Real Estate
Al Seastrand's Disciplines

Dear Contributors:  Thank you for all the submissions to the Seastrand section.  Please keep sending.  We are updating when we can.

Below is a listing of the known disciplinary actions, court sanctions, and complaints against Al Seastrand.

Please read the disclaimer page on this web site. Also, note the number of times Seastrand and or his attorney Matthew Eason got off by claiming "it was an innocent mistake."

Sacramento County Superior Court

Nature of Proceeding: Sanctions for Not Complying with Court Rules
Punishment: Sanctioned $150
Date: Nov. 19, 2006
Case No. 30 06AS01580
Parties: Mildred Faye William vs. California Foreclosure, LLC (Al Seastrand's company)
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County Superior Court
Ruling: Violating several rules of court. Sanctions are hereby imposed against: Al Seastrand - Attorney for Defendant in the amount of $150.00 to be paid within 10 days for the following reason(s):Failure to file Case Management Statement in a timely manner in accordance with Local Rule 11.055(CMP).
Judge: Steven H. Rodda
Type of Case: Real Estate Fraud

Sacramento County Superior Court

Nature of Proceeding: Failure to Comply with Court Rules
Punishment: Court Sanctions of $150
Date: August 7, 2003
Case No. 03AS00701
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County Superior Court
Type of Case: Breach of Contract
Judge: Richard K. Park
Case Name: Frederick Rodriguez vs. Mary D. Coontz, ET AL

Court Ruling: Sanctions imposed against: Al Seastrand, Coontz's lawyer, in the amount of $150.00 to be paid within 10 days for the following reason(s): Failure to comply with the Case Management Program guidelines. Seastrand failed to comply with court rules that mandate a Case Management Statement shall be filed 15 days prior to the hearing. He told the judge it was an innocent mistake and he promised to be good. The case was continued to 9/25/2003 at 9:00 a.m.

Sacramento County Superior Court

Nature of Proceeding: Failure to Comply with Court Rules
Punishment: Court Sanctions of $150
Date: September 25, 2003
Case No. 03AS00701
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County Superior Court
Type of Case: Breach of Contract
Judge: Richard K. Park
Case Name: Frederick Rodriguez vs. Mary D. Coontz

Court Ruling: Failure to file Case Management Statement in a timely manner. Sanctions imposed against: Al Seastrand, Coontz's lawyer, in the amount of $150.00. Seastrand's second violation on the same case. The case was continued to 11/13/2003 at 9:00 a.m.

Explore Related Pages

Others that came to this page, also found the following pages helpful:

Disciplining Al Seastrand

Some court sanctions and penalties imposed on Al Seastrand for misconduct, lying, willfully disobeying a court order or restraining order, etc.

Real Estate Predators

They are out there like the Eye of Silron, ever watchful looking for easy prey.

Foreclosure Scams

Foreclosures are at an all time high. This sections has many pages on options you have to save your home, and how to protect yourself from scam artists.

Legal Self Help

If you have to be your lawyer to stop a fraudulent foreclosure, WJFA's volunteers have a bevy of tips to help you navigate the legal system.

Take Action

Don't ever give up is WJFA's battle cry to victims. Take Action is our help center. Everything from how to file a criminal complaint, to an on-line group for emotional support. 

Sacramento County Superior Court

Nature of Proceeding: Misconduct
Punishment: Sanctioned $250
Date: December 19, 1988
Case No. 506790 and 501568
Parties: Doyle L. Long v. Albert L. Seastrand
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County Superior Court
Type of Case: Violating several rules of court by filing inappropriate documents knowing the documents were not appropriate.
Judge: Anthony DeCristoforo Jr.
Case Name: Doyle Long vs. Al Seastrand
Court Ruling: Al Seastrand is sanctioned $250 for violation of court rules by filing inappropriate documents.

Background: Dispute over real estate transaction. Court order states Seastrand had to pay Long and his company MVS $5,000. See Court Order sanctioning Seastrand.

Sacramento County Superior Court

Nature of Proceeding: Failure to Comply with Court Rules
Punishment: Court Sanctions of $150
Date: August 7, 2003
Case No. 03AS00084
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County Superior Court
Type of Case: Breach of Contract
Judge: Richard K. Park
Case Name: Cora Rogers  vs.  Al Seastrand

Court Ruling: Sanctions imposed against Al Seastrand in the amount of $150.00 to be paid within 10 days for the following reason(s): Failure to comply with the Case Management Program guidelines. Seastrand failed to comply with court rules that mandates a Case Management Statement shall be filed 15 days prior to the hearing. He told the judge it was an innocent mistake and he promised to be good. Continued to 10/30/2003 at 9:00 a.m.

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California

Nature of Proceeding: Contempt of Court
Punishment: Held in Contempt and Sanctioned $500
Date: Dec. 13, 1994
Case No. 93-30437-A-13
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court, Sacramento Division
Type of Case: Violation of restraining order and order to say away
Judge: Chief U.S. Judge David E. Russell
Case Name: Contempt of Court
Court Ruling: "Al Seastrand did violate the restraining order and made inappropriate communications and is hereby held in contempt and sanctioned $500, which is to pay to the court.

Background: The gist of the contempt order was that a victim of Al Seastrand's had filed a restraining order to get Al Seastrand to stop going to her home and job harassing her. Seastrand refused to stop. The harassment escalated when Seastrand sent the woman a threatening letter warning her that it would be her last Christmas if she didn't cooperate with him. Seastrand also illegally served papers on the victim's bank demanding private information.

Seastrand told the judge, "It was an innocent mistake."

State Bar of California

Nature of Complaint: Professional Misconduct
Punishment: None - complaint dismissed
Date: January, 1995
Inquiry No. 95-14968
Jurisdiction: California State Bar
Type of Complaint: Violation of court order and Professional Misconduct
Analyst: Lydia Torres
Case Name: Albert Leslie Seastrand, aka: Al Seastrand

Ruling: "We can only discipline attorneys for violation of the state bar act or the rules of professional conduct. In this situation, there is insufficient evidence of a willful violation of a court order. We contacted Mr. Seastrand with regard to his violation of the court-ordered stay. He stated that it was a misunderstanding and that he meant no harm and has not done anything further. Because there is no client/attorney relationship, there is nothing we can do. Consequently, we must close our file on this complaint."

California Department of Real Estate

Nature of Complaint: Real Estate
Punishment: None - complaint dismissed
Date: March 1995
Inquiry No. 495-0406-004
Jurisdiction: California Department of Real Estate
Type of Complaint: Violation of court order and Professional Misconduct
DRE Investigator: Frank Geracie
Name: Albert Leslie Seastrand
Status: Broker, active
License Number: 00517668

Ruling: Complaint filed by a victim against Al Seastrand in regards to his claim that he owned her home. DRE closed case citing all parties -- Al Seastrand, Raymond Dilg, and Kathy Fox -- cleared each other of any wrong doing. DRE kept telling the victim it was Sacramento County District Attorney's jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute real estate crimes. See Prosecute Dilg and the Streng Brotherhood. (See DRE complaint)

Sacramento County District Attorney

Nature of Complaint: Real Estate Crime
Victim: Female
Accused: Albert Leslie Seastrand
California Penal Code: §§115 and §§115.5
Punishment: None - Insufficient Evidence
Date Filed: August 2001
Inquiry No.
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County District Attorney
Prosecutor:
Outcome: In July 2002, DA Jan Scully sent the victim a letter telling her there would be no justice because of "Insufficient Evidence to prosecute Al Seastrand."

Sacramento County Sheriff's Office

Nature of Complaint: Real Estate Crime
Victim: Female
Accused: Albert Leslie Seastrand
California Penal Code: §§115 and §§115.5
Punishment: None - not investigated
Date: 1993 and again in 2000
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County Sheriff's Office
Detective:
Outcome: Refused to investigate. Wrote letter refusing to investigate the alleged crimes. Accused victim of using him. (See Sheriff's letter refusing justice.)

Sacramento County Superior Court

Nature of Proceeding: Non-Compliance and Fraud
Punishment: Ordered to reimburse extorted money.
Date: May 19, 2002
Case No. SC03846
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County Superior Court
Type of Case: Non-compliance of court order and Extortion
Judge: Brian Van Camp
Case Name: Victim vs. Al Seastrand, Loretta Seastrand, Stef's Rucka Chucky Trust, Seastrand Law Firm, and California Foreclosure, LLC.

Court Ruling: "The ink was hardly dry on the court order when the Seastrands initiated a foreclosure action, without notice to ----, for largely specious (fraud) reasons. No basis or justification for the Seastrands' actions."

Background: This case is about the Seastrands refusing to comply with a court order for a specific performance. Real Estate Fraud and extortion case. In 2000, --- agreed to buy her peace from the Seastrands. Ten days after signing the court agreement, unbeknownst to ----, the Seastrands filed a fraudulent foreclosure against her claiming they never received proof of insurance. When shown there was insurance, the Seastrands refused to stop their foreclosure. See Sufficient Evidence on this web site.

(WJFA Note: The victim begged Sacramento County Sheriff's Office and the Sacramento County District Attorneys' office for justice on this extortion. No one would investigate. As of August 2003, the statute of limitations expired on criminal charges against Seastrand.)

U.S. District Court, Modesto Division of California

Nature of Proceeding: Contempt of Court
Punishment: Vacated
Date: January 9, 2002
Case No. 00-91513-A-7
Jurisdiction: U.S. Court
Type of Case: Contempt of Court Hearing
Judge: Thomas C. Holman
Case Name: David Hallum vs. Al Seastrand

Court Ruling: Contempt is Vacated. Matthew Eason and Al Seastrand swore it was an innocent mistake and they promised to be good.

Background: In October 2001, Al Seastrand through his attorney, Matthew Eason, filed an inappropriate and not legally-compliant motion to vacate the court order that closed David Hallum's Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

According to legal pleadings the case file, after Hallum's bankruptcy had been discharged in November 2000, Al Seastrand purchased a promissory note that had been discharged. In the ruling, the judge noted, "Eason attempted to use non-relevant case laws to allow Seastrand to collect a legally-barred debt."

The court ruled against Eason and Seastrand citing their motion was improper and was for the purpose of harassing Hallum. Hallum was not reimbursed for all his stress, attorney fees, and court costs to stop Seastrand. (See Hallum Case)

Sacramento County Superior Court

Nature of Proceeding: Contempt of Court
Punishment: After Complying with Court Order, Contempt vacated.
Date: May 19, 2002
Case No. SC03846
Jurisdiction: Sacramento County Superior Court
Type of Case: Contempt of Court Hearing
Judge: Brian Van Camp
Case Name: Victim vs. Al Seastrand, Loretta Seastrand, Stef's Rucka Chucky Trust, Seastrand Law Firm, and California Foreclosure, LLC.

Court Ruling: Seastrand told to comply with Van Camp's ruling of January 28, 2002, or face jail time and financial sanctions. The Seastrands chose to comply with the court order.

Background: This case stemmed from the Real Estate Fraud and extortion case.

Judge Van Camp wrote a lengthy ruling depicting the horrors and unprofessional conduct of Al Seastrand and Loretta Seastrand toward the victim in the act of filing a fraudulent foreclosure for the purpose of harassment and extorting money.

Judge Van Camp ordered the Seastrands to return the extorted money within 10 days of his ruling. The Seastrands refused to comply. After five months of refusing, the victim filed a contempt of court against the Seastrands for refusing to comply with the court order. The Seastrand's argued that it was an innocent mistake and they could not afford to pay the court order.

The victim pointed out to the court that the Seastrands could afford to pay attorney Matthew Eason in the current harassment they had going against her plus pay attorney James Smith to represent them in the contempt hearing.  The judge agreed and gave Seastrand the option of pay or go to jail until they return the money.

Al Seastrand said he would return the  money.  He then went to the court clerk and deposited the money, and in doing so, once again failed to comply with the court order that stated he must pay the victim directly. The victim said, "this was same dance in the same shoes with the Seastrands - they spend energy finding ways to circumvent the law."

Seastrand did not pay the full amount. The courts hold payments for eight or more weeks. This prevented the victim from accessing her funds to pay an attorney to stop Seastrand and Eason, who were operating under a non-existant company and filing false claims for money owed to a company that never existed.  

The court papers state the Seastrands cheated the victim out of hundreds of dollars. The Seastrands still have not paid that money.