which
shows a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan.
Our
response is as follows: The $390,996.91 was calculated using the
fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance
Agreement. Due to your default of the Forbearance Agreement, the
Forbearance Agreement was rescinded (as permitted by its terms) and the principal
amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of
the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2%
(as required in your original loan) for the time period between the
date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the
loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules. The
Prime Rate during that period varied between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest
rate for your loan during that period of time varied between 5.25%-10.25%.
Since the interest rate was higher than the fixed 6% rate for much of this
period, when the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized under the
original loan terms, your principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to
the higher interest rate and the fact that you failed to make any
payments for a large portion of that period of time. The
$390,996.91 balance appears on SBBT's online account access for your loan
because that system has not been updated to rescind the terms of the
Forbearance Agreement and has accordingly not re-calculated or
re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.
I hope
this answers your question. Again, please direct any future questions,
comments or concerns through your attorneys only.
Robert
B. Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:33 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Richard Rossi'; Diana Lee
Subject: RE: plan
Mr.
Bookout:
As I have
repeatedly stated to you in the past, you are represented by counsel. In
fact, you have included them as recipients of your email.
Please direct any requests, demands or any other information through them
and them only. Please do not contact me directly again while you are
represented by counsel.
With that
being said, as I have done on countless occasions in the past, I deny
each and every one of the false allegations that you have set forth in your
email below. There is nothing deficient about the May 19, 2011 NOD.
Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will not rescind it. We have reviewed all of
the information pertaining to this NOD and it is valid.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:12 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach
of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr.
Bookout,
Thank you
for faxing and emailing to me this afternoon the OCC letters dated July
16, 2008, June 30, 2011, July 15, 2011, August 2, 2011 and August 30,
2011. I have now reviewed these documents and am prepared to
respond. My review of the 5 OCC letters that you have provided does not
alter my prior conclusion that there is not a single piece of
evidence which would even imply any acts of "Predatory Lending, Breach of
Contract and Fraud" on the part of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust.
In fact, after reviewing the OCC letters the only thing that is clear to me is
that you are in breach of contract with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust as a
result of your default on your loan.
Specifically,
the following quotes demonstrate that the OCC has not made any findings of
wrongdoing on the part of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust:
1. July 16, 2008 Letter, the OCC stated, "The OCC cannot resolve
contractual disputes between national banks and their customers. When a
clearly defined civil dispute develops, an agency such as the OCC would be
acting beyond its authority as a trier of fact or adjudicator of civil
disputes."
2. June 30, 2011 Letter, the OCC stated, "As your difficulty with
the bank was in mediation and is subject of litigation, it is inappropriate for
the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to intervene in this
case."
3. July 15, 2011 Letter, the OCC stated, "Because your matter is a
contractual dispute and the subject of arbitration, the OCC cannot comment on
any information you may have received. Based on the current course of
events between you and the bank, we are unable to assist you further."
4. August 2, 2011 Letter, the OCC stated, "The OCC does not have the
authority to intervene in such matters. We have previously responded to
you on July 16, 2008, January 7, 2009 and June 30, 2011. Our position has
not changed. We will no longer respond to phone calls or correspondences
regarding this issue. This letter represents our final response."
5. August 30, 2011 Letter, the OCC stated, "As your dispute with the
bank involves a business loan and therefore is governed by the contract signed
between you and the bank, consumer compliance laws do not apply."
Furthermore,
as we have repeatedly told you, the amortization schedules that we provided to
you on May 6, 2011 were prepared by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
employees, not by any of the attorneys in this office, this office simply
delivered them to you. Thus, your claim that "Neither You [Robert
Forouzandeh] nor Diana Jessup Lee are qualified to prepare Santa Barbara Bank
& Trust amortization schedules" is simply incorrect. Also, we
provided you with 2 amortization schedules simply as a courtesy to you and to
extend additional benefits in Schedule #2 to you which you were not entitled to
as a gesture of good faith and in an effort to settle this matter.
Lastly,
you have not provided any information or evidence which would lead Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust to either rescind the most recent notice of
default or to suspend the currently scheduled Trustee Sale from proceeding.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 9:36 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach
of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr.
Bookout:
Although
Ms. Lee and I have answered this question repeatedly and the amortization
schedules that we provided to you in May speak for themselves, I will answer
this question one last time in the hopes of providing you with clarity once and
for all.
As you
will see at the top of Amortization Schedule 1, it clearly shows that
$22,274.46 was reduced from the outstanding balance of principal and
interest due on the loan at the time of the forbearance agreement. This
is why the $22,274.46 is placed inside of parenthesis ($22,274.46) on the
Amortization Schedule. The fact that it is in parenthesis shows that it
was reduced from the outstanding balance of principal and interest
owed on the loan at that time. Similarly, at the top of Amortization
Schedule 2, it shows that your Principal Balance "after 5 payments"
was $416,898.31. The "5 payments" refers to the
$22,274.46. Thus, the $22,274.46 was reduced from the principal and
interest on the loan (the outstanding balance) prior to the loan being
re-amortized pursuant to the Forbearance Agreement.
I trust
that this explanation will answer your questions about the manner in which the
$22,274.46 was credited towards your account.
As to the
alleged comments from the OCC: You continue to ignore our request that
you provide us with copies of the OCC letters dated July 16, 2008, June 30,
2011 and August 2, 2011 which you continually refer to. I am
unable to comment on those letters until you send them to me.
Additionally,
I have reviewed your two newest correspondences and my position remains the
same: After reviewing all of your emails and correspondences, I have not
found a single piece of evidence which would even imply any acts of
"Predatory Lending, Breach of Contract and Fraud" on the part of
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:31 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach
of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr.
Bookout,
Yet again,
you continue to blatantly ignore our request that you provide us with copies of
the OCC letters dated July 16, 2008 and June 30, 2011 that you refer
to. Furthermore, in your latest email you also cite to an OCC letter
dated August 2, 2011. You fail to attach this letter as well.
As stated
before, your failure to send us copies of these letters leads us to believe
that your references to these letters may not be accurate.
Without copies of these three letters, we are unable to respond to your
questions pertaining to those letters. Please forward these alleged
letters to me at your earliest convenience so that I may review them
and respond to your questions accordingly.
As to the other questions
you have chosen to again repeat in your most recent email, I again
repeat that all of these questions have been answered by either myself or
Ms. Lee exhaustively and I would direct you to our prior correspondences to you
for the answers that you seek.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 3:12 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach
of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr.
Bookout,
You
continue to blatantly ignore our request that you provide us with copies of the
OCC letters dated July 16, 2008 and June 30, 2011 that you refer to. As
stated before, your failure to send us copies of these letters leads us to
believe that these references may not be accurate. Without copies of these
two letters, we are unable to respond to your questions pertaining to those
letters. Please forward these alleged letters to me at your
earliest convenience so that I may review them and respond to your questions
accordingly.
As to the other questions
you have posed in your most recent email, I again repeat that all
of these questions have been answered by either myself or Ms. Lee
exhaustively and I would direct you to our prior correspondences to you for the
answers that you seek.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:38 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach
of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Dear Mr.
Bookout:
You
purport to quote from letters from the OCC dated July 16, 2008 and June 30,
2011, yet you refuse to provide us with copies of these letters. Accordingly,
we suspect your references to these letters are inaccurate. We have
answered your questions many times over, yet you refuse to answer our request
for these letters. Please provide the letters if you want us to respond
further to your accusations.
Diana Jessup Lee,
Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle
& McRoy LLP
1421 State Street,
Suite B
Santa Barbara,
CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
dlee@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may
contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2011 11:42 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach
of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr.
Bookout,
I have
repeatedly asked you to provide me with copies of the July 16, 2008 and June
30, 2011 OCC letters that you claim that you are citing to. You have
failed to do so. Therefore, I am unable to respond to the allegations you
make in reference to those letters.
Please
forward those letters to me at your convenience so that I can review them and
respond.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 2:38 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Theft of Principal, Breach
of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud.
Mr.
Bookout:
We have
repeatedly, in writing, denied your false allegations of "the Bank Fraud
and Breach of Contract committed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust since
2007" and provided you with the evidence to substantiate our
position. We continue to stand by this denial. We have also
repeatedly told you that any delay in responding to your allegations does not
constitute an admission of your allegations.
It must
also be noted that neither the SBA, FDIC or OCC has made any findings of
improper conduct on the part of Santa Barbara Bank and Trust in relation to
your loan.
As I have
stated to you on numerous occasions, the correspondences to you from Ms. Lee
dated May 6, May 26, May 31, June 28, July 5 and July 15, 2011 and the correspondences
to you from myself dated August 2 and 3 provide ample evidence to refute all of
your false allegations against Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Please
direct your attention to those documents.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, August 12, 2011 4:41 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per their Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007'Senator.Lowenthal@senate.ca.gov'
Mr.
Bookout,
You
continue to repeat the same questions that Diana Lee and myself have repeatedly
answered. I again direct your attention to the correspondences sent to
you by Diana Lee on the following dates: May 6, May 26, May 31, June 28, July 5
and July 15, 2011. I also direct you to my correspondences to you dated:
August 2 and 3, 2011. All of the questions that you have posed in your
email below have been answered in the emails that I have identified.
Robert
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 10:18 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per their Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout:
In
response to your questions :
"Wasn’t
the deferred payments amortized from 2007 into this loan as presented to the
Internal Revenue Service by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust for 2007 and 2008?
Why did
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust not properly amortize this loan per the written
2007 Forbearance agreement?"
My
response is as follows: Initially, the deferred payments were amortized into
the loan after execution of the forbearance. This was indicated in the
two amortization schedules that Ms. Lee provided to you previously.
Subsequently, you defaulted on the loan and the forbearance agreement by
failing to make payments. Pursuant to Section 4(b)(ii) of the Forbearance
(which you cut and pasted to your email below), "In the event of default
under this Agreement or the Applicable Loan Documents, Bank shall be entitled
to cancel the forbearance applicable to the Deferred Payments and shall be
entitled to demand that Borrower within fifteen (15) business days of the
demand, pay to Bank in full (i) the Deferred Payments and (ii) the Deferred
Late Charges..." Accordingly, after you defaulted on the Forbearance
Agreement, Santa Barbara Bank and Trust demanded that you pay the
entire Deferred Payment amount in full within 15 business days, which
you failed to do. Accordingly, this amount was added to the Notice
of Default which was recorded against your property in May.
All other
questions that you pose in your latestemail were previously answered by Ms. Lee
in the various emails that I identified below.
I hope
that this clears up any confusion that you may have as to the handling of your
loan.
Robert
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:04 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr.
Bookout,
The July
27, 2011 statement sent from Santa Barbara Bank and Trust does not include the
amounts owed by you for the deferred payments under the Forbearance
Agreement. When you breached the Forbearance Agreement by going into
default on your loan, pursuant to contract, the deferred payments were
accelerated and due in full immediately. Accordingly, they were added to
the notice of default amount. Nonetheless, as a token of good faith, if
you pay the amount set forth on the July 27, 2011 statement
($102,859.01), Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will accept this as a
complete cure of your default on your loan which is now in its 21st month.
All of the
other questions you refer to in your email were fully and completely answered
in the various emails from Ms. Lee to you that I identified in my August
1, 2011 email to you. Please go back and review them in depth and you will
find answers to all of your questions, including how the May Notice of Default
was calculated.
Thank you.
Robert
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 4:45 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Diana Lee
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout,
I disagree
with your assertion that Ms. Lee has been "unable to answer" your
questions. Ms. Lee has answered all of your questions repeatedly. I
would refer you to Ms. Lee's correspondences to you dated: May 6, May 26,
May 31, June 28, July 5 and July 15, 2011 (among others), in which Ms. Lee has
answered each and every one of your questions repeatedly.
If you
have any new information or any new questions, please provide those to me and I
will respond accordingly.
Thank you.
Robert B.
Forouzandeh
Attorney
at Law
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2011 2:28 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Dear Mr.
Bookout,
Please
provide me with a copy of the OCC finding referenced in your email below.
If in fact
there have been no such findings (as I believe to be the truth), then your
public statements constitute slander and trade liable. To date Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust has not sought legal recourse for your unlawful
statements. If you persist, however, the bank may find it necessary to
obtain a court order against you, just as you pushed the bank to the pointing
of obtain a restraining order against you.
Diana Lee.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 6:20 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Dear Mr.
Bookout,
Pacific
Capital Bank has not breached the 2007 Forbearance Agreement, and I never said
otherwise.
We have
repeatedly answered all of the questions you ask. You simply do not like
the answers, so you selectively refer to old documents. The schedules and
"computerized records" you request were included with and explained
in my May 6 letter. The bank cannot and will not buy you a new
home, re-establish your failed business or pay the judgments entered against
you.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle
& McRoy LLP
1421 State Street,
Suite B
Santa Barbara,
CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may
contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: lol@rsmediate.com; Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Dear Mr.
Bookout:
1. The
bank did not overcharge you $7,172.57. Each of your
payments were applied to outstanding interest and then to principal.
Many of your early payments were for more than the minimum amount due, and the
principal balance was reduced accordingly with each
payment. Solely for settlement purposes I offered to
discount your loan by various amounts, including $7,000. Your
mischaracterization of such offers is discouraging. The bank is
willing to discuss any reasonable proposal for curing your loan default.
The fact that another bank foreclosed on your home because you did not pay that
bank either, is not a topic we can address.
2. The
two amortization schedules enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter
were created by SBBT based on the terms of your original loan, the
forbearance agreement, and your payment history. Your
request for additional computerized documents makes no sense.
3. I
will check on the 2007 Form 1098 and see if it should be amended
to reflect that you paid less in interest.
4. Your
July 2007 payment of $22,274.46 was used "to pay the monthly principal
and interest payments owing on Note for the earliest five monthly past
due payments (May, 2006, June, 2006, July, 2006, August, 2006
and September, 2006)" exactly as stated in the
Forbearance Agreement (emphasis added). This has been explained
to you repeatedly. See my May 19, 2011 letter as well as the
charts enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter. I do not intend to
continue repeating myself, so please do not keep asking this same question.
5. 1)
The January 14, 2011 NOD was withdrawn as part of our mediation offer to
you. I have not reviewed it, nor is there any reason to do so since it is
irrelevant.
2) The May 19, 2011 NOD states the amount of your
default, not the outstanding balance due on the loan. My May 6
and 19 letters addressed your questions about past payments and the outstanding
balance due on your loan. The pending NOD is consistent
with my May 6 and May 19 letters, and all three are accurate; they
simply address different issues.
3) All
principal payments you made were credited prior to determining the
amount of your default as stated in the pending NOD. See explanation 1.
above.
4) I have reviewed your Ex. 6 and cannot find the document to which you
reference. Nevertheless, it does not matter. The operative
documents are my May 6 and 19 letters to you with enclosed schedules and the
May 19, 2011 NOD. All three of these documents credit
the $22,274.46 as if you had timely made the monthly payments due
May, 2006 through September, 2006, as agreed in the Forbearance Agreement.
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail: dlee@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 12:18 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: lol@rsmediate.com; Robert Forouzandeh
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Dear Mr.
Bookout:
As you are
fully aware, I never admitted that Pacific Capital Bank over charged your
account. We have repeatedly provided you with detailed
schedules showing how your payments have been applied and how your default
balance is calculated. You have not made any payments in 1.5 years and
the bank is currently proceeding with foreclosure proceedings. I
have offered discount your loan by various amounts, including $7,000,
if it would settle your claims and you would resume making loan
payments. On every occasion that a settlement has been offered to
you, you have declined it. Your mischaracterization of settlement offers
as admissions makes it very difficult to have productive discussions with
you. Nevertheless, the bank remains willing to consider any reasonable
proposal you have to cure your loan default.
I do not
know what "computerized" records you are requesting. The May 6,
2011 schedules are official and are correct, so there is no need for any other
records.
Please
send me a copy of the "1098 form" about which you have questions and
I will obtain an explanation for you.
My May 19,
2011 letter to you explained the application of the $22,274.46 in detail.
Please read my letter.
As
we explained, a lower number was used in the NOD in an effort to eliminate
any possible dispute. In calculating your missed payment
amounts for the NOD, the missed
payments in 2010-2011 were calculated at 5.25%
interest ( then current prime rate of 3.25% + 2% as stated in the
original loan) as a courtesy to you. Pursuant to the Forbearance
Agreement the bank is entitled to charge you 6%. If you pay
this lower number, the NOD will be withdrawn.
Diana Lee.
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
dlee@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 10:04 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of
Contract since 2007
Dear Mr.
Bookout:
The
questions you ask are answered with full explanations in my letters to you
dated May 6 and 19, 2011.
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara,
CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
dlee@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may
contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 5:20 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: avw@newspress.com; 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; lol@rsmediate.com;
'Congresswoman Lois Capps'; Senator.Blakeslee@senate.ca.gov;
sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us; sandiego@sba.gov; velie@calcoastnews.com
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation
Dear Mr.
Bookout,
As I have
stated on a number of occasions, I have found no evidence of fraud in Pacific
Capital Bank's handling of your loan nor in its handling of your many
defaults on the loan and subsequent attempts to restructure your loan
in an effort to help you cure your defaults. The information I provided
you with my May 6, 2011 letter is correct and consistent with the pending
NOD.
If you
would like to discuss ways to cure your default, please let me know your idea.
Diana Lee
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: Levas, Vickie [mailto:vickie.levas@fnf.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 9:28 AM
To: pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net
Subject: File: 11-00126-5, 15899
Mr. Bookout:
Per your request, here is a breakdown of the amount showing on the NOD which
has recorded 5/19/2011. A copy is attached.
10 payments 10/2006 thru 07/2007 $45,171.20
17 payments 01/2010 thru 05/2011 $65,853.51
TOTAL: $111,024.71
thank you,
Vickie Levas
Fidelity National Title Company
3075 Prospect Park Drive, Ste 100
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Telephone (916) 636-0114 x2095
E-Mail vickie.levas@fnf.com
NOTE: PRIVATE AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION: THIS TRANSMISSION MAY CONTAIN
INFORMATION OR MATERIAL WHICH IS CONFIDENTIAL AND NOT TO BE DISCLOSED TO ANYONE
OTHER THAN THE PERSON TO WHOM THIS TRANSMISSION IS DIRECTED. ANY DISCLOSURE,
DISTRIBUTION, COPYING OR USE OF THIS COMMUNICATION BY ANY OTHER PERSON IS
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE
CONTACT US BY TELEPHONE IMMEDIATELY AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL COMMUNICATION TO US
AT T! HE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
COOPERATION AND UNDERSTANDING.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 7:40 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: 'Lol Sorensen'; Doug.Lutz@pcbancorp.com; legal@fdic.gov; 'Ashker,
Terrill K.'; 'Pamela Brinks'
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation
Dear Mr.
Bookout,
Thank you
for approving the environmental inspection for May 6. We are putting
together the information we agreed to provide you, which hopefully will assist
you in seeing that your assumptions are not correct.
Please
comply with your commitment not to communicate with anyone other than me about
this matter until May 13, 2011.
Diana Lee
From: Lol Sorensen [mailto:lol@rsmediate.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 8:24 PM
To: 'Diana Lee'; 'Bill Bookout'
Cc: Doug.Lutz@pcbancorp.com
Subject: Bookout/PCB Mediation
Dear Bill and Diana:
I am writing this message to you at the conclusion of today’s
mediation to confirm the things that the parties have agreed to over the next
16 days:
1. By May 6, 2011, PCB will provide to Bill
a schedule that lists the application of the payments that he made from and
after July 1, 2007 and a loan amortization that shows how payments were
anticipated to be applied from July 1, 2007 to the end of the term of the loan.
2. Between now and May 13, 2011, Bill will
cooperate with an inspection by PCB (and its agents) of each of the two
properties (1341 Paso Robles Street, Oceano, and 470 Price Street, Pismo Beach)
on a date selected by PCB yet giving Bill at least 3 days notice of the
date. PCB will pay for the inspections.
3. PCB will not record a Notice of Sale or a
new Notice of Default until May 13, 2011 at the earliest.
4. Bill will not add content about PCB to
any websites, and will not send any emails or other communications related to
PCB until May 13, 2011 at the earliest, except that Bill may email to Diana Lee
and may consult with attorneys in an effort to secure legal counsel.
5. I will stay in touch with both of you as
we continue to explore a possible settlement.
Best regards,
Lol Sorensen
www.rsmediate.com
690 Oak Grove Court
Ojai, CA 93023
lol@rsmediate.com
(805) 649-1389 (phone)
(805) 689-6654 (cell)
(866) 423-9058 (fax)
**************************************************************
This message is sent by
an attorney-mediator and may contain information that is privileged or
confidential.
If you received this
transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the
message
and any attachments.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 3:55 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital
Bancorp---Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007!
Dear Mr.
Bookout,
Your email
below is inaccurate. In our conversation this afternoon, you called my
attention to the typographical error in my March 22, 2011 email which contained
a 2012 year rather than 2011. You and I acknowledged that
the conversations upon which that email was based, as well as the other
emails we have exchanged specified that your web sites and You Tube sites
needed to go dark on March 23, 2011, not March 23, 2012.
As I
stated in our conversation, the bank is willing to go to mediation with you on
April 7, the date you requested, and has arranged for Lol Sorensen, the
mediator you selected, to serve as the mediator. The bank has also
agreed that you need not pay any mediation fees upfront, and that the topic of
how the mediation fees are paid will be addressed at the mediation. The
bank also agreed to toll the running of time under your Notice of Default, all
conditioned on you agreeing to cease all communications, except with me,
regarding this dispute, including causing your webs sites and your You Tube
site to go dark until the mediation. You told me that you would not agree
to cause your web sites to temporarily go dark pending the mediation.
Accordingly,
you have declined the bank's generous offer and there is nothing further I can
do for you. This file will be returned to Mr. Lazar, and you should
direct all further communications to him.
Sincerely,
Diana Lee.
Diana
Jessup Lee, Esq.
Reicker,
Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State
Street, Suite B
Santa
Barbara, CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
dlee@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail
may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the
intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:51 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: SBA Bank Fraud---Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Case # 01394465 -Amortization Schedule
Dear Mr.
Bookout,
I
contacted Mr. Sorensen's office, and obtained the following dates on which he
is available: April 7, 8, 18 or 19. I must check with my client to
see what days she is available. Are any of these days convinient for you?
I just
checked your web sites and they are still up. I'm not sure if you do not
intend to cause your sites to go dark as I specified, or if you have
delayed because you believe I need to read the material on your sites. In
hope that it is the later, I will have my assistant print out everything
on your sites first thing in the morning, and then I expect you to cause
them to go dark by 10:00 a.m. Otherwise, we do not have an agreement, and
there will not be a tolling of the time accruing under your Notice of
Default. The complete cessation of all postings was an important part of
the bank's agreement to freeze the accrual of time under your Notice of
Default, and if your web sites and You Tube postings are going continue, then
there is no agreement to freeze the accrual of time under the Notice of
Default.
Diana Lee.
Diana Jessup Lee,
Esq.
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle
& McRoy LLP
1421 State Street,
Suite B
Santa Barbara,
CA 93101
Tel:
805-966-2440
Fax:
805-966-3320
E-mail:
dlee@rppmh.com
Website:
www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may
contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended
recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly
prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender and delete this e-mail.
From: George C. Lazar [mailto:GLazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 2:00 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: Pacific Capital Bank
Mr. Bookout:
With regard to your request for an itemization of the
amounts which comprise the delinquency amount set forth in the notices of
default recently recorded, the amount is calculated as follows:
UNPAID PAYMENTS
10 Deferred 10/2006 - 7/2007
$37,801.09
Jan-Dec
2010
$49,452.72
Total:
$87,253.81
Late charges to
11/16/10
$4,858.96
Appraisal
Fees
$4,050.00
Legal
Fees
$50.00
UCC Search
Fees
$15.50
Amount shown on
NOD
$96,228.27
With regard to the questions you have been propounding
which you chose to resolve through complaint to the OCC, this email will advise
you that Pacific Capital Bank has responded to the OCC within their prescribed
timeframes, and we assume they will follow up with you based upon that
response. Any issues you have with the Bank’s response to the OCC, or
with the OCC’s response, should be taken up with the OCC.
With regard to your request for an amortization schedule,
an amortization schedule is necessarily based upon assumptions, such as a
static interest rate, and assumes strict performance by the
borrower as required by the terms of the loan. In the case of your loan,
the significant defaults and the agreements that have been made not only make
any previously-issued amortization not relevant to the loan’s current status,
but they preclude a current amortization, since the defaults are continuing,
additional charges are being incurred, and the time to maturity is decreasing,
among other things. Should the loan be put in a
performing status, we could address amortization schedule issues at that time.
Finally, you continue to state that Pacific Capital Bank
is required to respond to you in a time period you specify and that if there is
no response, you are entitled to assume that a statement you have made is
accurate or otherwise has been validated by Pacific Capital Bank. Again,
I reiterate that Pacific Capital Bank’s lack of a response to a communication
from you within any time period specified by you is not an admission by the
Bank that any statement you have made is accurate or is adopted by the
Bank. And, if you were ever to claim to any third party that Pacific
Capital Bank’s failure to respond to a communication from you was an admission
of some kind by the Bank, that claim would be knowingly false on your part and
could be, depending on the circumstances, libelous, a matter the Bank takes
very seriously.
As before, I remain your contact point for questions
directed to Pacific Capital Bank. Please note the amount required to cure
your loan default has increased since the amounts provided in the Notice of
Default. Should you be interested in curing the default, please advise
George C. Lazar
FOX JOHNS LAZAR PEKIN & WEXLER, APC
525 B Street, Suite 1500
San Diego, California 92101-4417
Tel: 619.595.7187
Toll
Free: 877.272.3734
Mobile: 619.823.7375
Fax:
877.227.0150
email: glazar@foxjohns.com
THIS EMAIL IS INTENDED FOR THE
DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) ONLY AND MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL, INCLUDING
ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATIONS. IF YOU RECEIVE THIS EMAIL IN ERROR, PLEASE
NOTIFY ME BY RETURN EMAIL AND DELETE THIS EMAIL TOGETHER WITH ANY ATTACHMENTS.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 3:12 PM
To: 'Karen Grant'
Cc: 'Mary Jo Barbeau'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Diana Lee'; 'Robert Forouzandeh'; 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'danhil@charter.net'; 'Bob Johnston'; 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; 'Thomas Cregger'; 'carlos.mendoza@sba.gov'; 'Hobby, Jill C.'; 'Koznek, Jeff'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'econnolly@newtimesslo.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'ctrimble@pismobeach.org'; 'velie@calcoastnews.com'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
November 30, 2011
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors George Leis, Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb, Richard A. Nightingale, John R. Mackall, Mark K. Olson, D. Vernon Horton, William R. Loomis, Edward E. Birch, Kathy J. Odell, Clayton C. Larson, Gordon J. Wahlgren and Mary Mascolo;
Karen L. Grant
California State Bar # 122084
924 Anacapa Street, Ste 1M
Santa Barbara, Ca 93101
1-805-962-4413
Dear Mrs. Karen L. Grant,
Please provide a copy of this response to the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors attached above from Robert Forouzandeh’s November 30, 2011 email below! All documents and communication can be seen at www.sbaplploans.com
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has still not provided a monthly loan payment statement for November and December 2011 with the changes mentioned by Robert Forouzandeh, in his November 23, 2011 email attached! Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement charged an improper amortized monthly payment of $4,121.06 instead of $3,880.20 per month affecting Oceano Nursery’s business income!
Robert Forouzandeh, has stated below on November 30, 2011. “Your client is asking what his December 2011 payment to Santa Barbara Bank and Trust ("SBBT") should be. I would direct his attention to the Proof of Claim filed by SBBT in Mr. Bookout's bankruptcy proceeding, which states that Mr. Bookout's post-petition payments to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust should be $4,077.32. This amount is based on the recalculated principal balance of $400,962.89 which was determined as a result of Mr. Bookout's pre-petition default of the Forbearance Agreement (which had a fixed interest rate of 6%) resulting in the termination of the interest rate afforded under the Forbearance Agreement. I have explained this re-calculation process to your client on several occasions. In the May 5, 2011 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust amortization schedule attached, SBBT claimed that the payment in 2007 should have been $4,055.30 without paying any principal from the $22,274.46 five payments as seen attached and at www.sbaplploans.com
Karen L. Grant, Please request the proper Santa Barbara Bank & Trust December 2011 Statement from Santa Barbara Bank & Trust! I am requesting that Judge Robin L. Riblet have a copy of the November and December 2011 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (Payment Notices), once they have been prepared by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust! Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (Incorrect Interest Rate Adjustments) needs to be reviewed by Judge Robin L. Riblet along with the (Misapplied Payments) since the 2007 forbearance & workout agreement as now put into question by Robert Forouzandeh.
As explained below I have attached for Judge Robin L. Riblet, Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts online accounting from June 18, 2007 showing a balance owed in June of 2007 of $472,823.65 instead of the $487,469.96 claimed by Diana Jessup Lee in the amortization schedule she provided on May 6, 2011 and her May 19, 2011 letter attached. Attached is the June 23, 2007 payment notice showing a balance owed $472,774.05 instead of the $487,469.96 claimed by Diana Jessup Lee as Mr. Forouzandeh, is still using undocumented accounting! Please have Santa Barbara Bank & Trust explain as to why in the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement SBBT had not properly amortized the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan against SBA Form 147 Note? Robert Forouzandeh, has stated below on November 30, 2011. “Please be advised that pursuant to the terms of Mr. Bookout's loan, the loan will be re-amortized as of January 2012. Due to Mr. Bookout's long running default on this loan, upon re-amortization, the monthly payments will change. Once the loan is re-amortized, I will provide you with the new payment amount which will be applicable for the entire 2012 calendar year.”
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust had the ability to properly amortize the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan in 2007 with the Forbearance Agreement. This could have been done by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust taking the June 23, 2007 (Payment Notice) showing a Loan Balance of $420,024.30 plus the Previous Due of $52,749.75 added together totaling $472,774.05 and then subtracting the $22,274.46 bring a balance down to $450,499.59 and then subtracting the $5,200.00 of principal not accounted for by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust bringing the proper principal owed down to $445,299.59 with a August 1, 2007 monthly payment of $3,880.20 instead of the $4,121.06 charged against SBA Form 147 Note signed on October 6, 2003! Santa Barbara Bank & Trust should not be allowed to make up fraudulent loan figures as presented by Robert Forouzandeh, again on November 30, 2011!
In 2007 Extra Principal Paid was $2,236.82. The SBA loan should have been re amortized in 2007 and 2008 under terms per SBA Form 147 Note, as Mr. Forouzandeh, is claiming will be done in 2012!
In 2008 Extra Principal Paid was $631.52. The SBA loan should have been re amortized in 2009 under terms per SBA Form 147 Note, as Mr. Forouzandeh, is claiming will be done in 2012!
In 2009 Extra Principal Paid was $473.64. The SBA loan should have been re amortized in 2010 under terms per SBA Form 147 Note, as Mr. Forouzandeh, is claiming will be done in 2012!
Loan Summary Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
|
Principal: |
$445299.59 |
|
Interest Rate: |
6% |
|
Loan Term: |
171 months |
|
Number of Payments: |
171 |
|
Monthly Payment: |
$3,880.20 |
|
Total Principal Paid: |
$445,299.59 |
|
Total Interest Paid: |
$218,214.93 |
|
Total Paid: |
$663,514.52 |
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust online accounting as of November 20, 2011 showing a Principal Balance of $390,996.91 instead of the Proof of Claim presented to Judge Robin L. Riblet. The Principal balance is not $400,962.89 claimed to Judge Robin J. Riblet.
Notice the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust late fee amount of $206.05 against SBA Form 147 Note!
|
11/4/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
10/11/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
9/16/2011 |
|
$206.05 |
|
$390,996.91 |
|
|
8/30/2011 |
|
$650.00 |
|
$390,996.91 |
|
|
8/30/2011 |
|
$4,000.00 |
|
$390,996.91 |
|
|
8/30/2011 |
|
$650.00 |
|
$390,996.91 |
|
|
8/30/2011 |
|
$3,500.00 |
|
$390,996.91 |
|
|
8/16/2011 |
|
$206.05 |
|
$390,996.91 |
|
|
7/18/2011 |
|
$206.05 |
|
$390,996.91 |
The 2007 (forbearance agreement which was not been adhered to by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust) needs to be reviewed by Judge Robin L. Riblet and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust needs to explain as to why SBBT has claimed to Judge Robin L. Riblet; in a (Proof of Claim) that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is owed $45,171.20 in deferred and defaulted payments against the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust documents attached for Judge Robin L. Riblet!
Please provide the above attached PDF documents to Judge Robin L. Riblet with the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust loan changes as noted by Robert Forouzandeh on November 23, 2011! Please explain to Judge Robin L. Riblet as to why in the attached October 26, 2010 (Demand Letter) that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust does not show the $45,171.20 per the May 19, 2011 Notice of Default that has caused this Bankruptcy?
How does Santa Barbara Bank & Trust justify, their May 19, 2011 Notice of Default claim of $45,171.20 against their own banking documents attached above? Again, please have Santa Barbara Bank & Trust provide their new (Payment Notices) for December and November 2011 per Mr. Robert Forouzandeh’s; November 23, 2011 email attached above and below!
Robert Forouzandeh, states below for Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on November 18, 2011. “There is nothing deficient about the May 19, 2011 NOD. Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will not rescind it. We have reviewed all of the information pertaining to this NOD and it is valid.” This now needs to be decided by Judge Robin L. Riblet and the United States Small Business Administration attached above.
Karen L. Grant, please see that Santa Barbara Bank provides a full accounting of the $45,171.20 deferred and defaulted payments to myself and Judge Robin L. Riblet per the October 28, 2011 Proof of Claim and Your November 7, 2011 accounting to the United States Bankruptcy Court! If Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has a undisclosed third and different, accounting system, other then Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts online website mentioned by Robert Forouzandeh in his November 23, 2011 email attached! Then, please provide a copy of this system to myself and Judge Robin L. Riblet! The monthly (Payment Notice’s) attached and the 2007 online accounting does not show the $45,171.20 claimed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust per the May 19, 2011 NOD and the November 8, 2011 SBBT (Objection To Chapter 13 Plan by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust)!
Karen L. Grant, Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, This is again a Written Demand Letter of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to Rescind the Fraudulent NOD filed on May 19, 2011 on the Oceano Nursery property and the Pismo Beach Property within one week of November 18, 2011! Please let the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors George Leis, Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb, Richard A. Nightingale, John R. Mackall, Mark K. Olson, D. Vernon Horton, William R. Loomis, Edward E. Birch, Kathy J. Odell, Clayton C. Larson, Gordon J. Wahlgren and Mary Mascolo; Make this decision after reviewing the documents attached and Robert Forouzandeh’s most recent email communication on November 23, 2011!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet---Exhibit # 22
CC Barry A. Cappello Lender Liability
CC Chris Gautschi [sanschromo@yahoo.com]
CC San Luis Obispo District Attorney
CC San Luis Obispo Police Department Case # 111108022
CC Adam D. Kaplan Office of Inspector General OIG complaint ID # 20110484--20120076
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 12:24 PM
To: 'Richard Rossi'
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; Diana Lee; 'Karen Grant'; Bill Bookout; Mary Jo Barbeau
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
Your client is asking what his December 2011 payment to Santa Barbara Bank and Trust ("SBBT") should be. I would direct his attention to the Proof of Claim filed by SBBT in Mr. Bookout's bankruptcy proceeding, which states that Mr. Bookout's post-petition payments to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust should be $4,077.32. This amount is based on the recalculated principal balance of $400,962.89 which was determined as a result of Mr. Bookout's pre-petition default of the Forbearance Agreement (which had a fixed interest rate of 6%) resulting in the termination of the interest rate afforded under the Forbearance Agreement. I have explained this re-calculation process to your client on several occasions.
Please be advised that pursuant to the terms of Mr. Bookout's loan, the loan will be re-amortized as of January 2012. Due to Mr. Bookout's long running default on this loan, upon re-amortization, the monthly payments will change. Once the loan is re-amortized, I will provide you with the new payment amount which will be applicable for the entire 2012 calendar year.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 2:00 PM
To: 'Richard Rossi'
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Diana Lee'; 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'Koznek, Jeff'; 'danhil@charter.net'; 'ajsantana@co.slo.ca.us'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Pamela Brinks'; 'econnolly@newtimesslo.com'; 'Robert Forouzandeh'; 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; 'carlos.mendoza@sba.gov'; 'Hobby, Jill C.'; 'Bob Johnston'; 'Karen Grant'; 'Thomas Cregger'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
November 29, 2011
Dear Mr. Richard Rossi,
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has still not provided a monthly loan statement for December 2011 with the changes mentioned by Robert Forouzandeh, in his November 23, 2011 email attached! Please request this December 2011 Statement from Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (Robert Forouzandeh) I am requesting that Judge Robin L. Riblet have a copy of the November and December 2011 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (Payment Notices), once they have been prepared by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust!
Please provide the attached documents to Judge Robin L. Riblet for our December 16, 2011 hearing along with the emails from Robert Forouzandeh, Karen Grant and Diana Lee.
Please make sure that Judge Robin L. Riblet is provided and made aware of the October 26, 2010 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Demand Statement showing no deferred principal and interest as claimed to Judge Robin L. Riblet in the October 28, 2011 (Proof Of Claim). Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in this demand shows the principal balance to be $390,996.91 instead of the $400,962.89 claimed by Robert Forouzandeh, on November 23, 2011.
I have attached for Judge Robin L. Riblet, Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts online accounting from June 18, 2007 showing a balance owed in June of 2007 of $472,823.65 instead of the $487,469.96 claimed by Diana Jessup Lee in the amortization schedule she provided on May 6, 2011 and her May 19, 2011 letter attached. Attached is the June 23, 2007 payment notice showing a balance owed $472,774.05 instead of the $487,469.96 claimed by Diana Jessup Lee!
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust online statements attached in 2007 and 2008 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is found paying no principal and only deferred interest. The Notice of Default filed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on May 19, 2011 is fraudulent as seen in Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts own documents and the Proof of Claim presented to Judge Robin L. Riblet, by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on October 28, 2011 claiming $45,171.20 in deferred and defaulted payments! Please have Santa Barbara Bank & Trust explain this $45,171.20 claimed to Judge Robin L. Riblet!
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/Robert Forouzandeh, States November 18, 2011. “There is nothing deficient about the May 19, 2011 NOD. Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will not rescind it. We have reviewed all of the information pertaining to this NOD and it is valid.” This now needs to be decided by Judge Robin L. Riblet and the United States Small Business Administration attached above.
How does Santa Barbara Bank & Trust justify, their May 19, 2011 Notice of Default claim of $45,171.20 against their own banking documents attached above? Again, please have Santa Barbara Bank & Trust provide their new (Payment Notice) for December and November 2011 per Mr. Robert Forouzandeh’s; November 23, 2011 email attached above and below!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet---Exhibit # 22
CC Barry A. Cappello Lender Liability
CC Chris Gautschi [sanschromo@yahoo.com]
CC San Luis Obispo District Attorney
CC San Luis Obispo Police Department Case # 111108022
CC Adam D. Kaplan Office of Inspector General OIG complaint ID # 20110484--20120076
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2011 4:54 PM
To: 'Richard Rossi'
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Diana Lee'; 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'Koznek, Jeff'; 'danhil@charter.net'; 'ajsantana@co.slo.ca.us'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Pamela Brinks'; 'econnolly@newtimesslo.com'; 'Robert Forouzandeh'; 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; 'carlos.mendoza@sba.gov'; 'Hobby, Jill C.'; 'Bob Johnston'; 'Karen Grant'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
November 28, 2011
Dear Mr. Richard Rossi,
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has communicated with me on November 18 and 23, 2011 in which I have responded below with questions asked of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Please see that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust answers these questions for us and Judge Robin L. Riblet for our up coming Bankruptcy Court Hearing on December 16, 2011. Please copy this to the Judge Robin L. Riblet with the communication by Robert Forouzandeh below and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust changing their May 5, 2011 amortization of my SBA Loan on October 28, 2011.
Mr. Rossi, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has not provided a Payment Notice for November 2011 and now December 2011 payments. Can you contact Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee for the proper amount Santa Barbara Bank & Trust now claims is owed SBBT per their newly changed computerized records accounting as stated by Robert Forouzandeh on November 23, 2011? “The $390,996.91 balance appears on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system has not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and has accordingly not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.”
Once I have received the new amortized loan amount as changed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust I will be able to make my December payment.
Robert Forouzandeh, has stated August 2, 2011 against the August 29, 2011 SBA Form 1149 as seen at www.sbaplploans.com “The July 27, 2011 statement sent from Santa Barbara Bank and Trust does not include the amounts owed by you for the deferred payments under the Forbearance Agreement. When you breached the Forbearance Agreement by going into default on your loan, pursuant to contract, the deferred payments were accelerated and due in full immediately”
Again, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has falsified the May 19, 2011 Notice of Default in claiming $45,171.20 not owed Santa Barbara Bank & Trust as seen in their documents at www.sbaplploans.com Is it legal to falsify a Notice of Default like Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has done on May 19, 2011? Robert Forouzandeh, as stated on August 2, 2011 is wrong in his email and this needs, to be addressed to Judge Robin L. Riblet for our December 16, 2011 Bankruptcy Hearing!
This statement by Robert Forouzandeh, on November 18, 2011 needs to be reviewed by Judge Robin L. Riblet for our December 16, 2011 Bankruptcy hearing, “With that being said, as I have done on countless occasions in the past, I deny each and every one of the false allegations that you have set forth in your email below. There is nothing deficient about the May 19, 2011 NOD. Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will not rescind it. We have reviewed all of the information pertaining to this NOD and it is valid.”
Does Santa Barbara Bank & Trust have a plan to reimburse me for the extra principal charged by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust since the 2007 forbearance & workout agreement that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has admitted to over charging me on May 6, 2011 in the letter from Diana Jessup Lee as seen at www.sbaplploans.com ? Is it Legal for a bank to monthly over charge a SBA loan like Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has admitted too since 2007?
I would again hope that this falsified May 19, 2011 NOD could be resolved in mediation.
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet---Exhibit # 22
CC Barry A. Cappello Lender Liability
CC Chris Gautschi [sanschromo@yahoo.com]
CC San Luis Obispo District Attorney
CC San Luis Obispo Police Department Case # 111108022
CC Adam D. Kaplan Office of Inspector General OIG complaint ID # 20110484
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, November 25, 2011 8:45 AM
To: 'Robert Forouzandeh'
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Diana Lee'; 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'Koznek, Jeff'; 'danhil@charter.net'; 'ajsantana@co.slo.ca.us'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Thomas Cregger'; 'Pamela Brinks'; 'econnolly@newtimesslo.com'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
November 25, 2011
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
Robert Forouzandeh State Bar # 247177
Mr. Forouzandeh,
In reviewing your November 23, 2011 response a little more, Please provide the new full re-amortized Santa Barbara Bank & Trust amortization to myself, the SBA and Judge Robin L. Riblet since the 2007 Forbearance & Workout Agreement! Please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is fraudulently attempting to charge $45,171.20 in the May 19, 2011 NOD that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has accounted for in the September 30, 2008 letter to the SBA?
Mr. Forouzandeh, In the June 23, 2007 (Payment Notice) attached. Please provide the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust records showing that $45,171.20 is owed in deferred and defaulted payments as presented to Judge Robin L. Riblet on October 28, 2011! Please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust did not live up to the June 30, 2007 forbearance and workout agreement or SBA Form 147 Note?
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust States on November 23, 2011: “Our response is as follows: The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default of the Forbearance Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement was rescinded (as permitted by its terms) and the principal amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules.”
SBA Form 1149 does not show this action by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Please provide the Payment Notice’s for November and December 2011 with Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts new re-amortized SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 to myself the SBA attached above and Judge Robin L. Riblet.
Mr. Forouzandeh, will Santa Barbara Bank & Trust be recalculating the late fees as seen online with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust? I am requesting to have all online changes done immediately as now presented in your November 23, 2011 email! Please note that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has a history since 2007 of paying late fees from my additional principal paid Santa Barbara Bank & Trust which now need to be properly accounted for!
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has now provided three different loan accounting since May 6, 2011. The first claimed my monthly payment should have been $4,055.30 instead of $4,121.06. The Second claimed my monthly payment should have been $4,028.05. The Third on October 28, 2011 by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is claiming that my monthly payment in 2009 should have been $3,743.71. In 2010 should have been $3,816.71. In 2011 should have been $4,077.32.
Mr. Forouzandeh, Please provide a Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts breakdown of how my extra Principal paid Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has been computed in the Proof of Claim to Judge Robin L. Riblet. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust States on November 23, 2011 “The $390,996.91 balance appears on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system has not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and has accordingly not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.” If this is the case, then Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has had since January 2010 to make this correction! SBA Form 1149 dated August 29, 2011 will have to be corrected for the SBA attached above!
Please note that Mr. Rossi is only handling the Bankruptcy caused by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Mr. Rossi has is helping in finding an attorney that handles this type of Fraud and Breach of Contract. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has hired another law firm to handle their fraudulent NOD filed on May 19, 2011.
Mr. Forouzandeh, In Regards to the Original Loan SBA loan terms, please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has ignored SBA Form 147 Note since the June 30, 2007 Forbearance and Workout Agreement until the October 28, 2011 Proof Of Claim to Judge Robin L. Riblet? Santa Barbara Bank & Trust had the ability to properly amortize the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 in 2007 with the Forbearance Agreement. This could have been done by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust taking the June 23, 2007 (Payment Notice) showing a Loan Balance of $420,024.30 plus the Previous Due of $52,749.75 added together totaling $472,774.05 and then subtracting the $22,274.46 bring a balance down to $450,499.59 and then subtracting the $5,200.00 of principal not accounted for by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust bringing the proper principal owed down to $445,299.59 with a August 1, 2007 monthly payment of $3,880.20 instead of the $4,121.06 charged against SBA Form 147 Note signed on October 6, 2003! Mr. Forouzandeh, why did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust pay no attention to SBA Form 147 Note until October 28, 2011? What has Santa Barbara Bank & Trust done with my $5,200.00 of Principal paid per the June30, 2007 Forbearance & Workout agreement?
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, This is again a Written Demand Letter of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to Rescind the Fraudulent NOD filed on May 19, 2011 on the Oceano Nursery property and the Pismo Beach Property within one week of November 18, 2011! Please let the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors George Leis, Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb, Richard A. Nightingale, John R. Mackall, Mark K. Olson, D. Vernon Horton, William R. Loomis, Edward E. Birch, Kathy J. Odell, Clayton C. Larson, Gordon J. Wahlgren and Mary Mascolo; Make this decision after reviewing the documents attached and your most recent communication on November 23, 2011!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC California State Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris
California Department of Justice
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, Ca 94244-2550
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet---Exhibit # 22
CC Barry A. Cappello Lender Liability
CC Chris Gautschi [sanschromo@yahoo.com]
CC San Luis Obispo District Attorney
CC San Luis Obispo Police Department Case # 111108022
CC Adam D. Kaplan Office of Inspector General OIG complaint ID # 20110484
CC Thomas Cregger –Union Pacific Rail Road
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 1:51 PM
To: 'Robert Forouzandeh'
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Diana Lee'; 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'Koznek, Jeff'; 'danhil@charter.net'; 'ajsantana@co.slo.ca.us'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Thomas Cregger'; 'Karen Grant'; 'Pamela Brinks'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
November 23, 2011
Robert Forouzandeh State Bar # 247177
Diana Jessup Lee State Bar # 155191
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors George Leis, Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb, Richard A. Nightingale, John R. Mackall, Mark K. Olson, D. Vernon Horton, William R. Loomis, Edward E. Birch, Kathy J. Odell, Clayton C. Larson, Gordon J. Wahlgren and Mary Mascolo;
Mr. Forouzandeh,
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, in 2007 immediately breached the 2007 Forbearance and Workout Agreement as seen in the May 6, 2011 and May 19, 2011 letters by Diana Jessup Lee! Please see the two different amortization schedules prepared by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust at www.sbbtfraud.com
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust States on November 23, 2011. “Our response is as follows: The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement.”
This fixed rate that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is claiming has broken the 2007 Forbearance agreement by overcharging my SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 by $240.86 as seen below! Santa Barbara Bank & Trust did not have a legal right to charge $4,121.06 per month against SBA Form 147 Noted signed with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on October 6, 2003!
|
11/4/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
10/11/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
9/16/2011 |
|
$206.05 |
|
$390,996.91 |
Mr. Forouzandeh, Please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has stated to the U.S. Small Business Administration on August 29, 2011 that my principal Balance was $390,996.91 as you state: “The $390,996.91 balance appears on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system has not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and has accordingly not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.”
In Regards to the Original Loan Terms, please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has ignored SBA Form 147 Note since the June 30, 2007 Forbearance and Workout Agreement?
Robert Forouzandeh State Bar # 247177; As you are my designated person; at Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to ask banking questions of. Can you explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is charging my SBA loan $4,121.06 per month as seen online? This payment per SBA Form 147 Note should have been $3,880.20 per month!
Again, How did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust come up with a principal balance owed of $400,962.89 in their Proof of Claim for Judge Robin L. Riblet dated October 28, 2011?
Robert Forouzandeh State Bar # 247177 -- Santa Barbara Bank & Trust claims on 11/28/2011 that they are owed $45,171.20 in deferred and defaulted payments past due! Please explain as to how Santa Barbara Bank & Trust can claim this amount, when Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on September 30, 2008 informed the SBA. “In addition interest has been paid current and the loan is fully secured with real estate.” ???? Please explain this to myself and those attached above along with Judge Robin L. Riblet!
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Please explain as to why the July 6, 2007 payment of $22,274.46 was not credited to any Principal as seen in the May 5, 2011 amortization schedule? Please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has stolen $5,200.00 in the 2007 forbearance agreement principal? Notice the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Payment History attached above showing the $22,274.46 five payments going to interest only and none to principal! What has Santa Barbara Bank & Trust done with my $5,200.00 in principal not applied to my Oceano Nursery SBA Loan in the 2007 forbearance agreement? This statement on June 19, 2011 by Diana Jessup Lee is unacceptable and false! “4. Your July 2007 payment of $22,274.46 was used "to pay the monthly principal and interest payments owing on Note for the earliest five monthly past due payments (May, 2006, June, 2006, July, 2006, August, 2006 and September, 2006)" exactly as stated in the Forbearance Agreement (emphasis added). This has been explained to you repeatedly. See my May 19, 2011 letter as well as the charts enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter. I do not intend to continue repeating myself, so please do not keep asking this same question.”
Attached is the August 29, 2011 Lenders Transcript of Account showing only interest payments from 7/6/07—9/2/08 against the 2007 Forbearance Agreement (emphasis added). No Principal was paid from May 2006 to September 2006! Attached is the May 19, 2011 letter from Diana Jessup Lee per her June 29, 2011 email attached!
Attached is a July 16, 2008 OCC letter showing that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, claim that the $22,274.46 is applied to Principal and Interest. Why would Santa Barbara Bank & Trust misapply this principal paid SBBT, from my Oceano Nursery SBA loan against the OCC‘s July 16, 2008 letter. Why would Santa Barbara Bank & Trust charge $1,953.45 in attorney fees as seen in this OCC letter from 6/30-9/30/2007 against the June 30, 2007 Forbearance And Workout Agreement?
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Please explain the letter attached that was written by Diana Jessup Lee on May 19, 2011 claiming that on July 6, 2007 $487,469.96 was owed on the Oceano Nursery SBA loan before the five payments of $22,274.46 with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust just subtracting, interest bringing this loan down to $465,195.50 and stealing $5,200.00 of principal from Bill Bookout and Oceano Nursery? Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, again I am asking Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to cancel the May 19, 2011 NOD filed on the Oceano Nursery property and the 470 Price Street property!
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, attached are a few emails from both of you claiming that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust paid principal on the $22,274.46 for the five payments per the forbearance agreement! Please explain to myself, Judge Robin L. Riblet, the San Luis Obispo District Attorney and the San Luis Obispo Police Department attached above as to what Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has done with this $5,200.00 of my principal paid towards my SBA loan in 2007? This principal paid does not show up in the SBA Form 1149 prepared by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on August 29, 2011. The deferred payments claimed of $45,171.20 does not show up in SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT on August 29, 2011!
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust had the ability to properly amortize the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan in 2007 with the Forbearance Agreement. This could have been done by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust taking the June 23, 2007 (Payment Notice) showing a Loan Balance of $420,024.30 plus the Previous Due of $52,749.75 added together totaling $472,774.05 and then subtracting the $22,274.46 bring a balance down to $450,499.59 and then subtracting the $5,200.00 of principal not accounted for by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust bringing the proper principal owed down to $445,299.59 with a August 1, 2007 monthly payment of $3,880.20 instead of the $4,121.06 charged against SBA Form 147 Note signed on October 6, 2003!
In 2007 Extra Principal Paid was $2,236.82. The SBA loan should have been re amortized in 2007 and 2008 under terms per SBA Form 147 Note.
In 2008 Extra Principal Paid was $631.52. The SBA loan should have been re amortized in 2009 under terms per SBA Form 147 Note.
In 2009 Extra Principal Paid was $473.64. The SBA loan should have been re amortized in 2010 under terms per SBA Form 147 Note.
Loan Summary Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
|
Principal: |
$445299.59 |
|
Interest Rate: |
6% |
|
Loan Term: |
171 months |
|
Number of Payments: |
171 |
|
Monthly Payment: |
$3,880.20 |
|
Total Principal Paid: |
$445,299.59 |
|
Total Interest Paid: |
$218,214.93 |
|
Total Paid: |
$663,514.52 |
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust online accounting as of November 20, 2011 showing a Principal Balance of $390,996.91 instead of the Proof of Claim presented to Judge Robin L. Riblet. The Principal balance is not $400,962.89 claimed to Judge Robin J. Riblet.
|
11/4/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
10/11/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
9/16/2011 |
|
$206.05 |
|
$390,996.91 |
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, what has Santa Barbara Bank & Trust done with the $7,172.57 of extra principal paid in my SBA loan since July 6, 2007 as talked about in the June 29, 2011 email from Diana Jessup Lee? The falsified Proof of Claim to the United States Bankruptcy Court on 10/28/2001 now claims a principal balance of $400,962.89 instead of the September 23, 2011 (Payment Notice) balance of $390,996.91 or the November 20, 2011 online balance! Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Why would Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Falsify Bank Accounting to the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Robin J. Riblet dated 10/28/11?
Diana Jessup Lee in her May 19, 2011 letter has provided evidence showing Santa Barbara Bank & Trust accounting records per payment notices! This same Santa Barbara Bank & Trust accounting is seen openly in the September 23, 2011 (payment notice)! The June 23, 2007 Payment Notice by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is undisputed! Why has Santa Barbara Bank & Trust charged two monthly payments of $4,121.06 for the October and November 2011 payments against SBA Form 147 Note?
Please again read the email below on August 1, 2011 to Robert Forouzandeh
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, This is again a Written Demand Letter of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to Rescind the Fraudulent NOD filed on May 19, 2011 on the Oceano Nursery property and the Pismo Beach Property within one week of November 18, 2011! Please let the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors George Leis, Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb, Richard A. Nightingale, John R. Mackall, Mark K. Olson, D. Vernon Horton, William R. Loomis, Edward E. Birch, Kathy J. Odell, Clayton C. Larson, Gordon J. Wahlgren and Mary Mascolo; Make this decision after reviewing the documents attached and your most recent communication on November 23, 2011!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC California State Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris
California Department of Justice
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, Ca 94244-2550
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet---Exhibit # 22
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 10:22 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Richard Rossi; sanschromo@yahoo.com; kgrant@silcom.com; Diana Lee
Subject: FW: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
Mr. Bookout:
Since you have retained legal counsel, I have stated to you on more than three occasions now, any questions, comments or concerns pertaining to your SBBT loan should be directed through your attorneys only.
With that being said, I did notice one new question that you have posed in your email below which does not pertain to any legal matters and I will proceed to answer it at this time and CC your attorneys on this email so that it is not construed as an ex parte communication.
You ask: "How did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust come up with a principal balance owed of $400,962.89..." In doing so, you post what appears to be a cut and paste excerpt from SBBT's website which shows a principal balance of $390,996.91 for the loan.
Our response is as follows: The $390,996.91 was calculated using the fixed interest rate of 6% set forth in the Forbearance Agreement. Due to your default of the Forbearance Agreement, the Forbearance Agreement was rescinded (as permitted by its terms) and the principal amount of the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized going back to the date of the Forbearance Agreement using the interest rate of Prime + 2% (as required in your original loan) for the time period between the date of the Forbearance Agreement and the date of the Proof of Claim with the loan being re-amortized on a yearly basis per SBA loan rules. The Prime Rate during that period varied between 3.25%-8.25% and thus the interest rate for your loan during that period of time varied between 5.25%-10.25%. Since the interest rate was higher than the fixed 6% rate for much of this period, when the loan was re-calculated and re-amortized under the original loan terms, your principal amount increased to $400,962.89 due to the higher interest rate and the fact that you failed to make any payments for a large portion of that period of time. The $390,996.91 balance appears on SBBT's online account access for your loan because that system has not been updated to rescind the terms of the Forbearance Agreement and has accordingly not re-calculated or re-amortized your loan based on the original loan terms.
I hope this answers your question. Again, please direct any future questions, comments or concerns through your attorneys only.
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 4:44 PM
To: Diana Lee
Cc: lol@rsmediate.com; 'LeSieur, Debbie'; 'Karen Grant'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
Diana Jessup Lee State Bar # 155191
Diana Jessup Lee,
As you are my designated person; at Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to ask banking questions of. Can you explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is charging my SBA loan $4,121.06 per month as seen online?
How did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust come up with a principal balance owed of $400,962.89 in their Proof of Claim for Judge Robin L. Riblet dated October 28, 2011?
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC California State Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris
California Department of Justice
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, Ca 94244-2550
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet---Exhibit # 22
Account Activity
|
Your Online Banking session will expire in 978 seconds. Continue Banking Online | Logout Signing out... The pop-up window used to extend your session was blocked.
|
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 6:59 AM
To: 'Robert Forouzandeh'
Cc: 'Chris Gautschi'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Diana Lee'; 'rmiller@newtimesslo.com'; 'crigley@newtimesslo.com'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'Koznek, Jeff'; 'danhil@charter.net'; 'ajsantana@co.slo.ca.us'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Thomas Cregger'; 'Karen Grant'; 'Pamela Brinks'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Fraud and Breach of Contract SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009
November 21, 2011
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors George Leis, Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb, Richard A. Nightingale, John R. Mackall, Mark K. Olson, D. Vernon Horton, William R. Loomis, Edward E. Birch, Kathy J. Odell, Clayton C. Larson, Gordon J. Wahlgren and Mary Mascolo;
Robert Forouzandeh State Bar # 247177
Diana Jessup Lee State Bar # 155191
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee,
Thank you, for Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts position on the May 19, 2011 NOD filed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Your Statement on November 18, 2011 is taken as the official statement by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Attorneys, per the Fraud and Breach of Contract committed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust since 2003!
“With that being said, as I have done on countless occasions in the past, I deny each and every one of the false allegations that you have set forth in your email below. There is nothing deficient about the May 19, 2011 NOD. Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will not rescind it. We have reviewed all of the information pertaining to this NOD and it is valid.”
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, This is again a Written Demand Letter of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to Rescind the Fraudulent NOD filed on May 19, 2011 on the Oceano Nursery property and the Pismo Beach Property within one week of November 18, 2011! Please let the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors George Leis, Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb, Richard A. Nightingale, John R. Mackall, Mark K. Olson, D. Vernon Horton, William R. Loomis, Edward E. Birch, Kathy J. Odell, Clayton C. Larson, Gordon J. Wahlgren and Mary Mascolo; make this decision after reviewing the documents attached!
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Please pay attention to the articles and comments below by Barry Cappello
“History shows that whenever the economy is hurting, there are always a percentage of lenders who behave badly and literally drive a borrower into default.”
Cappello cautions, “Unless lenders are willing to work with their commercial borrowers, they may be faced with unmanageable REO portfolios as well as protracted multi-million-dollar lender liability litigation. Commercial borrowers will fight to keep ownership of their property. If there are violations of due process in the foreclosure procedure or illegal banking practices, you can be sure commercial borrowers will seek legal redress.”
Judge Robin L. Riblet, commented at the hearing on November 18, 2011 about the Inverse Condemnation per the County and Rail Road claim. Please note that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is responsible for any and all Judgments and Liens per the SBBT requirement in the Deed of Trust to Fight Inverse Condemnation. This is again backed up in the 2007 forbearance and workout agreement presented to Judge Robin L. Riblet, by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. A discussion was held outside of the court room with Union Pacific Rail Road and Karen L. Grant on this issue.
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Attached above are 42 documents showing Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2003! Please pay close attention to the letters from Diana Jessup Lee on May 6, 2011 and May 19, 2011. Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is not owed deferred payments as stated May 6, 2011! Please review the SBBT letter attached September 30, 2008!
In the Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts Proof of claim to the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Robin L. Riblet on October 28, 2011; Please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is claiming $55,137.18 dollars from the Oceano Nursery SBA loan, that is not owed Santa Barbara Bank & Trust? How can this be legal in California Banking? This in itself makes the May 19, 2011 NOD Fraudulent! This falsified amount owed has had an impact on the November 18, 2011 hearing in front of Judge Robin L. Riblet.
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust claims on 11/28/2011 that they are owed a principal balance of $400,962.89. In the SBA form 1149 provided by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on August 29, 2011 to the U.S. Small Business Administration. SBBT states the Principal Balance was $390,996.91! Why is Santa Barbara Bank & Trust now claiming they are owed an additional $9,965.98 to Judge Robin L. Riblet? Please explain this to myself and those attached above along with Judge Robin L. Riblet!
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust claims on 11/28/2011 that they are owed $45,171.20 in deferred and defaulted payments past due! Please explain as to how Santa Barbara Bank & Trust can claim this amount, when Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on September 30, 2008 informed the SBA. “In addition interest has been paid current and the loan is fully secured with real estate.” ???? Please explain this to myself and those attached above along with Judge Robin L. Riblet!
Mr. Robert Forouzandeh, Please pay attention to your August 1, 2011 and August 2, 2011 emails below! Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is not owed $45,171.20 as claimed in the May 19, 2011 NOD! “The July 27, 2011 statement sent from Santa Barbara Bank and Trust does not include the amounts owed by you for the deferred payments under the Forbearance Agreement. When you breached the Forbearance Agreement by going into default on your loan, pursuant to contract, the deferred payments were accelerated and due in full immediately.”
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on August 29, 2003 obtained an SBA authorization for the Oceano Nursery SBA loan as seen and signed above by SBBT on August 29, 2003. The October 6, 2003 signed Loan Agreement shows this August 29, 2003 SBA Authorization. The August 27, 2003 Loan Committee Presentation Report shows the purpose of the Oceano Nursery SBA August 29, 2003 loan Authorization just prior to the contract between the SBA and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust. Explain the Fraud that has been committed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in changing the SBA loan Authorization on October 1, 2003 in what is called a collateral Modification attached? Santa Barbara Bank & Trust does not have a legal right to be in the Second Position on the 470 Price Street property with this Fraud! This issue should be investigated by the California State Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris.
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has a second on the Pismo Beach Dive Shop and the Pismo Beach Surf Shop property at 470 Price Street? Notice the Fraud committed on 10/1/03 in the original August 29, 2003 SBA Loan Authorization attached above! Please explain this to myself and those attached!
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust claims in the May 19, 2011 NOD and the Loan amortization schedule prepared by SBBT on May 5, 2011; that on July 6, 2007 SBBT was owed $465,195.50 after paying $22,274.46! Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Please explain as to why in the June 23, 2007 Payment Notice that my total debt was $472,774.05 and in the May 5, 2011 amortization schedule prepared by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust this debt is raised up to $487469.96? What Bank records has Santa Barbara Bank & Trust used to show this undocumented difference of $14,695.91 claimed owed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust? Please make these Santa Barbara Bank & Trust records used public if they are different then the SBBT records attached above! This issue should be investigated by the California State Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris.
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Please explain as to why the July 6, 2007 payment of $22,274.46 was not credited to any Principal as seen in the May 5, 2011 amortization schedule? Please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has stolen $5,200.00 in the 2007 forbearance agreement principal? Notice the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Loan Payment History attached above showing the $22,274.46 five payments going to interest only and none to principal! What has Santa Barbara Bank & Trust done with my $5,200.00 in principal not applied to my Oceano Nursery SBA Loan in the 2007 forbearance agreement? This statement on June 19, 2011 by Diana Jessup Lee is unacceptable and false! “4. Your July 2007 payment of $22,274.46 was used "to pay the monthly principal and interest payments owing on Note for the earliest five monthly past due payments (May, 2006, June, 2006, July, 2006, August, 2006 and September, 2006)" exactly as stated in the Forbearance Agreement (emphasis added). This has been explained to you repeatedly. See my May 19, 2011 letter as well as the charts enclosed with my May 6, 2011 letter. I do not intend to continue repeating myself, so please do not keep asking this same question.”
Attached is the August 29, 2011 Lenders Transcript of Account showing only interest payments from 7/6/07—9/2/08 against the 2007 Forbearance Agreement (emphasis added). No Principal was paid from May 2006 to September 2006! Attached is the May 19, 2011 letter from Diana Jessup Lee per her June 29, 2011 email attached!
Attached is a July 16, 2008 OCC letter showing that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, claims that the $22,274.46 is applied to Principal and Interest. Why would Santa Barbara Bank & Trust misapply this principal paid SBBT, from my Oceano Nursery SBA loan against the OCC‘s July 16, 2008 letter. Why would Santa Barbara Bank & Trust charge $1,953.45 in attorney fees as seen in this OCC letter from 6/30-9/30/2007 against the forbearance agreement?
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Please explain the letter attached that was written by Diana Jessup Lee on May 19, 2011 claiming that on July 6, 2007 $487,469.96 was owed on the Oceano Nursery SBA loan before the five payments of $22,274.46 with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust just subtracting, interest bringing this loan down to $465,195.50 and stealing $5,200.00 of principal from Bill Bookout and Oceano Nursery? Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, again I am asking Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to cancel the May 19, 2011 NOD filed on the Oceano Nursery property and the 470 Price Street property!
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, attached are a few emails from both of you claiming that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust paid principal on the $22,274.46 for the five payments per the forbearance agreement! Please explain to myself, the District Attorney and the San Luis Obispo Police Department attached above as to what Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has done with this $5,200.00 of my principal paid towards my SBA loan in 2007? This principal paid does not show up in the SBA Form 1149 prepared by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on August 29, 2011. The deferred payments claimed of $45,171.20 does not show up in SBA Form 1149 prepared by SBBT on August 29, 2011!
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust had the ability to properly amortize the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan in 2007 with the Forbearance Agreement. This could have been done by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust taking the June 23, 2007 (Payment Notice) showing a Loan Balance of $420,024.30 plus the Previous Due of $52,749.75 added together totaling $472,774.05 and then subtracting the $22,274.46 bring a balance down to $450,499.59 and then subtracting the $5,200.00 of principal not accounted for by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust bringing the proper principal owed down to $445,299.59 with a August 1, 2007 monthly payment of $3,880.20 instead of the $4,121.06 charged against SBA Form 147 Note!
In 2007 Extra Principal Paid was $2,236.82. The SBA loan should have been re amortized in 2007 and 2008 under terms per SBA Form 147 Note.
In 2008 Extra Principal Paid was $631.52. The SBA loan should have been re amortized in 2009 under terms per SBA Form 147 Note.
In 2009 Extra Principal Paid was $473.64. The SBA loan should have been re amortized in 2010 under terms per SBA Form 147 Note.
Loan Summary Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
|
Principal: |
$445299.59 |
|
Interest Rate: |
6% |
|
Loan Term: |
171 months |
|
Number of Payments: |
171 |
|
Monthly Payment: |
$3,880.20 |
|
Total Principal Paid: |
$445,299.59 |
|
Total Interest Paid: |
$218,214.93 |
|
Total Paid: |
$663,514.52 |
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust online accounting as of November 20, 2011 showing a Principal Balance of $390,996.91 instead of the Proof of Claim presented to Judge Robin L. Riblet. The Principal balance is not $400,962.89 claimed to Judge Robin J. Riblet.
|
11/4/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
10/11/2011 |
|
|
$4,121.06 |
$390,996.91 |
|
|
9/16/2011 |
|
$206.05 |
|
$390,996.91 |
Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, what has Santa Barbara Bank & Trust done with the $7,172.57 of extra principal paid in my SBA loan since July 6, 2007 as talked about in the June 29, 2011 email from Diana Jessup Lee? The falsified Proof of Claim to the United States Bankruptcy Court on 10/28/2001 now claims a principal balance of $400,962.89 instead of the September 23, 2011 (Payment Notice) balance of $390,996.91 or the November 20, 2011 online balance! Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee, Why would Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Falsify Bank Accounting to the United States Bankruptcy Court Judge Robin J. Riblet dated 10/28/11?
Diana Jessup Lee in her May 19, 2011 letter has provided evidence showing Santa Barbara Bank & Trust accounting records per payment notices! This same Santa Barbara Bank & Trust accounting is seen openly in the September 23, 2011 (payment notice)! The June 23, 2007 Payment Notice by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is undisputed! Why has Santa Barbara Bank & Trust charged two monthly payments of $4,121.06 for the October and November 2011 payments against SBA Form 147 Note?
Again, this is a written demand of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust to Rescind the Fraudulent NOD filed on May 19, 2011 on the Oceano Nursery property and the Pismo Beach Property within one week of November 18, 2011! With the documents attached, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Board of Directors; have full knowledge of the Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts actions since 2003!
Please again read the email below on August 1, 2011 to Robert Forouzandeh!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC California State Attorney General, Kamala D. Harris
California Department of Justice
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, Ca 94244-2550
CC Judge Robin L. Riblet---Exhibit # 22
CC Barry A. Cappello Lender Liability
CC Karen L. Grant State Bar # 122084
CC Chris Gautschi [sanschromo@yahoo.com]
CC San Luis Obispo District Attorney
CC San Luis Obispo Police Department Case # 111108022
CC Adam D. Kaplan Office of Inspector General OIG complaint ID # 20110484
CC Thomas Cregger –Union Pacific Rail Road
Day of Reckoning Has Arrived For Commercial Real Estate Lenders
Category : Lender Liability,News
For Immediate Release: October 11, 2011
Day of Reckoning Has Arrived For Commercial Real Estate Lenders
SANTA BARBARA, CALIF.–A collapse of the commercial real estate sector will be catastrophic to financial institutions and the economy so lenders must act now to avoid such a financial debacle, says A. Barry Cappello, nationally renowned attorney specializing in lender liability law.
“With the exception of prime properties in large cities such as Los Angeles and New York, commercial real estate has been an unmitigated disaster,” says Cappello, managing partner in the Santa Barbara, Calif.-based Cappello & Noël and author of Lender Liability. “TARP helped banks survive the housing mortgage meltdown. That money won’t be there when commercial loans start to fall apart, which we’re already seeing.”
Unlike residential housing borrowers, commercial borrowers can have tens of millions of dollars tied up in a single property. “Banks are beginning to foreclose on commercial properties, but that is the absolutely wrong way out,” says Cappello.
Cappello suggests that instead of foreclosing, lenders should renegotiate interest rates and principal or even arrange short sales with borrowers. “These are unique times and they call for creative action,” says Cappello. “Banks need to be flexible. This is especially true when lender liability is an issue. When banks become nervous, and we are in very nervous times, some lenders overreach and breach their loan agreements with their borrowers–whether the borrowers are behind in their loan payments or not. History shows that whenever the economy is hurting, there are always a percentage of lenders who behave badly and literally drive a borrower into default.”
Cappello cautions, “Unless lenders are willing to work with their commercial borrowers, they may be faced with unmanageable REO portfolios as well as protracted multi-million-dollar lender liability litigation. Commercial borrowers will fight to keep ownership of their property. If there are violations of due process in the foreclosure procedure or illegal banking practices, you can be sure commercial borrowers will seek legal redress.”
Do not expect a commercial real estate disaster to drag on like the housing fiasco. “Banks can’t count on another government bailout. They’re on their own when it comes to commercial loans,” says Cappello. “It’s in their best interest to work out financing solutions with their commercial borrowers. If they don’t, some banks simply won’t survive and they will drag the economy down with them.”
###
Lender Liability in Looming Commercial Lending Crisis – FindLaw
Category : News
2011-10-03
By Editorial Staff of FindLaw
SANTA BARBARA, CALIF. — Business borrowers are beginning to feel the ripple effects of the financial crisis as lenders tighten commercial lending in a cautionary attempt to stop further erosion of capital and assets, says lender liability expert A. Barry Cappello, managing partner with the Santa Barbara law firm of Cappello & Noel, LLP. He says the coming commercial credit crunch will be hard felt–especially by small businesses and borrowers in certain industries.
Cappello, author of Lender Liability (Juris Publishing) and nationally recognized as the pioneer in lender liability law, says the lending contraction in the commercial sector will be more severe than that which occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s when the savings and loan meltdown and lender misconduct resulted in multi-million dollar jury verdicts and settlements for business borrowers.
“National lenders are writing off hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars in subprime and ARM loans,” explains Cappello.” They are bloodied by their ill-conceived collateralized debt obligation forays. They are now turning to their commercial portfolio to see where they can cut to stop new bleeding. Lenders are in write-down mode.”
Cappello says commercial borrowers should not feel relief on news that banks are swallowing up investment banks. “These banks are getting in over their head and the buyouts just mean less available funds for borrowers,” cautions Cappello.
Credit is already tight in the transportation, housing and manufacturing sectors, notes Cappello. “Even if your business is healthy, if you’re in one of these sectors, you can be sure your lender is reviewing your file and deciding whether it wants to continue the relationship. I’m getting calls to my office from business borrowers whose commercial lending relationship is souring,” he says.
Cappello advises business borrowers to turn to regional banks for their borrowing needs and avoid national lenders altogether. “Regional banks, for the most part, didn’t gamble with their home loans so financially they are in better shape. They aren’t jeopardizing their viability by buying financially troubled investment banks,” says Cappello. “On the other hand, national lenders are hunkering down. They are less likely to extend new credit. Their primary concern now is to wipe their losses from the books so they can show their shareholders a profit in the next year or two.”
Cappello represents business borrowers who feel their lenders have overstepped their legal authority. “When a bank decides it wants to stop lending to certain types of businesses that’s when lender liability usually occurs,” says Cappello. “Lenders are tempted to arbitrarily change loan terms with current customers, grab collateral and make unrealistic payment demands. There are laws that forbid them to do that.”
Besides reading the fine print of your loan agreement and getting every verbal promise in writing, Cappello suggests, “Avoid using personal guarantees to secure a business loan. If you must use a personal guarantee, require language in the loan documents that state the bank has to go against business collateral first. Some lenders also seek to collaterize intellectual property. I can’t think of any bank loan that would be worth the risk of losing your rights to the intellectual property that built your business.”
Cappello warns businesses to be cautious if their lender is bought out by another bank. “A lending relationship is a personal relationship,” notes Cappello. “If your loan officer is suddenly replaced by a new loan officer, you lose an important ally who knew your business and could stand up for you.”
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2011 10:04 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout,
The July 27, 2011 statement sent from Santa Barbara Bank and Trust does not include the amounts owed by you for the deferred payments under the Forbearance Agreement. When you breached the Forbearance Agreement by going into default on your loan, pursuant to contract, the deferred payments were accelerated and due in full immediately. Accordingly, they were added to the notice of default amount. Nonetheless, as a token of good faith, if you pay the amount set forth on the July 27, 2011 statement ($102,859.01), Santa Barbara Bank and Trust will accept this as a complete cure of your default on your loan which is now in its 21st month.
All of the other questions you refer to in your email were fully and completely answered in the various emails from Ms. Lee to you that I identified in my August 1, 2011 email to you. Please go back and review them in depth and you will find answers to all of your questions, including how the May Notice of Default was calculated.
Thank you.
Robert
From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 5:47 PM
To: Robert Forouzandeh
Cc: sandiego@sba.gov; 'Marianne Partridge -'; 'Nick Welsh -'; 'Michelle Drown -'; 'Matt Kettmann -'; dkatich@newspress.com; wmccaw@newspress.com; avw@newspress.com; rmiller@newtimesslo.com; aschwellenbach@newtimesslo.com; velie@calcoastnews.com; assignmentdesk@keyt.com; Customer.Assistance@occ.treas.gov; Carlos.Mendoza@sba.gov; sbcountyda@co.santa-barbara.ca.us; ombudsman@fdic.gov; sandiego@sba.gov; Lcannon@dfi.ca.gov; legal@fdic.gov; barney@independent.com; dporter@dfi.ca.gov; lol@rsmediate.com; begelko@sfchronicle.com
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
August 1, 2011
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465 – Case # 770567
Robert Forouzandeh,
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Mr. Robert Forouzandeh,
RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts, Fraud and Breach of Contract since July 2007.
1) Please see that the questions asked of Mr. Mark K. Olson and Mr. Nightingale on June 3, 2011 as seen below are answered!
2) Please see that the questions below asked of Diana Jessup Lee on June 2, 2011 are answered!
3) Please see that the questions asked of Diana Jessup Lee on June 27, 2011 as seen below are answered!
4) Please see that the questions asked of Diana Jessup Lee on July 4, 2011 as seen below are answered!
5) Please see that the questions asked of Diana Jessup Lee on July 16, 2011 as seen below are answered!
6) Please see that the questions asked of Diana Jessup Lee on July 20, 2011 as seen below are answered!
Mr. Forouzandeh, Please explain why the NOD filed May 19, 2011 for $111,024.71 is a larger amount then the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust July 24, 2011 payment notice? Please pay close attention to the Fidelity National Title Company email below dated May 26, 2011 along with the SBBT payment notice attached! You will notice that $78,300.14 divided by 19 is $4,121.06 per month! Why is Santa Barbara Bank & Trust still billing this amount with the SBBT Fraud seen in Diana Lee’s May 19, 2011 letter attached?
Robert Forouzandeh, Please explain how you had come up with the $45,171.20 again as this is not seen in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust payment notice and is not mentioned in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465 – Case # 770567 June 30, 2011 findings?
Please see that Christine Sontag; the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust and Pacific Capital Bancorp Board of Directors---George Leis, Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb, Richard A. Nightingale, John R. Mackall, Mark K. Olson, D. Vernon Horton, William R. Loomis, Edward E. Birch, Kathy J. Odell, Clayton C. Larson, Gordon J. Wahlgren and Mary Mascolo; -------Are fully aware of your statements in your email August 1, 2011!
Sincerely
Bill Bookout
CC Sharon Gilstrap and John Walsh
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465
1301 McKinney Street, Suite 3450
Houston, Texas 77010-9050
Fax # 713-336-4301
CC U.S. Small Business Administration
Attorney General Kamala D. Harris
California Department of Justice
P. O. Box 944255
Sacramento, Ca 94244-2550
·
FDIC Consumer Response Center
1100 Walnut Street, Box #11
Kansas City, MO 64106
From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2011 4:45 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Diana Lee
Subject: RE: Bookout/PCB Mediation per thier Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007
Mr. Bookout,
I disagree with your assertion that Ms. Lee has been "unable to answer" your questions. Ms. Lee has answered all of your questions repeatedly. I would refer you to Ms. Lee's correspondences to you dated: May 6, May 26, May 31, June 28, July 5 and July 15, 2011 (among others), in which Ms. Lee has answered each and every one of your questions repeatedly.
If you have any new information or any new questions, please provide those to me and I will respond accordingly.
Thank you.
Robert B. Forouzandeh
Attorney at Law
Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP
1421 State Street, Suite B
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Tel: 805-966-2440
Fax: 805-966-3320
E-mail: rforouzandeh@rppmh.com
Website: www.reickerpfau.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete this e-mail.
Fiduciary breach for lenders is alive and well
Category : Lender Liability
By A. Barry Cappello
Note: This article appe