What Should I Expect From The Judge In The Coming Weeks. Already Went Through Two Demurrer And The Judge Is Taking It Under Submission? For Mortgage Fraud.?

Foreclosure fraud suing for wrongful. They were just caught and charged for over $500 million fraud case

Location: California Summary of Second Amended Complaint for Wrongful Foreclosure
(Superior Court of California, County of Lake – Case No.)
(Names, addresses, document numbers, and specific dollar amounts redacted for privacy)

Plaintiffs: Two individuals who co-owned a residential property in Kelseyville, California, purchased in with a large cash down-payment and seller-carryback financing.

Defendants:
- Out-of-state debt buyer / note purchaser and its affiliate
- Delaware statutory trust that acquired the note
- Multiple loan servicers and substitute trustee
- Doe defendants 1–50

Core Allegations:

1. Unlicensed Foreclosure Activity

   • The entity that acquired the promissory note and the substitute trustee that conducted the foreclosure sale were allegedly not licensed or registered to conduct mortgage lending or foreclosure-related business in California (and in at least one instance were fined in their home state for similar unlicensed activity). Plaintiffs assert the foreclosure sale is therefore void.

2. Failure to Explore Loss-Mitigation / Domestic-Violence Hardship

   • One plaintiff was a documented victim of domestic violence perpetrated by the co-owner during the foreclosure process.
     
   • Defendants were notified of the abuse, resulting medical issues, restraining-order proceedings, and related financial hardship but allegedly never conducted a proper financial assessment or explored foreclosure alternatives as required by California law (including special protections for domestic-violence victims under the Homeowner Bill of Rights).

3. Dual Tracking & Ignoring Approved Mortgage Relief

   • Foreclosure proceeded while a California Mortgage Relief Program payment that would have cured the default was pending or actually received.
     
   • A prior default was cured on the day of a scheduled trustee sale with state relief funds, yet a second foreclosure was initiated shortly thereafter.

4. Misrepresentations and Oral Modification

   • A representative of the note holder/servicer allegedly made a verbal agreement in late 2021 that if the October payment was brought current, only half-payments would be required for November and December and foreclosure would be postponed. Plaintiffs relied on this and made the reduced payments, but foreclosure proceeded anyway.

5. Misapplied and Uncredited Payments

   • Multiple payments (including a third-party assistance check that was cashed) were never credited to the loan balance.
     
   • Conflicting and inaccurate notices of amounts due were sent.

6. Servicing Errors and Inaccurate Reporting

   • Significant discrepancy between the balance shown on monthly statements and the balance reported to the IRS on Form 1098.
     
   • Incorrect borrower names and property addresses on transfer notices.

7. Sale and Surplus Issues

   • Property was sold at foreclosure for substantially less than fair market value and quickly resold by the purchaser for a large profit.
     
   • Surplus proceeds were distributed under alleged duress and without proper accounting despite repeated requests.

Causes of Action Asserted: 1. Wrongful Foreclosure (including aggravation by domestic-violence hardship and unlicensed entities)
2. Breach of Contract (written and oral)
3. Fraud and Intentional Misrepresentation
4. Violation of California Homeowner Bill of Rights (dual tracking, no single point of contact, ignoring relief applications)
5. Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)
6. Negligence and Negligent Misrepresentation
7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
8. Failure to Properly Apply Payments and Federal Reporting Violations (RESPA, etc.)

What should I expect from the judge in the coming weeks. Already went through two demurrer and the judge is taking it under submission ?