Transfer of a Home With an Allegedly Fraudulent Deed

[Ted1]

My question involves criminal law for the state of: California.

I have been charged with PC-115 & PC-470 alleging I recorded a "Quit Claim Deed" the document purports to transfer from my name to my trust. I bought the home in 1982. They say the home was foreclosed on May 1, 2014. The County records show that the foreclosure was rescinded on or about June 2, 2014, and on June 13, 2014 a "Quit Claim Deed" was recorded from my name to my trust. I am not charged with recording the documents that caused the foreclosure sale to be rescinded, records show that was a "substitution of trustee" & "recession of sale"

I was charged with PC-115 on February 11, 2015 and have been fighting, they added PC-470 after prelim, when I refused to take a "deal" Yes I owned the home for 32 years and was fighting foreclosure. I was living in the home until arrest on February 11, 2015. When i got out of jail i found the guy claiming he bought my home at foreclosure sale had removed all of my belongings of 32 years from my home, and smashed and trashed everything into to storage containers and shipped them 60 miles away out of County and refused to tell me where. I don't think the charges can be a crime (PC-115) in this case and this is nothing but a malicious prosecution.

My home was in my name at the time. I was living in the home. No criminal intent. Please help.

[Mr. Knowitall]

They say the home was foreclosed on May 1, 2014. The County records show that the foreclosure was rescinded on or about June 2, 2014,

It appears that "they" are saying the same thing as you -- that a foreclosure occurred on May 1, 2014.

...and on June 13, 2014 a "Quit Claim Deed" was recorded from my name to my trust.

After the foreclosure you filed a quit claim deed that conveyed the property from you to your own revocable living trust, with no other grantor described on the deed?

I am not charged with recording the documents that caused the foreclosure sale to be rescinded, records show that was a "substitution of trustee" & "recession of sale"

You're being charged with filing a false document. We have to take you at your word that the false document is the quit claim deed that you filed, and that you're not being charged with apparently false filings that made it appear that the foreclosure sale was rescinded. If those were not filed by you, who filed them and why, and how did you know that they had been filed in advance of your filing the quit claim deed?

I was charged with PC-115 on February 11, 2015 and have been fighting, they added PC-470 after prelim, when I refused to take a "deal"

They added a charge of forgery -- which means that you're alleged to have forged information on at least one document. That wouldn't be the quit claim deed which is essentially from you to you -- so is that charge filed over the false rescission of foreclosure documents?

When i got out of jail i found the guy claiming he bought my home at foreclosure sale had removed all of my belongings of 32 years from my home, and smashed and trashed everything into to storage containers....

Did you get out of jail after the redemption period ended?

My home was in my name at the time.

But from what you're telling us, it was only in your name because somebody filed fraudulent documents purporting to rescind the foreclosure sale.

If the false document charge relates only to the quit claim deed, then with three elements to the offense:

1. The defendant provided a document for filing, recording or registration with a public office;
2. The defendant knew that the document was false or a forgery at the time of filing; and
3. The document was one that, if genuine, could be legally filed.

It would appear that your defense would be that as a quit claim deed can convey only that interest that you actually had in the property, whether that interest was ownership in fee simple absolute, or ownership of nothing at all, it's not a false document. But it sounds like there's more to the story, and that this is a discussion you need to have with your lawyer. That actually may work as a defense, but I'm not going spend time trying to research what promises to be an obscure issue (that's how your lawyer earns his money), and there may be facts that would render that sort of defense (even if supported by case law) unviable.