It’s a rare and beautiful estate that can be purchased for just under $500,000.

But if the buyer has no idea what he or she is buying, how can they be sure the home will be worth their hard-earned cash?

That’s the challenge faced by the homeowners association representing the buyer in a foreclosure case in the Los Angeles suburb of Sherman Oaks.

The home is owned by a man named Daniel Lee who was arrested in 2014 on a felony count of aggravated assault.

He was ordered to pay $500 in restitution and has appealed that decision.

The case was sent to the California Supreme Court in March.

But the attorney representing the homeowner association is not convinced that the man, who also has been convicted of aggravated battery, can be held liable.

And he has a message for the buyer, who might be thinking about buying a home in Los Angeles County: If you don’t have the right paperwork, you might not be able to get a fair deal.

For decades, a property owner’s association has played a critical role in resolving mortgage foreclosure cases.

The association represents the property owner in resolving foreclosure cases, and the courts have found that the association is generally a neutral and fair arbiter of mortgage rights.

The association is supposed to be a consumer advocate for mortgage lenders and homeowners, and to make sure borrowers have access to affordable mortgage financing and the right to make home payments on time.

But it is often criticized for a lack of enforcement of mortgage law and for failing to protect mortgage holders from fraudulent and abusive lenders.

The homeowner association has a long history of defending homeowners who are foreclosed on by lenders, and its members are generally sympathetic to borrowers who have had bad credit histories.

The homeowner association’s board has long been a powerful player in the mortgage industry, with members making more than $1 billion in profit in 2015, according to a Reuters analysis of data from real estate website Zillow.

But in recent years, the association has become more aggressive.

It filed for bankruptcy protection in 2014 and has taken on more cases.

In some cases, the homeowner associations are seeking to force the banks and lenders to make mortgage modifications to the properties they foreclosed.

This time around, the homeowners’ association is suing the city of Sherman and two of the three banks, alleging that the city has violated the homeowners rights by not taking action to protect borrowers from predatory lenders.

Sherman has said it has no knowledge of any violations by the city.

The homeowners’ attorney, Daniel J. O’Brien, is challenging the city’s actions.

“We are challenging the law and the government,” he said in a statement.

“The homeowners association’s role in the foreclosure process is to serve the public interest, and that role is being undermined by the City of Sherman.”

The homeowners claim that the Sherman homeowners’ rights have been violated by the state’s attorney general, who in a lawsuit filed in September 2015 said that Sherman had no jurisdiction over the case because it was a foreclosure matter.

Sherman, which is located in Southern California’s Central Valley, has the second-largest percentage of foreclosed properties in the country after New York City.

In 2017, the city had about 2,000 homes with at least $1 million in debt, according for the California Association of Realtors.

The city’s foreclosure rate is around 1.7 percent, according data from RealtyTrac.

The city’s attorney argued that the homeowners were not foreclosed, but were instead foreclosed onto for less than $200,000, which would amount to an “overpayment” on the mortgage.

The homeowners’ lawsuit says the city is violating the California Constitution by failing to hold the city accountable.

The suit argues that the homeowner’s association is “the only entity that has a duty to act in the interest of the public and to defend the property rights of the property owners” and that Sherman’s “sole function as a governmental entity is to protect the property from foreclosure.”

It also claims that the foreclosure of the Sherman home was the result of “malicious” and “abusive” behavior by the buyers, which the homeowners said “was a result of the fraudulent practices of the sellers and other creditors.”

In addition to the lawsuit, Sherman is asking the court to order the city to stop its foreclosure practices, to stop imposing liens on the property, and for the city and its foreclosure contractors to pay back the homeowners $250,000 in legal fees.

The lawsuit alleges that the sellers, who were not charged with fraud, are responsible for “an unlawful practice of foreclosure.”

The homeowners association is asking that the court order the sellers to be sued for fraud, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and other legal remedies.

The sheriff’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.