Trying To Unwind Or Undo A Deed Ripoff? Pleading Inconsistent Facts In Lawsuit May Be Necessary

In a recent ruling addressing various issues raised in a lawsuit filed by apparent victims of an alleged deed ripoff, a California appeals court said, among other things, that there was nothing disqualifying, as one Defendant asserted, for the Plaintiffs to plead alternative facts in an attempt to undo both the deed ripoff itself, and the mortgage that was placed on the subject properties subsequent thereto.

This appeal involved a reversal of a trial court's judgment of dismissal after sustaining one defendant's demurrer. The ruling, although unpublished, may nevertheless be instructive for those in the legal profession looking to unwind or undo a wide variety of deed ripoffs, particularly, as in this case, where the attorney representing one of the defendants attempts to trip up his/her adversary on a "pleading technicality."

In addressing multiple questions surrounding an alleged deed ripoff, the ruling may contain some valuable insight to anyone (primarily those in the legal profession or real estate business) seeking a starting point in commencing the arduous process of undoing or unwinding a deed ripoff (ie. whether it be through forged deeds & other land documents, forged or improper use of powers of attorney, sale leaseback foreclosure rescue scams, or the otherwise duping of a property owner into signing over deeds and other land documents), including the voiding of any mortgage or other encumbrance placed on the property simultaneously with, or subsequent to, the deed ripoff.

For the longer version of this post, and the link to the court ruling, see Void vs. Voidable Deeds - Actions to Undo A Deed Scam; OK To Plead Inconsistent Facts - No Need To "Gamble", Says California Appeals Court.