SBA PLP Loans

SBA Amortization Emails

Attorney General Complaint showing Santa Barbara Bank & Trust Fraud since 2003! Peggy E. Gustafson, Inspector General for the SBA PDF 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts Emails, and communication in asking for SBBT Bank Accounting of the Oceano Nursery SBA PLP Loan # 664-196-4009.  Is this normal with all SBA PLP Loans.  On December 20, 2011 the U.S. Small Business Administration provided documents showing Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts Fraud per their October 28, 2011 (Proof of Claim) to Judge Robin L. Riblet.  SBA OCC June 3, 2008 letter PDF

May 12, 2008 request from Santa Barbara Bank & Trust asking for money in banking questions in direct disregard for the April 18, 2008 letter by Pacific Capital Bank to the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 770567 PDF.

The Publics Help Is Needed!


From: George C. Lazar [mailto:glazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Pacific Capital Bank

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

This email is In response to your various emails and with regard to certain pending matters. 

 

Request for Copy of Note:

 

See Attached.

 

Request for Information Regarding Application of Payments:

 

Upon your compliance with the deposit request (see below), the Bank will undertake to research the application of payments.  This will take some time.

 

Annual Financial Statement:

 

Under the loan documents, you are to provide an annual financial statement.  The form is attached.  Please transmit directly to Ms. Sheffield upon completion.

 

Tax Returns:

 

Under the loan documents, you are to provide copies of your tax returns.  Please transmit your 2006 and 2007 returns, complete with schedules and attachments, directly to Ms. Sheffield.

 

Deposit Required:

 

The requests you have made, and the delinquencies in the documentation, have resulted in the Bank incurring additional attorney's fees.  As a result, you are requested to forward to Pacific Capital Bank, c/o Ms. Sheffield, a check in the amount of $750.00 to cover anticipated attorney's fees incurred in responding to the requests for information.  Of course, this amount is only an estimate, and if the fees exceed the amount received, an additional deposit will be required.  Please forward the deposit as soon as possible so that the Bank can begin work on the research you have requested.

 

 

 

 

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
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: George C. Lazar [mailto:GLazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:31 AM
To: Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net
Subject: Your call of yesterday

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

This email is to confirm our discussion of yesterday.

 

First of all, you indicated that you were planning on filing a complaint against me with the State Bar of California and asked for my bar number.  I directed you to the website of the State Bar of California (calbar.org) which will provied you with all the information you need.

 

Second, you asked for an amortization schedule.  As I indicated in my email of last week, I will provide information on your agreement that you will communicate only with me, rather than sending emails to a number of persons at Pacific Capital Bank.  As you have not made that agreement, I do not feel that any further response is necessary.  I believe that the request that you communicate with me is reasonable and necessary, and we will insist on that condition.  (In the event that you do agree to this request, please let me know exactly what you mean by an "amortization schedule".)

 

Finally, as I indicated last week in an email message, I am out of the office.  I will be checking emails in the event of an emergency.  Otherwise, I will be back in the office on Monday, the 3rd, in the event there is anything further. 

 

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
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: George C. Lazar [mailto:GLazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:36 PM
To: pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net
Subject: Pacific Capital Bank

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

I received your voicemail message of this afternoon asking for a return call. I will not be returning your call, because you advised me last week that you felt you had the right to record any telephone conversation, whether or not I consented.  (As previous communications have made clear, neither I nor anybody at Pacific Capital Bank consents to being recorded.)  Also, since, as you made clear in our call of December 31st, you are recording any calls to play to the national media, I do not consent to any use you make of the phone conversations you may have already recorded.

 

I will, of course, respond to any written communications.  However, as I have previously advised you, I will not be providing any substantive responses until such time as you agree, in writing, that you will communicate exclusively with me for the purpose of communicating to Pacific Capital Bank regarding your loan.  You have persisted in your efforts to involve other Bank employees in this matter.  As a result, I remain unwilling to provide you any information that the Bank is not required to provide you.  (An amortization schedule is not information the Bank is required to provide you.)

 

If there is anything further at this time, please let me know, in writing. 

 

 

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: George C. Lazar [mailto:GLazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2011 2:53 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Pacific Capital Bank

 

Mr. Bookout: 

 

Pacific Capital Bank will review any proposal you have to cure the payment defaults on your loan and any other defaults that may exist.  If there happen to be any mistakes by Pacific Capital Bank – I have no knowledge of any mistakes, so this is hypothetical from my point of view – those could be addressed in any cure of the payment defaults. 

 

Please be advised that until such time as a written agreement is executed by an officer of the Bank, no discussion about resolving the current payment defaults (or any other matters) is binding on the Bank.  You are not entitled to rely on any proposal made by the Bank, or any discussion that may be had, until such time as there is a signed agreement. 

 

Please forward any proposal you may have to me. 

 

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: 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: George C. Lazar [mailto:GLazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2011 10:48 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE:

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

Removal of the liens from the properties would require a payment in full of the amount owing on the note secured by the properties. 

 

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: Thursday, January 27, 2011 6:52 PM
To: George C. Lazar
Subject:

 

Mr. Lazar.

 

You mentioned making a proposal!  What would it take for Pacific Capital Bank to remove all liens against my Pismo Beach property?

 

We might be able to work something out for both of our interests?


From: George C. Lazar [mailto:GLazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 1:20 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE:

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

Pacific Capital Bank is no longer lending under the SBA program.  As a result, a refinance from Pacific Capital is not something that could be done, although another lender might be in a position to make the proposed loan.

 

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: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 12:13 PM
To: George C. Lazar
Subject: RE:

 

Mr. Lazar,

 

Would Pacific Capital Bank refinance the Pismo Beach property and the Oceano Nursery property together at 5.5% over 30 years?  This would make a monthly payment of $3,860.67 and allow me to rebuild both of my businesses?

 

Mortgage calculator

Amortization schedule Calculator

 

Mortgage amount:

$680000.00

Mortgage term:

30& years or 360  months

Interest rate:

5.5  % per year

Mortgage start date:

[Feb \/] [1 \/]  [2011 \/]

Monthly payments:

$3860.97

 



Read more: Amortization Schedule Calculator -- Bankrate.com http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/amortization-calculator.aspx#ixzz1CjvdoVz2


From: George C. Lazar [mailto:GLazar@foxjohns.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:28 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: SBA Bank Fraud------Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

Your statement below relating to alleged “admissions” by Ms. Sheffield is absolutely false. 

 

You are obligated to correct your false statement by advising those people you chose to circulate the email to of the fact it is false.  Your failure to do so will be evidence of a malicious intent directed at Ms. Sheffield and Pacific Capital Bank. 

 

Also, Ms. Sheffield is not to be contacted by media or any other person regarding this matter.  Your calls to her evidence the fact you have no respect for Pacific Capital Bank’s requests regarding communications. 

 

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: Thursday, March 03, 2011 5:07 PM
To: Sandra Sheffield
Cc: 'Ashker, Terrill K.'; Carlos.Mendoza@sba.gov; 'Manalli, John A.'; cynthia.pope@sba.gov; information@hilltop-holdings.com'; Lcannon@dfi.ca.gov; dporter@dfi.ca.gov; velie@calcoastnews.com; 'Ryan Miller'
Subject: RE: SBA Bank Fraud------Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465

 

March 3, 2011

 

Dear Mrs. Sheffield,

 

Thank you for taking my call today and admitting that you did not properly amortize my Pacific Capital Bank SBA loan since 2007!  Please provide a proper Amortization Schedule within 24 Hours for your mistakes!

 

Attached above is local news media, that can now contact you at 1-619-260-4483 as you actions in 2007 ended the future of my Oceano Nursery business in Oceano!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 

****************************************************************************** 
This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual or entity
to which it is addressed and may contain information which is
privileged, confidential, and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. If you are not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
of the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error
please notify us immediately by replying to postmaster@pcbancorp.com.
******************************************************************************

From: Diana Lee [mailto:dlee@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2011 5:58 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout v. Pacific Capital BanK

 

Dear Mr. Bookout,

 

Thank you for your letter.  I confirmed that the bank is willing to go to mediation with you, and that the bank is willing to enter into a mutual freeze, i.e., no more time will accrue toward your Notice of Default provided you stop all communications and postings about this dispute while we explore a possible resolution in mediation.  I was not able to find out if there is a way for you of cause your web sites and You Tube posting to be suspended or go dark during this freeze period.  I hope to have an answer to that question tomorrow.

 

In the meantime, here are the bios on the individuals I mentioned as possible mediators.  Let me know what you think of them or if you have any other names you would like me to consider.

 

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: Tuesday, March 22, 2011 3:59 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Bookout v. Pacific Capital BanK

 

Dear Mr. Bookout,

 

As I told you, I am technologically challenged, but I finally obtained the terminology to describe how to "freeze" your web sites while we explore a possible resolution through mediation.  For each of the following web sites, please either (1) replace the html page with a new blank page (or a page with neutral content such as "this site is temporarily under construction" ) , or (2) cause godaddy.com to temporarily redirect the i.p. address to an error page or default text page:  

With regard to your You Tube posting(s), please likewise temporarily disable it or restrict it to private viewing.  Of course, if we are not able to reach a resolution, or if either side withdraws from the mediation process, then the mutually agreed upon freeze upon the bank's notice of default as well as upon your communications will terminate.  Even though you have not yet caused your web sites to go dark, I will agree that the time period for the bank's notice of default was tolled effective March 21, 2011, provided your web sites and You Tube site(s) go dark by no later than noon on March 23, 2012.  The time period for the bank's notice of default will recommence to accrue upon either: (1) your violation of this freeze agreement, or (2) two days after written notice to you by email and U.S. mail.  

 

Please confirm your agreement with this freeze arrangement by return email.  I look forward to working with you toward a resolution of this matter.

 

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 12:43 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: SBA Bank Fraud------Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465 -Amortization Schedule

 

Dear Mr. Bookout,

 

Thank you for the list of topics.  I can see that there is a lot that I need to get up to speed on, as will the mediator and the upper level bank person who will be stepping in to address this matter.  I will start to collect documents and schedules.  Do you want me to coordinate with Lol Sorensen's office or do you want to do that?

 

Am I correct that your sites will go dark at noon today?

 

Diana.

 


From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2011 11:11 AM
To: Diana Lee
Subject: RE: SBA Bank Fraud------Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465 -Amortization Schedule

March 23, 2011

 

Diana Jessup Lee, Esq.

Reicker, Pfau, Pyle & McRoy LLP

1421 State Street, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA  93101

 

Dear Mrs. Diana Lee,

 

Mr. Lol Sorensen should make a good mediator in our problems dating back to 2007 forbearance and workout agreement.  I would hope that we can set up a meaningful mediation with Mr. Sorensen this next week.  Pacific Capital Bank (George C. Lazar and Sandra Sheffield refusing to provide an amortization schedule for the 2007 loan modification will be a big issue in this mediation.)  I would like to once again request and pray of you and Pacific Capital Bancorp to provide this amortization schedule for the 2007 loan modification as requested within 24 hours!  This will resolve a big issue with Pacific Capital Bank dating back to 2007 and the January 14, 2011 Notice of Default!  This amortization schedule will not be posted per our agreement March 21, 2011 nor any other documents!  At this point our issues need to be handled in Mediation as I believe you will agree!

 

Mrs. Diana Lee, a few issues to be addressed in Mediation:

1)       Pacific Capital Bank in their January 25, 2011 NOD has overcharged the 2010 loan payment amount owed by $268.76 per month or $3,225.12 in PCB favor; this will need to be addressed in mediation with Mr. Sorensen!  

2)       Pacific Capital Bank March 4, 2011 changing the amount of the January 25, 2011 NOD letter will need to be addressed in mediation!

3)       Pacific Capital Bank has over charged my 2007, 2008 and 2009 6% fixed rate, amortized loan by 29 payments of $182.26 =$5,285.54

4)       Pacific Capital Bank in 2007 has charged attorney fees of $2,471.45 against the 2007 loan modification!  I ask that Pacific Capital Bank provides Mr. Lazars (bill of particulars) as previously requested!

5)       Pacific Capital Bank had stated July 23, 2008 per their 2007 Attorney fees, after  breaking a loan modification, charging $2,471.45 "As to the fee bills, we know of no basis upon which you can request copies. In addition, the fee bills contain confidential material.  If you would like a summary of the work done prepared, that can be done.  However, the Bank will require a deposit against the estimated costs before I proceed." There should be no charge for this information and should be provided in mediation!

6)       Pacific Capital Bank has improperly charged late fees of $206.05 per month over the 5% allowed in my 2003 SBA Form 147 Note!  This should be addressed in mediation!

7)      Pacific Capital Bank in the 2003 Promissory Note has failed to properly Amortize, my SBA loan since 2007!  (SBA Form 147 Note) States: “Lender must adjust the payment at least annually as needed to amortize principal over the remaining term of the note.”  This amortization should be addressed in mediation!

 

I have stopped all Communications and Postings to all websites per our agreement March 21, 2011 with Pacific Capital Bank stopping the Notice of Default filed January 14, 2011.  “I confirmed that the bank is willing to go to mediation with you, and that the bank is willing to enter into a mutual freeze, i.e., no more time will accrue toward your Notice of Default provided you stop all communications and postings about this dispute while we explore a possible resolution in mediation.”   

 

Mrs. Diana Lee, with our phone conversation on March 21, 2011 per Mr. Gerald J. Ford, Carl B. Webb and Senior PCB officials knowledge of this problem.  I pray and hope that we can immediately go into a meaningful mediation that resolves all of our issues per the 2007 loan modification prepared by George C. Lazar and Sandra Sheffield.   We both have businesses to run and serve our communities!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

Oceano Nursery

Pismo Beach Dive Shop

Plumerias Garden and Gifts

Big Kahuna Surf Shop

Pismo Beach Surf Shop


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: Christine Sontag [mailto:CHRISTINE.SONTAG@sbbt.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 9:34 AM
To: 'Bill Bookout'
Cc: 'Diana Lee'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bancorp---Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007!

 

Dear Mr. Bookout,

 

Please abide by my request, and direct all communication regarding this matter to the Bank's outside counsel, Diana Lee.  While the Bank disagrees with your characterization of Ms. Lee's statements regarding amortization on your loan, the Bank has retained Ms. Lee to handle this matter and I will leave further communication on that subject to her. 

 

As this matter is being handled by Ms. Lee, I will not respond to any further communication from you.  You should address all inquiries to Ms. Lee.

 

Thank you,

Christine Sontag

 

Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel

Pacific Capital Bank, N.A.

 


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: Christine Sontag [mailto:CHRISTINE.SONTAG@sbbt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 10:52 AM
To: 'Bill Bookout'
Cc: Diana Lee
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bancorp---Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007!

 

Dear Mr. Bookout,

 

As you know, the Bank has retained attorney Diana Lee to represent the Bank in all matters concerning your relationship with the Bank.  Ms. Lee, on behalf of the Bank, participated in a full day of mediation with you on April 27, 2011, and followed up, as promised, by sending additional information to you on May 6, 2011. 

 

Your ongoing email correspondence to various Bank employees, officers and directors, including myself, is distracting and unhelpful.  Ms. Lee is fully authorized to represent the Bank in this matter, and I once again request that you direct all communication regarding this matter to Ms. Lee.  None of the other Bank employees, officers, and directors to whom you are addressing correspondence will be responding to your correspondence.  This is not, however, because the Bank refuses to communicate with you on this matter, but rather because the Bank has designated Ms. Lee as its representative to work directly with you.  We ask that you respect the Bank’s decision, and direct all further communication with the Bank to Ms. Lee’s office.

 

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation with this request.

 

Christine

 

Christine Sontag

Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel

Pacific Capital Bank, N.A.


From: Christine Sontag [mailto:CHRISTINE.SONTAG@sbbt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 5:33 PM
To: 'Bill Bookout'
Cc: Diana Lee
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bancorp---Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007!

 

Dear Mr. Bookout,

 

For the record, I find your communication replete with inaccuracies.  But as I informed you yesterday, neither I nor other Bank employees, officers or directors will respond to your correspondence because the Bank has retained attorney Diana Lee to handle this matter on the Bank’s behalf.  My non-response to this or any future correspondence from you shall not be construed as agreement with your characterization of events, but rather reflects the Bank’s designation of Ms. Lee as the single source of communication on this matter.  Please honor my request and direct this, and all future, communication to Ms. Lee. 

 

Thank you,

Christine Sontag

 

Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel

 

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 5:15 PM
To: Christine Sontag
Cc: Kelley McCord; Debbie Whiteley; Carol Zepke; 'Diana Lee'; ajsantana@co.slo.ca.us; dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; dporter@dfi.ca.gov; GeorgeS.Leis@pacificcapitalbank.com
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bancorp---Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007!

 

May 9, 2011                                  Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465

 

Christine M. Sontag                                                    

Senior Vice President and Associate General Council

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
1021 Anacapa St

Santa Barbara, CA 93101                 

 

Dear Mrs. Christine M. Sontag,  

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust ---Pacific Capital Bank--

 

If you find anything below to be inaccurate, then please explain to myself and the San Luis Obispo District Attorney office by May 13, 2011.  Pacific Capital Bank stealing $511.65 a month from a bank SBA loan business customer is Grand Theft!  Your claim of $93.01 per month on May 6, 2011 is also Grand Theft!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout


From: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:32 AM
To: 'rnightingale@dbntm.com'
Cc: 'rnightingale@dbntm.com'; 'jmackall@seedmackall.com'; 'Christine Sontag'; 'Carol.Zepke@pcbancorp.com'; 'CarlB.Webb@pacificcapitalbank.com'; 'GeorgeS.Leis@pacificcapitalbank.com'; 'GeraldJ.Ford@pcbancorp.com'; 'dvallely@co.slo.ca.us'; 'ajsantana@co.slo.ca.us'; 'lol@rsmediate.com'; 'Mary Jo Barbeau'; 'LeSieur, Debbie'; 'Kelley McCord'
Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, Pacific Capital Bancorp---Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract since 2007!

 

May 11, 2011                   Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465

 

Nightingale, Richard A CPA - Damitz Brooks Nightingale
200 E Carrillo St Ste 202
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
(805) 963-1837

 

Dear Mr. Nightingale,

 

Re: Pacific Capital Banks Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud since 2007!

 

Diana Lee has acknowledged Pacific Capital Bank Mortgage Fraud as seen in her May 6, 2011 letter!  It is now time that Pacific Capital Banks Board of Directors explain why Pacific Capital Bank would overcharge my SBA loan by $511.65 dollars per month?

 

The Accounting from the June 23, 2007 First Bank of San Luis Obispo payment notice showed a balance of $452,024.05 on July 6, 2007 after the payment on July 6, 2007 of $22,274.46.  With the Pacific Capital Bank NOD on January 25, 2011 as seen below the July 6, 2007 loan modification should have been amortized at $414,222.96 and monthly payments of $3,609.41!  Why did Pacific Capital Bank charge the Oceano Nursery SBA loan $4,121.06 per month?  The actual Balance as of December 6, 2010 would have been $344,415.68 with differed payments of $37,801.09 or $32,012.65 as Pacific Capital Bank documents show!

Attached above is the Pacific Capital Bank, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust, First Bank of San Luis Obispo---Pacific Capital Bancorp loan amortization schedule provided by Pacific Capital Bancorp on May 6, 2011.  The amortization schedule provided by PCB, shows Pacific Capital Banks Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud committed since June 30, 2007! 

Diana Jessup Lee, in her May 6, 2011 Pacific Capital Bank letter states:  “If you have a reasonable plan for curing your past due balance, we remain very interested in hearing it.  Otherwise, we will have no option but to go forward with foreclosure proceedings which as we agreed in the mediation, will be re-started with a new Notice of Default after May 13, 2011.”  Diana Lee acknowledged a $460.00 dollar a month mistake by Pacific Capital Bank!  What makes Pacific Capital Bancorp think that they can steal principal from their customers and be able to foreclose on a SBA loan having stolen money from a Banking customer?

I am requesting of Pacific Capital Bancorp to reestablish my Oceano Nursery Business back to the inventory level and customer base in 2007!   Resolve the environmental problems found with Pacific Capital Banks ODIC inspections on May 6, 2011 as Pacific Capital Bank has been found falsifying ODIC documents in the 2007 environmental investigation paid for by myself in the 2007 loan modification!  This $3,600.00 of business working capital for PCB Fraud along with $1,953.45 in Attorney fees for asking for an accounting of my mortgage payments is a very large business loss of income!  The fact that Pacific Capital Bank would charge over $34,000.00 for their payment accounting mistake on May 11, 2007 is a very large business loss; that now needs to be accounted for by Pacific Capital Bank and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust!  

In Diana Lee’s May 6, 2011 letter attached above are many issues regarding Pacific Capital Banks, Santa Barbara Bank & Trust---Bank Fraud and Breach of Contract, which will now need to be accounted for by Pacific Capital Bancorp!  Mrs. Diana Lee States“ 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 the computerized software that tracks loans.  We do this in an effort to eliminate any further disputes with you, as well as the cost to all parties of continued disagreement.” 

“We have recalculated the application of your actual payments using the favorable considerations given to you in Schedule 2.  Nevertheless, your loan remains significantly past due (17 monthly payments plus the unpaid deferred amounts which were past due at the time of the 2007 Forbearance Agreement totaling in excess of $100,000).”  In Diana Lee’s May 6, 2011 statement she is still referring to the $37,801.09 Pacific Capital Bank 2007 deferred payments showing Pacific Capital Bank over charging my SBA loan by $511.65 per month since June 30, 2007!

Please explain how Pacific Capital Bank on May 5, 2011 came up with a SBA loan debt of $465,195.50 or $462,069.51 with monthly mortgage payments of $4,055.30 or $4,028.05 per month instead of the monthly payment of $4,121.06 charged by PCB since July 2007?  Shouldn’t this monthly payment have been $3,609.41 from Pacific Capital Banks May 6, 2011 statement  “(payments plus the unpaid deferred amounts which were past due at the time of the 2007 Forbearance Agreement totaling in excess of $100,000).”

1)       The Pacific Capital Bank/SBA total loan debt on June 30, 2007 should have been $452,024.05 per the June 23, 2007 First Bank of San Luis Obispo monthly statement!  How did Pacific Capital Bank on May 5, 2011 come up with $462,069.51 per the Pacific Capital Bank amortization schedule 2?  PCB Bank Morgarge Fraud and Breach of Contract is a major issue here!

2)       Please explain why Pacific Capital Bank is now asking in their May 6, 2011 letter, for the 2007 deferred payments and did not charge my monthly mortgage payment in 2007 $3,609.41 instead of $4,121.06?   This extra principal payment per month is $511.65 that could have been used for my Oceano Nursery business or my personal house that Pacific Capital Bank would not let me sale!  How is Pacific Capital Bancorp going to resolve this issue?

3)      How did Pacific Capital Bank in the May 5, 2011 Amortization Schedule come to 10 deferred payments of $4,517.12 or $45,171.20 when the January 9, 2007 demand letter written by Heidi Dugan showed payments owed of $4,391.08 for October 2006--$4,246.38 for November 2006—$4,053.66 for December 2006 and $3,813.90 for January 6, 2007?  The PCB payment notice of $3,529.24 for the February 6, 2007 payment.  The PCB payment notice February 21, 2007 of $3,201.82 March 24, 2007 of $2,832.93 May 23, 2007 for May 6, 2007 of $2,428.61 and the June 6, 2007 payment of $1,990.57 along with the June 23, 2007 First Bank of San Luis Obispo June 23, 2007 invoice for July 6, 2007 payment of $1,524.46 which adds up to $32,012.65 instead of $45,171.20?  The NOD filed January 14, 2007 by Pacific Capital Bank claimed 10 Deferred payments from 10/2006 - 7/2007 of $37,801.09 instead of $45,171.20! showing more Pacific Capital Bank Mortgage Fraud Accounting!

 

4)       How has Pacific Capital Bank in the May 5, 2011 amortization schedule # 2 reduced the SBA loan payments of $22,274.46 per the June 30, 2007 Forbearance and workout agreement only by $3,125.99 as seen in the “Cash Flow Data” Balance after 5 payments---$416,898.31?  What happened to the other $19,148.47 that Diana Lee does not put into this calculation?

5)      Diana Lee in her May 6, 2011 letter states: “As you know, a schedule showing anticipated payments and application of those anticipated payments was not requested or prepared at the time you entered into the Forbearance Agreement effective June 30, 2007.”  Pacific Capital Bank should be responsible for their customer accounting actions and not the customers!  Having in July 2007 finding accounting problems with First Bank Of San Luis Obispo—Pacific Capital Bank and bringing these problems to PCB’ attention; PCB stated in a letter August 1, 2007   “The proper Bank officials will look into the computerized records and determine if there are any problems.”  It is unfortunate that this PCB---SBA loan was never properly looked into and amortized properly in 2007.  How did PCB come up with the SBA loan payment of $4,121.06 instead of $3,609.41

6)      Why is Diana Jessup Lee, threatening me with foreclosure with Pacific Capital Banks admitted Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud since June 30, 2007 in her May 6, 2011 Pacific Capital Bank letter?

 

It is unfortunate that Pacific Capital Bank would want to charge Attorney fees to answer accounting questions of Pacific Capital Bank and that Diana Lee would ignore this fact as Pacific Capital Bank stated May 12, 2008, in regards to asking accounting questions of Pacific Capital Bank!  “The requests you have made, and the delinquencies in the documentation, have resulted in the Bank incurring additional attorney's fees.  As a result, you are requested to forward to Pacific Capital Bank, c/o Ms. Sheffield, a check in the amount of $750.00 to cover anticipated attorney's fees incurred in responding to the requests for information.  Of course, this amount is only an estimate, and if the fees exceed the amount received, an additional deposit will be required. Please forward the deposit as soon as possible so that the Bank can begin work on the research you have requested.”

In prior attempts to obtain a proper accounting Pacific Capital Bank has stated December 30, 2010  "Second, you asked for an amortization schedule.  As I indicated in my email of last week, I will provide information on your agreement that you will communicate only with me, rather than sending emails to a number of persons at Pacific Capital Bank.  As you have not made that agreement, I do not feel that any further response is necessary.  I believe that the request that you communicate with me is reasonable and necessary, and we will insist on that condition.  (In the event that you do agree to this request, please let me know exactly what you mean by an "amortization schedule".) Is this how Pacific Capital Bank treats all of their customers who ask for an accounting of their loans?  At least Diana Lee has admitted May 6, 2011 that Pacific Capital Bank improperly amortized the Oceano Nursery business loan!

Pacific Capital Bank has stated January 4, 2011 affecting all PCB Banking, Customers in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties!  "I will, of course, respond to any written communications.  However, as I have previously advised you, I will not be providing any substantive responses until such time as you agree, in writing, that you will communicate exclusively with me for the purpose of communicating to Pacific Capital Bank regarding your loan.  You have persisted in your efforts to involve other Bank employees in this matter.  As a result, I remain unwilling to provide you any information that the Bank is not required to provide you.  (An amortization schedule is not information the Bank is required to provide you.)  If there is anything further at this time, please let me know, in writing."

Pacific Capital Bank has stated March 4, 2011 showing PCB Loan Accounting Mortgage Fraud and Breach Of Contract with the May 6, 2011 Amortization Schedule prepared just two months later by Pacific Capital Bancorp!  “In light of your claims, we have reexamined the computation of the amount owing under the terms of the promissory note you executed.  (As you will recall, by virtue of the fact of the default under the forbearance, the note terms were reinstated.)  In fact, it turns out that the notice of default understates the amount that was due at the time of the recording of the notice of the default.  The amount owing was $97,369.07, not the $96,434.82 set forth in the NOD.”

This March 4, 2011 statement by Pacific Capital Bank with the May 6, 2011 amortization schedule show the SBA and the OCC how Pacific Capital Bank handles their banking loans!

 

Why has it taken Pacific Capital Bank from July 2007 to May 6, 2011 to acknowledge the Loan Modification Fraud and Breach of Contract committed by Pacific Capital Bancorp since 2007?  Pacific Capital Bank stated August 1, 2007   “The proper Bank officials will look into the computerized records and determine if there are any problems.”

 

Pacific Capital Bancorp, from your actions, my damages are unlimited

 

1)       I have lost my Oceano Nursery business due to Pacific Capital Banks actions in 2007!  From May 18, 2007 to March 31, 2007 inventory has been sold at 50% off per PCB actions coming to $673,369.91!

2)       I have lost the ability to sale my 631 Lake Street house in 2007 at a fair market price of around $323,000.00!  This would have been a profit of around $50,000.00 in 2007, which would have been reinvested into my businesses and flipped many times!  What would a Jury find with this action by Pacific Capital Bank?

3)       I have lost this personal residence in foreclosure due to Pacific Capital over charging my SBA loan as acknowledged by Pacific Capital Bank May 6, 2011!  This action by Pacific Capital Bank has ended all of my good credit!  What would a Jury find with this action by Pacific Capital Bank?

4)       I have had to pay Pacific Capital Bank Attorney fees of $1,953.45 in 2007, after and against the signed 2007 Pacific Capital Bank loan modification!  $1953.45 times 365 days of lost use is $713,009.25. 

5)       I have lost my good will with Oceano Nursery established in 2000!  What would a jury find as good will from 2007-2011?

6)       I have lost good will with all of my businesses in Pismo Beach due to Pacific Capital Banks actions in 2007 to May 6, 2011!  What would a jury find as good will from 2007-2011 with my Pismo Beach business?  The June 28, 2007 Inventory Opinion Letter from the Mentor Group, Inc shows a full price liquation value of Oceano and Pismo Beach of $775,000.00!

7)       Pacific Capital Banks actions on May 17, 2007 instead of the signed contract on May 15, 2007 cost Oceano Nursery $25,925.00 dollars of SBA loaned business working capital! This $25,925.00 dollars at 365 days is a lot of potential lost income! 

8)       Pacific Capital Bank use of my business working capital for not properly amortizing the 2007 loan modification is a huge issue and how many other Pacific Capital Bancorp customers are having the same accounting problems from Pacific Capital Bancorp!

9)       Emotional distress caused by Pacific Capital Bank as seen in Diana Lee’s letter and George C. Lazars letter in asking for an accounting of my business loan!

 

Richard A, Nightingale, Pacific Capital Bancorp has put Oceano Nursery out of Business and impacted my businesses in Pismo Beach, while causing my personal residence into foreclosure! The SBA and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Case # 01394465 are aware of Pacific Capital Bancorp’s actions since 2007!  I have informed the OCC and the SBA of Pacific Capital Banks May6, 2011 letter and the Amortization Schedule prepared by Pacific Capital Bank, that are still wrong, but shows Pacific Capital Banks Breach of Contract and Mortgage Modification Fraud!

 

Again I wish to reestablish my Oceano Nursery business, Plumerias Garden and Gifts and once again own a beach home!  How can we resolve Pacific Capital Banks Breach of Contract, Mortgage Modification Fraud and Pacific Capital Bank Falsifying the ODIC environmental reports in 2007?   Please respond by May 13, 2011 as this is the timeline given by Diana Lee!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 


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: 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, 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.

 

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.) [mailto:adam.kaplan@sba.gov]
Sent: Thursday, October 27, 2011 10:08 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Revised FOIA # 34448- Appeal for Production of Documents (For) Fraud and Breach of Contract committed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust/FBSLO

 

Bill,

 

In order to submit a complaint to the OIG Hotline, please briefly describe why SBA should not pay the lender on your 7(a) loan the guaranteed portion of the defaulted loan.    If you could avoid sending large attachments, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

Thank you,

Adam Kaplan

 

Adam D. Kaplan

Assistant Counsel to the Inspector General

U.S. Small Business Administration

Voice - 202-205-6696

Fax - 202-205-7127

adam.kaplan@sba.gov

 

U.S. Small Business Administration

Office of Inspector General

Counsel Division

409 3rd St. SW

Washington, DC 20416

www.sba.gov/ig

 

The information in this communication is confidential, intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please resend it to the sender and then delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.


From: FOIA [mailto:FOIA@sba.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 6:10 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: FW: FOIA Appeal #2012-00052

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

This is to acknowledge receipt of your FOIA appeal (case #2012-00052) below.  The National Guaranty Purchase Center will provide records that were initially withheld to this office.  Upon our receipt and review of the information, we will notify you of our appellate disclosure determinations. 

 

In addition, your inquiry includes an initial FOIA request (case #2012-00126) for the Sacramento District Office (916-735-1956) and the Fresno Commercial Loan Service Center (559-487-5136).  We have referred your request to those offices for their initial determinations and direct response to you.

 

Sincerely,

 

Lisa J. Babcock

Chief, FOI/PA Office


From: Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.) [mailto:adam.kaplan@sba.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 8:01 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: OIG Hotline Complaint

 

Mr. Bookout,

 

I will pass along your Hotline complaint by the end of the week.

 

Adam D. Kaplan

Assistant Counsel to the Inspector General

U.S. Small Business Administration

Voice - 202-205-6696

Fax - 202-205-7127

adam.kaplan@sba.gov

 

U.S. Small Business Administration

Office of Inspector General

Counsel Division

409 3rd St. SW

Washington, DC 20416

www.sba.gov/ig

 

The information in this communication is confidential, intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above, and legally privileged.  If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please resend it to the sender and then delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system.


From: Babcock, Lisa J. [mailto:lisa.babcock@sba.gov]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:14 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: Revised FOIA # 34448 Final review- Production of Documents

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

We are in receipt of your email below with tow pdf files attached.

 

Lisa Babcock

Chief, FOI/PA

 

From: Bill Bookout [mailto:Pismobeachdiveshop@charter.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 11:31 AM
To: Higgins, Catherine Mccann
Cc: Babcock, Lisa J.; Butcher-Sumner, Blossom V.; Kaplan, Adam D.(Off. Inspector Gen.); ajsantana@co.slo.ca.us; dvallely@co.slo.ca.us; rmiller@newtimesslo.com; crigley@newtimesslo.com; velie@coastnews.com; jkoznek@slocity.org; peggy.gustafson@sba.gov; pgustafson@sba.gov
Subject: RE: Revised FOIA # 34448 Final review- Production of Documents

 

November 10, 2011

 

U.S. Small Business Administration

Catherine Higgins

 

Dear Mrs. Higgins,

 

I have talked to Lisa J. Babcock to today in regards to my FOIA request of the SBA and documents that are being withheld by the SBA, from this Oceano Nursery SBA loan PLP 664-196-4009.  Mrs. Babcock has stated that you are the SBA person working on my FOIA request of the SBA, per the SBA, withheld documents. 

 

Please provide the Original (Authorization SBA Guaranteed Loan document as FBSLO/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has prepared two documents dated August 29, 2003!  Please see the two different page 5 under (H) Collateral Conditions attached above.  The one adding the 470 Price Street property is Fraudulent as known to the SBA!

 

Please provide the FBSLO/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (Loan Committee Presentation Reports).  Attached above is the 8/27/03 report showing only the Oceano Nursery offered for the 2003 SBA Loan!

 

Please provide the FBSLO/Santa Barbara Bank & Trust (Loan Committee Presentation Report) changed on 10/1/03 against the Original (Authorization SBA Guaranteed Loan document.  Please see the one above as this should be in SBA files!

 

Please provide the SBA signed copy of the SBA Form 4-1 attached above with the name Casey Appell and Steve Mathis on this form.

 

The above requests of the SBA are public record as a Police Report has now been filed with the San Luis Obispo Police Department with Santa Barbara Bank & Trust monthly over charging my Oceano Nursery SBA loan since 2007. 

 

Mrs. Babcock has been informed of the signs in front of my businesses in Pismo Beach stating (Santa Barbara Bank & Trust SBA Loan Fraud Sale)  I will no longer be putting up with the monthly theft of my business working capital with the actions by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust that have caused the closure of Oceano Nursery in 2007.  All documents above are seen at www.sbaquestions.net and at www.sbbtfraud.com  Local News media attached is well aware of the actions by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust since 2007.  They are now aware of how SBA loan documents can be fraudulently changed under the SBA PLP Loan program.  I am hoping that the SBA will look into this issue and correct the actions of Santa Barbara Bank & Trust since 2003!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout


From: FOIA [mailto:FOIA@sba.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 8:42 AM
To: Bill Bookout
Subject: RE: FOIA #2012-00052

 

Mr. Bookout,

 

Ms. Butcher-Sumner has confirmed that all records pertinent to your FOIA request that are maintained by SBA were reviewed in response to your initial request.  In addition, the Fresno Commercial Loan Service Center and the Sacramento District Office both stated in their responses to you that those offices do not maintain pertinent records.

 

As previously stated to you by this office, the records reviewed upon appeal by this office are only those that were withheld initially by Ms. Butcher-Sumner.

 

As you know, most of those records initially withheld are Appraisal Reports and Environmental Site Assessments.  Before we can respond to you with our disclosure determinations concerning those records, in accordance with Executive Order 12600, a Pre-disclosure Notification will be sent to those firms that created the records.  The firms will be given ten working days to respond to this office as to whether they object to the disclosure of any portions of their records that this office deems releasable.  This process will take additional time beyond our twenty day processing time set forth in the FOIA.

 

A time extension is allowed in such circumstances pursuant to the FOIA and 13 CFR 102.4(2) which states that additional time is extended for: “The need to search for, collect, and appropriately examine a voluminous amount of separate and distinct records which are demanded in a single request….”  If you are not interested in our review of any of those records on the document list that was prepared initially by Ms. Butcher-Sumner, please advise this office at foia@sba.gov and we will limit our review to withheld records on that list that you specify.

 

Sincerely,

 

Lisa J. Babcock

Chief, Freedom of Information/

  Privacy Acts Office


From: Robert Forouzandeh [mailto:rforouzandeh@rppmh.com]
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 5:17 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: richard@rossilegal.com; Mary Jo Barbeau
Subject: RE: File: 11-00126-5, 15899

 

Mr. Bookout:

 

Contrary to your assertions, I am not aware of any false NOD's filed by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust.  Please cease making false representations about me to third parties.  We have previously answered all of your questions fully and truthfully on multiple occasions, you simply do not like the answers.

 

More importantly, your email to me is inappropriate, as it pertains to a claim that is currently pending before the Bankruptcy Court and for which you are represented by counsel.  Therefore, the ethical rules which govern the practice of law preclude me, as an attorney, from discussing this matter with you outside the presence of your attorney.  If you have any new questions, please direct your attorney of record, Mr. Rossi to contact us to discuss further.  I will not respond to any further correspondences that I receive from you while you are represented by counsel.  My refusal to respond to any of your emails or allegations should not be construed as an admission of any of the false allegations that you set forth in such correspondences.

 

Thank you for your understanding.

 

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 -----

From: Bill Bookout

To: kgrant@silcom.com

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'

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


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: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:27 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.)'
Subject: RE: plan

November 18, 2011

 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust

 

Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee,

 

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!

 

I am willing to go back into mediation as both of you are now fully aware of the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 30, 2008 letter to the SBA showing the May 19, 2011 NOD to be false!  Both of you are familiar with the SBA Form 1149 presented at our last mediation by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust showing the May 19, 2011 NOD to be false.  Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has since made another SBA Form 1149 showing the fraud in the May 19, 2011 NOD.

 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts actions in 2007 are the cause of Oceano Nursery closing and are now causing major problems to my Pismo Beach businesses.  Again I am demanding that the May 19, 2011 NOD is immediately rescinded!

 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has over charged $45,171.20 in the May 19, 2011 NOD!  This is not legal!

 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is not owed $400,962.89 instead of the Principal Balance of $390,996.91 claimed on August 29, 2011 to the United States Small Business Administration by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 


From: Chris Gautschi [mailto:sanschromo@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:18 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Chris Gautschi
Subject: Re: plan

 

The incorrectness of the NOD  has nothing to do with the fact that there is some amount of mortgage arrears, they are separate. For example, a person could have mortgage arrears even without a NOD having been filed. The way you get a bank to resci9nd an incorrect NOD is to make a written demand letter that they do so, and when they don't sue them in state court.

 


From: Bill Bookout <pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net>
To: 'Chris Gautschi' <sanschromo@yahoo.com>
Cc: 'Richard Rossi' <richard@rossilegal.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: plan

What about the fact that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has committed fraud in their Proof of Claim to the Bankruptcy Court?

 

 What about the Fact that SBBT filed a false NOD on May 19, 2011 claiming $45,171.20 owed in deferred and defaulted payments?

 

What about the fact in the Prood of Claim that SBBT is now calling my principal balance $400,962.89 instead of the Principal Balance of $390,996.91 claimed on August 29, 2011 to the United States Small Business Administration?

 

Would it not be easier to let the Judge rule that the NOD was filed fradulently and let SBBT file a new NOD and pay Attorney Fees for their Mistakes?

 

What about the money since 2007 that I have monthly over paid Santa Barbara Bank & Trust as they have not properly amortized my SBA loan under SBA Form 147 Note since 2007?


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: Bill Bookout [mailto:pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:27 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.)'
Subject: RE: plan

November 18, 2011

 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust

 

Robert Forouzandeh and Diana Jessup Lee,

 

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!

 

I am willing to go back into mediation as both of you are now fully aware of the Santa Barbara Bank & Trust September 30, 2008 letter to the SBA showing the May 19, 2011 NOD to be false!  Both of you are familiar with the SBA Form 1149 presented at our last mediation by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust showing the May 19, 2011 NOD to be false.  Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has since made another SBA Form 1149 showing the fraud in the May 19, 2011 NOD.

 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trusts actions in 2007 are the cause of Oceano Nursery closing and are now causing major problems to my Pismo Beach businesses.  Again I am demanding that the May 19, 2011 NOD is immediately rescinded!

 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has over charged $45,171.20 in the May 19, 2011 NOD!  This is not legal!

 

Santa Barbara Bank & Trust is not owed $400,962.89 instead of the Principal Balance of $390,996.91 claimed on August 29, 2011 to the United States Small Business Administration by Santa Barbara Bank & Trust!

 

Sincerely

 

Bill Bookout

 


From: Chris Gautschi [mailto:sanschromo@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 9:18 PM
To: Bill Bookout
Cc: Chris Gautschi
Subject: Re: plan

 

The incorrectness of the NOD  has nothing to do with the fact that there is some amount of mortgage arrears, they are separate. For example, a person could have mortgage arrears even without a NOD having been filed. The way you get a bank to resci9nd an incorrect NOD is to make a written demand letter that they do so, and when they don't sue them in state court.

 


From: Bill Bookout <pismobeachsurfshop@charter.net>
To: 'Chris Gautschi' <sanschromo@yahoo.com>
Cc: 'Richard Rossi' <richard@rossilegal.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 3:57 PM
Subject: RE: plan

What about the fact that Santa Barbara Bank & Trust has committed fraud in their Proof of Claim to the Bankruptcy Court?

 

 What about the Fact that SBBT filed a false NOD on May 19, 2011 claiming $45,171.20 owed in deferred and defaulted payments?

 

What about the fact in the Proof of Claim that SBBT is now calling my principal balance $400,962.89 instead of the Principal Balance of $390,996.91 claimed on August 29, 2011 to the United States Small Business Administration?

 

Would it not be easier to let the Judge rule that the NOD was filed fraudulently and let SBBT file a new NOD and pay Attorney Fees for their Mistakes?

 

What about the money since 2007 that I have monthly over paid Santa Barbara Bank & Trust as they have not properly amortized my SBA loan under SBA Form 147 Note since 2007?

 



Website Builder