_____________________
_____________________
By Brian Hews
Publisher | Follow X
April 10, 2026
BELLFLOWER — In November 2025, Los Cerritos Community News exclusively reported that then Bellflower District 4 Councilman — now Mayor Pro Tem — Victor Sanchez had declared a Somerset Street duplex in District 1 as owner-occupied in recorded public documents. That designation appeared in both a Grant Deed transferring a half interest in the property to Sanchez and his wife and in a Deed of Trust securing a $421,000 loan recorded just days later.
______________________
GRANT DEED gifting half of the duplex on Somerset (upper yellow) and the owner/occupied box marked (lower yellow) showing it is owner-occupied. Click on all images to enlarge, click again to reduce.
______________________
______________________
ABOVE: document showing all four signatures on the $421,000 loan indicating all four are owner-occupiers.
______________________
Those filings raised immediate legal questions about whether Sanchez’s principal residence was in District 1 rather than District 4, the district he was elected to represent. Under California law, councilmembers must reside in the district they serve, and a change in residence can trigger removal through court action.
But the residency issue was only part of the concern. The recorded loan documents required the borrower to occupy the property as a principal residence — a sworn, notarized obligation that lenders treat as a material condition of the loan. The Deed of Trust defined “borrower” as all individuals who signed the loan, including Sanchez, and contained no rider or exemption limiting the occupancy requirement to another party.
Sanchez later told LCCN in writing that he never moved into the Somerset duplex and never intended to live there. That statement stands in direct contrast to the occupancy certification contained in the recorded loan documents, which require the borrower to occupy the property as a principal residence.
To resolve that conflict, LCCN requested the one set of documents that would definitively show how the loan was structured — the final Uniform Residential Loan Application (Form 1003) and Closing Disclosure. Those documents identify whether the property was treated as a primary residence, second home, investment property, or FHA secondary residence, and whether any borrower was designated as a non-occupant.
______________________
____________________
TOP: Example of that part of the form 1003 (section 4) that requires borrowers to check whether it is a primary residence, second home, investment property, or FHA secondary residence. Above, Section 5 asks whether the borrower will occupy the home. Sanchez refused to provide the recorded 1003 to LCCN.
______________________
Despite three separate requests, Sanchez did not provide the documents and did not identify any recorded document showing he was classified as a non-occupant borrower.
Mortgage professionals say the Form 1003 and Closing Disclosure are standard documents used in every residential loan. The documents identify occupancy status, borrower roles, and the terms relied upon by the lender in underwriting the loan.
In the absence of those documents, the only recorded instrument governing the loan remains the Deed of Trust, which requires the borrower to occupy the property as a principal residence.
LCCN made multiple requests for the documents over several months, including four separate emails seeking the final loan application and closing records or any document showing Sanchez was exempt from the occupancy requirement.
After receiving no response, LCCN sent a final request copying the Bellflower City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney. Sanchez finally responded to that email but did not include the City Council, the City Manager or the City Attorney in his reply.
LCCN sent that email to the City Council showing them that Sanchez omitted the group in his response. Only after that email did Sanchez respond, stating he had been advised not to comment any further.
The questions surrounding the Somerset loan documents carry potential legal and political consequences if the underlying facts were ever formally reviewed.
In mortgage lending, occupancy certifications are considered material statements. If a borrower represents that a property will be used as a principal residence and that representation is later found to be inconsistent with how the property was actually used, lenders may review the loan for possible misclassification. Depending on the circumstances, that review can include internal compliance actions, loan repurchase demands, or referral to regulators.
At the state and federal level, laws prohibit knowingly making false statements in connection with obtaining a mortgage. If authorities were to determine that material information provided to a lender was inaccurate at the time of the loan, it could expose a borrower to civil or criminal scrutiny. Whether any action is taken depends on intent, documentation, and how the loan was underwritten.
Separately, the residency issue carries its own set of consequences. If a court were to determine that an elected official’s principal residence lies outside the district they represent, the matter can be resolved through a quo warranto action, which could result in the office being declared vacant under California law.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.