On June 21, 2024, a Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit was taped to the front door of 19235 Brynn Court. The Notice was authored, signed, and sent through a DocuSign envelope whose platform metadata identifies the creator and the sender as the same person: the Owner’s Daughter (Broker 1), a licensed real estate broker who is not the broker of record under the 2024 lease and is not a licensed attorney. The Notice was attached to the unlawful detainer complaint filed in OC Superior Court on July 3, 2024.

Penal Code § 134 makes it a felony to prepare any false written instrument with intent to produce it in a legal proceeding for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose. The instrument was prepared by a non-attorney; it directs payment to a Wells Fargo account different from the account named in the executed lease; it bears no handwritten signature of the Owner (typed name only); it drops the “or quit” statutory alternative; and it omits the service-and-expiration paragraph that appears on Eviction Counsel’s own published commercial template. It was then filed in support of an unlawful detainer action.

1. Preparation: DocuSign envelope creator and sender fields both identify the Owner’s Daughter.
2. False content: wrong payee account (Notice acct. #1005959166 ≠ lease-designated acct. #3312943297); no handwritten landlord signature; dropped “or quit” alternative; missing service paragraph.
3. Intent to produce in a proceeding: attached as the predicate notice exhibit to the UD complaint filed July 3, 2024.
4. Fraudulent purpose: use of the defective instrument to seize possession of the residential premises.

On May 28, 2024, the Complainants tendered a cashier’s check in the amount of $4,338.48 payable to Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices by USPS Certified Mail #9534914882764149935944. Delivery occurred May 30, 2024 with the signature line marked “H H” at the BHHS Huntington Beach office. The check was thereafter held without deposit and without return. The unlawful detainer complaint was filed July 3, 2024 without disclosing the tender; the Court’s Under Submission Ruling of March 27, 2025 (Document ID 74522578) acknowledges that the cashier’s check existed and was tendered.

18 U.S.C. § 1341 reaches any scheme to defraud that uses the United States Mails in furtherance. The mailing channel was used both to deliver the cure tender into the recipient’s custody and, by the recipient’s subsequent course of conduct, to conceal the tender during the cure window and through the filing of the unlawful detainer. The Owner’s own text message of June 22, 2024 (“sorry I did nt know you did pay your rent to the Hanson account”) places the Owner on contemporaneous notice that rent had been paid to the broker-of-record account — while the broker-of-record was simultaneously failing to credit or remit the funds.

1. Scheme to defraud: tender received, sealed, not credited, not returned, not disclosed.
2. Use of the mails: USPS Certified delivery 5/30/24 to BHHS office; certified return-receipt record preserved.
3. Materiality: the tender, if credited, defeats the predicate of the UD action.
4. Intent: UD complaint filed without disclosing acknowledged tender; Court’s minute order reflects the tender on the record.

On June 28, 2024 — five days before the unlawful detainer complaint was filed, eight days after the defective Three-Day Notice was posted, and within the statutory cure window — the Complainants were directed to wire $5,350 from a Wells Fargo Premier Checking account into the Owner’s personal Wells Fargo account #1005959166. Wells Fargo confirmation #OW00004652829145. The Complainant placed the protest characterization directly in the federal wire record: memo line “Unknown Contract for July payment 27 of 37 on contracts.”

18 U.S.C. § 1343 reaches any interstate or foreign wire transmission used to advance a scheme to defraud. The wire was extracted by off-contract telephone demand into a personal account outside the lease-designated channel, while the cure-tender cashier’s check was simultaneously being held in the Owner’s system without credit. The Owner’s subsequent representation to the Court that a refund of this protest wire was mailed produced no USPS proof of service, and the Complainants were compelled to pay a second time under protest.

1. Wire transmission: Wells Fargo electronic transfer, 6/28/24, confirmation #OW00004652829145.
2. In furtherance of a scheme to defraud: off-contract account routing during open cure window despite acknowledged tender.
3. Specific intent: double-receipt of same rental period without refund; Owner’s own text admitted Broker-of-record had received the prior payment.

The instruments and conduct described in Counts 1, 2, and 3 share a common architecture: the Owner’s Daughter authored the predicate Notice; the Owner directed the off-contract wire to a personal account; Broker 2 received the cure tender without credit while no longer holding corporate brokerage authority (Broker 2 detached from BHHS on May 13, 2024 — seventeen days before the cure tender arrived); and Eviction Counsel filed the UD complaint without disclosing the tender, then transmitted a post-judgment unsigned instrument by certified mail for collection (Count 23). The roles are coordinated.

18 U.S.C. § 1349 reaches any conspiracy to commit any offense under Chapter 63 of Title 18, including mail and wire fraud. The agreement element is inferable from the coordinated handling of the same instrument set across the parties; the use of interstate wires and mailings is documented at each step.

1. Agreement: coordinated handling of cure tender, off-contract wire, and predicate Notice by family-network principals and counsel.
2. Object offenses: 18 U.S.C. §§1341, 1343, both established in Counts 2 and 3.
3. Overt acts: each filing, each mailing, each wire is a separately countable act in furtherance.

Across January 2023 through April 2024, approximately sixteen documented Wells Fargo wire transfers — totaling roughly $80,000 of residential rent receipts — were routed into a personal Wells Fargo account in the name of Owner (account #3312943297). The account is a personal individual account, not a designated broker trust account. California Business and Professions Code § 10145(a) requires that real estate trust funds received by a licensee be deposited into the broker’s designated trust account. The personal-account routing structure was solicited in writing by Broker 2 on at least two occasions, both preserved by text message.

18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) reaches financial transactions designed in whole or in part to conceal the nature, source, ownership, or control of proceeds. The systematic routing of broker-trust-due funds through a personal individual account — rather than through the regulated trust account — functions as concealment of the principal-agent relationship in which the funds were received. The Owner’s own June 22, 2024 cure-window text acknowledges he had not received accounting from Broker 2 prior to Notice service: textbook concealment from the principal.

1. Financial transactions: approximately sixteen documented Wells Fargo wires; further transactions in 2024 bring the documented total to approximately eighteen.
2. Specified unlawful activity: mail/wire fraud predicates (Counts 2 & 3) plus California trust-fund violations (Count 6).
3. Concealment design: routing through a personal account in the name of an individual licensee whose corporate brokerage attachment was terminated mid-period (5/13/24).
4. Aggregate amount above §1957 threshold: single-transaction thresholds and aggregate volume both exceed the $10,000 floor.

The 2024 lease (Authentisign envelope 46CC8725, executed April 27, 2024 under weekend ultimatum) directs rent payment to Wells Fargo account #3312943297 in the personal name of Broker 2 — an individual personal account, not a designated broker trust account. Broker 2 solicited the personal-account routing in writing on two separate occasions in pre-execution text messages. The Owner’s June 22, 2024 cure-window text acknowledges he had not been receiving accounting from Broker 2 prior to that date.

Business and Professions Code § 10145(a) requires deposit of trust funds into the broker’s designated trust account — not a licensee personal account. California Penal Code §§ 503 and 504 reach embezzlement by a person entrusted with property of another for use only in a specified way; broker handling of principal’s rent funds is precisely such a trust. Where the value exceeds $950 it is a felony.

1. Fiduciary relationship: licensed broker holding principal’s funds.
2. Conversion to personal use or routing outside trust: personal Wells Fargo account, written solicitation by Broker 2.
3. Value: approximately $80,000 across the documented period — far above the felony threshold.
4. Supervisory chain §10159.2: Branch Manager and Designated Officer stand in supervisory responsibility over Broker 2.

The Move-Out Clearance Report (DocuSign envelope F5D247C2-A1A9-4991-B91F-6A333347A87D), executed August 5, 2024 in the name of the Owner’s Daughter (Broker 1) seventeen months after her own written termination of agency to the Owner, deducts from the security deposit: $2,005 for “Attorney Fees” on a pre-printed line of the form template, and $7,835 for “Carpet Replacement — dog pee bad smell” based on Ly Construction Invoice #2412 dated nine days after the form was executed. The City of Huntington Beach inspector cleared the premises on July 27, 2024 — eighteen days before the invoice — confirming no pet damage.

Civil Code § 1950.5(b) is a closed four-item list of permitted deductions; attorney fees are not on the list. Attorney fees are recoverable only after a court award under CCP § 1033.5 or Civil Code § 1717. The deduction was made before any judicial award. The carpet charge bills for vinyl flooring (not carpet replacement) installed nine days after the report was executed and after the city inspector cleared the premises. Together the wrongful deductions are approximately $9,840 — well above the $950 California grand theft threshold (PC §§ 484, 487).

1. Deposit of $6,375: security $5,000 plus other deposits $1,375 per the executed 2024 lease.
2. Unauthorized deductions: $2,005 attorney fees ($1,005 above the lease’s own §36 cap of $1,000); $7,835 flooring conversion (betterment).
3. Bad-faith retention element: claims dropped on the record at trial after photographic evidence was raised; deposit had been withheld approximately six months on claims not defended.
4. §1950.5(l) exposure: statutory penalty up to twice the wrongfully withheld amount plus actual damages.

Two of named lessees on the executed 2024 lease are protected persons under California Penal Code § 368: the Complainant Michael Gasio, age 72 at the relevant period and wearing a cardiac monitor while performing yard maintenance the Owner had ceased paying for; and the LEP Resident Tetyana Zvyagintseva 65, a Ukrainian-origin senior with limited English proficiency, named at ¶1.B of both the 2022 and 2024 leases. The conduct documented in Counts 1, 2, 3, 7, and 23 — defective Notice, concealed cure tender, off-contract demand wire, $9,840 in unauthorized deposit deductions, and the post-judgment unsigned (PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT extracting a duplicate payment of $5,338.48 — was directed at elders.

Penal Code § 368(d) reaches theft, embezzlement, forgery, fraud, or identity theft committed by a person who knows or reasonably should know the victim is an elder, where the value taken exceeds $950 — a felony. Subsection (e) reaches the same conduct by a person other than a caretaker. The Owner had known both Complainants personally for the full tenancy period and knew the household’s composition through his daughter the listing agent. Eviction Counsel held the documentary record. Aggregate value of the wrongful retention plus the duplicate extraction exceeds $15,000 — well above the felony floor.

1. Victim is an elder (over 65): Complainant’s age and named LEP Resident’s age both satisfy the §368 definition.
2. Knowledge: family-network listing agent, multi-year tenancy, language-of-residence text messages preserved.
3. Value exceeds $950: deposit retention $9,840 + duplicate extraction $5,338.48 = approx. $15,178 documented loss.
4. Conduct fits enumerated §368 modes: fraud (Counts 1–3); theft/embezzlement (Counts 5–7); deceit-document use (Counts 1, 23).

Same predicate conduct as Count 8, in the civil enhanced-damages frame. The Elder Abuse Act provides a separate civil remedy for financial abuse of an elder — defined as taking, secreting, appropriating, or retaining property by means of undue influence, fraud, or deceit. The Act authorizes attorney’s fees, costs, and where recklessness, oppression, fraud, or malice is shown by clear and convincing evidence, treble damages under §15657.5.

Welfare and Institutions Code § 15610.30 defines financial abuse to include retention of property for a wrongful use, with intent to defraud, or by undue influence. The $9,840 deposit retention, the $5,338.48 duplicate extraction, and the $80,000 personal-account routing each fit the statutory definition independently. The senior-LEP-resident demographic and the cardiac-monitor age profile of the household elevate the conduct into §15657.5 oppression/recklessness territory.

1. Victim status: §15610.27 elder definition met.
2. Conduct: retention by wrongful use; intent to defraud; undue influence vectors in lease procurement (Count 10).
3. Enhanced damages: clear-and-convincing standard satisfiable on documentary record.

In April 2024, the Owner made three written representations to the Complainants before any new lease was presented: April 1 text — “I just decided to hire a manager to take care the property”; April 2 email — “please do not think we’re looking new lessee”; April 4 text — identifying Broker 2 as the manager. On April 25, 2024 at 8:57 PM the family received an Authentisign envelope for a new thirteen-month lease at a different rate ($5,350 vs. $5,000), on a different form (C.A.R. RLMM vs. prior LR), with a different payee account (Broker 2 personal vs. Owner’s) — followed by an ultimatum from Broker 2 by telephone that the Owner would commence eviction the following Monday if the family did not sign. The family signed Saturday April 27 under the ultimatum.

Civil Code § 1567 provides that consent is not free when obtained through duress, menace, fraud, or undue influence. The Owner’s April 2 written representation that he was not seeking new tenants was directly contradicted by the April 25 presentation of a new lease — a textbook §§1572/1710 vector. No California Civil Code § 827 rent-increase notice was given for the $350/month rate increase first appearing in the body of the new lease. Broker 2 misrepresented the Complainants’ position to the Owner during the same period (Owner’s own June 22 text: “Hanson told me that you did nt want to sign the new lease”).

1. Misrepresentation: three preserved pre-execution written representations contradicted by the April 25 presentation.
2. Duress / menace: weekend ultimatum from Broker 2; expiring prior lease (May 1) as exposure.
3. Reliance: family-of-three including senior LEP resident; no time for independent review.
4. Damages: rent increase + personal-account routing + every downstream count.

The Owner’s Daughter (Broker 1) authored and sent the DocuSign envelope through which the predicate Three-Day Notice was originated (Count 1) — a legal-process instrument prepared by a non-attorney. She executed the Move-Out Clearance Report on August 5, 2024 (Count 7) seventeen months after sending a written email to the Complainants on March 18, 2023 stating “I no longer work for Phat Tran, call him directly” — that is, after written termination of her agency relationship with the Owner. Her listing-agent communications were conducted from a personal Yahoo email address and a personal cell number with no DRE license number, no fictitious-business-name attribution, and no required disclosure language.

Business and Professions Code § 10130 limits real estate practice to licensed individuals operating within the scope of their license. Drafting a legal-process instrument that initiates an unlawful detainer is the practice of law, not the practice of real estate. Sections 10176 and 10177 reach misrepresentation and dishonest dealing by licensees. The execution of a deposit-accounting instrument seventeen months after written termination of agency creates an apparent-authority misrepresentation question on the face of the record.

1. Activity outside license scope: Notice authorship by non-attorney licensee.
2. Misrepresentation of agency: Move-Out signatory 17 months post-termination of agency.
3. Personal-channel communication: no DRE license number, no DBA attribution, no required disclosure language.

Broker 3 (Branch Manager) received direct text-message notice from the Complainant on June 25, 2024 — eight days before the unlawful detainer complaint was filed — placing her on actual notice of the payment chain, the cure tender, and the conduct of Broker 2 at her branch. Broker 4 (Corporate Officer Designated Officer) sits in the supervisory chain over both Broker 2 and Broker 3 during the operative period under California Business and Professions Code § 10159.2 and 10 CCR § 2725.

Section 10159.2 makes the corporate broker responsible for the acts of every salesperson and broker-associate under its license. Reasonable supervision requires established policies, regular review, and response to known irregularities. The personal-account routing of trust funds by Broker 2 (Count 6) and the May 13, 2024 detachment of Broker 2’s corporate brokerage attachment seventeen days before the cure tender arrived at the branch are precisely the conditions reasonable supervision should detect.

1. Supervisory relationship: Broker 4 as Designated Officer; Broker 3 as Branch Manager.
2. Actual notice: Broker 3 received Complainant’s June 25, 2024 text directly.
3. Known irregularities: trust-fund routing, mid-period detachment, cure-tender receipt without credit.

Eviction Counsel distributes publicly, on the firm website, a downloadable Move-Out Clearance Report template containing a pre-formatted “Attorney Fees” deduction line — a deduction category not authorized by Civil Code § 1950.5(b). The template has been in distribution since at least October 2010 per the Internet Archive Wayback Machine first crawl of the firm’s Forms Library. The same template carries forward to the May 3, 2026 Wayback capture in the same After Eviction category. The structural defect lives in the underlying word/document XML payload, not in the cosmetic surface of the website.

Business and Professions Code § 6068(d) imposes a duty of honesty toward courts and parties. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 prohibits knowingly making false statements of fact to a tribunal and offering evidence known to be false. The published form is designed for use in unlawful detainer proceedings and contains content (the unauthorized attorney-fees deduction) that the statute — §1950.5(b) — forbids. The form distribution operates as instrumental conduct continuing across years and tenants.

1. Continuous public distribution: Wayback captures from 2010 through 2026.
2. Pre-formatted unauthorized field: Attorney Fees line in form’s underlying XML.
3. Use in the Gasio matter: $2,005 deducted on the executed F5D247C2 envelope — same DocuSign envelope ID structure as the blank template.
4. Pro Tem judicial service: Eviction Counsel has served as a judge pro tem in the same Orange County court system to which his unlawful detainer filings are made.

The conduct frame is the calling and examining of the client witness at trial after documented receipt of contradicting evidence: the sealed cashier’s check (USPS-tracked delivery 5/30/24, signed for at BHHS), the Court-acknowledged cure tender (March 27, 2025 Under Submission Ruling, Doc ID 74522578), the landlord’s own June 22, 2024 cure-window text admitting receipt, and the bank records of the second payment made under written protest. The pretrial notice was provided through eight independent channels documented in the case file.

Penal Code § 127 reaches the procuring of another to commit perjury. Knowledge of the underlying falsity may be inferred from the documentary record where the proponent has been served pretrial notice of the contradicting evidence and proceeds without independent verification or disclosure.

1. Proponent of testimony: Eviction Counsel called the client at trial.
2. Knowledge of falsity: pretrial notice through eight documented channels.
3. Procurement: trial calling and examination.

Each principal’s conduct depended on coordinated handling by the others: Notice authorship (Owner’s Daughter), Notice filing (Eviction Counsel), trial offering of the Move-Out Clearance Report and Ly Construction Invoice (Eviction Counsel offering instruments containing the documentary defects identified throughout this summary).

Penal Code § 31 makes persons who aid and abet the commission of a crime principals. Knowledge plus encouragement plus presence at the offense are the conventional elements; under Global-Tech v. SEB federal willful-blindness doctrine and California’s parallel inference rules, knowledge may be inferred from circumstances and pretrial notice.

1. Knowledge: documented pretrial notice; Notice-creator metadata.
2. Intent to encourage / facilitate: filing, examination, retention of compromised exhibits.
3. Acts in furtherance: each in-court offering.

Same coordinated handling described in Count 4 (federal conspiracy) plus the state-law object offenses (PC §§115, 132, 134, 368). The agreement is inferable from the family-network structure, the documented role-coordination, and the use of common instruments across multiple referrals over time (same Eviction Counsel, same property, two evictions within twenty-six months — Harman v. Tran 2021 and the present matter).

Penal Code § 182 reaches two or more persons conspiring to commit any of the enumerated felony offenses, with at least one overt act in furtherance. Each in-court use of the trial exhibits and each post-judgment instrument transmission qualifies as a separate overt act.

1. Agreement: coordinated principals.
2. Object offenses: PC §§115, 132, 134, 368.
3. Overt acts: Notice posting, complaint filing, MOR execution, invoice submission, (PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT mailing.

Ly Construction Invoice #2412, dated August 14, 2024, in the amount of $7,837, was submitted to the court as support for the Move-Out Clearance Report’s carpet-replacement charge. The invoice documents vinyl-flooring installation on 950 square feet — not carpet replacement due to pet damage. The Move-Out Clearance Report was executed August 5, 2024 — nine days before the invoice date — and recites “attached invoice.” The City of Huntington Beach inspector visited July 27, 2024 — eighteen days before the invoice — and confirmed no pet damage and clean carpets. The Contractor (David Ly) had personally conducted four repair visits during the tenancy and personally observed the carpet on each visit.

Penal Code §132 reaches the offering in evidence of a written instrument known to be falsely altered or made for fraudulent purpose; §134 reaches preparation of false documents for use in proceedings. The invoice was submitted to the court as evidentiary support for an inflated deposit deduction; its content (vinyl vs. carpet; date that postdates the form it allegedly underlies; city-inspector preclusion) is at variance with the documentary record on multiple independent vectors. CSLB Business and Professions Code §7090 supplies the parallel disciplinary track.

1. Date impossibility: MOR August 5 cites “attached invoice”; invoice dated August 14.
2. City inspector preclusion: July 27 clearance contradicts the invoice basis.
3. Contractor’s direct personal knowledge: four prior repair visits during tenancy.
4. Submitted to court: part of trial record.

The LEP Resident, Tetyana Zvyagintseva — Ukrainian-origin senior with limited English proficiency — is named at ¶1.B of both the 2022 and the 2024 executed leases as a lawful authorized occupant. Broker 2 received the Complainant’s written notice before lease execution: “Sorry mother-in-law doesn’t speak English.” No translated lease review was arranged. The LEP Resident appears on both executed leases and on no other plaintiff-authored instrument: she is not on the Three-Day Notice, not on the Move-Out Clearance Report, not on the UD Complaint, and not separately served.

42 U.S.C. § 3604 prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on protected grounds including national origin. Section §3617 reaches interference with the exercise of rights granted by §3604. California Government Code § 12955 supplies the parallel state Fair Housing framework. The systematic exclusion of a named LEP authorized occupant from every downstream plaintiff-authored instrument, with no Spanish-language or Ukrainian-language accommodation despite pre-execution written notice, satisfies the discrimination and interference standards on the documentary record.

1. Protected class: national origin and language proficiency.
2. Adverse action: systematic exclusion from every post-lease instrument; CCP §1161 requires notice to each tenant in possession.
3. Knowledge: pre-execution written notice from Complainant to Broker 2.

The same predicate facts as Count 18 in the criminal frame. The post-eviction conversion of the property to short-term rental operation at $7,995 per month — approximately one hundred and twenty-two percent above the rent paid by the prior tenant of the same property at the time of her 2021 eviction — and the transfer of the Owner’s primary residence at 20012 Sand Dune Lane to Smart Invest HB LLC during the post-judgment period (Count 22) supply the pattern context within which the LEP Resident’s housing was eliminated.

42 U.S.C. § 3631 makes it a federal crime to use force or threat of force to willfully injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin, in connection with the sale, rental, or occupancy of a dwelling. The cure-tender concealment, the off-contract demand wire, the unauthorized deposit deductions, and the (PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT extraction operate together as interference in the occupancy of housing in which the protected resident was named.

1. Protected ground: national origin (Ukrainian) of named LEP Resident.
2. Interference with occupancy: cure concealment + duplicate extraction + UD prosecution.
3. Willfulness: pre-execution written notice of LEP status.

The property was listed in April 2022 as “NEW carpet, NEW paint, Ready to move in.” At 11:39 AM on May 1, 2022, the Complainants’ iOS-geotagged photograph documented established black mold colonies inside the under-sink kitchen cabinet — mature growth consistent with decade-long moisture exposure from an unpermitted drain relocation. On day six of the tenancy, May 6, 2022, the Owner’s Daughter (the listing agent) sent the text message “I know it was just finished construction” in connection with the defective kitchen electrical — her own written acknowledgment of construction-defect knowledge predating the listing.

Civil Code §1941.1 and Health and Safety Code §17920.3 define the elements of habitability that the Owner failed to provide; the documented conditions (mold, defective electrical, roof leak, rotten subfloor) were present at commencement and were not disclosed. Civil Code §1942.5 supplies a retaliatory eviction presumption where eviction is initiated within 180 days of a habitability complaint. The Owner’s 20-year ownership establishes constructive knowledge of the long-running conditions.

1. Pre-existing conditions: mold (HAB-001 11:39 AM 5/1/22 geotagged), defective electrical (HAB-002 5/6/22 text), roof leak.
2. Concealment: 8 gallons Glidden Premium paint left in garage; “NEW paint” listing language.
3. Owner’s knowledge: 20-year continuous ownership of property.
4. Retaliatory window: UD initiated within statutory presumption period.

Eighteen documented bank transfers (January 2023 through June 2024) routed residential rent receipts through a personal account in connection with collection from the Complainants. The (PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT transmitted by certified mail post-judgment (Count 23) was used for collection purposes. The cure tender was held, the cure tender was not credited, and a duplicate payment of $5,338.48 was extracted under written protest.

15 U.S.C. § 1692e prohibits false or misleading representation of the character, amount, or legal status of a debt. The Heintz v. Jenkins doctrine (514 U.S. 291, 1995) confirms FDCPA application to attorneys collecting on consumer debts. The Rosenthal Act (Civil Code §1788 et seq.) supplies the parallel California debt-collection framework with separate civil penalties.

1. Consumer debt: residential rent obligations.
2. Debt collector activity: attorney collecting + post-judgment instrument transmission.
3. False representations: simulated court document (Count 23) + assertion of debt without documentary support.

20012 Sand Dune Lane, Huntington Beach — the Owner’s primary residence on the documentary record, held continuously since November 2003 — was transferred in October 2025 to Smart Invest HB LLC, a Delaware-formed entity with California Secretary of State filing B20250360378. The transferee LLC has no City of Huntington Beach business license on file and no Short-Term Rental permit on record. The transfer was recorded during active post-judgment proceedings in this matter. Separately, the subject 19235 Brynn Court property was converted to short-term Airbnb rental at $7,995 per month within weeks of the Gasio family’s August 5, 2024 vacate — approximately one hundred and twenty-two percent above the rent the prior tenant of the same property was paying at the time of her 2021 eviction.

Civil Code §3439.04 reaches transfers made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. Badges of fraud include transfer to an insider entity, transfer during litigation, and undercapitalization of the transferee. Huntington Beach Municipal Code §230.15 governs short-term rental operation; operation without a permit is a municipal-code violation.

1. Transfer to closely-held entity: Smart Invest HB LLC.
2. Concurrent obligations: active post-judgment litigation in this matter.
3. Undercapitalization / no operating posture: no HB business license, no STR permit.
4. STR conversion without permit: Brynn Court Airbnb operation.

After trial, Eviction Counsel transmitted to the Complainants by United States Certified Mail a document titled (PROPOSED) AMENDED JUDGMENT, drafted on Eviction Counsel’s law-office letterhead, captioned in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Orange, recited the case number, named the assigned commissioner, and set forth findings (judgment $4,325; attorney’s fees $500; court costs $500; total $5,325). The signature line for the judge is blank. The date line is blank. The document was not signed by any judge of the Superior Court of California. The Complainants paid the demanded sum on April 22, 2025 via Wells Fargo joint-payee cashier’s check #0084412016 to PHAT K. TRAN AND STEVEN D. SILVERSTEIN with the memo “DUPLICATE JUL 24 RENT/PAID UNDER PROTEST.”

15 U.S.C. § 1692e(9) expressly prohibits the use or distribution of any written communication that simulates or is falsely represented to be a document authorized, issued, or approved by any court. Business and Professions Code § 6128 reaches attorney deceit toward a party with civil treble damages plus misdemeanor exposure. California Penal Code § 115 reaches false instruments offered for filing. The (PROPOSED) qualifier and the blank signature lines do not cure the practical effect on the unrepresented recipient: the document is formatted as a Superior Court order on counsel’s letterhead and transmitted by certified mail with no accompanying explanation.

1. Simulated court document: case caption, recited findings, court letterhead format.
2. Unsigned by any judicial officer: blank date and blank signature.
3. For collection purposes: demanded payment received as joint-payee instrument.
4. FDCPA §1692e(9): falsely represented to be authorized/approved by court.
5. RPC 1.15 issue: joint-payee receipt by counsel raises client trust-account question (open).

The March 27, 2025 Minute Order (Doc ID 74522578) contains two arithmetic discrepancies on its face. First: components ($5,350 + $5,530) sum to $10,880; the order recites the subtotal as $10,700 — an unaccounted-for $180. Second: the stated subtotal ($10,700) minus the deposit credit ($6,375) equals $4,325; the order recites the principal as $3,325 — a $1,000 discrepancy. Both components use $5,350 as the rent rate. The documentary record (fifteen consecutive wires at $5,000; the Move-Out Clearance Report header reciting “$5,000/mo”; the April 19, 2024 wire memo acknowledged by the Owner) establishes the operative rate as $5,000. At $5,000/month the components sum to approximately $10,166.67 — approximately $713 below the inflated figures.

Code of Civil Procedure § 128.7 imposes sanctions on parties and counsel whose filings lack evidentiary support. Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3 obligates counsel to correct material misstatements to the tribunal. The arithmetic discrepancies are visible on the face of the order without extrinsic evidence; counsel’s candor obligation includes flagging them. CCP § 473(d) provides the procedural channel for clerical correction.

1. Discrepancies on the face of the order: $180 component-to-subtotal; $1,000 subtotal-to-principal.
2. Rate inflation: $5,350 used vs. documented $5,000 operative rate.
3. No admitted lease: foundational contracts handed to the bench and returned unmarked; rate finding rests on representations of counsel rather than admitted exhibit.