SBA PLP Loans

SBA Form 147 Note

Breach of Contract documents by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust PDF
California SBA Loan Bank Fraud!  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. 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Nees to 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?  Santa Barbara Bank & Trust does not have a legal right to be in the Second Position on the 470 Price Street property with this SBA Loan Fraud!

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Fraud and Breach of Contract going back to 2003 with the full knowledge of the California SBA.  The public can help by asking the questions below of the SBA known to the OIG and Grady Hedgespeth on October 1, 2011.  Please review the following PDF documents showing Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Fraud and Breach of Contract.
 
ODIC Environmental PDF  June 20, 2007  OIG Complaint #20110484  PDF

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust changing 2003 signed SBA Documents (SBA SBBT Fraud PDF) on the Oceano Nursery SBA Loan. 

Grady Hedgespeth, Asso. Administrator for Financial Assistance,SBA Fraud PDF

Public records request of the U. S. Small Business Administration with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Fraud in changing documents as seen in these two SBA Loan Analysis Presentationss PDF

Fresno SBA FOIA Request per Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Fraud & Breach of Contract.  Sacramento SBA FOIA Freedom of Information ACT PDF

Questions asked of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust per the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Amortization Documents


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!

 

Date

Description

Category

Debit

Credit

Balance

11/4/2011

EFF 11/03/2011

 

 

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

10/11/2011

Regular Payment

 

 

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

9/16/2011

Automatic

 

$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.

 

Date

Description

Category

Debit

Credit

Balance

11/4/2011

EFF 11/03/2011

 

 

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

10/11/2011

Regular Payment

 

 

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

9/16/2011

Automatic

 

$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.

 

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: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.
Click
here for information regarding pop-up blocking software, or copy and paste the following link into a new browser:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/web/sp2_popupblocker.mspx

 

SBA Term Loan

Account Name:

SBA Term Loan

Account #:

xxxxxx3501

Principal Balance:

$390,996.91

Interest Rate:

6%

Interest Accrued:

$36,106.57

Payment Due Date:

3/6/2010

Payment Due:

$4,121.06

Late Charges Due:

$6,919.46

Fees Due:

$0.00

Open Date:

10/10/2003

Original Loan Amount:

$450,000.00

Maturity Date:

10/6/2021

Interest Paid YTD:

$8,242.12

Interest Paid Last Year:

$0.00

 

 

 

 

 


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.

 

Date

Description

Category

Debit

Credit

Balance

11/4/2011

EFF 11/03/2011

 

 

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

10/11/2011

Regular Payment

 

 

$4,121.06

$390,996.91

9/16/2011

Automatic

 

$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 appeared in the Letters to the Editor column of the Los Angeles Daily Journal, Sept, 20, 2011

This letter responds to “Reality check: A bank’s liability is not that simple,” by Jill Switzer (Sept. 1). In cautioning the reader not to assume that bank liability for depositor claims is “a snap,” Switzer states that “[t]he only situation in which a bank is a fiduciary is when the bank acts as a fiduciary, e.g., its trust department. In all other situations, the relationship between a bank and its depositor is simply one of debtor-creditor, founded on a contract – the deposit agreement. Price v. Wells Fargo Bank (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 465.”

The citation to Price v. Wells Fargo, a lender case, suggests that a bank, as lender, can never be liable for fiduciary breach. As a litigator who has tried, settled, and written about lender liability cases for over three decades, I disagree with that suggestion.

Abundant case law supports imposing fiduciary liability against a lender in situations where the bank, as often occurs, acts as more than an arms’-length lender. Some examples are giving the borrower financial advice or related financial services, acting as agent of the borrower, exercising undue control over the borrower, or situations where the borrower clearly reposed trust and confidence in the lender. (See Rutherford v. Rideout Bank (1938) 11 Cal.2d 479 (confidence reposed in bank manager to provide business and financial advice); Credit Managers Ass’n. v. Superior Court (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 352 (bank controlled business activities of borrower through compelled use of consultant); Frydman & Co. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., 708 N.Y.S.2d 77 (N.Y.App.Div. 2000) (lender negotiated for borrower); Capital Bank v. MVB Inc., 644 So.2d 515 (Fla.Ct.App. 1994) (advising borrower to acquire defective assets from another of bank’s borrowers); Scott v. Dime Savings Bank, 866 F.Supp. 1073 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (advising borrower to invest borrowed funds with bank’s investment arm); McFate v. Bank of America (1932) 125 Cal.App.683 (bank acted as agent for mortgagor, mortgagee, and escrow holder for plaintiff in mortgagor-plaintiff exchange); see also, Tate v. Saratoga Sav. & Loan Ass’n. (1989) 216 Cal.App.3d 843 (bank as joint venturer is a fiduciary); see, generally, A. Barry Cappello, “Lender Liability” (Juris Publishing 4th Edition).)

A litigator is well advised to consider fiduciary breach in any case where the lender has engaged in self-dealing, used one borrower to cover another borrower’s debt, tricked the borrower, exploited confidential information, or failed to disclose material information. These are facts that might ground a credible claim for fiduciary breach under existing case law. While lender liability for breach of fiduciary duty is not “a snap,” it is alive and well as a potential option in the right case.


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: Karen Grant [mailto:kgrant@silcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 11:35 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: 'Robert Forouzandeh'; 'LeSieur, Debbie'; 'Levas, Vickie'; velie@calcoastnews.com; rmiller@newtimesslo.com; crigley@newtimesslo.com; glenn.harris@sba.gov; 'Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.)'; 'Richard Rossi'; 'Koznek, Jeff'; dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; ajsantana@co.slo.ca.us; danhil@charter.net; debra@rossilegal.com; sanschromo@yahoo.com; 'Pamela Brinks'
Subject: Re: File: 11-00126-5, 15899 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust SBA loan Fraud

Mr. Bookout:
As you are represented in your chapter 7 case by counsel I am unable to discuss this matter with you directly.  Please have your counsel contact me.
Karen L. Grant
Law Offices of Karen L. Grant
924 Anacapa Street, Suite 1M
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 962-4413
(805) 568-1641 fax
kgrant@silcom.com
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2011 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: File: 11-00126-5, 15899 Santa Barbara Bank & Trust SBA loan Fraud

November 16, 2011
 
Karen L. Grant
California State Bar # 122084
924 Anacapa Street, Ste 1M
Santa Barbara, Ca 93101
 
Dear Mrs. Karen L. Grant,
 
As you are counsel for Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, I am requesting of you to provide a breakdown copy; of the February 9, 2007 NOD filed by Pacific Capital Bank Trustee Sale No. 0702147B-DL for $47,811.13 by November 17, 2011.  Fidelity National Title has stated "You really need to consider contacting the banks counsel for that information."
 
Attached above is Santa Barbara Bank & Trust claim that they are owed $127,333.39 in a proof of claim dated 10/28/11!  Fidelity National Title has provided what Santa Barbara Bank and trust has claimed in the NOD filed on May 19, 2011 in deferred and defalted payments of $45,171.20.  Can you explain in the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust May 5, 2011 amortization schedule attached above as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust did not apply any principal to the five payments paid in 2007 of $22,274.46?
 
Mrs. Grant, can you provide Santa Barbara Bank & Trust documents showing how SBBT came up with $67,445.66 owed in payments due 5/6/06-7/6/07?  The Bankruptcy Court and the San Luis Obispo District Attorneys office will need this information.
 
Please explain as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has not properly amortized the Oceano Nursery SBA loan since the 2007 Forbearance Agreement with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust?
 
Mrs. Grant, Can you explain to the Bankruptcy Court and myself as to why Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in SBA Form 1149 attached above dated August 29, 2011 has showed a Principal Balance of $390,996.91 and in the Proof of Claim to the United States Bankruptcy Court has stated the principal balance is $400,962.89?
 
Mrs. Grant, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust on September 30, 2008 has told the SBA that all back interest had been paid back to Santa Barbara Bank & Trust.  Why did Santa Barbara Bank & Trust claim in the May 19, 2011 NOD that $45,171.20 is owed Santa Barbara Bank & Trust? Please show myself and the Bankruptcy Court proof of this claim!
 
Mrs. Grant, Attached are four emails from Santa Barbara Bank & Trust in regards to the May 19, 2011 NOD and the accounting by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust.  Please explain as to why the $22,274.46 was not applied to principal per the 2007 forbearance agreement and what Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has done with the overcharge of my monthly payments since the 2007 forbearance agreement?  Since filing Bankruptcy, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has again overcharged my monthly mortgare payments twice in an amount of $4,121.06!  Is this legal in California Banking Laws?
 
Mrs Grant, Attached is a May 19, 2011 letter from Santa Barbara Bank & Trust threatining a restraining order for asking questions of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust and then explaining Santa Barbara Bank & Trust accounting!  Please explain to the United States Bankruptcy Court and the San Luis Obispo District Attorney if this Accounting on May 19, 2011 by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is accurate?  Please provide the payment Notice showing the Bankruptcy Court that my SBA loan was $67,445.66 past due as of May 6, 2007?  You will notice a payment notice provied by SBBT.  Is this payment notice accurate on 6/23/06 as provided by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust?
 
Sincerely
 
Bill Bookout
 

CC Judge Robin L. Riblet---Exhibit # 22

CC Chris Gautschi [sanschromo@yahoo.com]

CC San Luis Obispo District Attorney

CC San Luis Obispo Police Department Case # 111108022

CC Glenn Harris Office of Inspector General OIG complaint ID # 20110484

CC Adam D. Kaplan Office of Inspector General OIG complaint ID # 20110484


Website Builder