Every week: one real lawsuit filed over a California foreclosure, taken apart.
The File
Case: Matthew Ajiake v. Persevere Lending, LLC and The Foreclosure Company, Inc.
Court: Alameda County Superior Court
Filed: August 10, 2026. The borrower filed in pro per.
Property: Single-family, Fremont. APN 501-0957-058-00
Loan: A junior lien. $250,000, recorded April 2024, matured May 1, 2025.
Claims: Nine. Cancellation of the trustee’s deed, quiet title, fraud, unfair business practices, Homeowner Bill of Rights, slander of title, emotional distress, unjust enrichment, and wrongful foreclosure.
Relief sought: Rescission of the sale, cancellation of the trustee’s deed, restoration of title, an order enforcing a pending sale escrow, restitution of an $18,500 payment, compensatory damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, fees and costs.
Exhibits attached to the complaint: None.
The Timeline
4/12/2024. A $250,000 deed of trust is recorded against the property.
5/5/2025. The Notice of Default records. It states the note matured May 1, 2025 and the default amount is $29,403.32 as of April 30, 2025. It also states the deed of trust “is not a first loan and is not subject to California Civil Code Section 2923.5 or 2923.55.”
12/16/2025. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale records. It sets the sale for January 6, 2026 and states $316,344.90 due.
12/30/2025. The borrower alleges he filed Chapter 13 to stop the January sale.
6/30/2026. The borrower alleges no bankruptcy stay was in place after this date.
7/16/2026. The borrower alleges he signed a purchase agreement with a buyer.
7/28/2026. The borrower alleges the buyer extended its approval period to August 4.
8/3/2026. The borrower alleges the bankruptcy court held a status conference he did not attend. He quotes the judge saying “I have no power to enjoin the sale,” and that the borrower had not “competently asked for a TRO.”
8/4/2026. The borrower alleges escrow sent a payoff demand request at 10:45 a.m. At noon the foreclosure trustee sold the property to an outside party for $355,000.
8/10/2026. The borrower filed this complaint in pro per.
The Money
$250,000. The deed of trust states this as the original principal.
$29,403.32. The Notice of Default states this as the default amount as of April 30, 2025.
$316,344.90. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale states this as the amount due to satisfy the obligation, plus estimated costs, expenses, fees and advances.
$355,000.00. The trustee’s published sale-result page states this as the final bid, and states the property sold to an outside party.
About $1,500,000. The complaint alleges this is the fair market value of the property.
About $1.16 million. The complaint alleges this is the equity the borrower had in the property.
$18,500. The complaint alleges the borrower paid this on September 3, 2025 to postpone a sale.
$494,000. The complaint alleges this is the payoff amount for a first mortgage.
$125,000. The complaint alleges this is the payoff amount for an IRS lien.
Claims 1 and 2. Cancellation of the Trustee’s Deed and Quiet Title (Civ. Code § 3412; Code Civ. Proc. § 760.010)
Both counts ask a court to cancel a trustee’s deed. The complaint gives no recording date and no instrument number for it.
What the Borrower alleges
The foreclosure trustee sold the property on August 4, 2026 at noon. He alleges a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale issued and recorded in Alameda County, that it is void or voidable because the sale was unlawful, and that it clouds his title. He asks the court to cancel it, restore title to him, and declare that the defendants have no interest in the property. He alleges he has owned the property since February 1992.
The complaint’s introduction states that the defendants “have either issued or claim to have issued” a Trustee’s Deed Upon Sale. Four later paragraphs state that it recorded. No paragraph gives a recording date or an instrument number.
What the record shows
The deed of trust recorded April 12, 2024 and names an individual as beneficiary and a title company as trustee. The Notice of Default recorded May 5, 2025. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded December 16, 2025 and set the sale for January 6, 2026.
The trustee’s published sale-result page for this file states the property sold on August 4, 2026 at 12:00 PM to an outside party, with a final bid of $355,000.00.
Claim 5. Homeowner Bill of Rights (Civ. Code §§ 2923.5, 2923.6, 2924.17, 2924.12)
The Homeowner Bill of Rights applies to a first lien. This deed of trust is a second, and the Notice of Default said so on its face when it recorded in May 2025.
What the statute requires
Section 2924.15 limits the borrower-contact, dual-tracking, single-point-of-contact and loss-mitigation sections to a first lien mortgage or deed of trust secured by owner-occupied residential real property with no more than four dwelling units.
The same section defines owner-occupied as the borrower’s principal residence securing a loan made for personal, family, or household purposes. A business-purpose loan sits outside those sections even on a property the borrower lives in.
Section 2923.5 applies only to servicers of seven or fewer California residential loans a year. Sections 2923.6, 2923.7 and 2924.9 do not apply to those servicers.
Section 2924.12 is the enforcement section, and it does not apply to a servicer of seven or fewer California residential loans a year. Those servicers answer under section 2924.19.
What he alleges
He alleges the defendants recorded the Notice of Default without contacting him, without assessing his finances, and without exploring alternatives, in violation of section 2923.5. He alleges they kept foreclosing while he pursued a payoff and a sale, in violation of section 2923.6. He alleges the recorded notices and a July 28, 2025 borrower’s statement were false, in violation of section 2924.17. He asks for damages under section 2924.12.
What the record shows
The Notice of Default that recorded May 5, 2025 states: “The subject Deed of Trust is not a first loan and is not subject to California Civil Code Section 2923.5 or 2923.55.”
Claim 9. Wrongful Foreclosure
The Borrower says the Notice of Default recorded before his loan came due. It recorded May 5, 2025, and it states the note matured May 1, 2025.
What he alleges
The default was manufactured. He says the lender stopped accepting payments in February 2025, refused to give payoff figures to his title company three times that year, and recorded the Notice of Default before his balloon payment came due.
He alleges dual tracking under section 2923.6, and says the lender foreclosed while his escrow was open and a payoff demand was in hand.
What the record shows
The Notice of Default recorded May 5, 2025, four days after the maturity date stated on its face.
Section 2923.6, the one code section this count cites, is limited by section 2924.15 to a first lien deed of trust.
The Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded December 16, 2025 and set the sale for January 6, 2026. The sale ran on August 4, 2026, seven months later.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8. Fraud, Unfair Business Practices, Slander of Title, Emotional Distress and Unjust Enrichment
All five counts repeat facts pleaded in the other counts.
What he alleges
Fraud: he alleges the lender’s attorney misrepresented his responsiveness to the bankruptcy court, and that the lender received the 10:45 a.m. payoff demand and concealed it from the foreclosure trustee.
Slander of title: he alleges the Notice of Default, the Notice of Trustee’s Sale, the trustee’s deed and a July 28, 2025 borrower’s statement of account were false when recorded.
The unfair business practices, emotional distress and unjust enrichment counts run on the same conduct, plus the $18,500 he says he paid in September 2025.
What the record shows
The Notice of Default recorded May 5, 2025. The Notice of Trustee’s Sale recorded December 16, 2025 and states $316,344.90 due.
The borrower’s statement of account he calls false is not a recorded document. The complaint gives no recording date and no instrument number for the trustee’s deed.
🔒 Paid below: the takeaway and three lessons for lenders.
