David Kester v Citimortgage, Inc., et al. is NOT TO BE PUBLISHED


As of last week, Sept. 29, 2017, in the Arizona case of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of David Kester v Citimortgage, Inc., et al., we have another precedent setting case that the courts have decided NOT to be published and to make public.  When a case is not to be published it simply means that the courts have ruled that the case is not to be used for quoting or able to be used as case files reference for another case.

This ruling is paramount to the evidence that the Trustee is owned and controlled by the banks and financial institutions.  The Trustee was never an independent third party to the transaction and did not act on behalf in any way to the owner of the title, David Kester.  This fact makes the argument, once again, that the Trustee is not independent and the financial institutions know this going in to the transaction, therein making a Deed of Trust contract void on its face.  The use of forgery to use a Deed of Trust contract is outlined in this opinion.  You can download this opinion by clicking the link below:


You cannot use this case in your own case file, however you might find some of the opinion useful in your own argument structure.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CITIMORTGAGE INC.; et al.,


CitiMortgage and CR Title (“Defendants”) knowingly caused the recording of
invalid property documents in violation of ARIZ. REV. STAT. (“A.R.S.”) § 33-
420(A). The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss. We reverse and

1. Kester has standing to bring this action, despite the fact that A.R.S. § 33-
411(C) provides that “an instrument affecting real property containing any defect,
omission or informality in the certificate of acknowledgment and which has been
recorded for longer than one year . . . shall be deemed to have been lawfully
recorded on and after the date of its recording.”1“The irreducible constitutional
minimum of standing consists of three elements. The plaintiff must have (1)
suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of
the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016), as revised (May
24, 2016). Kester has adequately alleged all three elements. See Washington Env’tl
Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 1139 (9th Cir. 2013) (“The plaintiff . . . bears the
burden of proof to establish standing ‘with the manner and degree of evidence
required at the successive stages of the litigation.’ (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992))).

First, “the recording of false or fraudulent documents that assert an interest
in a property may cloud the property’s title”; therefore, Kester has adequately
alleged “a distinct and palpable injury as a result of those clouds on [his former
property’s] title.” In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 783 (9th
Cir. 2014) (quoting Stauffer v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n, 308 P.3d 1173, 1179 (Ariz.
Ct. App. 2013)). Second, this injury is fairly traceable to Defendants’ conduct:
despite receiving notice of the revocation of Kristen Lindner’s notary commission,
Defendants allegedly continued to use her notary services to execute Assignments
of Deeds of Trust, Substitutions of Trustee, Notices of Default, and Notices of
Trustee Sale for three months. Third, Kester’s “injury would be redressed by an
award of statutory damages, which [A.R.S. § 33-420(A)] makes available to
prevailing [former property owners].” See Tourgeman v. Collins Fin. Servs., Inc.,
755 F.3d 1109, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014), as amended on denial of reh’g and reh’g en
banc (Oct. 31, 2014).

2. The district court incorrectly held that A.R.S. § 33-420(A) requires Kester
to allege “material” invalidity in the trustee’s sale documents. Arizona caselaw
does not clearly resolve the question whether a plaintiff must allege materiality to

Click this link to download the entire Appeal ruling: David-Kester-v-Citimortgage-Inc


* * * * * * * * * *

I welcome those reading my story. I appreciate all of the emails I have been receiving. I also appreciate those who have registered and subscribe to this blog. If you have come from Facebook please comment on this site, rather than any Facebook post of this page due to the fact that there are many readers who are not part of Facebook forums, or even Facebook itself. I encourage all readers to put their comments on this site so that all of the information will be accessible to all readers from all parts of the internet. I urge you to join this site and receive the RSS feed, or bookmarking us, sharing us with your friends on Facebook and Twitter. If you know of anyone who might benefit from this information I urge you to pass on this website address! Share and let’s make some change together!

Thank you for stopping by.


©2014-2017 Doug Boggs All Rights Reserved


2 thoughts on “David Kester v Citimortgage, Inc., et al. is NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

  1. Carl Collicott

    Citimortgage was using § 33-411, the prior section was § 33-381, limited to all landlord-tenant relationships. These entities cannot own real property in the several states!

    Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-411 Invalidity Of Unrecorded Instrument As To Bona Fide Purchaser; Acknowledgment Required For Proper Recording; Recording Of Instruments Acknowledged In Another State; Exception

    Section: *Previous 33-381
    Arizona Revised Statutes § 33-381 Limitation
    33-381. Limitation

    This chapter shall apply to all *landlord-tenant relationships except for landlord-tenant relationships arising out of the *rental of dwelling units which shall be governed by chapter 10 or 11 of this title.

    Section: Previous 33-323 33-324 33-341 33-342 33-343 33-361 33-362 33-381 33-401 33-402 33-403 33-404 33-405 33-406 33-411 Next
    Last modified: October 13, 2016

  2. dangeroosdave

    A note on ‘NOT TO BE PUBLISHED-‘

    All decisions of the court in past may be cited for guidance for the future. ‘Not to be published’ merely means ‘Not to be conveniently spread for use by others because it’s too boring or to dangerous.’ In olden times, lawyers bought books so they could refer to them in their library, and get money from their clients, so they could win more cases, so they could buy more books, and get more money. Information had fungible value in the profession.

    Today, information is readily available. SCOTUS now runs by efile, since 1 November. These people are paralyzed with fear. What if anyone could know anything? Then where would we be?

    We are here. Thanks for publishing.


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.