Document 1 – Page 3: Misrepresented Property Value & Rent at 19235 Brynn Ct

Gasio v. Tran et al. – Submission to Orange County District Attorney

Overview: Price Misrepresentation Used for Lease Rotation & Loan Leverage

Contrary to repeated listing claims, the property at 19235 Brynn Ct did not significantly appreciate in market value since 2022. Rent demand nearly doubled — from $3,400 to $7,500 — with no justification based on tax rolls, Zillow Zestimate, or neighborhood rental trends. Multiple refinances and ownership claims leveraged inflated listing values unsupported by the market.

Exhibit C1 – Tax Assessment vs Claimed Rent

Despite a minor 20% property tax increase over 4 years, rent was increased over 120% during the same period. This delta is inconsistent with assessed value growth and indicates pricing manipulation for profit.

Exhibit C2 – Rent Timeline with Inflation Tags (Zillow)

Listing on Jan 6, 2025 demanded $7,786/mo rent. The Zestimate rent is $5,375/mo. This exceeds local law and does not reflect actual tenant-paid value.

Exhibit C3 – 92648 Rental Index

Chart of average rents in the area from 2016 to 2025

Average rent for 3-bedroom homes in 92648 ZIP is ~$4,100/month in 2025. Rent demanded here exceeds regional average by nearly 90%.

Exhibit C4 – Zestimate History vs Claimed Valuation

Zillow property value was flat from 2022 to 2024, hovering under $1.5M. Rent escalation was not backed by value increase or renovations.

Exhibit C5 – Public Background & Refinance Loops

Public data confirms no new mortgage obligations as of 2025 despite claimed increases in rent and equity. This supports concealment of benefit schemes and possible misrepresentation in financing documents.

Exhibit C6 – Landlord Admits Refinance Dependency & Rent Increase Strategy

Text message from Dr. Phat Tran reveals direct financial motive behind rent inflation at 19235 Brynn Ct. He confirms that the property has an adjustable-rate mortgage and states he's waiting for interest rates to drop in order to refinance — implying dependency on inflated rent history for better loan terms.

Furthermore, he references a 4–5% annual rent increase “based on CPI,” showing awareness of rent cap laws. However, the property’s documented rent hikes exceed 30% annually, proving deliberate violation and misuse of CPI as a defense narrative.